2019 Offseason, June 30th 3PM PT.

[DusterBuster]

I'm honestly pretty stoked for this offseason, I think it'll be pretty interesting.

As much as people like Collins, if the Blazers can turn him, some picks, and Turners EC into a legit player, they need do it. Now as much as any time is the time to really swing for the fences on a big trade.

[DusterBuster]

Read on Twitter

[Wizenheimer]

the next big news that will likely get plenty of people in a twist is Dame's super-max. It's going be some mind-boggling numbers...4-years/191M. That's a shade under 48M/year

here is some perspective: Dame's salary this season and next will be around 28% of the cap. From this year thru the 2020-21 season the cap is going to jump about 15% which is about the historical average for a 2 year period. If you project that over the following 4 seasons, the life of Dame's super-max, the cap would be 153 million in the final year of the contract. Dame's salary would be around 51M. That would be somewhere between 33-34% of the cap. That's not some huge dangerous jump over 28%. That suggests it will be a fairly manageable number within the framework of the cap/tax limits going forward. Just can't have any more dumbass moves like the Turner and Crabbe contracts

in other words, don't freak out about the raw numbers of Dame's super-max because relevant context mitigates the shock value

just one added bit of trivia: Andrew Nicholson's stretched charge against the cap will still be there for 3 years of Dame's 'new' contract; It doesn't expire till July 2024.....yeeeeeesh.

[zzaj]

the next big news that will likely get plenty of people in a twist is Dame's super-max. It's going be some mind-boggling numbers...4-years/191M. That's a shade under 48M/year

here is some perspective: Dame's salary this season and next will be around 28% of the cap. From this year thru the 2020-21 season the cap is going to jump about 15% which is about the historical average for a 2 year period. If you project that over the following 4 seasons, the life of Dame's super-max, the cap would be 153 million in the final year of the contract. Dame's salary would be around 51M. That would be somewhere between 33-34% of the cap. That's not some huge dangerous jump over 28%. That suggests it will be a fairly manageable number within the framework of the cap/tax limits going forward. Just can't have any more dumbass moves like the Turner and Crabbe contracts

in other words, don't freak out about the raw numbers of Dame's super-max because relevant context mitigates the shock value

just one added bit of trivia: Andrew Nicholson's stretched charge against the cap will still be there for 3 years of Dame's 'new' contract; It doesn't expire till July 2024.....yeeeeeesh.

Crabbe was a dumb move, stretching Nicholson just compounded a dumb move.

[wco81]

So as far as nuts and bolts, Blazers would have to make a lot of their signings to keep free agents or sign new ones or make trades BEFORE Lillard signs his extension?

Or would it be BEFORE his new extension kicks in, which could be a couple more seasons from now?

[d-train]

Signing Lillard to a max extension is an example of a stupid move. It's stupid because it's a commitment to limit options to improve the team before we even know what our priorities will be in 2021.

Signing Turner in 2016 to his contract is an example of smart cap management. When we signed Turner we knew we were building around Lillard and CJ and we would be over the cap. We would never have an option to sign a better player than Turner because we would only have cap exceptions to spend. So, if Paul Allen wanted to spend the money in an expensive market the only harm would be to Allen's wallet.

We currently don't know what will be the plan in 2021. Unless we have a contender winning 58+ game per year, building around a pair of 30+ guards doesn't sound too bright.

I support continuing the plan started in 2016 if Lillard and CJ are still committed to winning. If Lillard or CJ have realigned their goals, I would breakup the team and start over.

[wco81]

But what's the alternative, don't offer him an extension and let him, the team and the rest of the league know he's going to walk in a couple of years?

Probably less, as they'd probably try to trade him while under contract.

Portland likely won't get a trade return with anywhere near his level of production. So tank for high lotto picks then?

[d-train]

But what's the alternative, don't offer him an extension and let him, the team and the rest of the league know he's going to walk in a couple of years?

Probably less, as they'd probably try to trade him while under contract.

Portland likely won't get a trade return with anywhere near his level of production. So tank for high lotto picks then?

I don't mind if he walks in 2 years if he decides that is his best choice.

I am not against offering an extension if Lillard wants a reasonable extension. I just don't think a reasonable extension would appeal to Lillard. I think his best move is to play out his contract and there is a good chance he will still be worth a big contract in 2021.

