WOJ: Dame wants the super max extension (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
wizenheimer said:
yeah...good call... just like Orlando mistreated Shaq; and Utah mistreated Deron Williams; and Denver mistreated Melo; and Toronto mistreated Bosh; and Cleveland mistreated Lebron; and Indiana mistreated PG13; and San Antonio mistreated Kawhi; and OKC mistreated Durant; and Brooklyn mistreated Durant

those situations are just like Portland and Dame....except for one small thing
Click to expand...
No idea what you’re talking about
 
wizenheimer said:
yeah...good call... just like Orlando mistreated Shaq; and Utah mistreated Deron Williams; and Denver mistreated Melo; and Toronto mistreated Bosh; and Cleveland mistreated Lebron; and Indiana mistreated PG13; and San Antonio mistreated Kawhi; and OKC mistreated Durant; and Brooklyn mistreated Durant

those situations are just like Portland and Dame....except for one small thing
Click to expand...
Orlando actually did mistreat Shaq. They lowballed him and he left for LA.
 
calvin natt said:
At the end of the day I just really admire the loyalty by Lillard. I mean to stick with a job after years and years of being mistreated and disrespected is quite admirable.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that kind of shit. The truth is we just haven't had a player on his level that has stayed here... even when we were paying people as much as anyone else. So yeah, those of us that are fans of the team and of Lillard appreciate his loyalty. If you don't think he could get this kind of money elsewhere, you haven't been paying attention.
 
blazerkor said:
No one is saying that kind of shit. The truth is we just haven't had a player on his level that has stayed here... even when we were paying people as much as anyone else. So yeah, those of us that are fans of the team and of Lillard appreciate his loyalty. If you don't think he could get this kind of money elsewhere, you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...
If teams could, how many would give him $120m for two years?
 
I giggle when people expect that if

A) dame takes less money then

B) we magically get another all star because they just think it happens.

There still actually has to be people that aren't going to get signed by their teams as an all star, who a player less than Durant that's not going to cost us dame anyway who then we will sign for the most money allowable because dame saved us money.

Say dame takes a $10 mil paycut... What all star are we putting next to him for that? What game changer? The best you're hoping for MLE talent and ring chasers. We didn't have the money to do that anyway since we were signing him. The paycut would be foolish.

And it's foolish to think trading him today would do anything. "Hey we made all these moves to build around you but before we see how you guys mesh we're gonna trade you"

Do you realize how astronomically idiotic that is? Just use common sense. You see it through and then re-evaluate. It's common sense and to argue common sense is... Well...
 
Strenuus said:
I giggle when people expect that if

A) dame takes less money then

B) we magically get another all star because they just think it happens.

There still actually has to be people that aren't going to get signed by their teams as an all star, who a player less than Durant that's not going to cost us dame anyway who then we will sign for the most money allowable because dame saved us money.

Say dame takes a $10 mil paycut... What all star are we putting next to him for that? What game changer? The best you're hoping for MLE talent and ring chasers. We didn't have the money to do that anyway since we were signing him. The paycut would be foolish.

And it's foolish to think trading him today would do anything. "Hey we made all these moves to build around you but before we see how you guys mesh we're gonna trade you"

Do you realize how astronomically idiotic that is? Just use common sense. You see it through and then re-evaluate. It's common sense and to argue common sense is... Well...
Click to expand...
I just think it’s weird he’s paid the way he is. Normally highest paid player is near the best of players. Just seems odd to see 120/2, for an average that high. Maybe Giannis or Steph or Jokic, Embiid, but Lillard no. And $60m vs $45m vs 35m does make a difference to a teams flexibility whether people like it or not.
 
calvin natt said:
I just think it’s weird he’s paid the way he is. Normally highest paid player is near the best of players. Just seems odd to see 120/2, for an average that high. Maybe Giannis or Steph or Jokic, Embiid, but Lillard no. And $60m vs $45m vs 35m does make a difference to a teams flexibility whether people like it or not.
Click to expand...

Yup. Too much money for a guy who’s never been a top 5 MVP candidate.

A deal like this can be franchise crippling. No one seems to care though. Obvious to me we should be going with a full youth movement. Instead of this half assed pay crazy money to a guy who is not even in the window of the rest of the team.

