2019 Offseason, June 30th 3PM PT.

[d-train]

I think we should try to move CJ for a solid younger player and "some" capspace

Your proposal is ignorant of the CBA rules. We wouldn't have cap room is we traded CJ and got nothing back. Additionally, cap room without players to attract the best free agents isn't worth much.

It's not ignorant of the CBA rules at all. It's very possible within the CBA. It's a matter of whether or not a team would be willing to make that trade. For example, this summer Portland could trade CJ to the Lakers for Brandon Ingram (not saying they should), assuming the Lakers strike out in free agency. That would save the Blazers roughly 20 million in cap space, give them a starting SF, allow the Blazers to re-sign all of their players, and bump their MLE from the tax payer level to the standard. That was just the first team right off the top of my head. there are a bunch of teams who will have cap space, and the ability to make a move like this. I'm not saying it's the right move, or that the other team will do it. But, that is well within the CBA rules, and it does allow you to get better players in free agency at the same time.

You can't save something you don't have. If the Blazers made the trade you propose, we would still be $20M over the cap. IOW, we would have no cap space. This $20M over the cap is the number before resigning any of our free agents. If we made the trade you propose and renounced all of our free agents, we would still be over the cap, IOW no cap space.

Edit: Your trade would be great for the Lakers.

[d-train]

Let's be honest though, with LeBron on board, the Lakers are going to get a top free agent this summer.

[Fitz303]

Your proposal is ignorant of the CBA rules. We wouldn't have cap room is we traded CJ and got nothing back. Additionally, cap room without players to attract the best free agents isn't worth much.

It's not ignorant of the CBA rules at all. It's very possible within the CBA. It's a matter of whether or not a team would be willing to make that trade. For example, this summer Portland could trade CJ to the Lakers for Brandon Ingram (not saying they should), assuming the Lakers strike out in free agency. That would save the Blazers roughly 20 million in cap space, give them a starting SF, allow the Blazers to re-sign all of their players, and bump their MLE from the tax payer level to the standard. That was just the first team right off the top of my head. there are a bunch of teams who will have cap space, and the ability to make a move like this. I'm not saying it's the right move, or that the other team will do it. But, that is well within the CBA rules, and it does allow you to get better players in free agency at the same time.

You can't save something you don't have. If the Blazers made the trade you propose, we would still be $20M over the cap. IOW, we would have no cap space. This $20M over the cap is the number before resigning any of our free agents. If we made the trade you propose and renounced all of our free agents, we would still be over the cap, IOW no cap space.

Edit: Your trade would be great for the Lakers.

It would get them well under the luxury tax, allowing them to retain all of their current players without issue, while ALSO increasing the amount of money that they can offer a free agent (full MLE as opposed to tax payer MLE). It saves them a ton of money and opens up space within their cap (capspace) to afford them the luxury of signing a more expensive free agent (while also keeping all of their current players)

[Fitz303]

Let's be honest though, with LeBron on board, the Lakers are going to get a top free agent this summer.

Ok swap out the Lakers with Magic, Bulls, Hawks, etc.... There are a ton of those possibilities

[d-train]

It's not ignorant of the CBA rules at all. It's very possible within the CBA. It's a matter of whether or not a team would be willing to make that trade. For example, this summer Portland could trade CJ to the Lakers for Brandon Ingram (not saying they should), assuming the Lakers strike out in free agency. That would save the Blazers roughly 20 million in cap space, give them a starting SF, allow the Blazers to re-sign all of their players, and bump their MLE from the tax payer level to the standard. That was just the first team right off the top of my head. there are a bunch of teams who will have cap space, and the ability to make a move like this. I'm not saying it's the right move, or that the other team will do it. But, that is well within the CBA rules, and it does allow you to get better players in free agency at the same time.

You can't save something you don't have. If the Blazers made the trade you propose, we would still be $20M over the cap. IOW, we would have no cap space. This $20M over the cap is the number before resigning any of our free agents. If we made the trade you propose and renounced all of our free agents, we would still be over the cap, IOW no cap space.

Edit: Your trade would be great for the Lakers.

