Zach Collins

[GimmeDat]

Hey guys, Collins was one of my favourite prospects in this draft. He has a rare combination of defensive ability and instincts, and has an underrated jump-shot. I wanted the Bulls to trade up for him when we were at 16. I think you guys made a great move.

Why didn't the Bulls draft Collins at 7 when they had the chance?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A lot of 'why's' going around the Bulls board right now. Personally I would've taken DSJ even in spite of Dunn. Let's just hope Markennen turns out alright.

[ebott]

You don't compound mistakes by letting bad contracts jettison off extremely valuable players (assuming Nurkic builds upon his season).

That's if you're good at managing a basketball team. I am not sure Paul Allen is. There's a bit of a history of this team compounding their mistakes.

[Blazers98]

Nah... they'll find some way to get under the tax before then for a season to break up the repeater. I think the idea that we're just going to keep piling on the tax is a little bit overblown. By this time next year, the roster will be at least $15 million lighter in salary, you can book it.

Turns out the repeater tax is a bit of a misnomer. You don't get into the repeater area until you've been in the tax four years. But even at the "regular" tax level you get to that 3 for 1 area after you're 15 million over. They are a bit under that right now. Ed Davis is expiring so we'll be another 7 under. So if they lose Aminu or leonard they'll be 15 to 18 under. So only 7 million of that theoretical 25 will be in the triple penalty area. But you're paying 21 million tax on that 7 million. the 5 million before that will be 10 million in tax and the 5 million before that at 5 mil. For a total tax of 36 million. So they'd effectively have to pay 51 million for Nurk to stick around.

So I feel like we didn't just draft Collins because we thought he was the best player available. We did specifically go after him because he is a center. I think if we were confident that we were resigning Nurkic we might have stayed at 15 and 20 to take the guys that Sacramento ended up with. Not that it's a foregone conclusion that we're not going to resign Nurkic. We just made a move to hedge our bets a little.

I had that same thought about Nurk. Who knows but I wouldn't be surprised if that thinking was in the back of his mind just a little bit. To be fair, it would be a good thing to have Collins prove he is a starting calibre center after one year. Those bad contracts are such an albatross around the neck.

[d-train]

That's if you're good at managing a basketball team. I am not sure Paul Allen is. There's a bit of a history of this team compounding their mistakes.

Please explain the compounding mistakes Blazers have a history of making.

[Wizenheimer]

Nah... they'll find some way to get under the tax before then for a season to break up the repeater. I think the idea that we're just going to keep piling on the tax is a little bit overblown. By this time next year, the roster will be at least $15 million lighter in salary, you can book it.

Turns out the repeater tax is a bit of a misnomer. You don't get into the repeater area until you've been in the tax four years. But even at the "regular" tax level you get to that 3 for 1 area after you're 15 million over. They are a bit under that right now. Ed Davis is expiring so we'll be another 7 under. So if they lose Aminu or leonard they'll be 15 to 18 under. So only 7 million of that theoretical 25 will be in the triple penalty area. But you're paying 21 million tax on that 7 million. the 5 million before that will be 10 million in tax and the 5 million before that at 5 mil. For a total tax of 36 million. So they'd effectively have to pay 51 million for Nurk to stick around.

So I feel like we didn't just draft Collins because we thought he was the best player available. We did specifically go after him because he is a center. I think if we were confident that we were resigning Nurkic we might have stayed at 15 and 20 to take the guys that Sacramento ended up with. Not that it's a foregone conclusion that we're not going to resign Nurkic. We just made a move to hedge our bets a little.

looks like you might be mixing up some tax years, or at least you're mixing me up...

for next season, with a 99M cap, the tax threshold will be about 119M. Portland is right around 133M in guaranteed salary right now. But that doesn't count Connaughton/Quarterman, Collins, & Swanigan. Assume they keep Connaughton. So, 134.4M. The rookie scale for Collins and Swanigan under the current CBA is a bit over 2.2M and 1M respectively. But the new CBA will raise rookie scale amounts 45%, phased in over 3 years. And Paul Allen has historically always give 1st round picks the max, with the max being 20% above scale IIRC. So, Collins and Swanigan will likely bump Portland's cap to around 138.5M. That's about 19.5M over the tax threshold

so, without any trades, Portland's tax hit next season would be around:

5 X 1.5 = 7.5M
+ 5 X 1.75 = 8.75M
+ 5 X 2.5 = 12.5M
+ 4.5 X 3.25 = 14.63M

43.38M in luxury tax....that's a hefty tax bill

now, as many have said repeatedly, Paul Allen had to have known the risks when he signed off on Olshey's spending spree. That's perfectly logical

but a couple of factors have changed a lot. Last summer, when he agreed to those deals, the NBA was projecting a 108M salary cap for next season. By the beginning of the season, that projection had dropped to 103M. By sometime in February, the projection had dropped to 101M. And now, it's down to 99M. That essentially equals a 10M drop in the tax threshold, so when PA was looking at those contracts, he was looking at a 16-18M tax bill for this season, and not looking at an extension for Nurkic the following season

and of course, another factor was that those signings took place shortly after a feel good close to the season. I'd bet the Blazer front office was projecting 50 wins for this year's Blazers. Plenty of people here were too. But while 2015-16 may have showed the potential, this season introduced some reality. And some of that reality is that Turner was not near as good a fit as they projected; and that Meyers is the disaster he's always been (I still can't believe Olshey didn't see that)

so Paul Allen is likely looking at things thru a very different lens now then he was.

now, the Blazers had the kind of draft I was hoping for: they didn't use the picks to dump salary. The problem is that I believe the Blazers would have to significantly incentivize any trade that sends out Turner and/or Meyers. And I think they'd have to incentivize a trade for Crabbe if they weren't willing to take back significant salary. But if you think that PA is probably not willing to pay 40M+ in tax for this current team next year, either the Blazers are going to incentivize a trade of a bad contract (and I don't think they have very good incentives) or trade some combination of Harkless/Aminu/Davis. And that would make Portland a worse team making a big tax bill harder to swallow

I'll admit I have no real clue what PA's tolerance for tax will be next season. If Portland looks like a top-4 seed, it may be pretty high. But if they come out and crap the bed over the first half of the season, like they have the last 2 seasons, that tolerance won't be nearly as high

the big issue is what happens the following year if no significant changes are made. The tax threshold is projected to be around 121M. Dame+CJ+Crabbe+Turner+Meyers+Harkless+Aminu+Collins+Swanigan+(Varejao) = 125-126M in guaranteed money. Add Nurkic at 25M and it's up to 150M. But that's only for 10 players with only 3 guards and no backup PG. Filling out the roster would probably bump Portland up over 160M. 40M over the tax threshold =

5 X 1.5 = 7.5M
+ 5 X 1.75 = 8.75M
+ 5 X 2.5 = 12.5M
+ 5 X 3.25 = 16.25M
+ 5 X 3.75M = 18.75M
+ 5 X 4.25 = 21.25M
+ 5 X 4.75 = 23.75M
+ 5 X 5.25 = 26.25M

135M in luxury tax...LOL...well, we know that won't happen. But to avoid it, Portland is going to have to trade a decent player or two, dump at least 2 if not all three of the albatross contracts, and probably be willing to take back some salary and use the stretch provision

it's going to be interesting, that's for sure

[Norm2953]

I'd be interesting to see what Portland does at SF if they project Nurkic and Collins to be
their starters in 2019 when free agency will have brought the GSW back towards the
pack. We're still missing that classic Nic Batum type of wing with size and the long arms
to play defense at the 1-3. Closest thing we have to such a player is Harkless, who likely
is best as the first forward off the bench.

Collins should do fine as the starter at PF who can slide to center when Nurkic goes out
or perhaps stay at PF if Swanigan comes along as a small ball 5.

