I think the problem most people have here is simple. People think this: We got 120mil to spend on a roster. If Dame take 60, we got 60 left for rest of the roster. If He take 40, we got 80 and it looks much better. What you're saying is, having 60 and 80 does not make any difference. I've never paid attention to salary rules, but I would think that you can build better supporting team with 80 than with 60. Why it does not matter? Seriously, I don't get it.
Dame's salary is ~35% of the cap. The cap in 25/26 when this extension kicks in is estimated to be ~171 million, not 120 mil. So after Dame's ~57 mil, you have close to 115 mil to spend on the rest of the roster.
Sorry, that's not, what I'm asking. So let me try again. If Blazers have 100%, how does it make no difference for support roster signings if they spend 35% or 25% on one Dame. Simply put one guys says: "If Dame take less money, there is more money in the cup, so Blazers can "buy" better support cast." Why is it not true?
because there is no more "money in the cup." We will be over the cap even if Dame takes 25% of the cap because of contracts to Ant/Nurk/Grant/etc. The only way we can spend over the cap is with exceptions (MLE/ TPMLE/BAE) or if we have bird rights to these players. Access to these acquisition tools will hardly change if Dame's contract were different. So in essence, it doesn't truly impact our ability to add around him whether his contract were 40 mil/yr or 60 mil/yr. The only impact is towards Jody's pocketbook, and I don't give one damn about that.
Jerome was never an all-star, and Buck was way before he came to Portland, but wasn't again IIRC. But all-stars come when you have the best record in the NBA and are making Finals appearances. If this team had done that, players like CJ and maybe Nurk would have been all-stars as well. They haven't come close to that. With wins and playoff wins, come recognition. Clyde didn't wasn't given a whole bunch of all-stars and then they became good. They rose to much higher heights, and the all star selections came for the secondary players. And if Dame needs "5 or 6 All Stars" and then he would win some titles, well, that speaks for itself.
So, there is no money left now. Would there be any money left if players had smaller contracts? Really, I am stupid here.
Nobody said Dame needs 5 all stars. And Jerome was the best Blazer to never make an All Star team. Again, if Dame had those guys we'd have titles.
Which is why we should be rebuilding and not staying the course. Our players are paid too much for what is expected to be a borderline playoff team.
Last question then. IF Dame took 25, not 40, and Ant took 10, not 20, and Nurk took half too - would Blazers have money to add another good player?
Ok, so it is unrealistic to expect players to take paycuts to have more chance to win the championship. IF they took paycuts, they could win, but they don't want it more than money. I don't blame them, that is the right choice in my opinion. Case closed here.
"If you give Dame 5 or 6 All Stars he would win some titles." True, you're not exactly saying he needs 5 all-stars, but you did offer it up that if he had "5 or 6 all stars, he would win some titles." That is right out of your post. And I didn't say he needed them. I posed a question. Feel free to read what was actually written.
You just suggested our 3 of our 4 highest paid players take close to a 50% discount and are closing the case on this hypothetical scenario. I thought you were genuinely interested in understanding why the initial topic of Dame taking 40 instead of 60 is meaningless. Guess not. Feel like I just wasted my time. Shoulda ignored your questions.
