Game 70: Portland vs New York 7:00PM KGW

[Wizenheimer]

Right now the Blazer offense is getting Nurkic the ball about 18-20' from the hoop, what seems like 75% of the time, looking for cutters. It's a good play, but it was defended well by the Knicks tonight. IMO, Stotts needs to tweak that ratio to get Nurkic true post-ups more often. Stotts has a long history of shying away from post-up basketball though, so I doubt that will ever be a main cornerstone of any Blazer offense while he has the reigns.

when i read this all i could about was aldridge in stotts' offense. we constantly complained that aldridge would start his post up 15-18 feet from the basket. but that's exactly what nurkic is doing too, except he's looking to pass because his jumper isn't as reliable as aldridge's. maybe we've given too much crap to aldridge for seemingly to always post up 15-18 feet out, but what if it's by design?

I think it was design...or rather design added to Aldridge's tendencies to settle for jumpers. It's pretty apparent when you look at the average distance of his FGA's:

2010-11 - 9.3 (Nate)
2011-12 - 10.6 (Nate)
2012-13 - 11.7 (Stotts)
2013-14 - 12.5 (Stotts)
2014-15 - 12.8 (Stotts)
2015-16 - 10.0 (Popovich)
2016-17 - 11.6 (Popovich)

and by % of FGA's at the rim:

2010-11 - .320 (Nate)
2011-12 - .281 (Nate)
2012-13 - .215 (Stotts)
2013-14 - .186 (Stotts)
2014-15 - .192 (Stotts)
2015-16 - .279 (Popovich)
2016-17 - .217 (Popovich)

and by offensive rebound rate:

2010-11 - 10.1% (Nate)
2011-12 - 8.6% (Nate)
2012-13 - 7.2% (Stotts)
2013-14 - 7.2% (Stotts)
2014-15 - 7.7% (Stotts)
2015-16 - 9.2% (Popovich)
2016-17 - 8.7% (Popovich)

Aldridge has obviously drifted back outside this season. That may be because Kawhi is driving more and the addition of Gasol and David Lee allows more Aldridge jumpers. Or it could also be that Aldridge's tendencies are more pronounced this year

whatever the reason, it seems pretty obvious that Stotts prefers the perimeter game. Maybe his years in Dallas when they won a championship with a perimeter team has persuaded him that's the way to be successful. I don't know. I do wonder if Stotts is the coach that will get the most out of Nurkic's abilities in the post...I have some serious doubts

[Roy The Natural]

He wasn't doing that for about 1.5 months leading up to his injury... Just FYI.

he has and he hasn't. Seems like he has his good games and his bad ones

His shots went down, so that certainly helps in making it look better...but IMO until Turner averages about 4 assists and two steals a game I won't say that he's being used effectively. He's not a diverse enough scorer to be used as a one-on-one scorer off the bench.

Stotts has never really figured out what to do with Turner, and I don't think that's going to change with Nurkic basically taking up the Plumlee role of 3rd facilitator from the high post.

I was an early advocate of Turner as a starter because I envisioned him in a role similar to Batum from the LA/Lillard team. However, I didn't realize just how ball dominant Turner needs to be in order to be effective. Not only that, he seems to basically need '4-out' in order to have enough space to utilize his patented spin drives. Once he's in the teeth of a defense, he rarely passes.

I have no clue how Stotts should use him other than a second or third scoring option off the bench (behind CJ and Crabbe), or as a once in a blue moon, switch defender against opposing lineups with very tall PGs...he's like a very limited version of Derozan--which makes me glad that Lillard didn't get his wish to play with DeMar on the Blazers.

I do believe that Turner is an awkward fit, although I believe the reasoning is different than many here think it is and has almost nothing to do with CJ or Dame. I think one of Portland's biggest and most glaring issues is it's lack of cutters. The only guys on the team who seem able to cut and finish with regularity are Lillard and CJ. Harkless can at times, he's more mediocre at it than good though. When we signed Turner, most people in Boston raves about his interior passing, saying that it was absolutely phenomenal.

Well, the Blazers don't have the personnel to take advantage of Turner's skills. That makes him an awkward fit. You may be thinking that Turner isn't a good enough player to necessitate building around him, and changing personnel to fit him specifically. I'd argue that the pieces that need to be changed out, are pieces that don't fit the team in general.

