Larry Nance to Portland

[BlazersBroncos]

I also have a feeling Portland will just bite the bullet and match any offer he gets, losing Nurk is a good way to lose Lillard.

I believe the Blazers only have his Non-Bird rights. Meaning they can offer Nurk, at most, 120% of his current contract - which would be $14.4 million. Maybe that's enough to re-sign him, but if you think someone would offer more, it's worth considering what you could get for him in a trade.

I dont see how this could be correct.

[Wizenheimer]

Yeah, I don't believe that report one bit. The financial aspect doesn't make sense and the refusal to give up a second round pick breaking the deal also doesn't make sense. Just doesn't hold water.

My guess is the Blazers offered Chicago the package they wanted, but Cleveland offered Lauri the contract he wanted, so they worked out a 3 team deal to make everyone happy.

Portland would be hard-capped if they had traded for Lauri because of the S&T rules

[Wizenheimer]

I also have a feeling Portland will just bite the bullet and match any offer he gets, losing Nurk is a good way to lose Lillard.

I believe the Blazers only have his Non-Bird rights. Meaning they can offer Nurk, at most, 120% of his current contract - which would be $14.4 million. Maybe that's enough to re-sign him, but if you think someone would offer more, it's worth considering what you could get for him in a trade.

I dont see how this could be correct.

It's not. Denver actually had early-Bird rights on Nurkic when they traded him to Portland and full-Bird rights accrued at the end of his first season in Portland

The Blazers could actually give Nurkic an extension right now

[Andre 2999]

I believe the Blazers only have his Non-Bird rights. Meaning they can offer Nurk, at most, 120% of his current contract - which would be $14.4 million. Maybe that's enough to re-sign him, but if you think someone would offer more, it's worth considering what you could get for him in a trade.

I dont see how this could be correct.

It's not. Denver actually had early-Bird rights on Nurkic when they traded him to Portland and full-Bird rights accrued at the end of his first season in Portland

The Blazers could actually give Nurkic an extension right now

Yep, I was misinformed. My mistake.

Thanks for the correction, Wiz.

[DusterBuster]

Wtf are we doing trading FRPs for Larry Nance Jr?!?!

Gtfoh with that noise.

Dame, just save yourself time and ask for a trade now, this is disgraceful.

Bumping this to toot my own horn and give props to all other posters who easily could tell adding a First Round Pick for Nance Jr was always going to put Portland in the hole they’re in right now.

Well done Neil, you’re literally dumber than us RealGM posters…. Ugh, if only they could have fired him when Stotts quit.

[GEE]

Wtf are we doing trading FRPs for Larry Nance Jr?!?!

Gtfoh with that noise.

Dame, just save yourself time and ask for a trade now, this is disgraceful.

Bumping this to toot my own horn and give props to all other posters who easily could tell adding a First Round Pick for Nance Jr was always going to put Portland in the hole they’re in right now.

Well done Neil, you’re literally dumber than us RealGM posters…. Ugh, if only they could have fired him when Stotts quit.

I absolutely love this part.

[BlazersBroncos]

Honestly, I like a single FRP for Nance more than 2 for RoCo.

[DusterBuster]

Wtf are we doing trading FRPs for Larry Nance Jr?!?!

Gtfoh with that noise.

Dame, just save yourself time and ask for a trade now, this is disgraceful.

Bumping this to toot my own horn and give props to all other posters who easily could tell adding a First Round Pick for Nance Jr was always going to put Portland in the hole they’re in right now.

Well done Neil, you’re literally dumber than us RealGM posters…. Ugh, if only they could have fired him when Stotts quit.

I absolutely love this part.

I stand by it. Dame had just made very public comments that he wanted big changes made and Olshey was giving away first round picks for **** Larry Nance Jr….

It was disgraceful then and still is now, I wouldn’t have blamed Dame one bit for throwing his hands up at that stupid trade and demanding out.