Mind boggling.

If Lillard is as serious as he says he is about winning he would take less so we can actually afford Star power to put around him.

The dude has made a fortune off endorsements alone. So it makes me question his commitment to winning. Wanting to stay in Portland knowing the team can’t put anyone around him also makes me question it as well.
 
calvin natt said:
If teams could, how many would give him $120m for two years?
Click to expand...
I think it's fun that you're playing word games. The question you're asking is how many teams in the league would give Damian Lillard a supermax contract today? The answer is that only a handful of teams with players like Ja wouldn't. I don't think Golden State would (bad fit with Steph), obviously I just said Memphis because of fit with Ja, the Hawks wouldn't because of Trae, and the Suns because of CP3. Then there's Houston, Orlando, Detroit and San Antonio that are too young and early in their rebuilds. I think every other team would sign him to a five year supermax if they had the means to and then move players necessary to make it work.
 
blazerkor said:
Opinion unfounded. Nine out of the last ten championship teams have had at least one supermax player on them. Steph and LeBron were 34 and 35 when they were on their supermax deals and won a championship. Duncan was on a lower salary. The evidence shows that in this day and age you almost have to have a very very top heavy payroll to compete in this league because as has always been the case, one player in basketball can have far far more influnce on the outcome of games than in any other sport. You have to be smart about the supporting cast and the numbers would say you need a second supermax player that by your logic would even further hamstring the team but with the very rare exception of Tim Duncan teams have had to have a player on a supermax deal to win it all.

I think most of us are pissed that we don't have another guy worth paying what we're paying Dame not that we have one that's worth it and that we're paying him.
Click to expand...

Dame is not any one of those players on those teams. And not pissed over in this corner. Just looking at it realistically. What you just said is the same excuse that could be used as to why turner got paid so much. And crabbe and leonards second contract.
If the money is spent, its locked up and cant be used to get another player. To me, its that simple.
 
Last edited:
blazerkor said:
I think it's fun that you're playing word games. The question you're asking is how many teams in the league would give Damian Lillard a supermax contract today? The answer is that only a handful of teams with players like Ja wouldn't. I don't think Golden State would (bad fit with Steph), obviously I just said Memphis because of fit with Ja, the Hawks wouldn't because of Trae, and the Suns because of CP3. Then there's Houston, Orlando, Detroit and San Antonio that are too young and early in their rebuilds. I think every other team would sign him to a five year supermax if they had the means to and then move players necessary to make it work.
Click to expand...
I would bet most GMs think this is an overpay. And if we are going to consider circumstances, how about the circumstance of a team that has zilch chance at a title, no second star let alone third star, no real means to get them, deciding that their 32 year old should get $120/2? Seems like that type of situation would make it a bad idea for that team too.
 
MickZagger said:
Yup. Too much money for a guy who’s never been a top 5 MVP candidate.

A deal like this can be franchise crippling. No one seems to care though. Obvious to me we should be going with a full youth movement. Instead of this half assed pay crazy money to a guy who is not even in the window of the rest of the team.

Mind boggling.

If Lillard is as serious as he says he is about winning he would take less so we can actually afford Star power to put around him.

The dude has made a fortune off endorsements alone. So it makes me question his commitment to winning. Wanting to stay in Portland knowing the team can’t put anyone around him also makes me question it as well.
Click to expand...
There's just no proof to support the theory that a supermax contract keeps teams from building championship rosters. There is however proof that teams with one or more max/supermax players win the championship 9 out of the 12 seasons since max designation became a rule in the NBA. Before that there was an even greater ratio of champions with players making even a larger percentage of the cap than is now allowed that won championships.

Basically all of you who think this is a crippling contract have no proof, unless you think Dame is going to fall off like Russ or Wall and that management will put dysfunctional teams around him like those guys. If you have that little faith in management then it doesn't matter anyway because with or without a supermax contract on the books mismanagement would still lead to too many losses whether they be in the regular season or playoffs.
 
blazerkor said:
There's just no proof to support the theory that a supermax contract keeps teams from building championship rosters. There is however proof that teams with one or more max/supermax players win the championship 9 out of the 12 seasons since max designation became a rule in the NBA. Before that there was an even greater ratio of champions with players making even a larger percentage of the cap than is now allowed that won championships.

