# cap space in 09 non existent



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

not to mention there is a snow balls chance in hell we get paul or williams. I really don't see what will change, who will become available? this team is a long way away from becoming even close to a contender, and it is going to take more then experience to do it. maybe for 3 players, but other then that what do we have? kp has a lot of work to do.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

Its not non-existent, its imaginary. :cheers:


----------



## Superblaze (Aug 6, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

At least you're optimistic...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

We could still get some, but it would require us to let some players walk or be traded for short contracts. Paul and Williams very likely won't be available, but it's hard to predict who will be for a team with cap space to make a big FA offer or facilitate a lopsided salary trade. We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



tradetheo said:


> not to mention there is a snow balls chance in hell we get paul or williams. I really don't see what will change, who will become available? this team is a long way away from becoming even close to a contender, and it is going to take more then experience to do it. maybe for 3 players, but other then that what do we have? kp has a lot of work to do.


lol, what are you smoking man?

We won't be even close to being considered a contender, even after LMA ROY and Oden have some experience under their belt?

Ya. OK. 
:lol::lol:


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

Did I miss something, because I thought that we did have a ton of cap space coming in 09.

Maybe I'm smoking more than tradetheo now o___o;;;


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



dudleysghost said:


> We could still get some, but it would require us to let some players walk or be traded for short contracts. Paul and Williams very likely won't be available, but it's hard to predict who will be for a team with cap space to make a big FA offer or facilitate a lopsided salary trade. We'll just have to wait and see.


this is the whole prupose for the zach trade. 09, which means kp has somebody in mind, but there is nobody available who will make an immediate impact. what we have now is playoffs at best. not to mention roy and aldridge will require to be re signed by then, which im guessing neither will take the mid level like outlaw or blake.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

We will have a good deal of space if we led our mediocre players like Blake, Frye, Outlaw and Jack walk.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



ThatBlazerGuy said:


> We will have a good deal of space if we led our mediocre players like Blake, Frye, Outlaw and Jack walk.


Only if we also get lucky and Miles files for medical retirement or we find a team to trade us an expiring contract for him.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



ThatBlazerGuy said:


> We will have a good deal of space if we led our mediocre players like Blake, Frye, Outlaw and Jack walk.


And then you add Webster's new contract, two additional draft picks, and you're still a player short of having a complete roster. 

Significant capspace in 2009 is a myth... unless something is done with Miles' contract.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

How about some numbers from our sky is falling contingent? I calculate that we should have about 10 million- using the numbers from hoopshype and a salary cap of 60.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> How about some numbers from our sky is falling contingent? I calculate that we should have about 10 million- using the numbers from hoopshype and a salary cap of 60.


nah... looking at the numbers (facts) would blow the whole point of this thread.

I do agree that landing Paul or Williams is a pipe dream... one first put out there as a realistic possibility by eternal optimist John Canzano. Of course he did this just so he can blast the club when those two resign with their respective clubs. Having that cap space available is not a lock to land a HOF player, but I'd expect that there will be some other attractive options available on how to spend it.

We shall see

STOMP


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



Anonymous Gambler said:


> How about some numbers from our sky is falling contingent? I calculate that we should have about 10 million- using the numbers from hoopshype and a salary cap of 60.


you're about right. I'm seeing a lot of statements in this thread indicating that people don't know a lot about the CBA. (not that I'm an expert.

Miles........9,000,000
Pryz.........6,857,000
Oden.........5,361,000
LMA..........5,844,000
Blake........4,930,000 (TO)
Outlaw.......4,000,000 (TO)
Webster......5,031,000 (QO)
Roy..........3,911,000
Frye.........4,265,000 (QO)
Jack.........2,900,000 (QO)
Sergio.......1,577,000
Fernandez....1,004,887
Kaponen........887,000
Freeland.......887,000
2008 1st.....3,000,000
_____________________________

That's 59 million right there. Obviously, I've assumed james jones expiring contract and cap hold has been eliminated by renouncing him.

There are then 3 contracts that would be considered first in my view: those of blake, outlaw, and frye. Combined, they are over 13 million. Now grouping blake-outlaw-frye-jones together, I have a hard time believing that portland will let all 4 walk. There are some good role players amongst the 4. Frye hasn't shown much, so it's easy to see him gone. For the other 3, most of the decision may rest on who portland drafts this summer.

There's also the issue of the 2009 1st round pick, but that could be part of a trade, as well as the rights to Kaponen and Freeland.

Also, extensions to roy-aldridge-sergio-webster-jack can be timed in such a manner that the cap-holds would reflect the contracts above rather then the new numbers.

But it would be simple for portland to get their total salaries down to the 50 million level, or even a bit below. Assuming a salary cap of 60-63million would give portland possible cap space of 8-15 million.

The Miles contract is obviously, the elephant in the room, but thinking portland will be able to trade him before the 2009 off season is bordering on a pipedream.