It would get them well under the luxury tax, allowing them to retain all of their current players without issue, while ALSO increasing the amount of money that they can offer a free agent (full MLE as opposed to tax payer MLE). It saves them a ton of money and opens up space within their cap (capspace) to afford them the luxury of signing a more expensive free agent (while also keeping all of their current players)

Getting below the luxury tax doesn't do anything to improve the team. Maybe, if we get below the luxury tax we can resign Kanter, but the only way we resign Kanter, Hood, and Curry is if Hood and Curry accept the non-bird exception. That's 3 big IFS. And, it obviously has no value to trade CJ to get under the luxury tax. We could get under the luxury tax by trading players whose loss would not devastate the team the way losing CJ would.

[Fitz303]

You can't save something you don't have. If the Blazers made the trade you propose, we would still be $20M over the cap. IOW, we would have no cap space. This $20M over the cap is the number before resigning any of our free agents. If we made the trade you propose and renounced all of our free agents, we would still be over the cap, IOW no cap space.

Edit: Your trade would be great for the Lakers.

It would get them well under the luxury tax, allowing them to retain all of their current players without issue, while ALSO increasing the amount of money that they can offer a free agent (full MLE as opposed to tax payer MLE). It saves them a ton of money and opens up space within their cap (capspace) to afford them the luxury of signing a more expensive free agent (while also keeping all of their current players)

Getting below the luxury tax doesn't do anything to improve the team. Maybe, if we get below the luxury tax we can resign Kanter, but the only way we resign Kanter, Hood, and Curry is if Hood and Curry accept the non-bird exception. That's 3 big IFS. And, it obviously has no value to trade CJ to get under the luxury tax. We could get under the luxury tax by trading players whose loss would not devastate the team the way losing CJ would.

Your argument was that such an idea was "ignorant to the CBA rules". They simply are not. Your outlook on how good of decision it would be to trade CJ for a, lower paid, solid young player, while allowing the Blazers to re-sign Hood and possibly Curry with the MLE, is your opinion. I'm simply stating that Blazinaway's idea is easily within the CBA rules, and does increase the Blazers amount of money allowed to offer free agents this offseason.

[d-train]

I'm simply stating that Blazinaway's idea is easily within the CBA rules, and does increase the Blazers amount of money allowed to offer free agents this offseason.

Being within the CBA rules is not the same as creating cap room. You have to ignore the CBA to think we can create cap room by trading CJ. Olshey can't ignore the CBA.

The CBA does allow 2-tiers of MLE's. Blazers can increase the size of their MLE by getting below the tax, but that isn't creating cap space or saving cap space. An exception is only applicable to teams without cap space. Olshey has to be practical with the decisions he makes. Olshey would only want to get below the tax if doing so achieves an objective. It wouldn't make any sense to trade CJ to get below the tax. It might make sense to trade lesser important players if the result would be, getting below the tax because Kanter would resign for the larger MLE. Notice the "if" in that statement.

[Fitz303]

I'm simply stating that Blazinaway's idea is easily within the CBA rules, and does increase the Blazers amount of money allowed to offer free agents this offseason.

Being within the CBA rules is not the same as creating cap room. You have to ignore the CBA to think we can create cap room by trading CJ. Olshey can't ignore the CBA.

The CBA does allow 2-tiers of MLE's. Blazers can increase the size of their MLE by getting below the tax, but that isn't creating cap space or saving cap space. An exception is only applicable to teams without cap space. Olshey has to be practical with the decisions he makes. Olshey would only want to get below the tax if doing so achieves an objective. It wouldn't make any sense to trade CJ to get below the tax. It might make sense to trade lesser important players if the result would be, getting below the tax because Kanter would resign for the larger MLE. Notice the "if" in that statement.

