ImageImage

Not exactly 'shorts'....

Moderators: Moonbeam, DeBlazerRiddem

TBpup
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,907
And1: 247
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
Location: Financial Planning office in L.O.
       

Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#1 » by TBpup » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:20 pm

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?
@TBpup22
Blazinaway
General Manager
Posts: 8,823
And1: 1,582
Joined: Jan 27, 2009

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#2 » by Blazinaway » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:28 pm

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
cucad8
Head Coach
Posts: 7,283
And1: 1,406
Joined: May 27, 2007

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#3 » by cucad8 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:30 pm

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.
tester551
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,552
And1: 1,267
Joined: Jan 10, 2005
Location: Missing the Coast & Trees

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#4 » by tester551 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:50 pm

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).
cucad8
Head Coach
Posts: 7,283
And1: 1,406
Joined: May 27, 2007

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#5 » by cucad8 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:53 pm

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?
tester551
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,552
And1: 1,267
Joined: Jan 10, 2005
Location: Missing the Coast & Trees

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#6 » by tester551 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:16 pm

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.jsp
http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/blazers.jsp
Hover over Kaman's and Chandler's names and the "contract details" show up.
Billy
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,623
And1: 161
Joined: Aug 14, 2001
 

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#7 » by Billy » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:23 pm

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?
Blazinaway
General Manager
Posts: 8,823
And1: 1,582
Joined: Jan 27, 2009

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#8 » by Blazinaway » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:30 pm

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?
a_sensei
Analyst
Posts: 3,153
And1: 658
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
   

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#9 » by a_sensei » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:40 pm

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.
a_sensei
Analyst
Posts: 3,153
And1: 658
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
   

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#10 » by a_sensei » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:42 pm

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.
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 36,335
And1: 8,050
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#11 » by Wizenheimer » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:44 pm

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
User avatar
James72
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,984
And1: 474
Joined: May 05, 2013
     

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#12 » by James72 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:10 pm

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.
DaVoiceMaster
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 21,075
And1: 2,390
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
Contact:
   

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#13 » by DaVoiceMaster » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:12 pm

I always liked Pargo as a 3rd PG.
DaVoiceMaster
Senior Mod - Trail Blazers
12/27/2017 - 01/03/2018
zzaj
General Manager
Posts: 9,031
And1: 3,593
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
 

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#14 » by zzaj » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:20 pm

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.
User avatar
jhern87
Starter
Posts: 2,464
And1: 130
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
       

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#15 » by jhern87 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:21 pm

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.
The Sebastian Express
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,459
And1: 11,838
Joined: Dec 10, 2004

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#16 » by The Sebastian Express » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:27 pm

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.
DeBlazerRiddem
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 14,613
And1: 6,607
Joined: Mar 11, 2010

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#17 » by DeBlazerRiddem » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:37 pm

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.
MakDagr
Sophomore
Posts: 120
And1: 13
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
   

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#18 » by MakDagr » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:49 pm

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.
User avatar
JasonStern
RealGM
Posts: 12,194
And1: 4,266
Joined: Dec 13, 2008
 

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#19 » by JasonStern » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:42 pm

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?
I don't have a cool avatar image because Dame came home.

"Hate all you want. The Bucks will trade Doc Rivers for me."
- Chauncey Billups
TBpup
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,907
And1: 247
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
Location: Financial Planning office in L.O.
       

Re: Not exactly 'shorts'.... 

Post#20 » by TBpup » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:22 pm

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.
@TBpup22

Return to Portland Trail Blazers