[GEE]

Bumping this to toot my own horn and give props to all other posters who easily could tell adding a First Round Pick for Nance Jr was always going to put Portland in the hole they’re in right now.

Well done Neil, you’re literally dumber than us RealGM posters…. Ugh, if only they could have fired him when Stotts quit.

I absolutely love this part.

I stand by it. Dame had just made very public comments that he wanted big changes made and Olshey was giving away first round picks for **** Larry Nance Jr….

It was disgraceful then and still is now, I wouldn’t have blamed Dame one bit for throwing his hands up at that stupid trade and demanding out.

Just poking fun I do remember the context very well though. As for Olshey, Last off season had a fairly large number of fairly big name players changing zip codes, way more than usual. Olshey definitely did poorly considering, and I really feel it was because NBA GM circles may have locked him out of the action. Felt like they finally caught wind of the douchebaggery we have known for some time.

[HoopsFanAZ]

I like the trade then and now. [And I really don't like including picks in a trade.]

As a PF and undersized C, he's the type of player a team needs. The production is down this year ... it's a one-off for the team as a whole. A protected lottery pick to get it done? Yes. Nance isn't a problem to be addressed.

CJ is an issue -- nothing new.
Not having at least one scorer at SF or PF since LMA -- nothing new. I like RoCo on the team even as a starter. I like Nance on the team even as a sometime or play and plug starter. NOT together as starters. And NOT without a forward who consistently scores 15+ AND plays D. Nance and Simmons as forwards? Yup.

If someone wants to eat crow over originally liking the trade OR if someone wants to reiterate not liking it, making the case statistically, AND hates giving away firsts ... AND talks about Olshey being Olshey ... that's ALL totally reasonable. Nance is a smart baller with the hustle and athleticism needed at his position. Trade RoCo in a package? Okay. I hope Nance has a better year next year as a Blazer.

[GEE]

I too like the trade for Nance, as I totally agree with the player analysis given... just wish he was healthy. ROCO's acquisition using picks is a good one too IMO. We need guys like this, and should be glad we have such. With very few assets at the time, and in win-now mode, using future picks is fine. Point is, they are not the issue. Neither is Nurkic. We are just still too damn small, and I very much want all three as part of my dream top-10 going into next year:

PG ANT / DSJ
SG CJ / Powell
SF ROCO / Little
PF Simmons / Nance
C Nurkic / Drummond

MAC / cj / Brown / Watford

[Wizenheimer]

I like the trade then and now. [And I really don't like including picks in a trade.]

As a PF and undersized C, he's the type of player a team needs. The production is down this year ... it's a one-off for the team as a whole. A protected lottery pick to get it done? Yes. Nance isn't a problem to be addressed.

CJ is an issue -- nothing new.
Not having at least one scorer at SF or PF since LMA -- nothing new. I like RoCo on the team even as a starter. I like Nance on the team even as a sometime or play and plug starter. NOT together as starters. And NOT without a forward who consistently scores 15+ AND plays D. Nance and Simmons as forwards? Yup.

If someone wants to eat crow over originally liking the trade OR if someone wants to reiterate not liking it, making the case statistically, AND hates giving away firsts ... AND talks about Olshey being Olshey ... that's ALL totally reasonable. Nance is a smart baller with the hustle and athleticism needed at his position. Trade RoCo in a package? Okay. I hope Nance has a better year next year as a Blazer.

one problem with the trade is while Nance is a solid player with good BBIQ, he's always injured or coming back from a injury. He misses 15-25 games a year, minimum, and has already missed 13 games this season, with more to come

another problem is that while you can probably justify giving up a 25th pick for Nance, the Blazers could very well give up a 15th-16th pick for him instead. And that come after giving up a 16th & 24th pick for RoCo. Just to keep track, the Blazers could, in 3 straight drafts, give up the 16th, 24th, & 15-16th picks for RoCo & Nance. And because of olshey's dumb habit of tossing away 2nd round picks, over three straight drafts Portland might end up only adding CJ Elleby

for what? The Blazers almost have to trade RoCo for something because he's very unlikely to re-sign in Portland. So then 2 years of RoCo while the team is mired in mediocrity. And who knows how much they'll get out of Nance

but all of that is not the worst part. The worst part is that Olshey idiotically obligated that traded pick thru 2028. That's the maximum time-frame of obligation allowed. Meaning, the Blazers can't use the leverage of trading a 1st till that pick is conveyed. That's terrible. Worse is I am convinced Olshey was doing it so he had some cover for NOT making the kinds of trades everybody but him thought were necessary.

