Future of the Trailblazers

[Wizenheimer]

I went to the UofO, so hating UW and the place they live is in my DNA

it's never been a problem either

[wco81]

Well KD may be leaving the Warriors so that tie for fans in Seattle may be gone.

Ringer NBA podcast was playing up a lot about how Lebron wants to play with Lillard. Even with Allen gone, hard to imagine the Blazers trading him to Lakers. Maybe out of the conference, if they don't want to extend him, but not within the division.

[Ripcity4life]

There is one thing to consider since they have been prepared for his death it is very possible they could put an sale the condition that the Blazers are not moved unless certain conditions are met like low attendance and such. If an owner really wants to move he might pull a move like in the baseball movie classic " Major League"

This could be some players we might see if this really happened:

PG -- Raymond Felton
C- Ha Seung Jin
PF /C Myers "i suck when it Counts " Leonard

and many players like that -- LOL

[red_power]

There is one thing to consider since they have been prepared for his death it is very possible they could put an sale the condition that the Blazers are not moved unless certain conditions are met like low attendance and such. If an owner really wants to move he might pull a move like in the baseball movie classic " Major League"

This could be some players we might see if this really happened:

PG -- Raymond Felton
C- Ha Seung Jin
PF /C Myers "i suck when it Counts " Leonard

and many players like that -- LOL

In that case he should simply call the whole JailBlazers squad out of retirement.

[PDXKnight]

Right now clock is ticking until new Vulcan ownership finds out Blazers are about to pay some hefty tax paychecks next summer so they can dramatically reduce their expenses by ordering Olshey to unload some salary.

The guy running Vulcan has been quoted as saying he thinks all of paul’s Teams should be run like a business so I think cost cutting is realistic.

I don’t know if a fire sale will happen but neither will any ground breaking earth shattering moves.

Just speculating but I’m beginning to wonder if it was known that Paul Allen would pass on long before his death. That would explain a lot of the recent moves that seemed to be geared towards just staying afloat rather than seeking significant ways to improve..

[Blazers77]

There are no shortage of parties interested in owning an NBA franchise, however, when you filter that to local ownership it's pretty anemic. The most likely scenario in a sale of the franchise is an ownership group that is made up of some local ownership interests, but largely financed by out of town parties.

NBA franchises are gold. They're one of the best investments the wealthy can make.

But when you apply a filter of: 1. $2B and 2. Gosh it'd be great if they were local. . . that list really only contains two people: Phil Knight and Tim Boyle.

Hopefully Vulcan can run this for some time. It would be hard for me to fathom, given his love for the team, that he doesn't have this as part of his succession planning.

[d-train]

Just speculating but I’m beginning to wonder if it was known that Paul Allen would pass on long before his death. That would explain a lot of the recent moves that seemed to be geared towards just staying afloat rather than seeking significant ways to improve..

That's not speculation. Someday Oden2, you will be pushing daisies. When little Oden2 was born and everyone was talking about you becoming an astronaut and President, Wiz was there saying soon he will be feeding the worms.

[Wizenheimer]

Blazers will continue to operate under the status quo for the rest of this year & will end up paying the tax.

we'll see. interim ownership is a for-profit business, not an enthusiastic owner. tough from a business standpoint to justify paying luxury tax for a .500 team when you can, at a minimum, dump a player like Aminu to get under the tax..

normally, sure

a couple of problems though. One is that removing Aminu's salary (6.96M) doesn't get Portland under the tax line. It would also require dumping somebody like Stauskas or Baldwin

and the other problem is that only one team has cap-space...Sacramento, and I can't see them wanting the expiring contract of Aminu without getting at least a 2nd. And there would likely be competition for their cap-space

so that would leave TPE's. Near as I can tell:

Charlotte - 7.8M (Dwight) - expires 7/6/19
Detroit - 7M (Boban) - expires 1/29/19
Denver - 12.8M (Chandler); 13.76M (Faried); 5.9M (Arthur) - all expiring next July
OKC - 10.83M (Melo) - expiring 7/25/19

that's it, 5 exceptions big enough for Aminu and 3 of those are with division rivals. Doesn't look 'promising' and of course, just dumping Aminu has Lillard ramifications

most teams have TPE's big enough to absorb Portland smaller contracts, and none are needed for minimum contracts like Stauskas or Baldwin. And several teams have TPE's big enough to absorb Curry, and that would save 5M in tax

another issue is that the trade deadline is less then 4 months away. I don't know if that's enough time for there to be a definite direction plotted by interim management. On the other hand, if Portland is struggling by January, and out of the playoffs, or close to it, dumping as much salary as possible might be a much easier call

[PDXKnight]

Just speculating but I’m beginning to wonder if it was known that Paul Allen would pass on long before his death. That would explain a lot of the recent moves that seemed to be geared towards just staying afloat rather than seeking significant ways to improve..

That's not speculation. Someday Oden2, you will be pushing daisies. When little Oden2 was born and everyone was talking about you becoming an astronaut and President, Wiz was there saying soon he will be feeding the worms.

Haha what?

[JasonStern]

The guy running Vulcan has been quoted as saying he thinks all of paul’s Teams should be run like a business so I think cost cutting is realistic. I don’t know if a fire sale will happen but neither will any ground breaking earth shattering moves.

a terrible team with no marketable stars that doesn't draw a crowd isn't good for business. that's a big reason why those Philly style rebuilds never workout - no team can stay afloat being that bad for long enough to acquire multiple high picks that actually pan out. a fire sale isn't going to happen, but sacrificing a pick, a player like Aminu or Harkless, etc. in order to help correct the damage caused by the 2016 spending spree is certainly realistic.

Just speculating but I’m beginning to wonder if it was known that Paul Allen would pass on long before his death. That would explain a lot of the recent moves that seemed to be geared towards just staying afloat rather than seeking significant ways to improve..

I doubt that. look at Abe Pollin's foreseen death. the Wizards went all-in that last year. if Paul Allen knew this was going to be his last season, I doubt the Blazers use two picks on Collins and a pick on Swanigan to try to keep the "youngest team in the league" motto going.

But when you apply a filter of: 1. $2B and 2. Gosh it'd be great if they were local. . . that list really only contains two people: Phil Knight and Tim Boyle.

Phil Knight is 80 years old and already has a football team, two basketball teams, a track team, two soccer teams, a volleyball team, a baseball team, a softball team, etc., and most of his donations to these teams are tax deductible. he has zero interest in buying the Blazers.

another issue is that the trade deadline is less then 4 months away. I don't know if that's enough time for there to be a definite direction plotted by interim management.

most likely Vulcan lets Bert Kolde, who has been involved with Allen and the Blazers, run things. so I'm sure they'll have a plan of action. not sure what it will be, but it's likely either the Blazers have stockpiled some cash from the days they were well under the cap in order to address this, or business demands will win out and spending millions to get swept in the first round is no longer acceptable - even if that means dumping talent/assets to avoid doing so.

[Matt800]

The guy running Vulcan has been quoted as saying he thinks all of paul’s Teams should be run like a business so I think cost cutting is realistic. I don’t know if a fire sale will happen but neither will any ground breaking earth shattering moves.

a terrible team with no marketable stars that doesn't draw a crowd isn't good for business. that's a big reason why those Philly style rebuilds never workout - no team can stay afloat being that bad for long enough to acquire multiple high picks that actually pan out. a fire sale isn't going to happen, but sacrificing a pick, a player like Aminu or Harkless, etc. in order to help correct the damage caused by the 2016 spending spree is certainly realistic.

Yeah I think calling it a business decision to get under the tax isn't necessarily accurate. The team makes money for the product they produce and if they lover the value of the product to cut costs, that could lose them money. There's probably a fine line there. Maybe they will cut costs but I could also see the ownership wanting the team to look as good/promising as possible to raise its value. And factors like keeping Lillard, Cj, Nurk etc happy are pretty important for the value of the team.

