Challenge: Get The Blazers Below The Tax / Consolidate Roster Spots

[Tim Lehrbach]

Would rather move him for pick(s) and and a worse player. Zero interest in Sexton.

I tried trading him for a pick but Blazers fans said a '25 1st and taking on the salary in full wasn't enough for Simons

I’m ready to move on from Simons. He can’t play with Scoot or Sharpe.

Simons, for all his flaws, is a vastly better player than Scoot or Sharpe. The Blazers can't be making decisions predicated on their ascendancy.

[JRoy]

I tried trading him for a pick but Blazers fans said a '25 1st and taking on the salary in full wasn't enough for Simons

I’m ready to move on from Simons. He can’t play with Scoot or Sharpe.

Simons, for all his flaws, is a vastly better player than Scoot or Sharpe. The Blazers can't be making decisions predicated on their ascendancy.

Better than a rookie and a second year guy?

Maybe so.

The Blazers can’t be making decisions predicated on the mediocrity of Simons.

[Tim Lehrbach]

I’m ready to move on from Simons. He can’t play with Scoot or Sharpe.

Simons, for all his flaws, is a vastly better player than Scoot or Sharpe. The Blazers can't be making decisions predicated on their ascendancy.

Better than a rookie and a second year guy?

Maybe so.

The Blazers can’t be making decisions predicated on the mediocrity of Simons.

The goal of player transactions is to replace your players with better ones. Sure, move on from Simons to improve the roster immediately or with additional prospects, but don't dump players because they are in the way of heretofore lousy ones.

[JRoy]

Simons, for all his flaws, is a vastly better player than Scoot or Sharpe. The Blazers can't be making decisions predicated on their ascendancy.

Better than a rookie and a second year guy?

Maybe so.

The Blazers can’t be making decisions predicated on the mediocrity of Simons.

The goal of player transactions is to replace your players with better ones. Sure, move on from Simons to improve the roster immediately or with additional prospects, but don't dump players because they are in the way of heretofore lousy ones.

Simons is addition by subtraction. Grant and Ayton as well at least cost vs production.

Scoot and Sharpe might or might not be in the same category.

[NYG]

I'd rather they just pay the tax as opposed to giving guys away for little reward.

Brogdon has an expiring contract and Thybulle has a player option after next season
so getting under the tax line won't be a problem after next season.

Is ownership ok paying the tax though?

[NYG]

Simons, for all his flaws, is a vastly better player than Scoot or Sharpe. The Blazers can't be making decisions predicated on their ascendancy.

Better than a rookie and a second year guy?

Maybe so.

The Blazers can’t be making decisions predicated on the mediocrity of Simons.

The goal of player transactions is to replace your players with better ones. Sure, move on from Simons to improve the roster immediately or with additional prospects, but don't dump players because they are in the way of heretofore lousy ones.

So who would you trade to get below the tax?

[Tim Lehrbach]

Better than a rookie and a second year guy?

Maybe so.

The Blazers can’t be making decisions predicated on the mediocrity of Simons.

The goal of player transactions is to replace your players with better ones. Sure, move on from Simons to improve the roster immediately or with additional prospects, but don't dump players because they are in the way of heretofore lousy ones.

So who would you trade to get below the tax?

It depends on what other teams offer. I think Grant and Simons are the most desirable to the greatest number of other teams, but the bench guys are the most expendable and possibly easier for other teams to absorb, opening up more possibilities. There isn't a player on this roster I wouldn't move. My disagreement with JRoy is just over whether dumping Simons is good for the team irrespective of return. I don't believe in "addition by subtraction" unless it involves Ruben Patterson.

[JRoy]

The goal of player transactions is to replace your players with better ones. Sure, move on from Simons to improve the roster immediately or with additional prospects, but don't dump players because they are in the way of heretofore lousy ones.

So who would you trade to get below the tax?

It depends on what other teams offer. I think Grant and Simons are the most desirable to the greatest number of other teams, but the bench guys are the most expendable and possibly easier for other teams to absorb, opening up more possibilities. There isn't a player on this roster I wouldn't move. My disagreement with JRoy is just over whether dumping Simons is good for the team irrespective of return. I don't believe in "addition by subtraction" unless it involves Ruben Patterson.

Fair enough.

Simons has never been a problem off the floor like Patterson. It was not my intent to imply that.

My criticisms of Simons are all basketball related.

[Myth]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2371883

Thybulle, Murray, Walker out. Pick returned from Chicago. $16,034,739 saved.

Blazers definitely aren’t including Walker in that.

[K_chile22]

Why go from a small No d sg to a tiny No d sg?

The tax

Would rather move him for pick(s) and and a worse player. Zero interest in Sexton.

9+one of Jeff or Jock and Houston pays to dump the other somewhere else?

[Myth]

Simons + #14

FOR

#4

Simons and Ball would work well together. If Hornets need a little more, Murray is on the table. As is #33.

Blazers get two bites at the top 5 draft pick apple. Even in this draft, increases odds of at least one being a star.

This is the first one here I definitely do. Probably too good for Portland. They can have 33 AND Murray for this swap.

[Myth]

The simplest way to me seems like it's waiting until the FA dust settles and then sending Brogdon's expiring contract to a cap space team for/with some minor incentive. Sixers, Spurs, Orlando, maybe Detroit all seem like they could use a veteran PG stopgap for a year if they strike out on bigger plans in free agency.