Trading CJ for less salary CREATES CAP ROOM. Until you hit the hard cap, there is space within that cap to add to the roster. Making this kind of move does increase cap space for the team. It won't create cap space to outright sign a free agent with money from being below the standard salary cap, however, it creates cap space allowing the ability to take back more money in a trade than it would if you were over the luxury salary cap, and allowing for a larger MLE.. If you want to continue to argue such a worthless point, I've got a pretty slow day here at work, and can continue to show why you calling someone ignorant of CBA rules was just flat out wrong. I'd rather just move on from this and acknowledge that you don't believe that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player is a good idea, while some believe it's almost necessary

[d-train]

I'm simply stating that Blazinaway's idea is easily within the CBA rules, and does increase the Blazers amount of money allowed to offer free agents this offseason.

Being within the CBA rules is not the same as creating cap room. You have to ignore the CBA to think we can create cap room by trading CJ. Olshey can't ignore the CBA.

The CBA does allow 2-tiers of MLE's. Blazers can increase the size of their MLE by getting below the tax, but that isn't creating cap space or saving cap space. An exception is only applicable to teams without cap space. Olshey has to be practical with the decisions he makes. Olshey would only want to get below the tax if doing so achieves an objective. It wouldn't make any sense to trade CJ to get below the tax. It might make sense to trade lesser important players if the result would be, getting below the tax because Kanter would resign for the larger MLE. Notice the "if" in that statement.

Trading CJ for less salary CREATES CAP ROOM. Until you hit the hard cap, there is space within that cap to add to the roster. Making this kind of move does increase cap space for the team. It won't create cap space to outright sign a free agent with money from being below the standard salary cap, however, it creates cap space allowing the ability to take back more money in a trade than it would if you were over the luxury salary cap, and allowing for a larger MLE.. If you want to continue to argue such a worthless point, I've got a pretty slow day here at work, and can continue to show why you calling someone ignorant of CBA rules was just flat out wrong. I'd rather just move on from this and acknowledge that you don't believe that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player is a good idea, while some believe it's almost necessary

Your definition of cap space is BS. There is only one kind of cap space and that is the room under the salary cap that can be used to sign free agents.

The NBA doesn't have a hard cap unless a team elects to be subject to a hard cap. The only reason a team would elect to be subject to a hard cap is if they know they won't have any reason to spend money above the apron. So, IOW, the NBA doesn't have a hard cap.

[d-train]

If you want to continue to argue such a worthless point, I've got a pretty slow day here at work, and can continue to show why you calling someone ignorant of CBA rules was just flat out wrong. I'd rather just move on from this and acknowledge that you don't believe that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player is a good idea, while some believe it's almost necessary

Some of your points are worthless because I think you don't understand the CBA.

I would be willing to trade CJ for any player that is better. Especially, a better player with a lesser salary.

[Fitz303]

Being within the CBA rules is not the same as creating cap room. You have to ignore the CBA to think we can create cap room by trading CJ. Olshey can't ignore the CBA.

The CBA does allow 2-tiers of MLE's. Blazers can increase the size of their MLE by getting below the tax, but that isn't creating cap space or saving cap space. An exception is only applicable to teams without cap space. Olshey has to be practical with the decisions he makes. Olshey would only want to get below the tax if doing so achieves an objective. It wouldn't make any sense to trade CJ to get below the tax. It might make sense to trade lesser important players if the result would be, getting below the tax because Kanter would resign for the larger MLE. Notice the "if" in that statement.

Trading CJ for less salary CREATES CAP ROOM. Until you hit the hard cap, there is space within that cap to add to the roster. Making this kind of move does increase cap space for the team. It won't create cap space to outright sign a free agent with money from being below the standard salary cap, however, it creates cap space allowing the ability to take back more money in a trade than it would if you were over the luxury salary cap, and allowing for a larger MLE.. If you want to continue to argue such a worthless point, I've got a pretty slow day here at work, and can continue to show why you calling someone ignorant of CBA rules was just flat out wrong. I'd rather just move on from this and acknowledge that you don't believe that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player is a good idea, while some believe it's almost necessary

Your definition of cap space is BS. There is only one kind of cap space and that is the room under the salary cap that can be used to sign free agents.

The NBA doesn't have a hard cap unless a team elects to be subject to a hard cap. The only reason a team would elect to be subject to a hard cap is if they know they won't have any reason to spend money above the apron. So, IOW, the NBA doesn't have a hard cap.