I mean it's going to be hard for Turner to pile up assists when he's out there with Vonleh/Aminu/CJ/Crabbe, whenever lineups like that seem to be on the court, the ball always seems to end in a terrible Aminu bumble. Turner's lack of fit to me, seems to have more to do with the lack of offensive personnel around him than it does with CJ/Lillard.

Turner is probably the best passer on the team as far as creativity and ball placement, so he's far from DeRozan in that department. He would probably look a lot better if this team could find a way to get a couple of solid cutting options on the team besides it's 2 guys that teams load up every player on. Miles Bridges could be a really nice option specifically for 3&D&Cutting. Vonleh could also stand to continue to improve his finishing and short corner availability.

Either way, I think we're going to have to get used to him for another year. I doubt Turner's going anywhere this offseason. I'd wager Lemon SHOULD be the target to offload this offseason, possibly Crabbe depending on if Brooklyn is still interested. There's really no rush to offload a ton of salary this offseason. The Blazers have just under 2 years from now to worry about the repeater tax kicking in, and offloading Mustard Lemon's contract this offseason should have them sitting not too far above the luxury line I believe. The rush to move players this offseason bundled with assets, is a little bit naive IMO, there's not much incentive to do so when those contracts will be a their lowest value and the Blazers have no immediate worries with repeater penalties. The first piecemeal out should be Leonard, as he may be the easiest to move... and provides the least to the team.

[Roy The Natural]

To address some points specifically:

And when Batum did use a possession, he was way more efficient then Turner; his career TS% is .560, which is above the NBA average, while Turner's is .490, and that's really quite poor...especially when there are much more efficient options on the floor

Let's be fair here, when Batum was handling the ball, we all know that his TS% was much different than when he wasn't. Batum wasn't getting his own shot off the dribble, and that directly correlates to a difference in TS%. The vast majority Batum's makes were assisted themselves. This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer Batum over Turner, and that Batum spotting up didn't make him a better offensive fit, I just don't think it's fair to compare their numbers in this way. Also, let's not use career percentages here. Batum's best years in Portland were incredible... Batum's last 3 years.. TS% of .514, .546, .531.... Turner's .483, .512, .493. Batum is still markedly better, but he's not that incredibly efficient player that he was, and he hasn't been that in a long time.

I doubt he will ever fit that well in a rotation with Dame and CJ

On the contrary, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Turner has almost no impact on Lillard of CJ offensively. Lillard's stretch of brilliant play has continued even with Turner playing some of his worst ball since the 1st month of the season. McCollum had looked world class with Turner on the floor for the majority of the season as well.

now, this could be a lot more coincidence then correlation.

Probably, not sure it's super fair to take too much stock in anything that happened with handbrace Turner as something with overarching significance.

CJ seems a little more dribble-happy then normal

This has been true since the all-star break, it did not return with Turner, it's been there for a while now.

In fact seeing the chemistry that has developed between Nurkic and Harkless, I really don't like seeing Turner replace Harkless at SF

Agreed, I prefer Turner off the bench. I think he does fine there.

My hunch is that adding Turner's shot-clock-eating iso back into the mix

I don't think this is true.
http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/202323/gamelogs/
You are welcome to scan through every shot that Turner has taken this season, but I think that you'll find many of Turner's iso shots take around 2-4 seconds off the clock (over the past 25-30 games of the season). Turner isn't doing the top of the arch/key 6-10 second ball pounding that a comment like this would suggest.

Personally, I think they need to shed all three of their albatross contract

I half agree, I also agree with 2 out of 3 being probably more realistic. I don't however think that there needs to be a rush to do this all at once. It is Paul Allen's money, and there's very little in incentive to offload 2 of the 3 contracts this offseason. The Blazers are in no immediate danger of a repeater tax, and have just under 2 years to straighten out their luxury tax situation before the repeater tax becomes an issue. For me, unsurprisingly, it seems clear that Mustard Lemon needs to be moved this offseason. He provides almost nothing on a nightly basis, and his $10 million off the books really helps lower the Blazers into a more friendly luxury tax zone next year, even with adding 2 rookie scale contracts to the mix.

