Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I think you can trade Cj but not Dame unless you get an amazing, amazing deal. If that's the case, you have to tear everything down.

Blazers 111 Knicks 87 No late game heroics needed in this one, the team did shoot 20-33 on 3's, Lillard was 8-11. Moves the Blazers to 39-26. 8 in a row, 9/10. Up next, Golden State on Friday, who will be on the second of a back to back, after hosting San Antonio on Thursday.

Blazers play the Cavs on Thursday.

Blazers play the Cavs on Thursday.

blazers host the cavs next thursday the 15th, the G.S. game on friday is their next game

UOducksTK1 wrote:Him and CJ are 26/27. Soo unless you are gonna start competing in the next couple years, by adding some more talent, now is the time to capitalize on their value.

Otherwise, we will wait two years, and they will be 28/29 and will be trending downward and their value will be shot.

It's hard for us to add pieces though. We really only win by drafting well.

for what it's worth, rarely do you trend downward at 28/29.

oregontrack wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:Him and CJ are 26/27. Soo unless you are gonna start competing in the next couple years, by adding some more talent, now is the time to capitalize on their value.

Otherwise, we will wait two years, and they will be 28/29 and will be trending downward and their value will be shot.

It's hard for us to add pieces though. We really only win by drafting well.

for what it's worth, rarely do you trend downward at 28/29.

I'm talking about value. When you hit low 30s, anything can happen.

This really is an academic discussion. A guy in Olshey's position will never trade away the team's best player; he's too insecure in his job, and in fan interest. The same impulse that led him to give huge, multi-year deals to all these guys in the first place, and to max McCollum and ultra-max Lillard will ensure that he never makes a move that risky. It's still fun to talk about. I do think that unless the Blazers draft amazingly well with their late-round picks, they are likely to get worse over the next two years rather than better. And by the way, production might not fall of significantly over that time, but trade value certainly will. A player's peak is 27, and the closer he gets to 30, the less value he will have in trade.

strictly in the name of academic discussion, technically olshey did not sign CJ to a full max contract under the current CBA. we'd be in an even worse situation if his contract was tied to the salary cap. olshey actually did a solid here.

https://www.blazersedge.com/2016/7/30/1 ... ree-agency

dame got the full max, as his deal is tied directly to a % of the cap. although calling it an "ultra-max" is somewhat misleading insomuch that the moment the blazers and dame agreed to max deal, automatically-triggered bonuses inflated his compensation to where it's currently at. it's not like olshey said "here's a max contract, and then several million dollars more out of the goodness of paul allen's heart." the only way to get out of those financial bonuses would be, i believe, for him to agree to a less-than-a-max deal, to which i think we can all agree he would have likely balked, cited portland's blatant disrespect, and taken his talents elsewhere.

for all of his flops, i just don't see how anyone can say he did or didn't do what every single GM in the nba would have done in his situation.

steph curry rolled an ankle and is iffy for tonight.

So, Butler was out for the game against the Timberwolves, no Porzingas for the Knicks, Lakers w/o Ingram, and now Curry out for the Warriors, dem's the breaks!.

oregontrack wrote:strictly in the name of academic discussion, technically olshey did not sign CJ to a full max contract under the current CBA. we'd be in an even worse situation if his contract was tied to the salary cap. olshey actually did a solid here.

https://www.blazersedge.com/2016/7/30/1 ... ree-agency

dame got the full max, as his deal is tied directly to a % of the cap. although calling it an "ultra-max" is somewhat misleading insomuch that the moment the blazers and dame agreed to max deal, automatically-triggered bonuses inflated his compensation to where it's currently at. it's not like olshey said "here's a max contract, and then several million dollars more out of the goodness of paul allen's heart." the only way to get out of those financial bonuses would be, i believe, for him to agree to a less-than-a-max deal, to which i think we can all agree he would have likely balked, cited portland's blatant disrespect, and taken his talents elsewhere.

for all of his flops, i just don't see how anyone can say he did or didn't do what every single GM in the nba would have done in his situation.

CJ makes 24.2% of the cap. The difference between what he makes this year and a true max is about $800k. Lillard makes 26.4% of the cap, so calling it 'ultra max' is not misleading in the slightest.

I tried counting the times you have made this argument in various threads over the past few years, but I ran out of fingers. You never offer evidence for it, you just say, "I think we can all agree". Well, we don't all agree. I think Lillard is just starting to approach justification of his contract over the past month, and I think the Blazers could have signed him for less when he got his deal a few years ago. I definitely think CJ could have been signed for less. He will likely never punch his cap weight over the life of his deal; he just isn't a max-type player. Could he have gone out and got a Crabbe-like offer? Maybe, but what is the risk? He signs with the Blazers as a RFA for the true max anyway? The risk/reward there was definitely worth offering less.