it was mismanagement

[DusterBuster]

I like the trade then and now. [And I really don't like including picks in a trade.]

As a PF and undersized C, he's the type of player a team needs. The production is down this year ... it's a one-off for the team as a whole. A protected lottery pick to get it done? Yes. Nance isn't a problem to be addressed.

CJ is an issue -- nothing new.
Not having at least one scorer at SF or PF since LMA -- nothing new. I like RoCo on the team even as a starter. I like Nance on the team even as a sometime or play and plug starter. NOT together as starters. And NOT without a forward who consistently scores 15+ AND plays D. Nance and Simmons as forwards? Yup.

If someone wants to eat crow over originally liking the trade OR if someone wants to reiterate not liking it, making the case statistically, AND hates giving away firsts ... AND talks about Olshey being Olshey ... that's ALL totally reasonable. Nance is a smart baller with the hustle and athleticism needed at his position. Trade RoCo in a package? Okay. I hope Nance has a better year next year as a Blazer.

one problem with the trade is while Nance is a solid player with good BBIQ, he's always injured or coming back from a injury. He misses 15-25 games a year, minimum, and has already missed 13 games this season, with more to come

another problem is that while you can probably justify giving up a 25th pick for Nance, the Blazers could very well give up a 15th-16th pick for him instead. And that come after giving up a 16th & 24th pick for RoCo. Just to keep track, the Blazers could, in 3 straight drafts, give up the 16th, 24th, & 15-16th picks for RoCo & Nance. And because of olshey's dumb habit of tossing away 2nd round picks, over three straight drafts Portland might end up only adding CJ Elleby

for what? The Blazers almost have to trade RoCo for something because he's very unlikely to re-sign in Portland. So then 2 years of RoCo while the team is mired in mediocrity. And who knows how much they'll get out of Nance

but all of that is not the worst part. The worst part is that Olshey idiotically obligated that traded pick thru 2028. That's the maximum time-frame of obligation allowed. Meaning, the Blazers can't use the leverage of trading a 1st till that pick is conveyed. That's terrible. Worse is I am convinced Olshey was doing it so he had some cover for NOT making the kinds of trades everybody but him thought were necessary.

it was mismanagement

I don't know about that bit (not saying wrong, just impossible to ever verify), but everything else is absolutely 110% factually spot on.

Olshey was pretty careless about picks, which to be clear, I'm not even totally opposed to. That said, if you're doing to do that, go for it! Do deals where you trade 4-6 1sts for a star that wanted out. Olshey never took a BIG swing with the picks. Olshey would trade picks, but he'd have some stupid self-imposed limit on how many he would be willing to move in a single deal, which left the Blazers only fishing for B-C level talent in trades vs going for it all.

[JasonStern]

Olshey was pretty careless about picks, which to be clear, I'm not even totally opposed to. That said, if you're doing to do that, go for it! Do deals where you trade 4-6 1sts for a star that wanted out. Olshey never took a BIG swing with the picks. Olshey would trade picks, but he'd have some stupid self-imposed limit on how many he would be willing to move in a single deal, which left the Blazers only fishing for B-C level talent in trades vs going for it all.

Came to post this. In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with two 1sts for Covington or a 1st for Nance. Both are proven starter caliber players that fit the timeline of the Dame+CJ core.