Just because you don't have the cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to take back 175% of salary (under the luxury tax) in trade, as opposed to 125% of salary (over the luxury tax) in trade.

Just because you don't have cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to allow you to sign a free agent to a $37.24 Million salary over 4 years (under the luxury tax), as opposed to signing a free agent to a $16.83 Million salary over 3 years (over the luxury tax).

[d-train]

Trading CJ for less salary CREATES CAP ROOM. Until you hit the hard cap, there is space within that cap to add to the roster. Making this kind of move does increase cap space for the team. It won't create cap space to outright sign a free agent with money from being below the standard salary cap, however, it creates cap space allowing the ability to take back more money in a trade than it would if you were over the luxury salary cap, and allowing for a larger MLE.. If you want to continue to argue such a worthless point, I've got a pretty slow day here at work, and can continue to show why you calling someone ignorant of CBA rules was just flat out wrong. I'd rather just move on from this and acknowledge that you don't believe that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player is a good idea, while some believe it's almost necessary

Your definition of cap space is BS. There is only one kind of cap space and that is the room under the salary cap that can be used to sign free agents.

The NBA doesn't have a hard cap unless a team elects to be subject to a hard cap. The only reason a team would elect to be subject to a hard cap is if they know they won't have any reason to spend money above the apron. So, IOW, the NBA doesn't have a hard cap.

Just because you don't have the cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to take back 175% of salary (under the luxury tax) in trade, as opposed to 125% of salary (over the luxury tax) in trade.

Just because you don't have cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to allow you to sign a free agent to a $37.24 Million salary over 4 years (under the luxury tax), as opposed to signing a free agent to a $16.83 Million salary over 3 years (over the luxury tax).

You are not talking about cap space. You are talking about exceptions to the salary cap. Some exceptions are automatic and some are created. The CBA mostly limits automatic exceptions for tax teams and apron teams, but the CBA only limits created exceptions that are created by trade. Even then, the additional limitations on exceptions isn't very meaningful.

[Fitz303]

Your definition of cap space is BS. There is only one kind of cap space and that is the room under the salary cap that can be used to sign free agents.

The NBA doesn't have a hard cap unless a team elects to be subject to a hard cap. The only reason a team would elect to be subject to a hard cap is if they know they won't have any reason to spend money above the apron. So, IOW, the NBA doesn't have a hard cap.

Just because you don't have the cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to take back 175% of salary (under the luxury tax) in trade, as opposed to 125% of salary (over the luxury tax) in trade.

Just because you don't have cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to allow you to sign a free agent to a $37.24 Million salary over 4 years (under the luxury tax), as opposed to signing a free agent to a $16.83 Million salary over 3 years (over the luxury tax).

You are not talking about cap space. You are talking about exceptions to the salary cap. Some exceptions are automatic and some are created. The CBA mostly limits automatic exceptions for tax teams and apron teams, but the CBA only limits created exceptions that are created by trade. Even then, the additional limitations on exceptions isn't very meaningful.

There are the semantics we've been waiting for. So would you have been happy if the verbiage was more "salary cap maneuverability" as opposed to "capspace"? Would that have been satisfactory for you?

[d-train]

I didn't say that very well. The CBA limits exceptions created by trade for teams that are above the tax or apron threshold.

[d-train]

Just because you don't have the cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to take back 175% of salary (under the luxury tax) in trade, as opposed to 125% of salary (over the luxury tax) in trade.

Just because you don't have cap space to outright sign a free agent, doesn't mean that you don't have the additional cap space to allow you to sign a free agent to a $37.24 Million salary over 4 years (under the luxury tax), as opposed to signing a free agent to a $16.83 Million salary over 3 years (over the luxury tax).

You are not talking about cap space. You are talking about exceptions to the salary cap. Some exceptions are automatic and some are created. The CBA mostly limits automatic exceptions for tax teams and apron teams, but the CBA only limits created exceptions that are created by trade. Even then, the additional limitations on exceptions isn't very meaningful.

