Dame is coming back to Portland!!!

[zzaj]

you're in a dark dark place if you're turning to me for 'vision'

the only reason for Portland to have any cap-space was to get Avdija signed to an extension. And that was always an extremely remote possibility that has been eliminated by Dame's deal

the tax line as a demilitarized zone has been an artifact of the Jody/Bert/Vulcan era. The tax-line--->1st apron is still probably a dead zone until, at least, there is a new owner who can approve or veto that transgression

the only effective flexibility the Blazer have is the margin under the tax line, We've just seen the Dame contract as a symbol of that flexibility. Without the 12.8M in extra margin engineered by Ayton's buyout and subsequent signing by the Lakers, it's almost certain Portland would not have signed Dame

This was my main concern with the Lillard signing--that it impacts Deni's ability to resign, and I'm still a little unclear on exactly what that impact is.

I know you, me and a couple of others have been vocal about how the Blazers are in between a rock and a hard place in terms of resigning Deni...if you don't mind, would you clarify a bit more what you mean by "...has been eliminated by Dame's deal"?

ok...looking at Portland's cap/payroll situation, the only semi-legitimate shot at cap-space was going to be 2026-27

keep in mind that the projected salary cap that season is around 165M. And here is a 1st glance at portland's payroll:

Jrue Holiday $34,800,000
Jerami Grant $34,206,898
Deni Avdija $13,125,000
Scoot Henderson $13,585,523
Donovan Clingan $7,519,920
Yang Hansen $4,643,520
Kris Murray $5,315,004
Toumani Camara $2,406,205

Team Totals $115,870,102

so call it 116M for simple math. BUT, what's missing there is Sharpe. Now, Sharpe's cap-hold is 25.2M. Let's say Portland keeps him at that cap-hold level because they intend to re-sign him for more salary than that. As a maneuver, that would be effective unless Sharpe gets a 35M/year offer sheet. But let's ignore that possibility for a moment

so, with Sharpe the Blazers are now at 141M. lets say they don't make the playoffs next season and then use their draft pick to add a 5M contract. Blazers are now at 146M. But that's only for 10 players so Portland would have at least 2 roster charges adding 3M more. So, Portland has 149M in cap-charges giving them 16M in cap-space. If they don't pick up the option for Murray (October deadline), they could delete 5.3M in salary but they accrue another 1.5M roster charge and then have about 20M in space.

but now, with Dame's 14M, Portland is left with 6M in space which is essentially nothing. And it's possible they plan on re-signing Thybulle anyway

but look at that list and notice Camara at 2.4M. We've already been talking Camara signing an extension that would put him at 21M that season, effectively wiping out any Portland cap-space. And, if Camara plays for that option, then he's UFA in 2026...and uh oh. Blazers can decline that team option and then offer Camara a QO that would be around 2M. But if Camara signed an offer sheet for 25M ist year, that would immediately count against Portland's cap and any space would be kaput. And it's really risky letting Camara become either UFA or RFA

anyway, going back to the way the world was before Dame signed, say the Blazers trade that draft pick next season for a future pick. And they ended up with, for example, 23M in cap-space. I've been told they could then take that 23M and add it to Avdija's 12M salary in 2027-28, bringing him up to 35M that season. And that would be the base salary for an extension. I think it would be limited to three years. Maybe, 36M/year would have been enough to get him to sign. I'm skeptical because the max that season for a player with 7 years of experience is 60M

anyway, that all water under the bridge after the Dame signing

Thank you for the cogent answer…

What I gather is that effectively signing Lillard makes it next to impossible for the Blazers to reasonably sign Deni.

If this is the case, and the Blazers aren’t able to free up money before, then signing Lillard may end up being a massive “feel good” mistake.

[Wizenheimer]

Spoiler:

This was my main concern with the Lillard signing--that it impacts Deni's ability to resign, and I'm still a little unclear on exactly what that impact is.