Also important to note that shedding 2 out of 3 of those contracts leaves the Blazers with no way of actually replacing the lost players. So unless it is truly believed that shedding Turner or Crabbe and replacing them with a mid-round rookie is a net plus, it's probably not an immediate necessity. Shedding Lemon's contract, and letting Ed Davis expire naturally frees up around 16 million by next offseason. Ezeli's 1 million comes off the books to free up around 17 million. This should be enough to think about resigning Nurkic. Moving Turner and/or Crabbe in next offseason would be a big help, and their contracts should be getting a bit easier to move at that point. Aminu will also be moveable as an expiring contract, if he hasn't been moved already

I'm not sure if the projected luxury in 2018-2019 is still 130 million, but if it is... then we may be looking plausibly okay.

If we project the Blazer salary out that far:

They're sitting at $121 million.

If we take out Aminu and Leonard, we're looking at $103.4 million. Without moving Turner or Crabbe. I'm not sure what the salary will be with let's just say the 15th and 21st slotted picks this year, but you add them to the mix, and then resign Nurkic for let's say 100/4 then we're looking at being just above the line.. WITH Turner and Crabbe. Moving either with 2 years on their contract will be easier than moving them with 3 years... Now resigning Vonleh becomes in interesting conundrum at this point. If he continues to build upon what he's showing right now, it will be interesting to see how that's handled. But Vonleh continuing to develop is a good problem to have IMO.

I'm not sure that the situation is as hopelessly dire as some make it out to be, and I think the Blazers have time to sort out the salary in the meantime. Some might argue that we may just be wasting Lillard and CJ's prime years with this roster... but the reality is, using a litany of assets to offload the contracts doesn't afford the Blazers enough cap room or freedom to effectively overhaul the roster anyways. Then some will point to this offseason and the seemingly disastrous contracts handed out and scream that the Blazers royally screwed themselves into this position, but again.. Even if the Blazers hadn't matched Crabbe or signed Turner, they still weren't going to be in a position to truly build a competitive roster with the cap available, nor were they going to land any FAs of value if they did have the cap, as we've seen far too many times. This teams hopes always resided in the trade/draft department and regardless of what people think, the Blazers aren't in dire straights in that department, they still are going to have options in the trade market. They were always going to be in a bind with the timing of CJ and Lillard's extensions.

Even if I didn't agree with the actual numbers, I'm not sure how much the Blazers could have done differently. Even if they let Crabbe/Leonard walk, and signed no one, I believe that they were going to be in a position to where they were over the salary cap, and minus 2(3) rotation players, who they had no ability to replace. To make it clear, Lemon is a current rotation player, but I don't believe he is deserving of being one which is why I denoted 2(3).

[monopoman]

I agree Roy, I have just been stunned at how pissed off people are with Olshey and those contracts. This team has trouble even getting mid-level guys to even consider playing here, let alone the "big name" free agents like Durant or something. Having some cap space is all nice in theory, but it sure means a hell of a lot more if your team is one of the best in the NBA or a big market team.

While the Crabbe and Turner contracts are not great, not making those signings I think makes this team worse, and it also does not lead to some great signing down the line in most situations. The only contract I think Olshey should have not done at all is probably Leonard, but every other contract while some were overpays help this team compete.

[Roy The Natural]

I agree Roy, I have just been stunned at how pissed off people are with Olshey and those contracts. This team has trouble even getting mid-level guys to even consider playing here, let alone the "big name" free agents like Durant or something. Having some cap space is all nice in theory, but it sure means a hell of a lot more if your team is one of the best in the NBA or a big market team.

While the Crabbe and Turner contracts are not great, not making those signings I think makes this team worse, and it also does not lead to some great signing down the line in most situations. The only contract I think Olshey should have not done at all is probably Leonard, but every other contract while some were overpays help this team compete.

I'd also note that the similarly priced FAs as Turner last year have mostly panned out worse. So in reality, we could have not signed Turner, and that would have helped Paul Allen's wallet, but hurt the team. Unless you believe that Napier or Connaughton are better players than Turner. Which I should make clear, I don't think they are.

[Wizenheimer]

I agree Roy, I have just been stunned at how pissed off people are with Olshey and those contracts. This team has trouble even getting mid-level guys to even consider playing here, let alone the "big name" free agents like Durant or something. Having some cap space is all nice in theory, but it sure means a hell of a lot more if your team is one of the best in the NBA or a big market team.

