Page 1 of 9
Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:20 pm
by TBpup
The Trade Deadline is tomorrow and a very solid source who has a lot of agent contacts said he thinks it is 75%+ that the Blazers get Wilson Chandler (he has Afflalo as a distant second). His contract is flexible next year which fits Olshey's off-season plans and he is a nice fit where Portland needs it most as a legit SF and not a '2' playing up to a '3'.
If that happens, it would be a nice get with a friendly contract and accomplish a number of different things in terms of rotation, minutes, flexibility and protection should Matthews leave.
Is there someone else you like better that you would rather see them get?
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:28 pm
by Blazinaway
TBpup wrote:The Trade Deadline is tomorrow and a very solid source who has a lot of agent contacts said he thinks it is 75%+ that the Blazers get Wilson Chandler (he has Afflalo as a distant second). His contract is flexible next year which fits Olshey's off-season plans and he is a nice fit where Portland needs it most as a legit SF and not a '2' playing up to a '3'.
If that happens, it would be a nice get with a friendly contract and accomplish a number of different things in terms of rotation, minutes, flexibility and protection should Matthews leave.
Is there someone else you like better that you would rather see them get?
likely not a better fit available for the price we are likely willing to pay and the fact that Chandler offers us those options for next yr as well
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:30 pm
by cucad8
I'd be very happy with chandler addition. One reason being his contract. With only 2 million guaranteed, him and kaman in the offseason represent 12 million in tradeable salary, with only 3 million guaranteed to them. With the large cap holds killing our actual cap space, we'd be able to move them in a sign and trade possibility or in a different deal of a team looking to dump salary.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:50 pm
by tester551
cucad8 wrote:I'd be very happy with chandler addition. One reason being his contract. With only 2 million guaranteed, him and kaman in the offseason represent 12 million in tradeable salary, with only 3 million guaranteed to them. With the large cap holds killing our actual cap space, we'd be able to move them in a sign and trade possibility or in a different deal of a team looking to dump salary.
Not exactly.
I believe both contracts become fully guaranteed for the '15-'16 season on July 1. Free agents contracts can't be signed until around July 10th, therefore the sign & trades (as a salary dump is not possible).
However, this does give Portland the opportunity to take on additional salary as a "dump" pre-draft in June (ie- Brook Lopez).
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:53 pm
by cucad8
tester551 wrote:Not exactly.
I believe both contracts become fully guaranteed for the '15-'16 season on July 1. Free agents contracts can't be signed until around July 10th, therefore the sign & trades (as a salary dump is not possible).
However, this does give Portland the opportunity to take on additional salary as a "dump" pre-draft in June (ie- Brook Lopez).
I haven't seen a guarantee date on their deals, do you have a link to that?
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:16 pm
by tester551
cucad8 wrote:tester551 wrote:Not exactly.
I believe both contracts become fully guaranteed for the '15-'16 season on July 1. Free agents contracts can't be signed until around July 10th, therefore the sign & trades (as a salary dump is not possible).
However, this does give Portland the opportunity to take on additional salary as a "dump" pre-draft in June (ie- Brook Lopez).
I haven't seen a guarantee date on their deals, do you have a link to that?
http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/nuggets.jsphttp://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/blazers.jspHover over Kaman's and Chandler's names and the "contract details" show up.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:23 pm
by Billy
Thanks for the information Pup. To me, Chandler isn't the the sexiest name you could find--but he's certainly a solid addition. He has been a starter for the vast majority of his career--so it will take some adjusting on his part.
I haven't watched a ton of Chandler, but my understanding is that despite his three point shooting abilities, he may be a bit more geared as a backup 3/stretch 4--but I may be completely wrong. It would seem either way that he would well utilized by Stott's.
Assuming that it's the rumored T-Rob, Barton + 1st round trade, this looks like a solid squad:
C. Lopez/Kaman/Freeland
F. Aldridge/Leonard/Chandler
F. Batum/Chandler/Wright
G. Matthews/Chandler/McCollum
G. Lillard/Blake
I wonder if Portland would look to fill out the last roster spot with a PG?
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:30 pm
by Blazinaway
Billy wrote:Thanks for the information Pup. To me, Chandler isn't the the sexiest name you could find--but he's certainly a solid addition. He has been a starter for the vast majority of his career--so it will take some adjusting on his part.
I haven't watched a ton of Chandler, but my understanding is that despite his three point shooting abilities, he may be a bit more geared as a backup 3/stretch 4--but I may be completely wrong. It would seem either way that he would well utilized by Stott's.
Assuming that it's the rumored T-Rob, Barton + 1st round trade, this looks like a solid squad:
C. Lopez/Kaman/Freeland
F. Aldridge/Leonard/Chandler
F. Batum/Chandler/Wright
G. Matthews/Chandler/McCollum
G. Lillard/Blake
I wonder if Portland would look to fill out the last roster spot with a PG?
Nate Robinson anyone?
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:40 pm
by a_sensei
Blazinaway wrote:Billy wrote:Thanks for the information Pup. To me, Chandler isn't the the sexiest name you could find--but he's certainly a solid addition. He has been a starter for the vast majority of his career--so it will take some adjusting on his part.
I haven't watched a ton of Chandler, but my understanding is that despite his three point shooting abilities, he may be a bit more geared as a backup 3/stretch 4--but I may be completely wrong. It would seem either way that he would well utilized by Stott's.
