Lowe: Capped-Out Blazers Are Free Agency Losers

#23 wins again?

 

The only problem I see with what Lowe wrote is that it's extremely obvious, with no insight for us. But it's written for a national audience, not specifically for Blazers fans--a national audience hasn't been discussing/arguing the details of the Blazers' situation for the past year. Not everyone is versed in every detail of the Blazers' cap.

Portland was a loser in this year's off-season overall--whether or not that's Olshey's fault. Though I think there might be some missing the forest for the trees in arguing "How would we be better off if we didn't have these three specific contracts?" How much blame accrues to a GM who's into the luxury tax with so few assets? If Nurkic were being paid market value, that would be one thing but that isn't even an issue (yet). The only two players on the team justifiably making a lot are Lillard and McCollum. Portland lacks flexibility to make moves because the roster has so many non-assets. That's someone's fault.

 

I disagree with the premise. Staying the same is average. Making a bad trade is negative. Portland gets a C. Chicago and Indiana get a D-

Both those teams are worse off than before the draft/free agency.

 

My Gripe with Neil handing out those princely sums to Turner, Crabbe and Meyers was that it was spent on such obviously mediocre talent -- Turner was and is is nothing but a solid backup level player for the length of his career, Crabbe was and is a one-trick pony (although that one trick he does very well) and Meyers was and still is all hat, no cattle. If Neil had been overpaying to keep a title contender together you can maybe justify going deep into the luxury tax, but when you lock yourself in, hoping that 'D+' to 'C+' talent are going to mature into solid 'B' players to push you over the top it feels like a longshot strategy and forces some hard decisions with other guys that come up for their deals later. And if you want to get rid of those bad contracts you usually have to give up picks or other young assets you need to round out your roster and keep your talent pipeline moving.

I agree that the cap space was a sort of use it or lose it proposition last season, but it's the strategy to aim for last summer that seems dubious. Neil's job isn't just to draft guys and make trades, it's to structure your cap in such a way that maximizes your opportunities. Either by plan or accident he put himself in position to have cap space when 26 other teams were also going to have significant cap room, which means that there were going to be more dollars chasing fewer players -- not exactly an ideal position for a small market team that has never been very successful wooing quality free agents. Also, the crowded field of teams in free agency aside, what was the plan last summer? Who were the free agents Neil thought were going to be worth pursuing? I remember names like Greg Monroe, Chandler Parsons, and a Dwight Howard pipe dream. That was it? That was what he was angling for? That was supposed to be the payoff for clearing space? Okie dokie . . .

 

Neil likes to take the target off our back early in the season....element of surprise...we're not getting much ink around the league at all this summer. I'm really used to the underdog tag we start most seasons with

 

If you don't have a target on your back then that probably means you're no threat. What is it? Second or third highest payroll in the league and no target on their back? Shit, I need a drink.

 

The tacit insinuation that the Blazers could have been major players in free agency had they not signed Turner and Crabbe. That's just false.

 

Lowe is right, Portland did not improve at the free agent market. Anyone surprised about it had not been paying attention.

The plan I believe is for Portland to University organically or during the season when some teams are ready to call the season off or sour on a player

 

He did not say they didn't improve. He said they lost, as in last place. Completely ignoring teams that made trades that made them worse than before.

 

It means Lebron takes a game off when they play you until you win and then they go...hey...they're better than we thought...

 

No, he didn't. He had the Blazers as one of multiple losers--not the singular loser of free agency. He also had the Cavaliers and Spurs as losers, for example, because they lost ground to the Warriors, in his view.

 

The homers are simply agreeing with you MM. How many time have you said Portland can't attract any significant free agents and that we need to build through the draft?
Now management screwed up by not not having enough cap space to sign a difference maker? Personally I think we can sign a good FA if and when we are on the verge of winning a championship. But we are not there yet.

My guess is last year Neil decided to sign what he could in the hopes that he had enough extra big salaries to trade for a disgruntled star. In the past we have not had enough without trading 5-6 players in order to match salaries. Not sure how sound that game plan was, but I think it is just as good as thinking we can get a star in free agency.

In the mean time some like to spend all their time nit picking moves that were not made (that would not have gotten us to the ultimate goal anyways) and others like nit picking the media who in some people's minds are equally as stupid. Nothing wrong with either as there is not much else to do in July. (NBA wise)

 

Personally, I have zero problem with Lowe saying the Blazers are losers in free agency so far this summer. It would be foolish to say anything else as we've watched other Western teams get stronger since July 1 while the Blazers have done nothing. It would have been better if he would have explained why that's the expected result and that the team wouldn't have had any cap space unless they had passed on at least three players last summer. I don't ask for soft treatment for the Blazers from the press. Accuracy would be nice, though.

 

So far the Blazers are losers in both free agency and in trades, compared to several of our competitors. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, although there may be disagreements re the reasons.

 

It's not that he's wrong. It's that this is a typical off-season in Portland. We don't make waves in free agency. Even when we have cap space we don't do well.

Free agency isn't our game and we should stop expecting it to be.

 

But wasn't it basically spend it or lose it? He either signed those guys or we'd have lost the ability to spend that money.

Now if any of those guys can up their trade value or fit another teams needs we have more options.

It was a gamble with Paul Allen's money that may still pay off. And as far as I can tell, it has only cost us some of Paul Allen's money. I can't think of one opportunity it has cost us.

 

Reading is 'fun'damental. Second paragraph.

 

Actually I won last seasons win prediction thread FAMS.

 

Sometimes I think. WWTS

What would Tunchi say?

 

I read your second paragraph. And he had as much success as he would have any other summer. His strategy didn't cost us any opportunities. He has maintained as much flexibility as possible as a result of his actions last summer.

Yes, it was a gamble, but it cost us next to nothing.

*deleted a letter*