I know you, me and a couple of others have been vocal about how the Blazers are in between a rock and a hard place in terms of resigning Deni...if you don't mind, would you clarify a bit more what you mean by "...has been eliminated by Dame's deal"?

ok...looking at Portland's cap/payroll situation, the only semi-legitimate shot at cap-space was going to be 2026-27

keep in mind that the projected salary cap that season is around 165M. And here is a 1st glance at portland's payroll:

Jrue Holiday $34,800,000
Jerami Grant $34,206,898
Deni Avdija $13,125,000
Scoot Henderson $13,585,523
Donovan Clingan $7,519,920
Yang Hansen $4,643,520
Kris Murray $5,315,004
Toumani Camara $2,406,205

Team Totals $115,870,102

so call it 116M for simple math. BUT, what's missing there is Sharpe. Now, Sharpe's cap-hold is 25.2M. Let's say Portland keeps him at that cap-hold level because they intend to re-sign him for more salary than that. As a maneuver, that would be effective unless Sharpe gets a 35M/year offer sheet. But let's ignore that possibility for a moment

so, with Sharpe the Blazers are now at 141M. lets say they don't make the playoffs next season and then use their draft pick to add a 5M contract. Blazers are now at 146M. But that's only for 10 players so Portland would have at least 2 roster charges adding 3M more. So, Portland has 149M in cap-charges giving them 16M in cap-space. If they don't pick up the option for Murray (October deadline), they could delete 5.3M in salary but they accrue another 1.5M roster charge and then have about 20M in space.

but now, with Dame's 14M, Portland is left with 6M in space which is essentially nothing. And it's possible they plan on re-signing Thybulle anyway

but look at that list and notice Camara at 2.4M. We've already been talking Camara signing an extension that would put him at 21M that season, effectively wiping out any Portland cap-space. And, if Camara plays for that option, then he's UFA in 2026...and uh oh. Blazers can decline that team option and then offer Camara a QO that would be around 2M. But if Camara signed an offer sheet for 25M ist year, that would immediately count against Portland's cap and any space would be kaput. And it's really risky letting Camara become either UFA or RFA

anyway, going back to the way the world was before Dame signed, say the Blazers trade that draft pick next season for a future pick. And they ended up with, for example, 23M in cap-space. I've been told they could then take that 23M and add it to Avdija's 12M salary in 2027-28, bringing him up to 35M that season. And that would be the base salary for an extension. I think it would be limited to three years. Maybe, 36M/year would have been enough to get him to sign. I'm skeptical because the max that season for a player with 7 years of experience is 60M

anyway, that all water under the bridge after the Dame signing

Thank you for the cogent answer…

What I gather is that effectively signing Lillard makes it next to impossible for the Blazers to reasonably sign Deni.

If this is the case, and the Blazers aren’t able to free up money before, then signing Lillard may end up being a massive “feel good” mistake.

I don't really agree with that because I have believed, from the very first mention of the Avdija trade, that his contract meant the Blazers were going to have to deal with him becoming UFA in 2028. The cap-space option was always a mirage IMO

[zzaj]

Spoiler:

ok...looking at Portland's cap/payroll situation, the only semi-legitimate shot at cap-space was going to be 2026-27

keep in mind that the projected salary cap that season is around 165M. And here is a 1st glance at portland's payroll:

Jrue Holiday $34,800,000
Jerami Grant $34,206,898
Deni Avdija $13,125,000
Scoot Henderson $13,585,523
Donovan Clingan $7,519,920
Yang Hansen $4,643,520
Kris Murray $5,315,004
Toumani Camara $2,406,205

Team Totals $115,870,102

so call it 116M for simple math. BUT, what's missing there is Sharpe. Now, Sharpe's cap-hold is 25.2M. Let's say Portland keeps him at that cap-hold level because they intend to re-sign him for more salary than that. As a maneuver, that would be effective unless Sharpe gets a 35M/year offer sheet. But let's ignore that possibility for a moment

so, with Sharpe the Blazers are now at 141M. lets say they don't make the playoffs next season and then use their draft pick to add a 5M contract. Blazers are now at 146M. But that's only for 10 players so Portland would have at least 2 roster charges adding 3M more. So, Portland has 149M in cap-charges giving them 16M in cap-space. If they don't pick up the option for Murray (October deadline), they could delete 5.3M in salary but they accrue another 1.5M roster charge and then have about 20M in space.