If you want to think bigger, Grant to Philly for cap space + incentives or Simons to Orlando for cap space + incentives both seem plausible.

Portland would want a 1st for Brogdan or a good 1st for Grant or Simons. I'm not sure any team offers them both cap relief and that value.

I think the time for a first for Brogdon has passed. He didn’t play at all since the trade deadline essentially. I’d take a few 2nds and salary relief, but it is possible Blazers keep him as a veteran presence for another partial season to rehab his value.

[Texas Chuck]

Portland is not paying the tax for this team and its just not a reasonable ask for them to do so because you believe Thybulle has more value than he actually does.

Portland has mostly been a competitive team so I know its an unusual spot, but paying tax for this kind of team actually costs the franchise in terms of value. Remember money has tangible value and the amount of money they would be giving up because you couldn't get pick 24 for Thybulle would be significant.

I know it sucks to think you have valuable players but can't realize value because the market doesn't value them as you do. Or it sucks to have to let a decent player go because of finances. But losing Thybulle isn't going to change the Blazers fortunes in terms of w/l or asset accumalation. Its okay.

[DiegoChara]

Simons + #14

FOR

#4

Simons and Ball would work well together. If Hornets need a little more, Murray is on the table. As is #33.

Blazers get two bites at the top 5 draft pick apple. Even in this draft, increases odds of at least one being a star.

This is the first one here I definitely do. Probably too good for Portland. They can have 33 AND Murray for this swap.

This draft is so wonky I don’t know how interested I’d be in paying to move up?

I know it’s kind of a trope that once draft time rolls around, everyone with a later pick says they think they’ll be just as likely to land a good player with their pick as a higher one. And maybe I’m overly influenced by the narrative the draft is bad. I’m sure the actual front office has some strong opinions about the evaluations of the players.

[NYG]

Portland is not paying the tax for this team and its just not a reasonable ask for them to do so because you believe Thybulle has more value than he actually does.

Portland has mostly been a competitive team so I know its an unusual spot, but paying tax for this kind of team actually costs the franchise in terms of value. Remember money has tangible value and the amount of money they would be giving up because you couldn't get pick 24 for Thybulle would be significant.

I know it sucks to think you have valuable players but can't realize value because the market doesn't value them as you do. Or it sucks to have to let a decent player go because of finances. But losing Thybulle isn't going to change the Blazers fortunes in terms of w/l or asset accumalation. Its okay.

Every year the hardest teams to project are the teams that are likely to reduce costs because fans never want to take back less than they send out just to save their owner money. This year I'm finding Miami, Minnesota and Portland as the toughest to project because every time I create yet another thread trying to solve the problem, fans convince me their team won't reduce talent to reduce payroll.

[Norm2953]

I'd rather they just pay the tax as opposed to giving guys away for little reward.

Brogdon has an expiring contract and Thybulle has a player option after next season
so getting under the tax line won't be a problem after next season.

Is ownership ok paying the tax though?

Portland is not in position to dump talent for little reward. Brogdon and likely Thybulle are contracts coming off their books to eliminate the tax issues after next season. What would be worse is dumping guys like Brogdon who provided stability when he played as a coach on the floor. They might have lost 65 games if not for Brogdon

[NYG]

Wiggins and Conditional 1st for Grant?

Wiggins for Maxi, THJ and a 2nd?

[AaronB]

I am a little confused by the premise of this post.

The problem that the Blazers have is not that they are over the cap. The problem is one of culture, and the players who are taking up a lot of the salary cap have not bought into doing what it takes to have a winning team, and most importantly, they are taking up valuable minutes from guys who would buy in and could contribute to winning.

They also have a coach who is not helping the culture.

I would submit that if they gave away the top 4 salaries on their team and replaced them with players with the right mind set, that they would win more games next year than standing pat.

For example, if they gave away Ayton for nothing and replaced him with Goga, they would win more games with Goga starting than Ayton and would have a better future. Goga would come at a fraction of the cost. He would cost the Blazers zero to sign as the Magic are unlikely to compete on any offer over $6M/year as a 3rd string center.

I am not saying Goga is a better player than Ayton, I am just saying that they would win more games with Goga starting at a fraction of the cost.

Grant the same. If the Blazers gave away Grant and replaced him with Fontecchio at a fraction of the cost (how much would Detroit not match?), I think that they would win more games.

Remember, what the Blazers are offering the right free agents is not just money, but also playing time. That is a big deal to guys like Goga. As long as they keep the top 4 salaries, they cannot offer playing time as an incentive to sign with the Blazers.

[AaronB]

Here is a follow-up to my previous post.

The obvious question and possible drawback to my proposition is: "wouldn't it be better to get something for any one of the top 4 contracts than get nothing at all?"

The answer is probably not. The reason is one of timing. In order to get a good return on those top 4 contracts, it will most likely take patience and the teams that are going to deal for those contracts may in fact be looking at the same players that the Blazers want to bring in to play for them.

Keep Ayton too long and Goga signs with another team. So incentivize the transactions, make them relatively free and then aggressively recruit players who will better contribute to winning.

[AaronB]

One final follow-up.

The common accusation at this point against my proposal is "that is not what the Magic did. Why not do what the Magic did?"

While this is true, the Magic were in a completely different situation. They were a bubble team that was never going to be really bad or really good. They were limited to the play-in or just missing the play-in.

The Blazers are a really bad team. They have averaged 55 losses per year over the last 3 years. Something drastic needs to happen before they can move forward.