Notice It's Your Move Olshey! Your Job "Should" Be on The LINE!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Tank?

This team should never tank, and with Dame at the helm, thankfully would never tank.

What does tanking get you? The possibility of maybe getting a high draft pick that in 5 years might be a good player?

Glad you're not in charge.

Tanking landed us Lillard. We were eager to get rid of veteran players and rebuild. We traded away Gerald Wallace to Nets who were trying to build around Deron Williams. They gave us a lightly protected pick and boom we got Lillard.

I’m not saying we should go full rebuild mode. But I wouldn’t mind trying add a young potential star before they blossom type deal like we did with Rasheed.

I don’t know. Something needs to be done. Lillards prime is dwindling.
 
I think we need some of our cap posters who are better at this than i am to tell us exactly what options the Blazers truly have?
@hoopsjock
@BonesJones
@blazerkor
@Chris Craig
What real options does this team have?
Well, I wouldn't have wasted one of our two-ways on Blevins and would've used the other one on someone like Mason Jones or JaeSean Tate who are both playing decent for Houston right now.

But since I'd be assuming the current situation I'd do this:

Fire Stotts immediately.

Call Jerry Stackhouse and if I liked what he said I'd hire him but that would likely be for next year. Chris Beard, David Vanterpool, Ime Udoka, and Becky Hammon would also get calls for interviews but I guess would be stuck with Tibbets until the end of the season. I'd bring in Earl Watson as lead defensive assistant coach and maybe even make him interim head coach as long as he knew he wasn't guaranteed that position next year.

Next I'd sign Brandon Knight to a vet minimum. Not the greatest option but there are slim pickings for PG's in free agency. Since Nurk isn't getting his bonus we have just enough room to sign someone.

I'd cut Blevins plus it looks like the NBA is about to add a third 2-way spot so I'd try to sign 3 of Jonah Bolden, Omari Spellman, Jaylen Hoard, Zhaire Smith, or Khyri Thomas.

From there just try and tread water until we get our main guys healthy. I think with a better structured offense players like Ant would be more comfortable. With the right tweaks and health later in the season I think we'd be more equipped for playoff success than in previous years.

I've been all about trades in the past but I don't think there are many deals with the pieces I'd inherit to make those worth it.
 
I think you nailed the main issue: We have a roster with very few desirable assests to make moves.

If we had good players on good contracts, we'd have a ton a flexibility to make moves.
No. My post was not about asset desirability. It was about CBA rules.

Olshey built a really good roster this offseason. He shouldnt be getting blame.
 
So take the mish mash roster he has at the moment and try to implement a different style on offense and defense.
Add some two way players and get a ring?
The Op actually says that Stotts needs to look for different lines ups and change the style to fit them but you have to remember. Damian Lillard is still going to play. Dame does not run. Dame does not throw lobs. Dame doesn't even really move the ball around a bunch. Dame shoots and drives and dishes. On defense Dame is average. Roco has not been scoring well. Jones has had flashes but his shooting has been way off and it's hampered his ability to break to the basket. Melo isn't ever going to be anything other than Melo. Kanter is a beast around the rim and his defense has improved but we all watched him get handled by Poeltl. Nurk would have played much better against the Spurs. Giles needs minutes and could get better but to this point has underwhelmed. Trent seems to be the answer to replace CJ at this point but he is not going to create. 1M isn't getting it done and he also cannot hold the fort down while Dame is out? Hood might continue to improve? Lets hope so?
If Stotts keeps this team at or above .500 until he gets Nurk, CJ, and Collins back they will scrap their way to the 8th seed again. That is the best you are going to get if-


It's that simple. You can't fix issues the players have had without the players playing.
They should've been trying to implement a better style from the get-go.

I'm simply talking about improvements that should be valued no matter the roster, such as defensive positioning, defensive rotations, consistent effort, timely adjustments, ball movement, more productive set design utilizing guys like DJJ more as cutters instead of spot-up shooters. This isnt reliant on his 3pt shot, he shot the same in Miami last year and was still rated as the best cutter in the league according to synergy. Why cant Stotts use him as more than a 3pt shooter? That says something about Stotts to me, not DJJ.

With Nurkic and C.J. out, we need to ratchet up the defensive pressure to create more easy fastbreak buckets, especially with a bench personnel that has the pieces to do so and struggles in the halfcourt.

We also need to make each player more of a viable threat to help Dame out instead of putting all the responsibility on him. That means coming up with new set designs that arent solely reliant on catch-and-shoot 3s or players attacking off the dribble from the perimeter.

We're a different team without C.J. stotts needs to adapt and coach to his personnel, as well as help the team improve their weaknesses that arent personnel-dependant.