but now, with Dame's 14M, Portland is left with 6M in space which is essentially nothing. And it's possible they plan on re-signing Thybulle anyway

but look at that list and notice Camara at 2.4M. We've already been talking Camara signing an extension that would put him at 21M that season, effectively wiping out any Portland cap-space. And, if Camara plays for that option, then he's UFA in 2026...and uh oh. Blazers can decline that team option and then offer Camara a QO that would be around 2M. But if Camara signed an offer sheet for 25M ist year, that would immediately count against Portland's cap and any space would be kaput. And it's really risky letting Camara become either UFA or RFA

anyway, going back to the way the world was before Dame signed, say the Blazers trade that draft pick next season for a future pick. And they ended up with, for example, 23M in cap-space. I've been told they could then take that 23M and add it to Avdija's 12M salary in 2027-28, bringing him up to 35M that season. And that would be the base salary for an extension. I think it would be limited to three years. Maybe, 36M/year would have been enough to get him to sign. I'm skeptical because the max that season for a player with 7 years of experience is 60M

anyway, that all water under the bridge after the Dame signing

Thank you for the cogent answer…

What I gather is that effectively signing Lillard makes it next to impossible for the Blazers to reasonably sign Deni.

If this is the case, and the Blazers aren’t able to free up money before, then signing Lillard may end up being a massive “feel good” mistake.

I don't really agree with that because I have believed, from the very first mention of the Avdija trade, that his contract meant the Blazers were going to have to deal with him becoming UFA in 2028. The cap-space option was always a mirage IMO

Perhaps a better way of stating it is, if the Blazers’ chances of retaining Deni from becoming a UFA were very small before, they are effectively non-existent now.

[Wizenheimer]

Thank you for the cogent answer…

What I gather is that effectively signing Lillard makes it next to impossible for the Blazers to reasonably sign Deni.

If this is the case, and the Blazers aren’t able to free up money before, then signing Lillard may end up being a massive “feel good” mistake.

I don't really agree with that because I have believed, from the very first mention of the Avdija trade, that his contract meant the Blazers were going to have to deal with him becoming UFA in 2028. The cap-space option was always a mirage IMO

Perhaps a better way of stating it is, if the Blazers’ chances of retaining Deni from becoming a UFA were very small before, they are effectively non-existent now.

sure...

I would imagine the Blazer front office knows the odds of re-signing Deni using cap-space and accordingly, aren't trying to do it. 3 years between now and then. A lot can happen

[Dame Lizard]

if the dame and yang additions kick off a chain of events where the blazers stay in portland long term, I'm in. it was pretty clear based on silver's language where things are headed.

Mike Richmond, who happens to be a real estate guy, devoted a whole episode to this. His thought was this is simply the NBA commissioner doing what every commissioner does in all of the leagues—protecting the interests of his bosses, which are the team owners.

Basically, Silver is leveraging the city and it’s citizens to upgrade the Rose Garden (rather than team ownership) by making it seem like the team will up and leave if they aren’t all in. He pointed out multiple instances where this has happened across all sports.

I just have a hard time, given what we know about how successful the Blazers have been in this area, Silver saying the NBA preference is for the team to stay in Portland, and how opposed to expansion the current NBA owners are, believing that there is a high chance the Blazers are moving any time soon.

Agree. Silver is doing negotiation 101.

Don't reveal your hand by saying "we absolutely want Portland to stay irrespective of the stadium". He's playing his hand on poker.

If Portland chips in for an arena upgrade then that helps the franchise which ultimately helps the NBA.

[Wizenheimer]

if the dame and yang additions kick off a chain of events where the blazers stay in portland long term, I'm in. it was pretty clear based on silver's language where things are headed.

Mike Richmond, who happens to be a real estate guy, devoted a whole episode to this. His thought was this is simply the NBA commissioner doing what every commissioner does in all of the leagues—protecting the interests of his bosses, which are the team owners.

Basically, Silver is leveraging the city and it’s citizens to upgrade the Rose Garden (rather than team ownership) by making it seem like the team will up and leave if they aren’t all in. He pointed out multiple instances where this has happened across all sports.

I just have a hard time, given what we know about how successful the Blazers have been in this area, Silver saying the NBA preference is for the team to stay in Portland, and how opposed to expansion the current NBA owners are, believing that there is a high chance the Blazers are moving any time soon.

Agree. Silver is doing negotiation 101.

Don't reveal your hand by saying "we absolutely want Portland to stay irrespective of the stadium". He's playing his hand on poker.

