The problem with this logic is that it views expiring contracts as a commodity, and they're not. Their a faciliatory asset, not a commodity. The help teams either acquire multiple assets or rid themselves of a long-term contractual obligation, without taking on a long-term contractual obligation. So while their may be more buyers in the market wielding expiring contracts, that doesn't lower the value of expiring contracts, that simply makes the demand for certain pieces higher. In an open-market, if there's heightened demand with a similar supply, the value of a dollar doesn't go down, the market price goes up instead. Then don't say the way I'm looking at it is "stupid". I wasn't even going to say anything about that. Where did I say they need to add $30M-$60M in salary and tax? They simply need to provide themselves the flexibility to trade for an upgrade next year at one of the forward spots without sacrificing one of Dame, CJ, and Nurkic... They would only be apx. $4M over the tax right now if we were under next year's salary cap, so I have no idea where you got those numbers from. It's not about Nurk or C.J. being untouchable, it's about not putting ourselves into a box where we'd have to trade Dame, CJ, or Nurkic for any contract over $20M on draft day or next season. Box ourselves in like this isn't the right move. Why? Because if a Tobias Harris, Otto Porter, or Kristaps Porzingis becomes available for a package including expirings and a up to a couple picks (like what happened last year), we wouldn't be able to act on it unless we included Dame, CJ, or Nurk. That would leave us in a position where we either couldn't acquire a big upgrade at a forward spot because we didn't have the proper foresight, or it leaves us in a position where we're making a lateral move because we're trading C.J. or Nurk for one of those player when we could've just kept them and traded an expiring. So even something like Bazemore for Dieng would be a great move for us from a contractual standpoint, and we could maybe get a 2nd or two out of Minnesota depending on how much they want to shed his contract. Dieng could be a serviceable part of the rotation and would be a $17M expiring next year. If we didn't take on any other long-term salary, we'd still have our Full MLE ($9.8M) which is equal to the amount of cap space we'd have if we let both Bazemore and Whiteside walk. So if you give me two choices of: 1.) A serviceable big man on a $16M expiring contract that's tradeable next year as an expiring, as well as a $10M MLE 2.) No expiring contracts next year, and $10M in cap space I'm taking option number two. There's a number of different combinations Portland could pursue... They could go see how desperate Charlotte is to dump Batum's contract and could get assets for it. If they didn't take on any other long-term salary, they'd still have their $10M MLE. Therefore, Batum's contract wouldn't limit them from anything over the next year and a half, and it'd open up the possibility for Draft Day trades as well as the opportunity to make a trade for a big name player around the deadline next season with Batum's expiring without having to give up one of our core 3. Batum's contract would actually help Portland's flexibility over the next year or so.
Which is why we should trade this years expiring contracts for two year contracts if we can't get a short AND long-term upgrade for them at the deadline. Roll the expirings over towards next season and provide ourselves the flexibility to make a win-now trade next year, when we'd be in much better position to do so. Not only that, but we could acquire assets for taking on those two year contracts.
again, it depends on the player with the expiring contract, and how big it is, relatively. Portland got nothing for Raef Lafrentz. They got Thabeet and a 2nd round pick for Marcus Camby. They got Felton for Andre Miller, and had to add Rudy Fernandez to get that much. and just 6 months ago they got Whiteside and Bazemore for the expiring contracts of Turner, Meyers, and Harkless. It's unlikely that value has gone up with all the expiring contracts that are available right now. The only time I can recall it working out was when they traded Gerald Wallace to the Nets, but Billy King isn't a GM any more...too bad, because the chances they can get a player anywhere Lillard's caliber for an expiring contract, this year or next, have to be slim to none like I've said 2 or 3 times so far, I don't mind the idea of trading their expirings for cap-relief and a player on a good contract in the 8-13M/year range. I don't want a contract like Love's though...that would be dumb. What Olshey is going to do I have no clue, but I suspect he's received some financial-restraint instructions from Seattle
where was it I called how you were looking at it as "stupid"? here's what I said: "IMO it would be stupid to convert 46M of expiring contracts to 30-40M in salary next season...all while having to give up other assets too" so unless you're advocating for that very thing, I didn't classify your 'way of looking at things' as anything other that something I don't really agree with thanks for proving my point...and by the way, I didn't say you were advocating for that either, just like I didn't say your thinking was stupid IMO, trading for Love, or Griffin, or Aldridge would be bad, and trading for Porter might be borderline bad because the contracts are big and have value probably stretching from a-little-negative to albatross. And of course, the Blazers would likely have to give up a lot more than just an expiring to complete the deal. So to summarize, the Blazers would be giving up expirings, picks and/or young players on speculation, hoping to be in a position to give up more expiring(s) picks and/or young players next year for some kind of upgrade that may or may not change the team's trajectory again, this seems all about trying to salvage something from that 2016 summer madness. I'm suggesting it might be time to step off that 2016 treadmill and move to a different part of the gym, instead of kicking the 4 year old can a year or two further down the road. stop the madness
Teams get better value than we got in those deals every year. It's not a guarantee. But all it costs is Judy's money. If she's good with it we're better off having those expiring available than being under the cap. We're not going to get near the infusion of talent in free agency or trade that we can get with large expiring deals on hand.