There are the semantics we've been waiting for. So would you have been happy if the verbiage was more "salary cap maneuverability" as opposed to "capspace"? Would that have been satisfactory for you?

I might not be precise enough in my language for a genuine expert but I think I'm doing better than you. I don't know what you mean by salary cap maneuverability. Either you are a team below the cap or above the cap. The Blazers are above the cap.

[Fitz303]

You are not talking about cap space. You are talking about exceptions to the salary cap. Some exceptions are automatic and some are created. The CBA mostly limits automatic exceptions for tax teams and apron teams, but the CBA only limits created exceptions that are created by trade. Even then, the additional limitations on exceptions isn't very meaningful.

There are the semantics we've been waiting for. So would you have been happy if the verbiage was more "salary cap maneuverability" as opposed to "capspace"? Would that have been satisfactory for you?

I might not be precise enough in my language for a genuine expert but I think I'm doing better than you. I don't know what you mean by salary cap maneuverability. Either you are a team below the cap or above the cap. The Blazers are above the cap.

The whole idea behind this was that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player would allow more money to work with within the CBA restrictions. If they move CJ in a trade like that, they are well below the luxury tax, thus affording them more options, and more salary to work with in working towards bringing in other players. No?

[d-train]

There are the semantics we've been waiting for. So would you have been happy if the verbiage was more "salary cap maneuverability" as opposed to "capspace"? Would that have been satisfactory for you?

I might not be precise enough in my language for a genuine expert but I think I'm doing better than you. I don't know what you mean by salary cap maneuverability. Either you are a team below the cap or above the cap. The Blazers are above the cap.

The whole idea behind this was that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player would allow more money to work with within the CBA restrictions. If they move CJ in a trade like that, they are well below the luxury tax, thus affording them more options, and more salary to work with in working towards bringing in other players. No?

No, the Blazers could increase their MLE from $5.7M to $9.2M by reducing their payroll by $5M and renouncing rights to all their free agents. There are many stupid things they could do. You wouldn't want to increase your MLE by $3.5M unless doing so was better than just taking the automatic $5.7M.

[Fitz303]

I might not be precise enough in my language for a genuine expert but I think I'm doing better than you. I don't know what you mean by salary cap maneuverability. Either you are a team below the cap or above the cap. The Blazers are above the cap.

The whole idea behind this was that moving CJ for a lesser salaried player would allow more money to work with within the CBA restrictions. If they move CJ in a trade like that, they are well below the luxury tax, thus affording them more options, and more salary to work with in working towards bringing in other players. No?

No, the Blazers could increase their MLE from $5.7M to $9.2M by reducing their payroll by $5M and renouncing rights to all their free agents. There are many stupid things they could do. You wouldn't want to increase your MLE by $3.5M unless doing so was better than just taking the automatic $5.7M.

I understand that. I just made that point in another thread. I simply said that it's a doable option if someone wanted to move CJ for a solid young player with a lesser salary, while increasing salary cap options, and is not "ignorant to CBA rules". It seems clear you want to run around in circles arguing semantics or changing the subject to whether or not there are better options. Point has been made that moving CJ for less salary and a good young player also opens more salary cap options (more money in MLE and more trade ability). Whether you would like to admit it or not, I don't care. I'm done with this thread.

[d-train]

Lol, what do you want me to admit? I admit the CBA is complicated and you don't know what cap room/space is. I admit the CBA is complicated and I don't know it 100% myself.

The Blazers can't increase their salary cap options. They can increase the size of the MLE by keeping salary plus cap holds below the luxury tax and apron thresholds. Your argument that salary cap options can be increased fails. AFAIK, teams are either above or below the salary cap. Teams above the cap, like the Blazers, can increase their salary exceptions by staying below the tax and apron thresholds. But, it isn't necessarily worth it for teams to take the increased exceptions.

[d-train]

I would like to add, knowing the CBA rules is one thing. Anyone that takes the time can read and understand the rules. It's another thing, to be a salary cap strategist. Olshey is a salary cap strategist. There is a difference between knowing the rules of chess and being a grandmaster.