If Portland chips in for an arena upgrade then that helps the franchise which ultimately helps the NBA.

reading those comments basically boils down to the dollar is King. NBA owners and their proxy, the league office will always try to maximize revenue and increase the overall value of the league

with that in mind, I'd say the threat of Las Vegas is real. The city has lots of money, compliant governments at all levels, and one of the fastest growing markets in the nation

and they can not only site and build a flagship NBA arena, (if they haven't already), the can build hotels and casinos withing walking distance and have enough space to make parking a breeze. Every NBA owner would love road games in Las Vegas....Portland? not so much

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

[Shem]

Read on Twitter

[PDXKnight]

Mike Richmond, who happens to be a real estate guy, devoted a whole episode to this. His thought was this is simply the NBA commissioner doing what every commissioner does in all of the leagues—protecting the interests of his bosses, which are the team owners.

Basically, Silver is leveraging the city and it’s citizens to upgrade the Rose Garden (rather than team ownership) by making it seem like the team will up and leave if they aren’t all in. He pointed out multiple instances where this has happened across all sports.

I just have a hard time, given what we know about how successful the Blazers have been in this area, Silver saying the NBA preference is for the team to stay in Portland, and how opposed to expansion the current NBA owners are, believing that there is a high chance the Blazers are moving any time soon.

Agree. Silver is doing negotiation 101.

Don't reveal your hand by saying "we absolutely want Portland to stay irrespective of the stadium". He's playing his hand on poker.

If Portland chips in for an arena upgrade then that helps the franchise which ultimately helps the NBA.

reading those comments basically boils down to the dollar is King. NBA owners and their proxy, the league office will always try to maximize revenue and increase the overall value of the league

with that in mind, I'd say the threat of Las Vegas is real. The city has lots of money, compliant governments at all levels, and one of the fastest growing markets in the nation

and they can not only site and build a flagship NBA arena, (if they haven't already), the can build hotels and casinos withing walking distance and have enough space to make parking a breeze. Every NBA owner would love road games in Las Vegas....Portland? not so much

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

Yeah I do think vegas is a real threat and the nba and the owners would likely back up any team to vegas that isnt a big market team. Would have to think portland/Seattle would be the top 2 expansion or targets for a team moving cities but that could be 10 years at least at the rate we are going.

I do tend to agree Portland wont pay for an arena, state of Oregon maybe theres a chance. But honestly should any locality be footing a 1 billion dollar bill when an owner has 6 billion to buy a team? I think the most id be willing to give as a tax payer is perhaps tax breaks over time as opposed to a giant lump sum. But bigger picture i think around the nation cities are increasingly less likely to pay a huge amount for a stadium/arena and thats sort of how it should be unless there is enough income to offset the cost of the building and perhaps some guarantees to not move the team at least 20 years or so

[Wizenheimer]

Spoiler:

Agree. Silver is doing negotiation 101.

Don't reveal your hand by saying "we absolutely want Portland to stay irrespective of the stadium". He's playing his hand on poker.

If Portland chips in for an arena upgrade then that helps the franchise which ultimately helps the NBA.

reading those comments basically boils down to the dollar is King. NBA owners and their proxy, the league office will always try to maximize revenue and increase the overall value of the league

with that in mind, I'd say the threat of Las Vegas is real. The city has lots of money, compliant governments at all levels, and one of the fastest growing markets in the nation

and they can not only site and build a flagship NBA arena, (if they haven't already), the can build hotels and casinos withing walking distance and have enough space to make parking a breeze. Every NBA owner would love road games in Las Vegas....Portland? not so much

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

Yeah I do think vegas is a real threat and the nba and the owners would likely back up any team to vegas that isnt a big market team. Would have to think portland/Seattle would be the top 2 expansion or targets for a team moving cities but that could be 10 years at least at the rate we are going.

I do tend to agree Portland wont pay for an arena, state of Oregon maybe theres a chance. But honestly should any locality be footing a 1 billion dollar bill when an owner has 6 billion to buy a team? I think the most id be willing to give as a tax payer is perhaps tax breaks over time as opposed to a giant lump sum. But bigger picture i think around the nation cities are increasingly less likely to pay a huge amount for a stadium/arena and thats sort of how it should be unless there is enough income to offset the cost of the building and perhaps some guarantees to not move the team at least 20 years or so

on principle...sure, cities and counties would be justified in saying no to spending 1-2B on an arena. But there will always be cities that say yes and Vegas is one of them. There's also some middle ground on no/low cost land, floating bonds, permitting, etc.

so yeah, Portland can take a stand on principle...and it's quite possible that within 5 years, maybe less, one place the city will be standing is on an empty Moda

[dckingsfan]

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

I am only going to take on this part of the discussion.