Edit: Or, Blazers might have enough visibility into the future in 2020 to make Lillard a big offer.

[Wizenheimer]

Signing Lillard to a max extension is an example of a stupid move.

Signing Turner in 2016 to his contract is an example of smart cap management.

it's like my browser was hijacked by The Onion or Mad Magazine

[d-train]

Signing Lillard to a max extension is an example of a stupid move.

Signing Turner in 2016 to his contract is an example of smart cap management.

it's like my browser was hijacked by The Onion or Mad Magazine

The difference is obvious to me.

You sign core players first with cap room. Lillard was a core player in 2015. We don't need cap room to sign Lillard to a contract beginning 2021, but we also don't know who our core players will be in 2021. We could be spending money on a supporting player without first securing our core players, which is dumb.

We signed Turner after our core players were signed. There was no likely chance the money we spent on Turner could be spent better.

[Blazinaway]

But what's the alternative, don't offer him an extension and let him, the team and the rest of the league know he's going to walk in a couple of years?

Probably less, as they'd probably try to trade him while under contract.

Portland likely won't get a trade return with anywhere near his level of production. So tank for high lotto picks then?

I don't mind if he walks in 2 years if he decides that is his best choice.

I am not against offering an extension if Lillard wants a reasonable extension. I just don't think a reasonable extension would appeal to Lillard. I think his best move is to play out his contract and there is a good chance he will still be worth a big contract in 2021.

Edit: Or, Blazers might have enough visibility into the future in 2020 to make Lillard a big offer.

wow, maybe the first time we gave agreed, I am with you on this

[DusterBuster]

Signing Lillard to a max extension is an example of a stupid move.

Signing Turner in 2016 to his contract is an example of smart cap management.

it's like my browser was hijacked by The Onion or Mad Magazine

The difference is obvious to me.

You sign core players first with cap room. Lillard was a core player in 2015. We don't need cap room to sign Lillard to a contract beginning 2021, but we also don't know who our core players will be in 2021. We could be spending money on a supporting player without first securing our core players, which is dumb.

We signed Turner after our core players were signed. There was no likely chance the money we spent on Turner could be spent better.

Even for anyone agreeing with this, to call the Turner contract and example of "smart cap management" is totally mindboggling. I guess you're disassociating the player with the process of cap usage, but man... that's some epic level of click-baity text. You could get on with The Oregonian with that talent.

[JasonStern]

Crabbe was a dumb move, stretching Nicholson just compounded a dumb move.

in a vacuum, matching Crabbe wasn't a bad move. sure, he's overpaid, but the Blazers spent years developing him and he's capable of playing that Rodney Hood role the team clearly benefited late this season from having. but the move wasn't made in a vacuum. it was made while also retaining Harkless, giving Evan Turner and Meyers Leonard both $10 million/season more than anyone else, and gambling on Ezeli. most teams can get by with one bad contract, but you compound a few of them, especially in a single off-season...

[d-train]

it's like my browser was hijacked by The Onion or Mad Magazine

The difference is obvious to me.

You sign core players first with cap room. Lillard was a core player in 2015. We don't need cap room to sign Lillard to a contract beginning 2021, but we also don't know who our core players will be in 2021. We could be spending money on a supporting player without first securing our core players, which is dumb.

We signed Turner after our core players were signed. There was no likely chance the money we spent on Turner could be spent better.

Even for anyone agreeing with this, to call the Turner contract and example of "smart cap management" is totally mindboggling. I guess you're disassociating the player with the process of cap usage, but man... that's some epic level of click-baity text. You could get on with The Oregonian with that talent.

Salary cap management is totally different than building a team of complementary pieces. That said, Turner is a very good talent. I don't have a problem with the Turner signing from either measure.

The primary consideration to sign or not sign Turner was does the owner want to spend the money. I think Allen wanted to spend the money.

From a cap perspective, Blazers effectively added about $17M more to there cap than the CBA allowed because of a loophole. This is on its face an obvious advantage.

From a talent perspective, Turner has obviously been a major asset. The problem most people have is they assert there are dozens better players you can get for $18M. That's a fluff analysis. Blazers didn't have the best opportunities because they are restricted by CBA rules and other practical limits. A big problem the Blazers had is not many people believed Lillard and CJ was a good core for contending team. So, Blazers could offer free agents money but other teams had money and a perceived better opportunity.