If there is a new owner lined up with a very different vision for the team than how it currently is constructed then I think that is when we'd see big changes.

We also should consider that sometimes people pay respects to those who have passed by trying to further invest in their vision. For example, multiple blazers players have said they have talked as a team and want to play this season in Paul's honor and make it something special. Olshey also said until told otherwise they are running the team how they have been and if a big trade opportunity comes they would do it (meaning raising the on court product even if it costs money). Who knows how it will actually go but the point is the passing of Paul might not mean a drop in the product on the court in the near future.

[PDXKnight]

The guy running Vulcan has been quoted as saying he thinks all of paul’s Teams should be run like a business so I think cost cutting is realistic. I don’t know if a fire sale will happen but neither will any ground breaking earth shattering moves.

a terrible team with no marketable stars that doesn't draw a crowd isn't good for business. that's a big reason why those Philly style rebuilds never workout - no team can stay afloat being that bad for long enough to acquire multiple high picks that actually pan out. a fire sale isn't going to happen, but sacrificing a pick, a player like Aminu or Harkless, etc. in order to help correct the damage caused by the 2016 spending spree is certainly realistic.

Yeah I think calling it a business decision to get under the tax isn't necessarily accurate. The team makes money for the product they produce and if they lover the value of the product to cut costs, that could lose them money. There's probably a fine line there. Maybe they will cut costs but I could also see the ownership wanting the team to look as good/promising as possible to raise its value. And factors like keeping Lillard, Cj, Nurk etc happy are pretty important for the value of the team.

If there is a new owner lined up with a very different vision for the team than how it currently is constructed then I think that is when we'd see big changes.

We also should consider that sometimes people pay respects to those who have passed by trying to further invest in their vision. For example, multiple blazers players have said they have talked as a team and want to play this season in Paul's honor and make it something special. Olshey also said until told otherwise they are running the team how they have been and if a big trade opportunity comes they would do it (meaning raising the on court product even if it costs money). Who knows how it will actually go but the point is the passing of Paul might not mean a drop in the product on the court in the near future.

I don’t think that last paragraph will come to fruition. Olshey might still try to do the same things he would normally do but when push comes to shove the interim ownership group isn’t likely to want to shake things up much unless pa’s sister clearly wants to own the team. Right now priority #1 is probably to keep the team par for the course and get things set up for the “estate sale.” Simply put what’s the incentive for them to make a move unless it’s a home run deal that’d never happen like jimmy butler for et?

[Matt800]

I don’t think that last paragraph will come to fruition. Olshey might still try to do the same things he would normally do but when push comes to shove the interim ownership group isn’t likely to want to shake things up much unless pa’s sister clearly wants to own the team. Right now priority #1 is probably to keep the team par for the course and get things set up for the “estate sale.” Simply put what’s the incentive for them to make a move unless it’s a home run deal that’d never happen like jimmy butler for et?

Yeah I think you are right. I think that is what he was largely implying, that he'd do a home run deal if it came around. Maybe if they could bolster the frontcourt with some sort of conservative deal that would be a possibility as well.

But I think if we are talking about becoming more conservative (cutting costs) or keeping the same general strategy, I could see the latter being a strong possibility. Say the interim ownership is not incredibly attuned to basketball they may just want the team to be run as it has been and trust that investment strategy. If the current strategy has brought in an acceptable profit then it may be the safer bet to continue rather than to change it up. Especially because being more conservative financially could create instability in other ways like making players want to leave. If they want to keep Lillard around it may make sense to at least make some small investments to show that the franchise will remain committed to getting better. The interim ownership may just trust the front office to make the decisions with some general guidelines like don't do any huge moves without running it by us.