Alright, we're gonna ignore the extra confusion and get down to the nitty gritty. Trading for Love or Griffin could be the worst case scenario because it'd lock us into that roster for years. I'm not advertising trading assets for two-year contracts, I'm simply talking about trading for two-year contracts as a fallback option or a part of a trade where we get back a starter (think RoCo+Dieng for Whiteside) Porter wouldn't be risky, because he'd be expiring next year, so even if he was hurt, he wouldn't have negative value as an expiring contract because most teams that make a trade where they receive expiring contracts don't care about the player they're getting back, because (as I stated in the post you quoted), they're making the trades for other reasons and don't want to have long-term contractual obligations and have to take back some sort of extra salary since the other team has to match salary in the trade. It's not about 2016 at all... That makes no sense. This is entirely with the future in mind. For some reason you're focusing on 2016... I'm focusing on our ability to make moves over the next year and a half. The thought process is trading expiring for 2-year deals: 1.) We could possibly land assets for taking on those deals 2.) If not that, it could help them give up less in a deal for a player they want (think RoCo + Dieng) 3.) Portland's cap space won't be more than the Full MLE, and barely more than the tax-payer MLE 4.) Would give them medium-sized salary outside of Dame+CJ+Nurk that they could trade during the draft and off-season 5.) Would give them medium-sized salary outside of Dame+CJ+Nurk to trade next season so they would have options and flexibility to make an upgrade without giving up a piece of their core The only downside to trading for those 2-year contracts is the cost of acquisition, but Bazemore is worthless, and the cost of trading Whiteside now when he'd probably leave in the summer is offset by the combination of future flexibility, assets received, and/or the player we receive back. So answer this: What downside do you see, and how does that outweigh the positives I've explained?
My trade deadline dream is that Chicago doesn't want to pay Otto Porter Jr next season and doesn't care to get an asset back for that contract and would trade him for an expiring. Alongside that, Minnesota wants a 1st for Covington and to get off of Dieng's contract. POR Gets: Otto Porter, Robert Covington, Gorgui Dieng CHI Gets: Hassan Whiteside MIN Gets: Kent Bazemore, Anthony Tolliver, 2020 POR 1st (Lottery Protected) That would give Portland an end-of-season lineup of: Lillard / McCollum McCollum / Simons Covington / Porter Porter / Melo / Collins* Nurk / Dieng / Skal But beyond that, we'd go into next year with. Lillard / McCollum McCollum / Simons / Trent Covington / Hood / 2nd round pick? Porter / Collins / Little Nurkic / Dieng / Skal We wouldn't even need to use our tax-payer MLE to add to that roster. That roster is DEADLY. Covington and Porter are the perfect forwards for Portland as legit 3-and-D guys. Portland also has a top 5 bench in the league with Simons, Hood, Collins, and Dieng or Skal. That team is a true contender in my opinion and has the perfect balance of offense, defense, stars, and role players. The forwards could do as good of a job of anyone against the L.A. teams, and the bench compliments them perfectly. But beyond that, we'd also have all our future picks (assuming we made the playoffs in 2020), we'd have Collins, Simons, and Little as good prospects, and we'd also have a $27M expiring in Porter and a $16M expiring in Dieng… Therefore, if a star or borderline star became available at the deadline, we would have the means to go and acquire them (Picks+Prospects+Expirings) and upgrade that lineup even further while still retaining our depth!!! That's the easiest and most realistic path to a championship for Portland.
the downside is I don't believe Portland will be getting a player like Covington or Porter. I don't think they have the assets for that, or at least not the assets that Olshey would be willing to pay
You may be correct, but for the record Chicago got Porter for expiring contracts and a protected 2023 2nd round pick. It was rumored that Portland had a deal in place for him but was undercut at the last minute because the contracts they were offering weren't expiring ones and the Bulls ones were.