Assuming that it's the rumored T-Rob, Barton + 1st round trade, this looks like a solid squad:
C. Lopez/Kaman/Freeland
F. Aldridge/Leonard/Chandler
F. Batum/Chandler/Wright
G. Matthews/Chandler/McCollum
G. Lillard/Blake
I wonder if Portland would look to fill out the last roster spot with a PG?
Nate Robinson anyone?
I would think more of a true PG that doesn't need minutes in case Blake or Lillard go down. Jorge Guttierez? Eric Maynor? Maybe there's a D-League guy.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:42 pm
by a_sensei
Really hope the Blazers are able to make the Chandler deal, think he's a great fit. If they get him I hope he's able to improve his 3-point shooting with better spacing.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:44 pm
by Wizenheimer
a_sensei wrote:Blazinaway wrote:Billy wrote:Thanks for the information Pup. To me, Chandler isn't the the sexiest name you could find--but he's certainly a solid addition. He has been a starter for the vast majority of his career--so it will take some adjusting on his part.
I haven't watched a ton of Chandler, but my understanding is that despite his three point shooting abilities, he may be a bit more geared as a backup 3/stretch 4--but I may be completely wrong. It would seem either way that he would well utilized by Stott's.
Assuming that it's the rumored T-Rob, Barton + 1st round trade, this looks like a solid squad:
C. Lopez/Kaman/Freeland
F. Aldridge/Leonard/Chandler
F. Batum/Chandler/Wright
G. Matthews/Chandler/McCollum
G. Lillard/Blake
I wonder if Portland would look to fill out the last roster spot with a PG?
Nate Robinson anyone?
I would think more of a true PG that doesn't need minutes in case Blake or Lillard go down. Jorge Guttierez? Eric Maynor? Maybe there's a D-League guy.
near as I can tell, this is a list of current free agent PG's:
Sebastian Telfair
Nate Robinson
A.J. Price
Jannero Pargo
Eric Maynor
Pierre Jackson
Jordan Farmar
Will Bynum
I'd probably rate Bynum 1st and Farmer 2nd
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:10 pm
by James72
Farmar for me!
I also wouldn't mind waiving Claver for Prince like was mentioned by Woj. He is old, but he still a decent defender and hitting 3s at a good rate. He probably wouldn't see a ton of minutes, but if we have a ton of injuries again, better safe than sorry.
Also, even though Leonard and CJ have been playing well, i would feel better with more veteran presence come playoff time.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:12 pm
by DaVoiceMaster
I always liked Pargo as a 3rd PG.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:20 pm
by zzaj
I think that if the Blazers add Chandler it will help the team tremendously...fingers crossed.
I also am a fan of Will Bynum as the 3rd PG. He offers different elements than Blake and has a lot of experience as a primary backup should Lillard or Blake have to miss any time.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:21 pm
by jhern87
People can be pretty hard on Nate Robinson but I remember a few years ago in a Chicago, Miami playoff series and he carried the bulls, and the series went 6-7 games. Personally I think he'd be a great 3rd PG that could play in place of Blake if we ever need more scoring off the bench. I also liked Maynor while he was here, although it was a small sample size.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:27 pm
by The Sebastian Express
Someone made a post a while back about Chandler and his three point percentage by space given to him. He was higher than Matthews, I think, at a certain space. The difference was that he got so few of those looks in Denver where in Portland it would likely increase significantly.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:37 pm
by DeBlazerRiddem
Why does Chandler have such a low RPM? I am not sure that is a deal breaker because he doesn't play with a very successful team, but it is certainly a red flag and a reason not to give Denver a real sexy package for him.
Personally, I don't even wanna give up a 1st for him. I worry he will fall into a hole similar to Wright.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:49 pm
by MakDagr
I think something that hasn't been brought up much is the defensive side of the ball. If you can get Dame to hide his ego a little, you could have a defensive line up of Nic, Wes, Chandler, LA, & Rolo...that's prettttayyyyyy pretttttayyyyy nice.
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:42 pm
by JasonStern
TBpup wrote:Is there someone else you like better that you would rather see them get?
Boogie Cousins.
a_sensei wrote:Blazinaway wrote:Billy wrote:I wonder if Portland would look to fill out the last roster spot with a PG?
Nate Robinson anyone?
I would think more of a true PG that doesn't need minutes in case Blake or Lillard go down. Jorge Guttierez? Eric Maynor? Maybe there's a D-League guy.
I'd be fine bringing Maynor back. he's only 27, wasn't spectacular but solid during his first tenure, and likely fairly motivated to prove that he still belongs in the league. I can't imagine a third string point guard getting minutes, so while Farmar and Bynum are probably better players, would they even sign with Portland knowing they're behind Lillard and Blake?
Re: Not exactly 'shorts'....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:22 pm
by TBpup
This isn't to doubt what was told to me but I get the feeling Olshey is talking to Prince's agent in a big way trying to figure out where he would go if Boston buys him out. If Prince (who is from LA I believe) says he wants to come to Portland in stead of the Clippers, no matter what he might have working for Chandler, I think he take Prince at the veteran minimum after the buy out and waive whomever to create a roster spot.
That saves a pick and keeps the youngsters although since they don't have extensions, that is a bit of a mute point.