[Norm2953]

I'm been on the bandwagon basing this summer on building the team around Dame/Nurkic for its just
nuts to even think about extending CJ.

Now if there was indeed an AD auction if he forces his way out of NO, I'd be all for getting into the auction
for most of the serious teams will likely wait until next summer to sign him. That would be rolling the dice
much like the Raptors (Leonard) and OKC (George) and as long as the cost is not ruinous, I'll trade anyone
but Dame to get him.

[wjun15]

If we can somehow get Blake Griffin, it would be amazing. A lineup of

Dame
CJ
Hood/Layman
Blake
Nurkic

is a title contender for the next 3 years for sure. Detroit still probably wont do it, but if they are struggling mid season and are ready to blow it up, I would offer Zach, ET, Meyers, Simons, AND 2 first round picks. Whatever it takes so we can compete for a championship now. Blake would be incredible off the pick and roll, no team will be able to trap Dame and CJ off the pick and roll. And if they do, Blake would destroy them going to the basket, and hes an excellent passer who would find Nurk or open shooters all day. Then add Hood who's more than capable as a shot creator, we would have the leagues top 2 offense.

This idea is intriguing because Olshey was there when the Clips drafted Blake and you know he falls in love with players he's a had a history with. In a normal trade he would balk at giving up Zach, but since he has history w/ Blake, I think theres a better chance he would try.

[wco81]

Thing is, if Lillard is vying for one of the all NBA teams, he’s going to expect to be paid as much as his peers, which would be players who make all NBA several times.

Yeah if you expect his performance to fall off a cliff in the next 5 years, you don’t give out that extension.

If your only criteria is that he’s a key piece on a team which wins titles, then only a handful of players in the league would get that extension but in the next 2-3 years, there will probably be at least a dozen players getting the super max.

Again if the Blazers let him walk, do you expect them to get another all NBA player to replace him or do you expect them t9 take a step or two back, try to get into the lottery?

Tanking 8ant what it used to be now.

[DusterBuster]

If we can somehow get Blake Griffin, it would be amazing. A lineup of

Dame
CJ
Hood/Layman
Blake
Nurkic

is a title contender for the next 3 years for sure. Detroit still probably wont do it, but if they are struggling mid season and are ready to blow it up, I would offer Zach, ET, Meyers, Simons, AND 2 first round picks. Whatever it takes so we can compete for a championship now. Blake would be incredible off the pick and roll, no team will be able to trap Dame and CJ off the pick and roll. And if they do, Blake would destroy them going to the basket, and hes an excellent passer who would find Nurk or open shooters all day. Then add Hood who's more than capable as a shot creator, we would have the leagues top 2 offense.

This idea is intriguing because Olshey was there when the Clips drafted Blake and you know he falls in love with players he's a had a history with. In a normal trade he would balk at giving up Zach, but since he has history w/ Blake, I think theres a better chance he would try.

The only way the Pistons move Blake is if he's injured and its clear the team is going nowhere, then .... mayyyyybe. But if you've seen any comments from the Pistons owner about the situation, I wouldn't hold my breath on them moving Blake anytime soon. On top of that, Blake sounds like he's not anywhere near interested in forcing his way out... so yeah...

[Matt800]

Thing is, if Lillard is vying for one of the all NBA teams, he’s going to expect to be paid as much as his peers, which would be players who make all NBA several times.

Yeah if you expect his performance to fall off a cliff in the next 5 years, you don’t give out that extension.

If your only criteria is that he’s a key piece on a team which wins titles, then only a handful of players in the league would get that extension but in the next 2-3 years, there will probably be at least a dozen players getting the super max.

Again if the Blazers let him walk, do you expect them to get another all NBA player to replace him or do you expect them t9 take a step or two back, try to get into the lottery?

Tanking 8ant what it used to be now.

The GM said the #1 priority is Lillard this offseason and that in general he has a policy of doing everything he can to retain star players. Or in other words if it is a question of money, they'll pay.

[DusterBuster]

Joe Freeman said on the latest Rip City Podcast that apparently the Blazers were in the red-zone on a deal for Otto Porter at the deadline and had a deal all but signed before the Wizard got cold feet about taking on any salary past this current season and took the Bulls deal.

Olshey had said at the deadline that the team was really close to bringing someone in who would have added salary, fair to assume that's who it was.

That sucks, he would have been such a phenomenal fit for this teams wing.