Building sports arenas most often does not yield significant economic benefits for cities (there is lots of research on this topic).

Generally, the fiscal returns from such investments are generally lower than alternative projects.

Generally, the costs associated are funded by taxpayers.

So, there is a good reason that a small city like Portland would say no.

On the other hand, for a city like Las Vegas there is almost certainly a significant economic benefit given that their #1 industry is tourism.

I don't live in Portland, so I don't have any skin in the game. But I would guess that the opposition will be:

- Urban Planners and Economists who will argue that the diverted funds will come from essential services like education and infrastructure.
- Social Justice Advocates arguing that public funding for sports arenas will comes at the expense of funding for social services, affordable housing which will disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
- Political Figures depending on which way the wind blows if there is significant public opposition.

My 1/2 cent.

[Wizenheimer]

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

I am only going to take on this part of the discussion.

Building sports arenas most often does not yield significant economic benefits for cities (there is lots of research on this topic).

Generally, the fiscal returns from such investments are generally lower than alternative projects.

Generally, the costs associated are funded by taxpayers.

So, there is a good reason that a small city like Portland would say no.

On the other hand, for a city like Las Vegas there is almost certainly a significant economic benefit given that their #1 industry is tourism.

I don't live in Portland, so I don't have any skin in the game. But I would guess that the opposition will be:

- Urban Planners and Economists who will argue that the diverted funds will come from essential services like education and infrastructure.
- Social Justice Advocates arguing that public funding for sports arenas will comes at the expense of funding for social services, affordable housing which will disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
- Political Figures depending on which way the wind blows if there is significant public opposition.

My 1/2 cent.

yeah...that's pretty much what I said. Portland can legitimately refuse to consider a new arena, and do so on solid principles. It might mean the Blazers move and would no longer be the Blazers

[DusterBuster]

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

I am only going to take on this part of the discussion.

Building sports arenas most often does not yield significant economic benefits for cities (there is lots of research on this topic).

Generally, the fiscal returns from such investments are generally lower than alternative projects.

Generally, the costs associated are funded by taxpayers.

So, there is a good reason that a small city like Portland would say no.

On the other hand, for a city like Las Vegas there is almost certainly a significant economic benefit given that their #1 industry is tourism.

I don't live in Portland, so I don't have any skin in the game. But I would guess that the opposition will be:

- Urban Planners and Economists who will argue that the diverted funds will come from essential services like education and infrastructure.
- Social Justice Advocates arguing that public funding for sports arenas will comes at the expense of funding for social services, affordable housing which will disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
- Political Figures depending on which way the wind blows if there is significant public opposition.

My 1/2 cent.

Professional sports in Vegas is such a weird fit BECAUSE of the tourism. I've seen it first hand, tourists generally don't goto games a ton. The Knights is almost entirely a locals-only team. The Knights are arguably as big as the Blazers here in Vegas. My kids school has monthly Knights days where all the kids can wear the nights gear during the season, free fries on game nights at McD... the whole 9 yards.

The Raiders has been another story. There's certainly fans here, some tourists definitely go to game for the NFL... because it's the NFL. The Raiders have stunk on ice, so the enthusiasm in the city around them is far more timid.

The other problem for the city soon is that they're really stretching the fan dollar thin here. As cool of an idea on paper as it is to have every major sports league in your city, it's also simply not that big of a city. We'll see how the MLB team does here, no competition for fans which is good, but a summer sport in a city that sees temps from 100-120 all summer is gonna be... interesting.

The other problem for the NBA here in Vegas is the aforementioned Knights. Both leagues play at same time of the year and there's NFL season overlap as well. There will be a serious battle for getting butts in seats between the NBA, HFL and NHL in Vegas (not to mention F1 in Nov, but that's just a weekend event, so kind of a non-factor).

So all that to say, I truly wonder how well an NBA team would actually do here, especially if it's a team moving vs an expansion that's truly "Vegas made". That's a real thing here in the city.