[bob2]

135M in luxury tax...LOL...well, we know that won't happen. But to avoid it, Portland is going to have to trade a decent player or two, dump at least 2 if not all three of the albatross contracts, and probably be willing to take back some salary and use the stretch provision.it's going to be interesting, that's for sure

To be honest, things aren't as bad as they look here.
For example, If Portland managed to dump Crabbe to a team with cap space (this may be possible since Crabbe isn't a bad player and he would only have 1.5 left on his contract), this would immediately reduce the tax bill by nearly 90M$ and the payroll by 19M$ (saving Paul Allen over 100M$).
It's quite obvious that Olshey will try to reduce the Blazers salary obligations over the next 18 months but he won't need as drastic measures as some may think.

[Wizenheimer]

135M in luxury tax...LOL...well, we know that won't happen. But to avoid it, Portland is going to have to trade a decent player or two, dump at least 2 if not all three of the albatross contracts, and probably be willing to take back some salary and use the stretch provision.it's going to be interesting, that's for sure

To be honest, things aren't as bad as they look here.
For example, If Portland managed to dump Crabbe to a team with cap space (this may be possible since Crabbe isn't a bad player and he would only have 1.5 left on his contract), this would immediately reduce the tax bill by nearly 90M$ and the payroll by 19M$ (saving Paul Allen over 100M$).
It's quite obvious that Olshey will try to reduce the Blazers salary obligations over the next 18 months but he won't need as drastic measures as some may think.

you're assuming that Portland could dump Crabbe for a giant TPE. At that time, Crabbe's cap charge would be 22.15M. That's a huge amount, very likely way too big to be absorbed into another team's space without Portland taking back significant salary...and probably sending out some incentive as well. For instance, right now there are only 3 teams with more than 10M in cap-space. Utah has the most at 13.5M. And this is only the 1st season where the new TV revenue has been pushing salaries up and league-wide cap-space down. There are two more free agent markets between now and when Crabbe has 1.5 years left on his deal, and it's inevitable as teams accumulate new-age salaries, available cap-space with shrink

at that point, Portland might be able to trade Crabbe and Aminu for enough salary reduction to get to that 30-50M tax bill instead of the 100-135M range. But those are two useful players and it's unlikely Portland will be getting equal talent back, even if they incentivize the trades with a pick or two. Negative value trades

that's why I mentioned the stretch provision. For example, if by some miracle the Knicks were interested in trading Joachim Noah for Turner and Leonard, the difference between Turner+Leonard's salaries and Noah's stretch amount is around 21M a year...a little better then what you're calculating for the Crabbe trade. It would suck for Portland to have to carry Noah at 7.6M for 5 years but Portland isn't going get out of last summer's miscalculations without some pain, IMO

[Blazers98]

135M in luxury tax...LOL...well, we know that won't happen. But to avoid it, Portland is going to have to trade a decent player or two, dump at least 2 if not all three of the albatross contracts, and probably be willing to take back some salary and use the stretch provision.it's going to be interesting, that's for sure

To be honest, things aren't as bad as they look here.
For example, If Portland managed to dump Crabbe to a team with cap space (this may be possible since Crabbe isn't a bad player and he would only have 1.5 left on his contract), this would immediately reduce the tax bill by nearly 90M$ and the payroll by 19M$ (saving Paul Allen over 100M$).
It's quite obvious that Olshey will try to reduce the Blazers salary obligations over the next 18 months but he won't need as drastic measures as some may think.