While the Crabbe and Turner contracts are not great, not making those signings I think makes this team worse, and it also does not lead to some great signing down the line in most situations. The only contract I think Olshey should have not done at all is probably Leonard, but every other contract while some were overpays help this team compete.

this is the argument that always comes forward to defend last summer....it becomes an either/or with the choice seemingly between having those three bad contracts or nobody. It's like if somebody needs a car, they have a budget for the car, then they go out and bust the budget all to hell and buy an ultra-expensive gas-guzzler with no trade-in value. "sure, the car is expensive and it sucks, but it's better then walking". But that's a false choice because buying that albatross car or walking weren't the only options available

first off, the Blazers don't have nearly the trouble signing free agent role players as they do signing starting-level free agents. They can quite often sign those lower tier free agents

then, we look at Crabbe-Turner-Leonard. all 4 year deals totaling 186 million...46.5 million/year. Going by winshares those three have added 5.3 wins to Portland's total. That's something I guess, but is it more wins then much cheaper versions would have cost?

how about

James Johnson - 1 year/4 million - 4.2 winshares
Dwayne Dedmon - 2 years/6 million - 4.6 winshares
Ramon Sessions - 2 years - 12 million - 1.0 winshares

22 million instead of 186 million...13 million then 9 million instead of 46.5 million/year. 9.8 wins instead of 5.3. And that would have left Portland with still having 13 million in cap-space

now, I know the arguments against that 'alternative' reality. Dedmon plays for a team with a lot of wins so there are more winshares to divvy up...skewed result. And, there would have been no guarantee Portland could have signed those guys at those numbers. Well, then add 50% to the contract values of Dedmon and Johnson. A replacement for Sessions could have been had cheaper. And it still would have left Portland with some cap-space

and even if you refuse to believe that alternative would have been possible, there sure as hell were other alternatives that would have cost a fraction of what Portland spent and would have added as many wins. There were a lot of free agents signed last summer:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/30/12052290/nba-free-agent-signings-tracker-2016-rumors

Portland could be right where they are now, win-wise, and still have significant financial flexibility. They would not be in the situation of looking at attaching assets to a bad contract in a trade in order to give them enough breathing room to re-sign Nurkic and perhaps Vonleh

[Roy The Natural]

I agree Roy, I have just been stunned at how pissed off people are with Olshey and those contracts. This team has trouble even getting mid-level guys to even consider playing here, let alone the "big name" free agents like Durant or something. Having some cap space is all nice in theory, but it sure means a hell of a lot more if your team is one of the best in the NBA or a big market team.

While the Crabbe and Turner contracts are not great, not making those signings I think makes this team worse, and it also does not lead to some great signing down the line in most situations. The only contract I think Olshey should have not done at all is probably Leonard, but every other contract while some were overpays help this team compete.

this is the argument that always comes forward to defend last summer....it becomes an either/or with the choice seemingly between having those three bad contracts or nobody. It's like if somebody needs a car, they have a budget for the car, then they go out and bust the budget all to hell and buy an ultra-expensive gas-guzzler with no trade-in value. "sure, the car is expensive and it sucks, but it's better then walking". But that's a false choice because buying that albatross car or walking weren't the only options available

first off, the Blazers don't have nearly the trouble signing free agent role players as they do signing starting-level free agents. They can quite often sign those lower tier free agents

then, we look at Crabbe-Turner-Leonard. all 4 year deals totaling 186 million...46.5 million/year. Going by winshares those three have added 5.3 wins to Portland's total. That's something I guess, but is it more wins then much cheaper versions would have cost?

how about

James Johnson - 1 year/4 million - 4.2 winshares
Dwayne Dedmon - 2 years/6 million - 4.6 winshares
Ramon Sessions - 2 years - 12 million - 1.0 winshares

22 million instead of 186 million...13 million then 9 million instead of 46.5 million/year. 9.8 wins instead of 5.3. And that would have left Portland with still having 13 million in cap-space

now, I know the arguments against that 'alternative' reality. Dedmon plays for a team with a lot of wins so there are more winshares to divvy up...skewed result. And, there would have been no guarantee Portland could have signed those guys at those numbers. Well, then add 50% to the contract values of Dedmon and Johnson. A replacement for Sessions could have been had cheaper. And it still would have left Portland with some cap-space

and even if you refuse to believe that alternative would have been possible, there sure as hell were other alternatives that would have cost a fraction of what Portland spent and would have added as many wins. There were a lot of free agents signed last summer.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/30/12052290/nba-free-agent-signings-tracker-2016-rumors

Portland could be right where they are now, win-wise, and still have significant financial flexibility. They would not be in the situation of looking at attaching assets to a bad contract in a trade in order to give them enough breathing room to re-sign Nurkic and perhaps Vonleh

Okay... sure, but you're putting some real nice hindsight on those signings. James Johnson? Ramon Sessions?... are you kidding?