There's also some truly baffling federal government decisions being made since Jan 2025 which don't have a hope of being reversed for at least another 4 years like a stupid $250 visa fee for international visitors (it's largely a "deposit" that gets refunded, but still hard money international visitors have to pony up to visit America), so Vegas is going to have a really rough time, as they already have been the last 7 months, from a visitor standpoint since the Trump admin came back into power. That's not going away anytime soon, so for sports teams here, they need to rely on locals and to a much lesser extent, some domestic travelers.

To put it in more prospective, the Portland metro area has around 2.2mil population and only 2 pro sports teams, the NBA and MLS.

Las Vegas (or what most people consider Vegas - this means LV, North LV and Henderson areas), we have a population of around 1.4mil... but that will soon be spread out between the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA.

There's a lot more factors that go into it obviously than just butts in seats, but you get my point. I worry the NBA in Vegas will be similar to like the NBA in New Orleans or Atlanta. Too many options can lead to a tepid fanbase. Best case for the NBA in Vegas I think is similar to Miami.

[PDXKnight]

Spoiler:

reading those comments basically boils down to the dollar is King. NBA owners and their proxy, the league office will always try to maximize revenue and increase the overall value of the league

with that in mind, I'd say the threat of Las Vegas is real. The city has lots of money, compliant governments at all levels, and one of the fastest growing markets in the nation

and they can not only site and build a flagship NBA arena, (if they haven't already), the can build hotels and casinos withing walking distance and have enough space to make parking a breeze. Every NBA owner would love road games in Las Vegas....Portland? not so much

meanwhile, it's almost certain the prevailing sentiment in Portland government will be "hey, the Moda is good enough...don't need no new stinking arena"

Yeah I do think vegas is a real threat and the nba and the owners would likely back up any team to vegas that isnt a big market team. Would have to think portland/Seattle would be the top 2 expansion or targets for a team moving cities but that could be 10 years at least at the rate we are going.

I do tend to agree Portland wont pay for an arena, state of Oregon maybe theres a chance. But honestly should any locality be footing a 1 billion dollar bill when an owner has 6 billion to buy a team? I think the most id be willing to give as a tax payer is perhaps tax breaks over time as opposed to a giant lump sum. But bigger picture i think around the nation cities are increasingly less likely to pay a huge amount for a stadium/arena and thats sort of how it should be unless there is enough income to offset the cost of the building and perhaps some guarantees to not move the team at least 20 years or so

on principle...sure, cities and counties would be justified in saying no to spending 1-2B on an arena. But there will always be cities that say yes and Vegas is one of them. There's also some middle ground on no/low cost land, floating bonds, permitting, etc.

so yeah, Portland can take a stand on principle...and it's quite possible that within 5 years, maybe less, one place the city will be standing is on an empty Moda

I like the middle ground idea, but I also think that could be a convenient Grey area where an owner could still have enough to say Portland isn't willing to pay directly for an arena. But if the middle ground gets the deal done ie tax breaks and bonds sure its better tjan losing the team.

[Case2012]

Ok, so what I have never understood is why the NBA is so obsessed with forcing cities to build them new arenas all the time? To what benefit? Why would Silverman say that? Well it's been X years, so we're gonna need to shove a new arena down the people of Portlands throats? Is he basing this off anything other than time? There's literally nothing wrong with the Rose Garden. Spend billions of dollars on a new arena or we're going to take your team!! I don't get it. If it's in disrepair or something, or a safety thing, sure. But it's not. There's plenty of seating. It seems like an arbitrarily aggressive act.

[Norm2953]

Sports teams routinely force their teams into building a new arena for them because they can get away
with it. Think about when Baltimore built the Raven's their stadium for that nearly bankrupt them.

I do think with the Trump Tax cuts coming onboard, state governments are all going to be stressed from
having to cover for shortages from cuts from Medicaid but I think a reasonable middle ground will be
negotiated if the city/new owner come to the table. Vegas is not immune from stresses that every
state government will have to deal with either.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Ok, so what I have never understood is why the NBA is so obsessed with forcing cities to build them new arenas all the time? To what benefit? Why would Silverman say that? Well it's been X years, so we're gonna need to shove a new arena down the people of Portlands throats? Is he basing this off anything other than time? There's literally nothing wrong with the Rose Garden. Spend billions of dollars on a new arena or we're going to take your team!! I don't get it. If it's in disrepair or something, or a safety thing, sure. But it's not. There's plenty of seating. It seems like an arbitrarily aggressive act.