We dont have the luxury of CJ and Nurkic now, so we cant settle for stagnant halfcourt offense and hope that Anfernee Simon's bails us out then complain about him not getting it done because he's not C.J. while Stotts is coaching as if he is. We need to be more creative in manufacturing easy buckets and utilizing players better through our system (i.e. DJJ as a cutter more and a shooter less, Giles as a playmaker for the bench unit, Simons not being tasked to create something out of nothing against a set defense, etc.) However, Stotts system has always been to rely on C.J. and Dame to make everything happen. If he's the issue genius that every claims he is, he should be able to do more than that.

I also don't think Dame is as unreachable as you think he is. I've heard quite the opposite. I've seen Dame throw multiple lobs this year. If Stotts is too afraid to coach Dame then that's another reason why he shouldn't be our coach.

You say we cant fix the issues players had without them playing. Are we not playing any more games this season?

There's some things out of Stotts control that we'll be hurt be hurt by due to injuries. But I've laid out multiple things here that he can control with C.J. and Nurkic out.

We play Memphis next. They're 7-6 despite missing Ja Morant and Jaren Jackson Jr. for the majority of the season. Injuries dont mean a coach cant coach.
 
Well, I wouldn't have wasted one of our two-ways on Blevins and would've used the other one on someone like Mason Jones or JaeSean Tate who are both playing decent for Houston right now.

But since I'd be assuming the current situation I'd do this:

Fire Stotts immediately.

Call Jerry Stackhouse and if I liked what he said I'd hire him but that would likely be for next year. Chris Beard, David Vanterpool, Ime Udoka, and Becky Hammon would also get calls for interviews but I guess would be stuck with Tibbets until the end of the season. I'd bring in Earl Watson as lead defensive assistant coach and maybe even make him interim head coach as long as he knew he wasn't guaranteed that position next year.

Next I'd sign Brandon Knight to a vet minimum. Not the greatest option but there are slim pickings for PG's in free agency. Since Nurk isn't getting his bonus we have just enough room to sign someone.

I'd cut Blevins plus it looks like the NBA is about to add a third 2-way spot so I'd try to sign 3 of Jonah Bolden, Omari Spellman, Jaylen Hoard, Zhaire Smith, or Khyri Thomas.

From there just try and tread water until we get our main guys healthy. I think with a better structured offense players like Ant would be more comfortable. With the right tweaks and health later in the season I think we'd be more equipped for playoff success than in previous years.

I've been all about trades in the past but I don't think there are many deals with the pieces I'd inherit to make those worth it.
The thing is this started a while back. Not completely Stotts and not completely Olshey. Lets take not moving Whiteside at the trade deadline last year for instance? The Two Way to Blevins is just weird? Refusing to fill a roster spot when the team needs a PG? 2016 is still having an effect! Lets take it a step further. 9 years with Stotts at this point? Really?
I think the only way you get rid of Stotts is to get rid of Olshey.
Probably would differ from your "Fire Stotts Immediately" stance and look to end of season only because I'n not convinced Tibbets is going to bring anything different. Not saying you are wrong just maybe a slower path? The positive thing about firing Stotts now might make the search a bit more open and the coaching search could be better in the long run?
Treading water is what is going to happen. Unless we see improvement from Hood, Ant, Trent and Giles. I'm going to be pulling for these guys in particular. If they do improve and the team does stay above .500 this team could excel in the final month and be playing well at the end of the season. That makes them dangerous. Just not dangerous to a team like the Lakers.
 
. Since Nurk isn't getting his bonus we have just enough room to sign someone

I wish somebody would answer this directly since people keep claiming Portland has room based upon a Bobby Marks tweet, but, here goes again....

my contention is that Nurk's bonuses are considered unlikely bonuses this year and don't count against the cap. So there's nothing to subtract from the cap and create the room for a vet miniimum. That's because likely/unlikely bonuses reset every off-season depending on whether the player hit the marks that previous season. Nurjic didn't hit the marks for his bonuses last season since he only played 8 games. That's why they are unlikely bonuses this year

* "All performance incentives are re-evaluated at the start of each season to determine whether they should be classified as likely or not likely to be achieved3"

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

now, It's certainly possible I'm missing something in the CBA and could be wrong. But I really wish somebody would clarify this since people keep suggesting signing a veteran would not put Portland over the tax line
 
I wish somebody would answer this directly since people keep claiming Portland has room based upon a Bobby Marks tweet, but, here goes again....

my contention is that Nurk's bonuses are considered unlikely bonuses this year and don't count against the cap. So there's nothing to subtract from the cap and create the room for a vet miniimum. That's because likely/unlikely bonuses reset every off-season depending on whether the player hit the marks that previous season. Nurjic didn't hit the marks for his bonuses last season since he only played 8 games. That's why they are unlikely bonuses this year

* "All performance incentives are re-evaluated at the start of each season to determine whether they should be classified as likely or not likely to be achieved3"

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

now, It's certainly possible I'm missing something in the CBA and could be wrong. But I really wish somebody would clarify this since people keep suggesting signing a veteran would not put Portland over the tax line

I think that you are reading this correctly. The question is, are there now performance incentives that were deemed at the start of the season as likely to be achieved, and were counted towards the cap, that are no longer likely to be met because Nurk is missing at least two months of the season? If so, then that money should be able to be removed from the cap.
 