First off Ramon Sessions sucks... yea, he's ass.. a bad player. He's got a BPM of -4.5. Why would we want to replace Napier with someone who's waaayy worse.

Dedmon would have been nice, and I wanted him at the time. Though he probably should have been the move over Ezeli, not Turner. James Johnson is a meh player having a career year. In hindsight Johnson and Dedmon would've been nice, but that's hindsight... and there's a reason they were signed to those contracts. I hate this view Wiz, this diamond in the rough approach. If we're going to flay the management, let's not do it over unexpected successes, that's just lunacy. It's really hard to hold players like these against Olshey, there's a reason they went for so little.

Another thing, the Blazers can do whatever they want. There's no rule disallowing them from resigning Nurkic and Vonleh. Paul Allen is worth $20 billion, is 64 years old, and has had many cancer scares over the past few years... let's stop making assumptions on what the Blazers will or won't do due to financials. The Blazers don't NEED breathing room, they have Paul Allen, and I'm sure the worst case scenario's were discussed at the onset of last offseason. It probably costs more to maintain Allen's yacht each year than they'll be paying in luxury taxes.

I flat out said, that I didn't agree with the numbers. Or even the player Portland signed (Turner), but let's be serious here with this hindsight stuff. NO ONE was hoping for Dedmon, Johnson, and Sessions. I doubt Sessions would even be on the team at this point. Johnson was a homeless version of Josh Smith, and Dedmon was struggling to find consistent playing time in freaking Orlando. Either way, we'd be smashing the management's head against a brick wall right now, as either way we'd be looking at being the 8th seed and not having the cap, or the ability to change the franchises trajectory.

Either way they still don't have the pieces sans CJ/Lillard to make a bigtime trade, and they're right at, if not over the cap this offseason anyways. If we're going to play the hindsight game, than I can tell you this Wiz, if this team had Dedmon, I can pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't have ended up with Nurkic and the Memphis pick.

I don't know man, your argument just doesn't hold water to me. You can't go back in the past, make all these accusations and assertions based on the offseason, and then still include Nurkic in the conversation, and even though you didn't mention it specifically the Memphis pick.

Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm alone here... but I'll take:

Lillard/Napier
CJ/Crabbe
Harkless/Turner
Vonleh/Aminu
Nurkic/Davis/Leonard

Por/Mem/Cle 1st round picks

over

Lillard/Sessions
CJ/Connaughton
Harkless/Aminu
Johnson/Vonleh
Plumlee/Dedmon/Davis

Por/Cle 1st round pick

and I'll let the 42nd richest man in the world worry about his own wallet.

All the 2nd roster does is kick the can downstream. We still face the same exact problems we did this last offseason, except now they're even more prominent. If Whiteside isn't going to sign here after the season and potential that Portland showed last year, than why on earth is Milsap, or Griffin, or Hayward going to sign here this offseason when the Blazers would have had to offload half the roster (on a team that would still likely be taking a step back from last year) for them to be able to sign with the team anyways.

[Wizenheimer]

if this team had Dedmon, I can pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't have ended up with Nurkic and the Memphis pick.

you can't "guarantee" that.

Denver was shopping Nukic hard. And they were obviously willing to trade him and a pick for Plumlee. We don't even know which side made the original offer. Why wouldn't that trade have happened regardless of if Dedmon was a Blazer?...or Roy Hibbert?...or David Lee? Sure, there wouldn't have been the pressure to trade Plumlee because of tax implications. But Olshey himself has said he's always active in the trade market listening too and making offers...and he obviously has conversations with the Denver front office

Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm alone here... but I'll take:

Lillard/Napier
CJ/Crabbe
Harkless/Turner
Vonleh/Aminu
Nurkic/Davis/Leonard

Por/Mem/Cle 1st round picks

over

Lillard/Sessions or Seth Curry or Sergio Rodriguez or Tim Frazier or Aaron Brooks or Langston Galloway or Randy Foye
CJ/Connaughton and/or Wesley Johnson or Garret Temple or Troy Daniels or Wayne Ellington or Brandon Rush
Harkless/Aminu and/or James Johnson or James Ennis or Joe Johnson or Joe Harris
Johnson/Vonleh and/or Trevor Booker or David Lee or Nene or Tarik Black or Brandon Bass or Terrance Jones
Nurkic/Dedmon/Davis or Roy Hibbert or Willie Reed or Kris Humphries