you're assuming that Portland could dump Crabbe for a giant TPE. At that time, Crabbe's cap charge would be 22.15M. That's a huge amount, very likely way too big to be absorbed into another team's space without Portland taking back significant salary...and probably sending out some incentive as well. For instance, right now there are only 3 teams with more than 10M in cap-space. Utah has the most at 13.5M. And this is only the 1st season where the new TV revenue has been pushing salaries up and league-wide cap-space down. There are two more free agent markets between now and when Crabbe has 1.5 years left on his deal, and it's inevitable as teams accumulate new-age salaries, available cap-space with shrink

at that point, Portland might be able to trade Crabbe and Aminu for enough salary reduction to get to that 30-50M tax bill instead of the 100-135M range. But those are two useful players and it's unlikely Portland will be getting equal talent back, even if they incentivize the trades with a pick or two. Negative value trades

that's why I mentioned the stretch provision. For example, if by some miracle the Knicks were interested in trading Joachim Noah for Turner and Leonard, the difference between Turner+Leonard's salaries and Noah's stretch amount is around 21M a year...a little better then what you're calculating for the Crabbe trade. It would suck for Portland to have to carry Noah at 7.6M for 5 years but Portland isn't going get out of last summer's miscalculations without some pain, IMO

So what you are saying is Noah and his terrible contract, with stretch provision, is one way to mitigate the tax purgatory we are in. God help us. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. I agree, getting out of some of the awful decisions made last year will be very hard to do. First, is recognizing and owning the mistake and it is unclear if Olshey has done that yet.

[Wizenheimer]

So what you are saying is Noah and his terrible contract, with stretch provision, is one way to mitigate the tax purgatory we are in. God help us. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. I agree, getting out of some of the awful decisions made last year will be very hard to do. First, is recognizing and owning the mistake and it is unclear if Olshey has done that yet.

well, I really wasn't aware that Phil Jackson may have an interest in Turner. I know he's always like bigger ball-handlers for the triangle so I guess it's logical, but at least a couple of posters here mentioned there may be some traction in this idea

if that's true (and even if it wasn't much) I'm sure the Knicks would jump at the opportunity to swap Nah for Turner. Adding Meyers was what could equalize the trade from a Blazer perspective. Somebody on the trade forum proposed that very trade with Portland adding a future 2nd. Somewhat surprisingly, at least two, maybe three Knicks fans were OK with it. Maybe translate to the real world.

I think Turner is kind of a square peg when the world is mainly looking for round ones. If there's a team that might like him, maybe there's a way Portland can build a better situation then they are currently in

[dunlop212]

I have probably read every post-draft post about Collins, but there is one comparable I don't think I have seen -- Bill Walton. They are about the same size, and have competitive streak. They both run the floor well, are crafty with the ball, and block shots.

ZC can't pass the ball like Walton, and, of course he was a multi year national POY. Frosh were not eligible when Walton played, so we have no direct comparable. I'm not getting carried away here; I saw Walton play in college, and he is the best I ever saw. But the NBA MVP level of ply did not come until Walton was 25.

But here is one interesting fact. When ZC shows up as and asks for his college number, they are going to point at the rafters at Walton's retired number

[ebott]

That's if you're good at managing a basketball team. I am not sure Paul Allen is. There's a bit of a history of this team compounding their mistakes.

Please explain the compounding mistakes Blazers have a history of making.

Telfair Webster

[Dangeruss]

Collins and Towns have eerily similar stats.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/zach-collins-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/karl-anthony-towns-1.html

Let me help you out.....he's not towns. Time to move on lol

[DusterBuster]

That's if you're good at managing a basketball team. I am not sure Paul Allen is. There's a bit of a history of this team compounding their mistakes.

Please explain the compounding mistakes Blazers have a history of making.

Telfair Webster

That's true, but it's a bit hard compare those to now considering it's likely a 100% new FO staff.

Also John Nash was an incompetent boob. Fans here may have some complaints with Olshey, but he's done far better as GM than John Nash ever did.

[Soulyss]

Hey guys, Collins was one of my favourite prospects in this draft. He has a rare combination of defensive ability and instincts, and has an underrated jump-shot. I wanted the Bulls to trade up for him when we were at 16. I think you guys made a great move.

Why didn't the Bulls draft Collins at 7 when they had the chance?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A lot of 'why's' going around the Bulls board right now. Personally I would've taken DSJ even in spite of Dunn. Let's just hope Markennen turns out alright.

Yeah I was shocked that they picked Markennan after the trade... seems like a piece you put around Butler, not someone you select as an initial building block of a rebuild.

