There will be no shortage of teams looking to take a guy like Crabbe off our hands if we need to clear space for a free agent. Signing him is of very little risk.
I'd have to agree. He needs to improve a substantial amount to be worth that. Right now he's strictly a shooter on offense who's average defensively and offers little positional versatility. Like him as a bench guy, but 18 a year is projecting him as an above average starter which he isn't right now.
Not enough to accomodate the new salaries CJ and Plumlee will get next summer. http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/2017-luxury-tax-aka-why-plumlee-will-be-traded.302101/#post-3928903
Which way? Going to be hard for me to be disappointed personally as I am going into this with literally no expectations.
I'd say a home run is a player like Durant or Whiteside. Maybe Howard but that feels more like a triple because of possible baggage.
It does go up again next year....from $94M to $108M. Those 6 players alone at those salaries listed comes to $109M and you still would have 6-9 players to add to that roster. That would put the Blazers WAY over the cap. That is why it would be a problem down the road.
I don't think it's fair to just lump a large group of players as "fringe starters." Some positions have more value than other positions, so a fringe 3&D guy is worth more than a fringe power forward or a fringe small forward. Aminu got 8 million per year, but a guy like Danny Green got a little over 11 million. There's more value in guys who can shoot the three in today's NBA. I'm comfortable paying Crabbe more money because I'm confident he could either be our starting shooting guard, or we could trade him to a team that needs a starter. That contract won't be that bad. Hell, Wes is making 17+ million per year right now. I would sign Crabb and Hark and maybe even Myle and then look to trade players later. We just can't lose these guys for nothing.
With this being said, there is always the handful of contracts that are absurdly high from a team that panics.
Why is everyone fixated on starter-vs-bench. If he's a 32+ mpg guy who is the second option on offense the majority of the time when he's on the floor, is that not worth 15-18 million? Travis Demers was making that same "We can't pay a bench guy $15M" rant yesterday afternoon, and I think it's short-sighted. If he's expected to play starter's minutes and have a starter-level role on the team, even as a guy coming off the bench, then we can absolutely pay him starter's money. If.
I know you weren't responding specifically to me but don't think he can get 32 mins on average in a season for us next year. He will hit that mark in some games of course but averaging it is a entirely different story that isn't going to happen as I see it but if you said 30 sure. 2nd option while he is on the floor is debatable is all I am going to say on that one. He might be next year but I wouldn't have called him that this year for sure. And for me I didn't bring in bench vs starter and I don't think that way. But at some point you have to draw the line though. We obviously aren't matching max. So if 18 isn't the number (which I think is plenty enough to be the line) then what is? 19? So you match at 18 but not 19? Basically we are just throwing out a number. They are all high and at some point there will be no match if your number is too high imo. With all that said, I DO want to keep the guy. If I was a betting man though (and at times I am) then I would say POR doesn't go over right about 18 MIL in a match but there is also the possibility that they don't have to (which would be nice).
The issue I was really having with Demers on the radio yesterday was saying you can't even go 14M for him simply because he's not a starter, and saying that Batum at 11M 4 years ago was OK because he was a starter, even though 11M was actually a larger percentage of the cap then than 14M would be now, and their roles were pretty similar, minus their physical position at tip-off. I absolutely think he can get 32mpg. If Dame/CJ average 36mpg each, Crabbe can get the other 24, plus 8 at SF alongside both Dame/CJ. If Crabbe is our third-best scorer, and his role is expected to increase with Henderson's departure, then he very well could see another significant jump in his numbers. Remember, aside from Dame/CJ, Henderson had the highest usage rate of any regular contributor; with him gone, there will be many more minutes and shots available to Crabbe (and Harkless). Now, if we bring in an offensive free agent like Anderson or Williams, then maybe it's a different story, but even with Whiteside or Howard, in Stotts' offense, Crabbe will absolutely be the third option overall, and second option the majority of the time he's on the floor. If he's not--given his skillset and percentages--then there's a coaching problem.
I agree with a lot of this. I go 14 like you have laid out, yes. 18? Boy that is another story. I might go 18 if the other 2 RFA's got online like 11 or something or if we only brought 2 of the 3 back but like I said, there is a number that POR will quit on. Be it 19 or whatever, there is not an open checkbook for the guy which is the point I was trying to make.
If we match a BIG offer on Crabbe I see it as retaining him as a trade chip. He'd be quite a valuable trade chip at $14M, but significantly less valuable at $18M. Also, at $14M I think we have more flexibility with how we use him - he'd be easier for us to keep as a rotation player at that salary, whereas if we match on an $18M contract I think we'd definitely be looking to trade him sooner rather than later. Big picture I think Crabbe and Plumlee are primary pieces in a trade/trades. But transitioning them from rotation players to trade chips will depend on what we're able to do in Free Agency.