Basically all of you who think this is a crippling contract have no proof, unless you think Dame is going to fall off like Russ or Wall and that management will put dysfunctional teams around him like those guys. If you have that little faith in management then it doesn't matter anyway because with or without a supermax contract on the books mismanagement would still lead to too many losses whether they be in the regular season or playoffs.
Click to expand...

I don’t have a lot of faith that Lillard will be producing at that type level for much longer. CP3 is an outlier because he’s just that smart of a player. But guards fall off and fall off quick. I’ve seen it time and time again. Can we even afford to have another max player next to Lillard now? With his last contract we could. Now we’d have to trade either Simons or Nurk.
 
blazerkor said:
There's just no proof to support the theory that a supermax contract keeps teams from building championship rosters. There is however proof that teams with one or more max/supermax players win the championship 9 out of the 12 seasons since max designation became a rule in the NBA. Before that there was an even greater ratio of champions with players making even a larger percentage of the cap than is now allowed that won championships.

Basically all of you who think this is a crippling contract have no proof, unless you think Dame is going to fall off like Russ or Wall and that management will put dysfunctional teams around him like those guys. If you have that little faith in management then it doesn't matter anyway because with or without a supermax contract on the books mismanagement would still lead to too many losses whether they be in the regular season or playoffs.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said a Supermax means you can’t build a title winner. Just that it matters who you give it to. I have a hard time believing that given his age and history, this isn’t the situation for a $60m a year deal.
 
blazerkor said:
There's just no proof to support the theory that a supermax contract keeps teams from building championship rosters. There is however proof that teams with one or more max/supermax players win the championship 9 out of the 12 seasons since max designation became a rule in the NBA. Before that there was an even greater ratio of champions with players making even a larger percentage of the cap than is now allowed that won championships.

Basically all of you who think this is a crippling contract have no proof, unless you think Dame is going to fall off like Russ or Wall and that management will put dysfunctional teams around him like those guys. If you have that little faith in management then it doesn't matter anyway because with or without a supermax contract on the books mismanagement would still lead to too many losses whether they be in the regular season or playoffs.
Click to expand...

Damian requires more help in order to win a championship than any of those 9 other max contract players in the last 12 seasons. Them being able to accomplish it in no way proves that Damian can do the same.
 
calvin natt said:
I would bet most GMs think this is an overpay. And if we are going to consider circumstances, how about the circumstance of a team that has zilch chance at a title, no second star let alone third star, no real means to get them, deciding that their 32 year old should get $120/2? Seems like that type of situation would make it a bad idea for that team too.
Click to expand...
So your position is that most GMs in the league don't think that Dame is worth the supermax? I don't think I have to remind you that he's been an all nba first or second team selection for the 5 out of the last 7 seasons. That's the top 10 players in the league and there are a lot more than 10 supermax contracts out there. A lot the guys that are on those contracts are older than Dame and still producing at a level commensurate with their contract.

So I disagree with you that any GM in this league would think that giving Dame a supermax is an overpay. I would challenge you to find an article from a reputable source that says that this is an overpay.
 
AngryFan said:
Damian requires more help in order to win a championship than any of those 9 other max contract players in the last 12 seasons. Them being able to accomplish it in no way proves that Damian can do the same.
Click to expand...
How can you say that definitively when Dame hasn't had close to the help all of those guys have when they won their championships? I mean good grief the Lakers had two supermax players, the Warriors did for two of theirs and one of the best systems and supporting casts in the history of the game when they won without Durant, Cleveland had Kyrie, Love and a host of complementary role players and then you have the Heatles. Dame hasn't had a supporting cast that closely enough approximates those rosters to make the call you're trying to make.
 
blazerkor said:
So your position is that most GMs in the league don't think that Dame is worth the supermax? I don't think I have to remind you that he's been an all nba first or second team selection for the 5 out of the last 7 seasons. That's the top 10 players in the league and there are a lot more than 10 supermax contracts out there. A lot the guys that are on those contracts are older than Dame and still producing at a level commensurate with their contract.

So I disagree with you that any GM in this league would think that giving Dame a supermax is an overpay. I would challenge you to find an article from a reputable source that says that this is an overpay.
Click to expand...