[mojomarc]

I have probably read every post-draft post about Collins, but there is one comparable I don't think I have seen -- Bill Walton. They are about the same size, and have competitive streak. They both run the floor well, are crafty with the ball, and block shots.

ZC can't pass the ball like Walton, and, of course he was a multi year national POY. Frosh were not eligible when Walton played, so we have no direct comparable. I'm not getting carried away here; I saw Walton play in college, and he is the best I ever saw. But the NBA MVP level of ply did not come until Walton was 25.

But here is one interesting fact. When ZC shows up as and asks for his college number, they are going to point at the rafters at Walton's retired number

Walton would have been the starter and the best player on the UCLA team that went undefeated his freshman year. You can argue the MVP play at the NBA level didn't come until he was 25, but he was so massively ahead of where Collins is now as a Freshman that you can't really make a comparison. Heck--Walton came in as a sophomore and averaged 21.5/15.5 as a first year player. I don't think you could legitimately say that is where Collins would have been in a weaker conference had he stayed for next year.

While I think he has the potential to be better as he is a live athlete in comparison, he is a lot closer to John Salley than Bill Walton as a freshman.

[zzaj]

Why didn't the Bulls draft Collins at 7 when they had the chance?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A lot of 'why's' going around the Bulls board right now. Personally I would've taken DSJ even in spite of Dunn. Let's just hope Markennen turns out alright.

Yeah I was shocked that they picked Markennan after the trade... seems like a piece you put around Butler, not someone you select as an initial building block of a rebuild.

Lauri was an incredibly poor pick for the Bulls. There were at least 2 or 3 guys that would have made more sense. I agree DSJ would have been the best pick.

[d-train]

That's if you're good at managing a basketball team. I am not sure Paul Allen is. There's a bit of a history of this team compounding their mistakes.

Please explain the compounding mistakes Blazers have a history of making.

Telfair Webster

I don't understand your point. We drafted Telfair with the 13th pick in 2004, which was not a great draft pick. We drafted Webster with the 6th pick in 2005, which also was not a great draft pick. They were two separate unrelated less than great decisions. Lets call them errors, but they are not compounded errors. You could say hiring John Nash was an error and everything he did was a compounded error. The draft results of two separate draft picks are not related unless you are referring to a repeated process that lead to those picks. The only relationship I see is they were drafted by the same GM and Director of Player Personnel.

[Masterfully]

Please explain the compounding mistakes Blazers have a history of making.

Telfair Webster

I don't understand your point. We drafted Telfair with the 13th pick in 2004, which was not a great draft pick. We drafted Webster with the 6th pick in 2005, which also was not a great draft pick. They were two separate unrelated less than great decisions. Lets call them errors, but they are not compounded errors. You could say hiring John Nash was an error and everything he did was a compounded error. The draft results of two separate draft picks are not related unless you are referring to a repeated process that lead to those picks. The only relationship I see is they were drafted by the same GM and Director of Player Personnel.

There is a widely held belief that Portland passed on Chris Paul and Deron Williams because they had just drafted Telfair.

[d-train]

Telfair Webster

I don't understand your point. We drafted Telfair with the 13th pick in 2004, which was not a great draft pick. We drafted Webster with the 6th pick in 2005, which also was not a great draft pick. They were two separate unrelated less than great decisions. Lets call them errors, but they are not compounded errors. You could say hiring John Nash was an error and everything he did was a compounded error. The draft results of two separate draft picks are not related unless you are referring to a repeated process that lead to those picks. The only relationship I see is they were drafted by the same GM and Director of Player Personnel.

There is a widely held belief that Portland passed on Chris Paul and Deron Williams because they had just drafted Telfair.

There are many widely held beliefs that are 100% BS. Telfair was a less than great pick, but passing on Chris Paul after you have a close look at Telfair everyday for a year is brain dead. I believe we drafted Webster because of a combination of overrating Webster and underrating CP3. Telfair had nothing to do with passing on CP3.