Everybody keeps talking about portland going after a free agent in 2009. I think it's a weak idea quite frankly. For one thing, it puts off the 'big move' until there is just a small wondow of opportunity...one short summer. For another thing, there appear to be several teams angling for major cap space that summer; as many as 7 or 8. Competition could be fierce. And finally, speaking as someone who has taken the time to look at certain and likely free agents that summer, the list of those "available" is very unimpressive. 

If the cap-space plan is carried through, I think it's much more likely that portland would use the space as leverage in a trade then for chasing a free agent. Nor only would they have cap space, they could have sign and trade possibilities with blake, outlaw, and jones. They would also have the expiring contract of darius miles (and by then he might be playing moderately well and still only be 27).

Personally, I think portland could make a big move this off-season...or even multiple moves. They will have a ton of assets: a lottery pick; the expiring contracts of Lafrentz, outlaw, and blake...and possibly jones;
several decent young players on rookie scale contracts; & the rights to fernandez, kaponen, and freeland. Optimumly, it would be a 3 for 1 or a 4 for 2 trade where portland moves up in the draft order AND adds a skilled veteran.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



moldorf said:


> Personally, I think portland could make a big move this off-season...or even multiple moves. They will have a ton of assets: a lottery pick; the expiring contracts of Lafrentz, outlaw, and blake...and possibly jones;
> several decent young players on rookie scale contracts; & the rights to fernandez, kaponen, and freeland. Optimumly, it would be a 3 for 1 or a 4 for 2 trade where portland moves up in the draft order AND adds a skilled veteran.


I agree. KP has a lot of assets and he should have a clear idea of which players to keep and what the team needs are by then. I think a move this summer will be made that, in combination with the addition of Oden, Fernandez, and a good pick this summer, will put the Blazers into the playoffs next season.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



e_blazer1 said:


> I agree. KP has a lot of assets and he should have a clear idea of which players to keep and what the team needs are by then. I think a move this summer will be made that, in combination with the addition of Oden, Fernandez, and a good pick this summer, will put the Blazers into the playoffs next season.


This is why I lol at KPs "Blazers are a family" junk. They're assets which
will be traded off to the highest bidder outside a small 3-player core.

What he's really doing is "Looking for player 4," and he'll trade the rest of
the team to get him. The limited capspace he'll have gives him some flexibility
towards "finding player 4", but as others have said, it won't help them land
Chris Paul in free agency. Player 4 will probably come via trade.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

Folks, what part of this situation don't you understand?

The system is intentionally stacked to give teams an advantage in re-signing their own FAs. If a player hits the market, it is because either his prior team no longer wants him (EG Ben Wallace), or his salary demands are wildly out of line with his worth (EG Rashard Lewis).

The whole FA system is close to a joke.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



Oldmangrouch said:


> Folks, what part of this situation don't you understand?
> 
> The system is intentionally stacked to give teams an advantage in re-signing their own FAs. If a player hits the market, it is because either his prior team no longer wants him (EG Ben Wallace), or his salary demands are wildly out of line with his worth (EG Rashard Lewis).
> 
> The whole FA system is close to a joke.



Rashard Lewis and the Magic seem to be doing pretty good...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



Oldmangrouch said:


> Folks, what part of this situation don't you understand?
> 
> The system is intentionally stacked to give teams an advantage in re-signing their own FAs. If a player hits the market, it is because either* his prior team no longer wants him (EG Ben Wallace), *or his salary demands are wildly out of line with his worth (EG Rashard Lewis).
> 
> The whole FA system is close to a joke.


The Pistons reportedly offered BW a multiyear contract at 10M+... Chicago offered even more. I don't think that means that the Pistons didn't want him, they just didn't value him at the rate that the Bulls did. 

That may be the same senario that Portland attains a player that they like in '09.

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



moldorf said:


> you're about right. I'm seeing a lot of statements in this thread indicating that people don't know a lot about the CBA. (not that I'm an expert.
> 
> Miles........9,000,000
> Pryz.........6,857,000
> ...


Really? I see no problem with letting all 4 walk to bring in a player of high end caliber, especially at PG. I wouldn't even blink and pull the trigger on that as long as none of them have panned out. Normal run of the mill NBA players are a dime a dozen and can be replaced easily. Stars can not.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

First, you have to differential between restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Players coming off of their rookie contracts are pretty much untouchable if their original team wants them. Their original team can make them the best offer in terms of years and can match any other offer another team might make. So, unless the player is willing to take the one year qualifying offer, play it out, and become an unrestriced free agent, they're pretty much unattainable. Put Paul and Williams in that category.

Unrestricted free agents, which includes all veterans who have played out their contracts, can sign with anybody they want. Their original team still has the inside track, especially if they hold the player's Bird rights, but the player ultimately can go where he wants. There will be a number of players available in '09 that the Blazers could target with reasonable chance of success.