[d-train]

It's to late to correct the non-problems and no-damage caused by the 2016 spending spree. Time has eleminted the effects and all that remains is an investment that so far didn't payoff. So far, 2016 cost money but nothing in lost opportunity.

[Sinobas]

It's to late to correct the non-problems and no-damage caused by the 2016 spending spree. Time has eleminted the effects and all that remains is an investment that so far didn't payoff. So far, 2016 cost money but nothing in lost opportunity.

You don't think we would have retained Ed Davis for what he got if weren't for the luxury tax implications?

[d-train]

It's to late to correct the non-problems and no-damage caused by the 2016 spending spree. Time has eleminted the effects and all that remains is an investment that so far didn't payoff. So far, 2016 cost money but nothing in lost opportunity.

You don't think we would have retained Ed Davis for what he got if weren't for the luxury tax implications?

No, I think Davis was let go because Blazers want to develop Collins, Leonard, and Biggie. Had they kept Davis, we would have no minutes for him. We don't really have minutes for Leonard and Biggie. It would be a terrible situation for Davis. Blazers want their bigs to have high post shooting and passing skills. So, they can be a threat in pick and rolls, and be a playmaking outlet to relieve trapping pressure from Lillard. Collins, Leonard, and Biggie have these skills. Davis doesn't have these skills.

[PDXKnight]

It's to late to correct the non-problems and no-damage caused by the 2016 spending spree. Time has eleminted the effects and all that remains is an investment that so far didn't payoff. So far, 2016 cost money but nothing in lost opportunity.

My biggest fear, and a potentially irrational one, is that we start giving up unprotected firsts to offload et and Meyers

[d-train]

It's to late to correct the non-problems and no-damage caused by the 2016 spending spree. Time has eleminted the effects and all that remains is an investment that so far didn't payoff. So far, 2016 cost money but nothing in lost opportunity.

My biggest fear, and a potentially irrational one, is that we start giving up unprotected firsts to offload et and Meyers

It's too early to know if Leonard will get consistent minutes and play well. If he does, Blazers would not be motivated to trade him.

If he gets minutes and doesn't play well, that's a minor financial problem (relatively speaking) that will not be solved by taking a significant loss of value to current or future basketball assets. The biggest problem would be that we need a player to fill a role and don't have a player with the skills needed.

If he doesn't get minutes, this isn't necessarily a problem. Blazers might opt to save money by offloading an abundance of talent, but they certainly wouldn't give away an abundance of talent and additional basketball assets as well.

[Wizenheimer]

the disposition of the Blazers and an eventual sale might take lots of time:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/paul-allens-death-leaves-many-questions-around-whats-likely-the-largest-estate-in-washington-history/

one problem is that the Blazers are not a liquid asset, so once that part of the estate is settled and the estate tax is 'due', there could be a 500-600M (or more if the Moda is sold at the same time) encumbrance. Whether that accelerates the sale timeline is the question

I'm also guessing the NBA will, at some point, start putting pressure on interim owner to resolve the ownership issue.

I doubt anything happens within the next few months though

[d-train]

the disposition of the Blazers and an eventual sale might take lots of time:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/paul-allens-death-leaves-many-questions-around-whats-likely-the-largest-estate-in-washington-history/

one problem is that the Blazers are not a liquid asset, so once that part of the estate is settled and the estate tax is 'due', there could be a 500-600M (or more if the Moda is sold at the same time) encumbrance. Whether that accelerates the sale timeline is the question

I'm also guessing the NBA will, at some point, start putting pressure on interim owner to resolve the ownership issue.

I doubt anything happens within the next few months though

If the Moda Center adds $500-600M value to the Blazers, I'll eat my shorts. The value of the Moda Center is likely its value without Blazers as a tenant and as a competitor to the building that does house the Blazers. The owner of the Blazers might want a new building and control over the Moda Center. Although, the tax question could change things as well. It might be bundling the Moda Center with the Blazers provides tax benefits that adds some value. I don't know what the tax implications would be.