lal,min,por

chefy · Post #1 » by **chefy** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:48 am

lal

smith,frye,buckner, min's 2nd pck

min

brown(expiring), lal's 1st

por

doleac(expiring), lal's2nd

Trade ID #4421257

AKBlazerFan · Post #2 » by **AKBlazerFan** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:03 am

What the hell. When is Doleac expiring? I dont think it matters, i am sure we say no. May i ask why Portland does this?

Post #3 » by **Spykes** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:48 am

Awful for Portland.

Teddy KGB · Post #4 » by **Teddy KGB** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:15 pm

Portland is so good now that they're looking to throw away young 'uns? hell, chuck a few this way!

candy for lunch · Post #5 » by **candy for lunch** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:37 pm

I'm pretty sure this is a ploy to get the pride of Central Catholic highschool back to his hometown.

wolves_fan_82au · Post #6 » by **wolves_fan_82au** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:14 pm

ss_maverick wrote:Portland is so good now that they're looking to throw away young 'uns? hell, chuck a few this way!

1 player lol and hes hardley better than half the other players in this trade
even Kwame and smith are better than Frye

still i dont see portland doing this , though there roster is stacked and they need room for there picks so who knows

shrink · Post #7 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:43 pm

I don't know the valuation of the POR guys so I won't touch the valuation part. I will point out though that picking up the MIN or MIA 2nd rounder from the Wolves should be a decent objective for Portland. Yeah, I know they already have three others, but hear me out.

If they bring over Freeland and Rudy Fernandez, keep Taurean Green and Oden's pal McRoberts, POR could be looking at 18 guys on the roster after they sign their draft pick. The MIN and MIA pick look to be 31 and 32, and are the first picks in the second round, allowing these players to get stashed in Europe, and not take up a spot on the roster, or add more guaranteed salary to a team over the lux. Of course, this is the reason they could be valuable to MIN, or several other teams with late first rounders as well.

In addition, POR is over the lux, so any expirings save them double. While Portland fans seem to think their owner is uniquely immune to overpaying, I think the actual head office might not mind trading some of their extra youth to save some money, open a roster space to bring over Rudy, and get some of the best stashable picks for the future. Its a lot better than just cutting a player. I don't know if its Frye through.

candy for lunch · Post #8 » by **candy for lunch** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:40 pm

Dude, Paul Allen is one of the richest men in the world.

How many times does that need to be repeated? O_o

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:12 pm

supersteve wrote:Dude, Paul Allen is one of the richest men in the world.

How many times does that need to be repeated? O_o

If money is meaningless, how come you guys aren't playing at $130 mil?

candy for lunch · Post #10 » by **candy for lunch** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:32 pm

I'm pretty sure the league forbids teams from paying players more than their rookie contracts.

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:41 pm

But if money doesn't matter to "one of the richest men in the world," why hasn't he traded youth for better and more expensive players?

If money doesn't matter to "one of the richest men in the world," the blazers should have been the LAST team in the league to go through a rebuilding process!

cucad8 · Post #12 » by **cucad8** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:01 pm

shrink wrote:But if money doesn't matter to "one of the richest men in the world," why hasn't he traded youth for better and more expensive players?

If money doesn't matter to "one of the richest men in the world," the blazers should have been the LAST team in the league to go through a rebuilding process!

Are you serious? I hope not. But, if so, why would we trade away young talent that is improving for a chance to be a little more competitive now, hurting our chances in the future? Yeah, let's trade Roy, Aldridge, and Oden for more expensive and better players. Good idea. Allen took on an extra 12 or so million dollars in Raef's longer contract just to add Brandon Roy. Allen paid out 30 million dollars to buyout Steve Francis just to get rid of Zach, to make a better fit for Oden and Aldridge. Yet I'm sure the money is burning him up. He paid 3 million dollars a piece for Sergio Rodriguez, and Rudy Fernandez. But the financial aspect i skilling him.
As for rebuilding, look at the Knicks. You don't just throw money at a problem, and have it go away. Anyone that follows basketball would know that. The Blazers had poor management previously that did try throwing around money to improve the team, and keep it from rebuilding, but that money went to Miles, Ratliff, and Zach. You spend over 100 million on those three, and it is clear to see why rebuilding happens. Sure, he cares about money, the same way a lot of people do, but paying an extra 2 million dollar sin tyhe luxury tax is not going to make him give away Channing Frye. Our front office isn't necessarily going to trade youth to save money. They will trade youth in packages to actually try to improve the club. Why is there great value in picking up a high second rounder to stash in Europe? As you pointed out, we have 3 second round picks, which will probably be traded or spent on European players. So we get rid of Frye to stash one more overseas? Brilliant plan.

As for why we aren't playing with a 130 million dollar payroll, well, maybe you don't understand how the cap is structured, but it would be pretty difficult for us to get there with youth. Give it 4 years, and we just might be, and I can bet Paull Allen would be more than willing to pay that if we are winning.