I wish somebody would answer this directly since people keep claiming Portland has room based upon a Bobby Marks tweet, but, here goes again....

my contention is that Nurk's bonuses are considered unlikely bonuses this year and don't count against the cap. So there's nothing to subtract from the cap and create the room for a vet miniimum. That's because likely/unlikely bonuses reset every off-season depending on whether the player hit the marks that previous season. Nurjic didn't hit the marks for his bonuses last season since he only played 8 games. That's why they are unlikely bonuses this year

* "All performance incentives are re-evaluated at the start of each season to determine whether they should be classified as likely or not likely to be achieved3"

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

now, It's certainly possible I'm missing something in the CBA and could be wrong. But I really wish somebody would clarify this since people keep suggesting signing a veteran would not put Portland over the tax line
Spotrac pretty clearly indicates that the salary they used for Nurk in summing to the $131,999,148 they have for us (627,852 below the tax line) is just his base salary, which does not include the 1.25M games/wins bonus.

I think you are correct that Marks was incorrect in suggesting that Nurk's injury impacted our tax position at all.
 
Spotrac pretty clearly indicates that the salary they used for Nurk in summing to the $131,999,148 they have for us (627,852 below the tax line) is just his base salary, which does not include the 1.25M games/wins bonus.

I think you are correct that Marks was incorrect in suggesting that Nurk's injury impacted our tax position at all.

thanks...I'll check Spotrac

ok, just did and Spotrac has the same number for Nurkic that BB Insiders does
 
Spotrac pretty clearly indicates that the salary they used for Nurk in summing to the $131,999,148 they have for us (627,852 below the tax line) is just his base salary, which does not include the 1.25M games/wins bonus.

I think you are correct that Marks was incorrect in suggesting that Nurk's injury impacted our tax position at all.

For what little it may be worth, that's the way it looks to me too. Nurk could have made an additional $1,250,000 if he appeared in 70 games and the Blazers were to wins 50 games. Since he didn't play in 70 games last season and the Blazers didn't win that many games, the league would have considered them unlikely to be achieved and wouldn't count them towards team salary, which is what Spotrac and other sources show. There aren't any savings to be had. It's either pay the tax (doubt Olshey is willing to do that), make a trade that doesn't increase team salary above the tax line, or live with the current roster with, maybe, the addition of a 2-way contract.
 
Spotrac pretty clearly indicates that the salary they used for Nurk in summing to the $131,999,148 they have for us (627,852 below the tax line) is just his base salary, which does not include the 1.25M games/wins bonus.

I think you are correct that Marks was incorrect in suggesting that Nurk's injury impacted our tax position at all.
When I went to Sportrac - I don't see where it specifically states that it DOES NOT include the bonuses.

***EDIT*** I found it: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/portland-trail-blazers/jusuf-nurkic-15368/
 
I wish somebody would answer this directly since people keep claiming Portland has room based upon a Bobby Marks tweet, but, here goes again....

my contention is that Nurk's bonuses are considered unlikely bonuses this year and don't count against the cap. So there's nothing to subtract from the cap and create the room for a vet miniimum. That's because likely/unlikely bonuses reset every off-season depending on whether the player hit the marks that previous season. Nurjic didn't hit the marks for his bonuses last season since he only played 8 games. That's why they are unlikely bonuses this year

* "All performance incentives are re-evaluated at the start of each season to determine whether they should be classified as likely or not likely to be achieved3"

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

now, It's certainly possible I'm missing something in the CBA and could be wrong. But I really wish somebody would clarify this since people keep suggesting signing a veteran would not put Portland over the tax line
Wiz, there's actually a simple answer. When a team calculates going into the tax and is hard capped they have to operate as if all bonuses are going to be paid out. If they didn't if a player earned their unlikely bonus they'd be stuck in the tax when they didn't want to be. Since it's for sure unachievable now, the Blazers can safely use that money. It still counts against the hard cap though the entire season, just not anything else.

So when Neil said we were $600,000 below the tax that included his bonus. Since he didn't earn it last year it was deemed unlikely but if he doesn't get hurt he may have so they can't operate as it being unlikely. So 1.25 million plus 0.6 equals just enough to sign a minimum contract which counts approximately $1.6 million against the cap.
 
Basketball Insiders has our number at $130.75.

Luxury tax is $132.63.

My math backs that up. What am I missing here that people are arguing those numbers?