I haven't heard that rumor, and I'm kind of cynical so I'd question where it came from, but maybe but, Chicago didn't just give up expirings, one of the players was Bobby Portis who was averaging 14 & 7 at the time in 24 minutes (21 & 11 per36), so they did give up some value over and above an expiring contract. That makes me skeptical they'd just dump him for an expiring a year later. I will say that Portis has a terrible FT rate for a 6'10 player. And I guess it's possible the Bulls front office is re-evaluating their roster after another bad start to the season. I will say I'd be suspicious about Porter's foot if the Bulls are shopping him now something else, I just compared Hood and Porter last season, and while Porter generally had better numbers, they weren't enough better to think that Porter would change Portland's trajectory significantly more than Hood did. Portland was 8-12 with Hood this year and his numbers were much better than last year. Porter may be a solid starter, but he's still at the level of a 4th option. And, it would kind of suck to give up a 1st for him and then he opts out. Yeah, it seems unlikley but stranger things have happened, and next season's free agent class is a thin one
They gave up Portis because he was a free agent and they weren't going to re-sign him. It was kind of like the Plumlee situation with Portland. The Wizards rescinded their qualifying offer for him too so this is another case where the stats weren't as important as needing a contract to make the trade work. If the Bulls didn't have to give up a 1st for him and he's basically been injured since they've got him then why would his value be that much greater than it was last trade deadline when he wasn't hurt? Edit: Last year the Blazers would've had to give up a 1st for Porter for sure but that was once again because they weren't offering expiring contracts.
But thats not what were discussing man... Were discussing why itd make sense to trade our expirings for two-year contracts.
then it's kind of a distorted discussion when you keep coming up with the best of all possible returns on trades for two year contracts...people like Porter and Covington. I mean, you just proposed your "dream" where the Blazers trade Whiteside, Bazemore, and a lottery protected 1st for Porter, Dieng, and Covington. That's not a dream man, it's a pipe-dream. I'm not going to bother looking at the numbers but my guess would be that it would add 20M in tax this season and likely put Portland over the tax line next season, and still not be a minimum roster anyway, when the discussion is about adding players like Porter and Covington for a very small asset price like a lotery protected 1st, it looks a lot different than if Portland was adding players like Batum or James Johnson or Dion Waiters. The first option is "oh wow, let's do it quick before the other guys wise up"; the second options are "they'll have even less value next season, why bother" my big question is if the Blazers were looking to take on 2 year deals for expiring contracts, why didn't they do it last July...? Turner, Harkless, and Meyers all had expiring contracts then too
Cmon Wiz As to your last question: Because they wanted to go into the season with expiring contracts. You know why. If they cant gwt anything for expiring contracts at the deadlinenthen they become absolutely useless via trade. So as a fallback option... And thats just two of many trade possibilites. And you overreacted the hell out RoCo's and Porter's trade value. You already had HoopsJock exclusion things a bit but as always, you never truly listen to what anyone else has to say. You can players on bad 2 year contracts have more value now than they would next year when theyre expiring contracts? What? That makes no sense, at all.
I understand the argument for rolling over the expiring deals. Where I start to get heartburn is the idea of giving up additional value (eg draft picks) to do so.
Depends on the player for me. If we get Covington it's worth giving up picks. If we take on someone like Batum it better be the Blazers that get the extra value!
and thus the reason why several have told bones that it depends on the deal. His claim is that letting Bazemore and/or Whiteside expire is a bad deal where as nobody knows what and if any deals are realistic. You can't make that kind of judgement without knowing what the deal entails.
At least we have established that any plan that involves expiring deals having value should be out the window.