But then you realize three 1sts and a player like CJ could have landed someone like Harden in a trade. Or you look at the emergence of Simons and Little and wonder what could have come from actually drafting players. At a minimum, those rookie scale contracts would be helpful offsetting how much of the salary cap is allocated to the Dame/CJ/Powell trio.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

but all of that is not the worst part. The worst part is that Olshey idiotically obligated that traded pick thru 2028. That's the maximum time-frame of obligation allowed. Meaning, the Blazers can't use the leverage of trading a 1st till that pick is conveyed.

Great post.

Only minor quibble is that technically teams have done this before where they trade a pick "in 2024 or 2 years after previous obligation expires". So if we keep the 2022 pick, but convey the 2023 pick to Chicago then the next team gets our 2025 pick. For example the FRP that Denver owes Orlando:

2025 first round draft pick to Orlando
At least two years after Denver conveys a 1st round pick to Oklahoma City, Denver's 1st round pick to Orlando protected for selections 1-5 in 2025, 1-5 in 2026 and 1-5 in 2027 (if Denver has not conveyed a 1st round pick to Orlando by 2027, then Denver's obligation to Orlando will be extinguished) [Denver-Orlando, 3/25/2021]

The caveat of course is that you cannot ever have that 2024+ pick go unprotected and guaranteed to convey and it has to evaporate into nothingness if not conveyed by 2028, so it might have some reduced value.


(to be clear, I am not saying this is a wise course of action, just a technically possible one)

[Wizenheimer]

Only minor quibble is that technically teams have done this before where they trade a pick "in 2024 or 2 years after previous obligation expires". So if we keep the 2022 pick, but convey the 2023 pick to Chicago then the next team gets our 2025 pick.

I don't think that's correct:

"Portland's 1st round pick to Chicago protected for selections 1-14 in 2022, 1-14 in 2023, 1-14 in 2024, 1-14 in 2025, 1-14 in 2026, 1-14 in 2027 and 1-14 in 2028; if Portland has not conveyed a 1st round pick to Chicago by 2028, then Portland will instead convey its 2028 2nd round pick to Chicago [Chicago-Portland, 8/28/2021]; Chicago may forfeit Portland's 2028 2nd round pick (see Chicago Outgoing)"

so, as it stands right now, the Blazers can not trade a 1st since they have obligated the Blazer 1st's for 7 years, which is the max

now, it they are in the lottery this season, then technically, after the draft, their 2029 first would be open and that would then fit within the 7 draft limit. But because of the Septien rule they couldn't trade it because of the possibility they could be trading away both their 2028 and 2029 1st's

they would still be in the same boat they are now, and that's not having a 1st to trade until they either convey the obligation to Chicago or get past the 2023 draft so they could trade their 2030 first

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Only minor quibble is that technically teams have done this before where they trade a pick "in 2024 or 2 years after previous obligation expires". So if we keep the 2022 pick, but convey the 2023 pick to Chicago then the next team gets our 2025 pick.

I don't think that's correct:

"Portland's 1st round pick to Chicago protected for selections 1-14 in 2022, 1-14 in 2023, 1-14 in 2024, 1-14 in 2025, 1-14 in 2026, 1-14 in 2027 and 1-14 in 2028; if Portland has not conveyed a 1st round pick to Chicago by 2028, then Portland will instead convey its 2028 2nd round pick to Chicago [Chicago-Portland, 8/28/2021]; Chicago may forfeit Portland's 2028 2nd round pick (see Chicago Outgoing)"

so, as it stands right now, the Blazers can not trade a 1st since they have obligated the Blazer 1st's for 7 years, which is the max

now, it they are in the lottery this season, then technically, after the draft, their 2029 first would be open and that would then fit within the 7 draft limit. But because of the Septien rule they couldn't trade it because of the possibility they could be trading away both their 2028 and 2029 1st's

they would still be in the same boat they are now, and that's not having a 1st to trade until they either convey the obligation to Chicago or get past the 2023 draft so they could trade their 2030 first

Again, see the Denver to Orlando pick I mentioned for reference and example of this being previously done. We could trade a pick but it would be worded "at least two years after Portland conveys a 1st round pick to Chicago..."