I agree it's kind of dumb. I can see from the league's perspective that of course they want to tout having the most modern up to date arenas so will advocate for such at any opportunity they can, especially if they can get someone else to pay for it. It's pretty common during ownership changes because it's one of the few times they can really push for something like that to be on the table, owners are going to pay more with the more uses and secondary income that their facilities can produce so having all the bells and whistles and raising the "value" of a franchise helps all the owners. So any pressure the league can put on the city to help fund or incentivize that is like a no-brainer to them, they lose nothing by saying those things and posturing about the importance and necessity of those things.

But there is probably a kernel of truth in there. Other cities might do more to attract new owners if Portland doesn't make a similar pitch to stay here. I agree tearing down a fine place just to build another one is stupidly wasteful and I would hope any offer Portland makes to encourage new owners to stay here is something less drastic than that.

[DusterBuster]

Watch on YouTube

[DusterBuster]

Read on Twitter

Well that was a... thing...

[JasonStern]

NGL I often forget Brogdon even had a stint as a Blazer.

Ok... processing... but I see this. Blazers basically paid for an asset here. Dame gets to rehab here, and then get to use him for another trade asset? I'm sure this is a deal to move him to a contender when he's healthy... which if he's good he's worth a 1st round pick.

He's 35. Rehabbing a ruptured achilles - and he didn't play defense before. Has a 3 year contract with a no trade clause. 90% chance he just plays this out, spends time with his family, and retires an all-time Blazer great.

Ok... processing... but I see this. Blazers basically paid for an asset here. Dame gets to rehab here, and then get to use him for another trade asset? I'm sure this is a deal to move him to a contender when he's healthy... which if he's good he's worth a 1st round pick.

I think it's more likely they move Holiday if they can find a taker. Dame rides off into the sunset with PDX. Holiday supposedly doesn't want to be here and Dame does.

But I'm of the mind that he never _really_ wanted to leave.

He wanted the team to get better. Then instead of using the #3 pick in a trade to bring any help in, they drafted the potential point guard of the future. I would have done the same.

So a NTC and player option...can't really say I understand it from a team building standpoint. Just when it seems like your team is establishing an identity and direction you go and muck it up?

Everyone can have their opinion on Drexler being better (I agree), Walton being better (before my time and he trashed the franchise for a while after his short tenure), but Dame is legit top 3. Top 75 player of all-time. Huge fan draw. And actually wants to play for us. And signed for an MLE contract. I don't see how any of this mucks up anything.

The Jrue trade was weird. And paying Ayton $25M to go play with the Lakers was not ideal (but that did give the space to sign Dame). Simons and Ayton were off the books in one season. Were totally playable players. And now the Blazers have limited flexibility cap-wise as contracts expire. If Jrue was younger, sure. But we might be looking at a washed Jrue and washed Dame in 2 seasons.

[DusterBuster]

The Jrue trade was weird. And paying Ayton $25M to go play with the Lakers was not ideal (but that did give the space to sign Dame). Simons and Ayton were off the books in one season. Were totally playable players. And now the Blazers have limited flexibility cap-wise as contracts expire. If Jrue was younger, sure. But we might be looking at a washed Jrue and washed Dame in 2 seasons.

This certainly is within the realm of possibility... it's a VERY pessimistic outlook, but not out of the realm of possibility.

I believe the truth will lay somewhere in the middle. Jrue next year will probably be what Jrue was last season in Boston. He might be slightly better depending on the role he's asked to play, Jrue also has had a history of his first year being really good with a new team, but subsequent year or two being less impressive... now granted, that was prime Jrue and he's now hitting his later 30's. I still suspect we'll probably see his numbers be closer to his 23/24 season in Boston, so about 12/5/5, probably playing around 60-70 games (assuming the Blazers aren't out of the playoff/playin hunt by like early March and they just sit him). That would be perfectly serviceable and not what I would consider "washed".

Dame also I expect to be at they very least around 70% of where he was pre-injury, even at his age. There was a reason over a 3rd of the league was trying to sign him after the Bucks waived him.

Also, this is the NBA, so many things can happen in 2 seasons. Maybe if Jrue shows he hasn't degraded much, he could ask for a trade mid-season this year and the Blazers may try and ship him off to a contender? If the Bucks are better than expected, I could totally see them wanting a Jrue reunion.