Por/Cle/Mem 1st round pick

adjusted my side of the scale to reflect the scope of options potentially available. One option I could add to every one of those lines is 'and/or 1-year-contracts-in-place-of-the-albatross-deals' . The reality is doing nothing is often better then doing something poorly

and I'll let the 42nd richest man in the world worry about his own wallet.

that's a misdirected argument

in the same class as saying fans can't criticize NBA coaches because they aren't one

for chrissakes, this is RealGM; it's a website dedicated to having fans discuss what they would do if they were GM's. We have forums here for Trades & Transactions and for CBA discussions. A team going deep into the luxury tax is directly related to the CBA and potential trades and roster flexibility. It's definitely worthy of discussion.

All the 2nd roster does is kick the can downstream. We still face the same exact problems we did this last offseason, except now they're even more prominent.

that's wrong. Portland isn't in the same situation it was in last summer. Then, they had a lot of roster flexibility. They were miles away from the luxury tax and the limits that sets. They will not only be up against it this summer, they will likely be well past it

If Whiteside isn't going to sign here after the season and potential that Portland showed last year, than why on earth is Milsap, or Griffin, or Hayward going to sign here this offseason when the Blazers would have had to offload half the roster (on a team that would still likely be taking a step back from last year) for them to be able to sign with the team anyways.

who said anything about signing guys like that? I didn't. I suppose there's always a first time but the odds are stacked up high against the Blazers solving their talent issues and roster problems thru free agent signings. It will have to be the draft and/or thru trades. And in order to make good trades a team needs to have roster flexibility and attractive trade assets. That's the opposite of being over the tax apron and saddled with some huge negative value contracts

remembering out last 'discussion', I'm not inclined to get into a big back and forth on this. The only reason I responded earlier is because I saw the often repeated meme that what Portland did last summer was one side of an either/or choice between doing what they did or doing nothing. That's a false choice. But when I think about it, if 1 year deals for marginal players is the same as doing nothing...that would have been better then what they did

[Roy The Natural]

Lillard/Sessions or Seth Curry or Sergio Rodriguez or Tim Frazier or Aaron Brooks or Langston Galloway or Randy Foye
CJ/Connaughton and/or Wesley Johnson or Garret Temple or Troy Daniels or Wayne Ellington or Brandon Rush
Harkless/Aminu and/or James Johnson or James Ennis or Joe Johnson or Joe Harris
Johnson/Vonleh and/or Trevor Booker or David Lee or Nene or Tarik Black or Brandon Bass or Terrance Jones
Nurkic/Dedmon/Davis or Roy Hibbert or Willie Reed or Kris Humphries

To me, this is a preposterous level of revisionism, and half the players on this list either suck REALLY badly, or SUCKED really badly at the time of last summer. I don't even understand your point here, what is the point in signing these players you have here? It feels like you sloppily slapped a bunch of decent contracts for below average players in a list. None of these guys meaningfully changes anything about the Blazers situation other than the dent in PA's wallet.

I mean James Ennis played 22 games last year for 3 different teams.
Nene has been on the decline for years and is 34
David Lee?... Really?
Roy Hibbert?... my god, why would we want Hibbert?
Trevor Booker doesn't help immediate flexibility, he's 29 and getting paid $9 million a year...
Wesley Johnson, fail to see how the Blazers could afford a poor man's Harkless on the floor.
Seth Curry, he's having a strong year, but wasn't he thought of as barely in the NBA this summer, after struggling to find minutes on the Kings?
Sergio... rather have Napier, at least he tries to play defense.

that's a misdirected argument

in the same class as saying fans can't criticize NBA coaches because they aren't one

for chrissakes, this is RealGM; it's a website dedicated to having fans discuss what they would do if they were GM's. We have forums here for Trades & Transactions and for CBA discussions. A team going deep into the luxury tax is directly related to the CBA and potential trades and roster flexibility. It's definitely worthy of discussion.