Just enough room to sign someone.
 
Basketball Insiders has our number at $130.75.

Luxury tax is $132.63.

My math backs that up. What am I missing here that people are arguing those numbers?

Just enough room to sign someone.
Two ways don't count against the total at all by the end of the season? Can they have 3 of them and not effect that total?
 
Two ways don't count against the total at all by the end of the season? Can they have 3 of them and not effect that total?
Correct, they do NOT count against the cap. That's why it's perplexing to not use both or to waste one. Currently there are only two spots but it looks like they're gonna change the roster sizes due to so many players missing games.
 
No. My post was not about asset desirability. It was about CBA rules.

Olshey built a really good roster this offseason. He shouldnt be getting blame.

Too bad Olshey didn't know about those rules when he built the roster.
 
Basketball Insiders has our number at $130.75.

Luxury tax is $132.63.

My math backs that up. What am I missing here that people are arguing those numbers?

Just enough room to sign someone.
I just realized my error here. Spotrac has 131,999,148 in a "taxable salaries" spot, and 130,749,148 in a separate "cap allocations" spot. Soooo....once again I was wrong and @hoopsjock was right.
 
I just realized my error here. Spotrac has 131,999,148 in a "taxable salaries" spot, and 130,749,148 in a separate "cap allocations" spot. Soooo....once again I was wrong and @hoopsjock was right.
That isn't uncommon. I don't know of anyone anywhere that knows cap better than Hoops. I gave up even questioning him.
 
I think it’s funny that people are wasting time arguing over whether there’s room to sign someone or not, as if we had a proactive GM.
 
Wiz, there's actually a simple answer. When a team calculates going into the tax and is hard capped they have to operate as if all bonuses are going to be paid out. If they didn't if a player earned their unlikely bonus they'd be stuck in the tax when they didn't want to be. Since it's for sure unachievable now, the Blazers can safely use that money. It still counts against the hard cap though the entire season, just not anything else.

So when Neil said we were $600,000 below the tax that included his bonus. Since he didn't earn it last year it was deemed unlikely but if he doesn't get hurt he may have so they can't operate as it being unlikely. So 1.25 million plus 0.6 equals just enough to sign a minimum contract which counts approximately $1.6 million against the cap.

thanks HJ, that makes sense


I just realized my error here. Spotrac has 131,999,148 in a "taxable salaries" spot, and 130,749,148 in a separate "cap allocations" spot. Soooo....once again I was wrong and @hoopsjock was right.

yeah, I went back tp their Blazer page and finally tracked all the way down. They have the same number there as BBInsiders
 
I wonder how the Kings would respond to a trade of a 2nd round pick for Whiteside using the Bazemore TPE?
 
Too bad Olshey didn't know about those rules when he built the roster.
Either this is a joke and it's flown right over my head or I'm completely lost and i have no idea what you mean here?
Olshey is paid not only to know the rules but he also has people working for him that are paid to know the rules? So should he have known the rules when he built the roster?
 
Here is an example of the kind of young guy I think we should take a flyer on:
"Donta Hall’s main strength lies in his ability to be a defensive anchor in the paint. He is a talented shot-blocker who is very mobile and can cover a lot of ground quickly on the defensive end. He blossomed into an elite defender his last couple of years at Alabama when he was named to the SEC All-Defensive team as a junior and senior.

He averaged 1.7 blocks per game throughout his four-year college career, and that skill has translated over to the pro level. Through 30 games this season with Grand Rapids, he’s averaging 1.4 blocks per game. It’s his ability to do everything else that he believes is his main strength. It’s what will get him looks from NBA teams.

Hall’s strength as a rebounder has also translated to the pro game. He suited up with the Pistons summer league team in Las Vegas, his first experience against pro players. His defensive energy was on display with 2.2 blocks per game, but he averaged nearly as many rebounds (5.4) as points (6.0).

He’s started in all but one game for the Drive this season, and he’s pulling down 10.2 rebounds per game, 4.0 on the offensive end. Although he wasn’t known as being a scorer, he is a capable and efficient one if need be. He’s averaging 15.1 points per game on 65.2 percent shooting from the field by being able to secure second shot opportunities and finishing strong at the rim."https://www.ridiculousupside.com/2020/2/6/21126678/donta-hall-making-his-mark-defensively
 
I mean; aren't our scouts constantly watching guys, keeping track of them, evaluating them. Shouldn't they be able to instantly tell Olshey who they rate highest for any particular need? Why is this taking so long when we have spots open?
 
I mean; aren't our scouts constantly watching guys, keeping track of them, evaluating them. Shouldn't they be able to instantly tell Olshey who they rate highest for any particular need? Why is this taking so long when we have spots open?
It's a good idea to keep a roster spot open - for unbalanced trades, or to sign a surprising FA, or to get someone who fills a need given an injury.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top