You're just taking him aging like CP3 as a given. It is not a given. You have no idea what Damian is going to look like as player 3 years from now, let alone 5.
blazerkor said:
How can you say that definitively when Dame hasn't had close to the help all of those guys have when they won their championships? I mean good grief the Lakers had two supermax players, the Warriors did for two of theirs and one of the best systems and supporting casts in the history of the game when they won without Durant, Cleveland had Kyrie, Love and a host of complementary role players and then you have the Heatles. Dame hasn't had a supporting cast that closely enough approximates those rosters to make the call you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

See this is the problem why fans can't agree. After 10 seasons of Lillard and you still haven't decided if there is a gap between him and Curry or Lebron.
 
blazerkor said:
So your position is that most GMs in the league don't think that Dame is worth the supermax? I don't think I have to remind you that he's been an all nba first or second team selection for the 5 out of the last 7 seasons. That's the top 10 players in the league and there are a lot more than 10 supermax contracts out there. A lot the guys that are on those contracts are older than Dame and still producing at a level commensurate with their contract.

So I disagree with you that any GM in this league would think that giving Dame a supermax is an overpay. I would challenge you to find an article from a reputable source that says that this is an overpay.
Click to expand...
First of all no GM would/can say it on record. Like, it’s not allowed. Second, it’s bad practice to dole out Supermaxes as a reward for the past. Lillard is a great player who is in his thirties, with little help around him. He was paid very fairly year after year. He wasn’t underpaid. This isn’t a Michael Jordan situation where he was underpaid forever so they gave him $30-$35m in successive years.
 
AngryFan said:
You're just taking him aging like CP3 as a given. It is not a given. You have no idea what Damian is going to look like as player 3 years from now, let alone 5.


See this is the problem why fans can't agree. After 10 seasons of Lillard and you still haven't decided if there is a gap between him and Curry or Lebron.
Click to expand...
There is a gap between him and LeBron and Curry but the gap between him and Curry isn't the kind of chasm that so many want to make it out to be but there is a huge distance between the players Dame has played with and the system he's played in and what Curry has had. If you think Dame's had the teams around him (roster and coaching staff) that prove that he couldn't get the job done or that he's about to have a Westbrook/Wall type of fall off then I can see why you think this is a bad deal. Those just aren't my opinions.

I think it's a fact that a supermax contract does not prohibit teams from building rosters around them that can win championships. I just want to point out that last time Dame actually played (2020-21) he got the fifth most all nba points and seventh in MVP votes. The injury that kept him out of this season isn't ever chronic. I guess we'll see how he does going forward. I can't promise that management will surround him with the team he'll need but I have more hope than I have during the rest of his career but I am extremely confident that he'll be one of the best ten players in the league for the next few seasons and knowing Dame his descension from greatness will be very gradual after that.
 
calvin natt said:
First of all no GM would/can say it on record. Like, it’s not allowed. Second, it’s bad practice to dole out Supermaxes as a reward for the past. Lillard is a great player who is in his thirties, with little help around him. He was paid very fairly year after year. He wasn’t underpaid. This isn’t a Michael Jordan situation where he was underpaid forever so they gave him $30-$35m in successive years.
Click to expand...
I don't think for a second that this extension was a reward for the past. I think it's a projection of value in the future. Time will tell if that projection is correct but I don't think this is what you think it is. We're paying one of the top ten players (probably higher) in the league like he's a top ten player and that's all there is to it. I think we're locking him up for the period of time that we are because we think he'll be worth what we're paying him through the lifetime of the contract.
 
blazerkor said:
I don't think for a second that this extension was a reward for the past. I think it's a projection of value in the future. Time will tell if that projection is correct but I don't think this is what you think it is. We're paying one of the top ten players (probably higher) in the league like he's a top ten player and that's all there is to it. I think we're locking him up for the period of time that we are because we think he'll be worth what we're paying him through the lifetime of the contract.
Click to expand...
Ok. Just disagree. All the awards and votes are in the past. Why supermax a guy who has gone to the WCF once. Blame the teammates and coaches - that’s fine. Well he still doesn’t have the teammates and coaches….so….maybe he’s the next Tom Brady and plays till hes 40, I hope so. Again. He’s a great player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Featured content

Back
Top