Except the Blazers still have roster flexibility, so you're wrong. It has been explained many times that there are many quite easily achievable ways to get the team under the luxury this offseason, and in the future. This isn't about not being able to criticize GMs, I have no problem with you or anyone else criticizing the front office. But when you say things like this:

give them enough breathing room to re-sign Nurkic and perhaps Vonleh

Well that's patently false, Portland can resign Nurkic, or Vonleh for that matter, they don't need breathing room, they don't need lower payroll. The team has no restrictions whatsoever in resigning its plausibly presumed impact players. Criticize all you want, but this preposterous notion that being over the luxury is completely and utterly crippling is a delusion.

that's wrong. Portland isn't in the same situation it was in last summer. Then, they had a lot of roster flexibility. They were miles away from the luxury tax and the limits that sets. They will not only be up against it this summer, they will likely be well past it

Yea you need to reread that part. All YOUR roster changes do is kick the can was what I was saying. All YOUR suggestions just fill the roster with low budget, low value, low upside players. I'm not sure how flexible your ideas really make the roster. I don't even really understand what you think roster flexibility is?

I mean under the current Blazer roster the Blazers flexibility is diminished due to:
- Lack of cap space
- difficulty in finding enough value for a positive trade

Under your suggestions the Blazer roster flexibility is diminished in the same way:
- Lack of cap space
- difficulty in finding enough value for a positive trade

Is the Blazers payroll less under your scenario?... Sure, does that meaningfully increase their options? I don't really see it. As long as they're above the soft cap, and only have about 2-3 valuable players... they have zero potential to initiate a trade that switches the tier Portland is in competitively.

I didn't. I suppose there's always a first time but the odds are stacked up high against the Blazers solving their talent issues and roster problems thru free agent signings. It will have to be the draft and/or thru trades. And in order to make good trades a team needs to have roster flexibility and attractive trade assets. That's the opposite of being over the tax apron and saddled with some huge negative value contracts

Exactly!!!!

They need to draft well:
- Not hampered whatsoever by salary cap situation.

They need to be able to initiate trades to improve the roster.
- Ummmm, how exactly are they going to attract trades with the hodgepodge list of low budget/low impact players you put together?

I think there's a bit of a cognitive dissonance between the absolutely 100% true relation you make between needing to improve through drafting, trading, and internal development, and the suggestion of filling the team with low value players on low budget contracts. I'm just not seeing how your suggestions lead to the conclusions that you aptly point to.

The ONLY way your scenario actually significantly enhances the chances of anything revolves around trading CJ and a bevy of picks for someone like Paul George, and then trading away whatever's left on the roster for peanuts, and trying to bring in someone like Griffin in the offseason (if/when he declines his PO). I mean those Boston type scenarios are cool and all, I just don't think it's very likely... It's also a tremendous riske in which you give up the farm for George, non one comes in FA, and then he leaves... and the Blazers are ****.

IDK man, I'm thinking of that classic South Park chart right now.

Step 1: Fill the roster with low value, low budget players
Step 2: ??????
Step 3: Profit

What on Earth is step 2? I'm still struggling to see where the Wesley Johnson's and James Ennis' help the Blazers acquire talent through a trade? Or how they affect our drafting ability?

Denver was shopping Nukic hard. And they were obviously willing to trade him and a pick for Plumlee. We don't even know which side made the original offer. Why wouldn't that trade have happened regardless of if Dedmon was a Blazer?...or Roy Hibbert?...or David Lee? Sure, there wouldn't have been the pressure to trade Plumlee because of tax implications. But Olshey himself has said he's always active in the trade market listening too and making offers...and he obviously has conversations with the Denver front office

Don't want to get into a big thing over this, but even if this was possible. I don't think it's fair to mix the Nurkic deal in with the offseason to an optimal timeline, and than use it against or in criticism of the front office. If you want to say that it was possible in the 'what if' dreamy sort of way, sure thing, go ahead. But using the Nurkic deal along with the supposed different moves just doesn't seem right. We can't know whether or not Dedmon and the lower salary figure changes the Blazers situation enough to where they are willing to take the risk on a disgruntled under-performing player, rather than committing to resigning Plumlee, as many on this board, including you lamented not being able to do. The Blazers without huge salary issues could easily have extended Plumlee early in the season, and that could have thrown a wrench into the trade. I think any conversation regarding the team's future that is being derived from a different FA period over this last summer need to exclude Nurkic if they're being used as supporting evidence in the damnation of the front office's decisions. There are quite frankly too many variables between the to time periods to make a reasonable and coherent argument.