However, as I acknowledged the tail end would be tricky. The pick we trade would have to evaporate into nothingness in 2028.

To play it out, if we traded our 2024 pick at the deadline in this way:

If we exchange the 2022 pick to Chicago, team X would get our 2024 pick.
If we keep 2022, and exchange 2023 to chicago, team X would get 2025 pick.
If we keep 2023 and exchange 2024 to chicago, team x would get the 2026 pick
if we keep 2024 pick and exchange 2025 to chicago, team x would get the 2027 pick
if we keep 2025 pick and exchange 2026 to chicago, team x would get the 2028 pick
if we keep 2026 and exchange 2027 to chicago, team x would not get anything.

It is legal as this structure does not violate Stephien and it HAS been done before so there is precedent to say it is legal, but it is tricky and definitely less attractive as a trade asset than a less bound up pick.

[Wizenheimer]

Only minor quibble is that technically teams have done this before where they trade a pick "in 2024 or 2 years after previous obligation expires". So if we keep the 2022 pick, but convey the 2023 pick to Chicago then the next team gets our 2025 pick.

I don't think that's correct:

"Portland's 1st round pick to Chicago protected for selections 1-14 in 2022, 1-14 in 2023, 1-14 in 2024, 1-14 in 2025, 1-14 in 2026, 1-14 in 2027 and 1-14 in 2028; if Portland has not conveyed a 1st round pick to Chicago by 2028, then Portland will instead convey its 2028 2nd round pick to Chicago [Chicago-Portland, 8/28/2021]; Chicago may forfeit Portland's 2028 2nd round pick (see Chicago Outgoing)"

so, as it stands right now, the Blazers can not trade a 1st since they have obligated the Blazer 1st's for 7 years, which is the max

now, it they are in the lottery this season, then technically, after the draft, their 2029 first would be open and that would then fit within the 7 draft limit. But because of the Septien rule they couldn't trade it because of the possibility they could be trading away both their 2028 and 2029 1st's

they would still be in the same boat they are now, and that's not having a 1st to trade until they either convey the obligation to Chicago or get past the 2023 draft so they could trade their 2030 first

Again, see the Denver to Orlando pick I mentioned for reference and example of this being previously done. We could trade a pick but it would be worded "at least two years after Portland conveys a 1st round pick to Chicago..."

However, as I acknowledged the tail end would be tricky. The pick we trade would have to evaporate into nothingness in 2028.

To play it out, if we traded our 2024 pick at the deadline in this way:

If we exchange the 2022 pick to Chicago, team X would get our 2024 pick.
If we keep 2022, and exchange 2023 to chicago, team X would get 2025 pick.
If we keep 2023 and exchange 2024 to chicago, team x would get the 2026 pick
if we keep 2024 pick and exchange 2025 to chicago, team x would get the 2027 pick
if we keep 2025 pick and exchange 2026 to chicago, team x would get the 2028 pick
if we keep 2026 and exchange 2027 to chicago, team x would not get anything.

It is legal as this structure does not violate Stephien and it HAS been done before so there is precedent to say it is legal, but it is tricky and definitely less attractive as a trade asset than a less bound up pick.

I don't agree and I think it's apples to oranges

The example you gave was a trade prior to the 2021 draft. Denver had draft pick obligations for their 2021-2023 first round picks. That's 3 drafts ahead. They had their own 2024 first round pick and every first after that. But they couldn't trade their 2024 first because of the Septien rule. So what they traded was their 2025 first (right there in your link), with 1-5 protections for that draft and the next 2 drafts. They were NOT retroactively placing a 2nd obligation on their 2021-23 firsts. That's a violation of the CBA. And at that time, the 7 year limit meant the last first they could trade was the 2027 first. That's why the obligation was extinguished if that pick didn't convey by then. It was CBA rule

in order to match the framework of that example, the Blazers would have to trade their 2030 first round pick...which they can't