A good GM sells secondary players on signing up for less to make the team better. Literally ANYONE can sign a guy for a max deal. That takes no negotiating skills at all. If a GM wants to construct a competing team, he's going to have to figure out how to pay some players less that they could get on the open market. There's lots of ways to do this: stack the team with rookie contracts, find hidden talent and sign them before they blow up, etc. but handing out max deals without any negotiating will never be a recipe for winning championships.

oregontrack wrote:steph curry rolled an ankle and is iffy for tonight.

Also out are Bell (ankle), Iguiodala (wrist), McCaw (wrist), and David West (arm) so Portland has a decent chance against them.

Phalanx wrote:CJ makes 24.2% of the cap. The difference between what he makes this year and a true max is about $800k. Lillard makes 26.4% of the cap, so calling it 'ultra max' is not misleading in the slightest.

I tried counting the times you have made this argument in various threads over the past few years, but I ran out of fingers. You never offer evidence for it, you just say, "I think we can all agree". Well, we don't all agree. I think Lillard is just starting to approach justification of his contract over the past month, and I think the Blazers could have signed him for less when he got his deal a few years ago. I definitely think CJ could have been signed for less. He will likely never punch his cap weight over the life of his deal; he just isn't a max-type player. Could he have gone out and got a Crabbe-like offer? Maybe, but what is the risk? He signs with the Blazers as a RFA for the true max anyway? The risk/reward there was definitely worth offering less.

A good GM sells secondary players on signing up for less to make the team better. Literally ANYONE can sign a guy for a max deal. That takes no negotiating skills at all. If a GM wants to construct a competing team, he's going to have to figure out how to pay some players less that they could get on the open market. There's lots of ways to do this: stack the team with rookie contracts, find hidden talent and sign them before they blow up, etc. but handing out max deals without any negotiating will never be a recipe for winning championships.

i keep making the argument because you keep saying otherwise, and you're wrong. lillard would have not accepted anything less than the full max:

https://www.blazersedge.com/2015/4/30/8 ... il-blazers

along with the full max, he also triggered the Derrick Rose Rule (2x All NBA, 2x All Star) which entitled him to more than 25% of the cap:

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index ... a_2nd.html

your argument makes me chuckle because it contends, with absolutely no leverage, neil olshey was supposed to look his young, star point guard in the eyes and say "please accept less money for absolutely no reason." because of lillard's designated player exception -- the Derrick Rose Rule -- signing anything less than the full max would have cost him a 5th year, and tens of millions of dollars.

let's reiterate: you contend that neil olshey, with no leverage, should have asked our young, star point guard, who knew FULL well by this point that portland A.) could afford it, and B.) can't sign a viable free agent to replace him, to accept tens of millions of dollars less than what he was owed "just 'cause."

stop it.

with CJ, neither one of us was in the room, but i have to imagine there was some semblance of negotiation, as he did not sign a full max and i can only imagine that's what he and his agent were angling for. do you disagree with any of that? you probably do, because you're you, but that's OK. whether or not olshey could have negotiated down from the 4/106 CJ ultimately got might very well depend on how well you remember the summer of 2016, and the deals that were handed out that year. here, i found them for you:

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/30/ ... 016-rumors

the cap exploded and everybody was getting big deals. to bring up a player you mentioned above, if allen crabbe could command 4/74 that same year, how much "negotiating" do you imagine olshey could have done to get CJ down to a deal you'd be happier with?

neil olshey: "we matched the offer sheet for allan crabbe at $17 million a year."

CJ: "that guy that scores half what i do? yeah, you aren't getting me at $20 mil a year."

^ that's how i imagine that scene played out, anyway.

honestly i think if you'd stop looking at things as "i don't think his play will ever justify being a max dollar guy" and start looking at "this was the reality of the situation at the time" it might help your perspective. it's OK to think a guy is overpaid, but that's not the same as "we could have gotten him for less."

with lillard... you say "he's just now this month living up to his contract", but this year is going to mark the third year he's going to make an All-NBA team. i think you may be too close to the organization and focus on flaws more than you appreciate how good a player lillard actually is. no, he isn't god's gift to defense (as you point out once or twice a month). he's still one of the nba's best, man.

anyway, cheers.

edit: does anyone but phalanx disagree? lillard is such an open and shut case i’ll go to my death fighting you on this, but I’m willing to be persuaded on CJ if i hear a compelling argument. considering the timing of the deal, though, i just can’t imagine he’d go much lower. olshey already “won” by not needing to give up the full max. and before you fight me on that “only” being about $800k per year, remember again that the deal was signed in 2016, and at that time nobody knew where the cap was going to plateau at. the cap had just skyrocketed, and some expected it to keep going up (hence all the big money spent around the league that summer). getting CJ to sign for a fixed amount, and not a % of the cap, was considered a win for portland at the time.