Well there's still a chance Collins will be back and yes not having Hood hurts but last year we didn't have Nurk and were able to replace a good portion of his production with a buyout candidate. Something the team won't consider doing this year.
Common sense has to make sense. They did nothing to change the summer of 2020 at the deadline. In fact the Ariza trade takes away $1.8 million or makes them have no cap space.
It's not about getting under the cap. Simply each dollar saved equates to two or three actual dollars in reduced salary and penalties.
I understand all that, but how does reducing the tax payment this year make it all about moves "in the summer of 2020"
We will still have the full mle and the 7.1mil TPE to fill out the roster. As far as tradable contracts Ariza (if we pick up his option) Whiteside (if he is re-signed in the region of around 12 mil) Hood (if he picks up his option) Nurkic Collins Little Simons Trent Honest question, I am curious if we did your Batum trade how that would have helped more in the off season than retaining Whiteside at a reasonable contract? If the Batum deal was going to go down, I don't see swapping picks as an option but more likely a lottery protected first round pick at best and Charlotte might insist on pushing a low cost contract on us as well so they are taking on even less salary (but either way it wouldn't really change anything). Now we have no center yet until Nurkic gets back and what player would you pick up from the bought out players that will improve us over where we are at right now?
Because we're going attempt to resign Whiteside. And any money saved is important to a team with such a high payroll that doesn't have the results to back it up.
We could re-sign Whiteside no matter what we did a the deadline. And as I've pointed out multiple times adding a player that helps this team make the playoffs would bring in more money than trading Skal and them not making the playoffs.
As a business owner I thought you'd understand how saving money in one place helps relieves the pain (however minor) of having to spend it elsewhere. Furthermore it's debatable there's much help out there for the Blazers. Anyone on the buyout market that's good wants to go to a contender.
Between the Ariza deal and the Skal deal how much did they did help the current year tax hit? (asking cause I dont know.) Ive had a ton going on and havent been paying attention to all the #’s but it seems like both moves were mostly done for $$$. Though Ariza it turns out can still play.
1) Sports aren't anything like a normal business, you know that. 2) You can't say whether or not a player on the buyout market would help or not because they aren't even pursuing that route. Imagine having your stance last year and not signing Kanter. 3) Making the playoffs generates more revenue than saved in the Skal trade. 4) Saving only $2 million this year more than likely hurts this summer more than it helps. If they would've gotten out of the tax they'd get paid money instead of paying out money. Then not triggering the repeater tax after next season would give them more leeway not to worry about the tax. 5) If the owner chooses $2 million in savings over winning then that is certainly her right but that doesn't mean she saved it to spend $2 million more this summer. If she's that cheap it's not going to change in 4 months.
My post above isnt to make an excuse, but I dont know maybe she said you need to reduce the payroll by 10m, and so she see’s it as a success? I dont know.
That's just it, we don't know where and what the mandate was as it could have been Jody Allen that decided she didn't want to pay tax money on a player that may not play again this year. What was done this year is based on where the team is at this year and I don;t see it being an issue going forward as long as the team can be competitive and be solidly in the playoffs. It could be hoopsjock is blaming Olshey for carrying out orders from above.
Yeah, it's certainly possible but then for me that makes both trades this past summer questionable as to taking on more money for their expiring contracts and brings it back to the original point of this thread that the failures of 2016 led them to this point. I just don't get why Jody would demand saving a certain amount but not getting out completely. Even if that was the order given to Olshey to just save part of the money, the difference between $9.3 million and $11.5 million doesn't seem like a huge enough difference to warrant not putting the best possible roster on the floor. Kanter made under $500,000 last year. Add a $1 million in tax and even after the Skal trade they'd still have cut $10 million off their savings. So saving $11.5 million versus $10 million is more important than giving Dame help? To me that speaks to a larger problem moving forward. And this isn't me trying to say things I don't know, these are actual information and numbers.
Buyout Kanter equivalent is not out there this year. If you think they're not going to get Dame the most help possible the next two seasons than I don't know what to tell you.
Buyout Kanter hadn't even been bought out yet at this point last year. I didn't know you were from the future.