But please, before spouting off about a multi-multi billionaire saving 2 million dollars on the luxury tax, learn something about him.

shrink · Post #13 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:46 pm

I don't think you thought about what I posted.

cucad8 · Post #14 » by **cucad8** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:49 pm

I don't think YOU thought about what you posted, but if you would care to share with the rest of us, than by all means.

shrink · Post #15 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:49 pm

If money is no object to Allen, why did you even have young players at all?

Why didn't you just trade your expensive contracts for other expensive contracts that are more productive, and give those pesky other multi-millionaire owners who care about developing cheaper talent your picks?

If money is no object, you can quickly take back more salary in every trade (up to 125% + $100,000), and use every exception each time it was available, like the MLE?

Post #16 » by **Spykes** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:50 pm

shrink wrote:If they bring over Freeland and Rudy Fernandez, keep Taurean Green and Oden's pal McRoberts, POR could be looking at 18 guys on the roster after they sign their draft pick. The MIN and MIA pick look to be 31 and 32, and are the first picks in the second round, allowing these players to get stashed in Europe, and not take up a spot on the roster, or add more guaranteed salary to a team over the lux. Of course, this is the reason they could be valuable to MIN, or several other teams with late first rounders as well.

They won't be bringing over Freeland and its unlikely they keep either Green or McRoberts into next season.

I really don't get your incessant need to call out Blazer fans like this shrink. I'm glad you know a ton about the salary cap and luxury tax, but the simple fact is that the Blazers aren't run like most other NBA franchises. They just aren't.

shrink wrote:If money is no object to Allen, why did you even have young players at all?

Why didn't you just trade your expensive contracts for other expensive contracts that are more productive, and give those pesky other multi-millionaire owners who care about developing cheaper talent your picks?

If money is no object, you can quickly take back more salary in every trade (up to 125% + $100,000), and use every exception each time it was available, like the MLE?

Why in the world would Portland do this when they have a winning team of cheap young players right now? This argument you're proposing is absolutely ludicrous considering the current state of the Blazers.

I'm sure you're getting ready with a condescending post of some sort to continue this pointless argument, but this will be the only post I'm going to make on the matter here. There's no need to feed this anymore than it already has been.

cucad8 · Post #17 » by **cucad8** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:54 pm

Maybe because we have an intelligent GM? I dunno. :noway:

Paul Allen's goal isn't to try to spend the most, it is to win. He is WILLING to spend the most, if it comes to that. That doesn't mean he HAS to. Understand? It isn't a contest to have the highest salary. He finally got a management team in place that will try to spend WISELY, instead of just spending to spend, like Isiah. Somehow, this is lost on you when people say money isn't an object to him. Sure, we can spend the MLE every year, but if there isn't a fit for the team, then why bother?

shrink · Post #18 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:54 pm

Spykes wrote: I'm glad you know a ton about the salary cap and luxury tax, but the simple fact is that the Blazers aren't run like most other NBA franchises. They just aren't.

I know you'd like to believe that, and it gives you fans a secure feeling. But if it was true, your owner truly didn't care about money, he would have acted more like I suggested in my last post. There'd be no need whatsoever to go through "rebuilding" or have a single bad season or two.

EVERY owner in the league has plenty of money, so they could all ignore the lux if they wanted to. But they don't. Even Paul Allen has respected the lux in the past. Argueing "he's so rich, we're completely different than any other team," I feel, is completely wishful thinking, and does not correspond with the evidence of how he's acted in the past.

shrink · Post #19 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:56 pm

cucad8 wrote:Maybe because we have an intelligent GM? I dunno. :noway:

Paul Allen's goal isn't to try to spend the most, it is to win. He is WILLING to spend the most, if it comes to that. That doesn't mean he HAS to. Understand? It isn't a contest to have the highest salary. He finally got a management team in place that will try to spend WISELY, instead of just spending to spend, like Isiah. Somehow, this is lost on you when people say money isn't an object to him. Sure, we can spend the MLE every year, but if there isn't a fit for the team, then why bother?

Cucad, stop for five minutes and digest what I posted. Then try again.

WHY would he go through a rebuilding (i.e. NOT winning for a while) if money did not matter?

Post #20 » by **Spykes** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:57 pm

cucad8 wrote:Maybe because we have an intelligent GM? I dunno.

Paul Allen's goal isn't to try to spend the most, it is to win. He is WILLING to spend the most, if it comes to that. That doesn't mean he HAS to. Understand? It isn't a contest to have the highest salary. He finally got a management team in place that will try to spend WISELY, instead of just spending to spend, like Isiah. Somehow, this is lost on you when people say money isn't an object to him. Sure, we can spend the MLE every year, but if there isn't a fit for the team, then why bother?

Trust me, trying to reason with shrink is like talking to a wall. He won't listen to anyone but himself.