Everything he said re-affirms what Olshey and Woj have said. In that he held the franchise hostage, making Neil working two plans because of Aldridge's uncertainty, only to have him bolt at the end anyways. Instead of being able to focus all our efforts on one path, we tiptoed the line between both, and while doing so, free agents were dropping left and right. Free agents that we could have aggressively pursued had we known what direction we wanted to take. I won't hold it to him for his decision, it's his choice, and the blame also partly falls on Allen and Olshey's shoulders for always believing in the miniscule chance that Aldridge would return. But seriously? Fuck him. He's erased from Blazer history as far as I'm concerned. He never cared about us and I will never care about him again. Good riddance.
He seeed to feel a litle guilty. Everyone was joyful except him. Maybe he thought more Blazer fans would watch, but few did. I think the Spurs site will get either a full video or audio, but for now there are these short excerpts. http://www.nba.com/spurs/video/archive#
Uh, no. That is the point of demanding a trade kicker - it is a way of getting a "no trade" clause when you are not actually eligible for one. Whether he lands in Portland or OKC, they are stuck with him for the duration.
Not sure this is true. I think the player can give up the kicker if he wants, and I think teams can trade taking the kicker amount into account.
Also the kicker only adds 15% to the deal which basically ups his salary by 2m a year. If a team wants him at 16 a year I dont think making it 18 a year is going to drive people away.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the kicker isn't just an out-of-pocket expense - it means that he becomes a bigger cap hit to his new team than he was for the Blazers. Unless he waives, that makes any deal way more complicated for both teams. (eg Portland would be sending $17 mil out, but need to take $17+ back to balance the books for the receiving team)
Yes, the kicker has to be considered in the cap balance of the trade. But it's not going to make anyone stuck with him.
Funny thing, reminds me of Chris Kaman. Kind of a black hole on offense but is crafty around the basket.
So does anybody seriously think a ballstopper like Kanter is going to fit in with Stotts' scheme? Christ I hope the Thunder match.
He wasn't great, but he did OK, but I also wasn't one of the people who thought Aldridge was capable of being the linchpin of a championship caliber team.
I haven't been reading the back and forth, but I think a kicker is paid by the team trading the player away and absorbed in the cap space if the new team. So Kanter trade would be hard to do because of salary matchez. However, i also thought a max player wouldnt receive anything
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/2014-15-nba-trade-kickers/ It is the team trading away the player that is responsible for paying the bonus — unless the contract was signed prior to the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Toronto Raptors’ Amir Johnson and Cleveland Cavaliers’ Anderson Varejao), which is then paid by the acquiring franchise. Players will not receive their bonus if they are already over the NBA’s maximum salary. For example, should the Utah Jazz choose to trade Gordon Hayward, who was recently signed to a maximum salary for the 2014-15 season at $14.75 million, his 15 percent trade kicker would have no effect. Hayward, like most free agents signed this summer, cannot be traded until December 15 and isn’t likely to be dealt at all this season. Chandler Parsons, of the Dallas Mavericks, received a near maximum contract at $14.70 million. While he also has a 15 percent trade bonus in his contract, he would only receive $46,000 (technically $92,000 over two seasons), which would push him up to the max in 2014-15. Meanwhile, a player like Steve Nash of the Los Angeles Lakers would earn his full 15 percent kicker if dealt, increasing his salary from $9.70 million to $11.16 million.