That said, I still think a trade this summer is the highest probability.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



e_blazer1 said:


> First, you have to differential between restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Players coming off of their rookie contracts are pretty much untouchable if their original team wants them. Their original team can make them the best offer in terms of years and can match any other offer another team might make. So, unless the player is willing to take the one year qualifying offer, play it out, and become an unrestriced free agent, they're pretty much unattainable. Put Paul and Williams in that category.
> 
> Unrestricted free agents, which includes all veterans who have played out their contracts, can sign with anybody they want. Their original team still has the inside track, especially if they hold the player's Bird rights, but the player ultimately can go where he wants. There will be a number of players available in '09 that the Blazers could target with reasonable chance of success.
> 
> That said, I still think a trade this summer is the highest probability.


'

While I do see what your saying, probability wise, it doesn't always happen that way. Rashard Lewis was talked about up above. Other players have left on restricted free agency, but it takes a hell of an offer that a team is not willing to match, which is probably why his offer from Orlando was so huge. So what you do is offer a player a big chunk of change, big enough that the team has to think about matching it. Because, even if they do match, at least you have made them give up a bigger chunk of their salary cap for years to come, which hinders their ability to get new players. There is more to the GM game then some people think. 

The teams that are really smart, lock their guys up to extensions before they even get to that stage.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*

There are still many uncertainties. If we don't make any trades that reduce salary, and if Freeland and Koponen come over, and if Green and McRoberts sign for tiny contracts, and we don't sign ANY more free agents in between now and then who get paid into 2009, and if we re-sign Webster for something in the $7mil/year to start range, and if we let Frye, Jack, Blake, Jones and LaFrentz go for nothing (as in renounce the rights to them in summer 09), the we will have $10-$12 mil in cap space that summer, if the cap rate of inflation stays relatively close to the historical norm.

If any of those assumption changes, then our number moves up or down.

Then there is the matter of what players will be available. Simply, it's too early to predict with any accuracy. We don't know which teams will try to low-ball their own players or will be in a salary situation where they trade a decent player just to cut payroll. Ben Wallace, Rashard Lewis, Carlos Boozer, Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, Grant Hill, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson (sort of). Stars sometimes do change teams as free agents. There are also many who move in lopsided salary trades (I'm too lazy to think them up too). $10-$12 mil might not be enough for a superstar, but possible a very good player. Keep in mind, with a mega-$$ owner, we can afford to overpay for a player. That's the advantage of a billionaire owner.

Still, it's also possible we'll make sacrifices, refuse to trade any of those guys we plan on letting walk for any talent in the meantime, refuse to use salary exceptions to acquire players, and still end up holding our cap space in the summer of 2009 if nobody we really want is available. It remains to be seen.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



hasoos said:


> The teams that are really smart, lock their guys up to extensions before they even get to that stage.


Like the Blazers did with Miles and Randolph :biggrin:

(just kidding)


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



dudleysghost said:


> There are still many uncertainties. If we don't make any trades that reduce salary, and if Freeland and Koponen come over, and if Green and McRoberts sign for tiny contracts, and we don't sign ANY more free agents in between now and then who get paid into 2009, and if we re-sign Webster for something in the $7mil/year to start range, and if we let Frye, Jack, Blake, Jones and LaFrentz go for nothing (as in renounce the rights to them in summer 09), the we will have $10-$12 mil in cap space that summer, if the cap rate of inflation stays relatively close to the historical norm.
> 
> If any of those assumption changes, then our number moves up or down.


Don't forget signing our own draft pick next year....
and the 4 or 5 2nd round PGs KP will buy next offseason :biggrin:


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

What a silly thread!

The whole point of the Zach trade was to free up capspace in 2 years

Miles expires in 2 years, Blake was signed for 2 years, etc.

The whole plan is to have $25 million freeing up in 2 years. 

And why wouldn't Paul come here? Roy, LA, and Oden have been annointed by the NBA no less as the next big thing.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



wizmentor said:


> Don't forget signing our own draft pick next year....
> and the 4 or 5 2nd round PGs KP will buy next offseason :biggrin:


I added those and just forgot to mention. I assigned them a value of $3-4 millionish, but of course, the exact number is another uncertainty...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Stevenson said:


> What a silly thread!
> 
> The whole point of the Zach trade was to free up capspace in 2 years
> 
> ...


Miles expires in THREE years.

If you add up our present salary obligations, we WON'T have anywhere close to $25 million.

Chris Paul is likely to get an extension from his present team before he even becomes a free agent, much like very other young superstar.

That's the whole point of this thread. If you think we have some kind of clear path to Chris Paul, you're in for a huge disappointement.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Stevenson said:


> What a silly thread!
> 
> The whole point of the Zach trade was to free up capspace in 2 years
> 
> ...


You may want to read up on the CBA and salary cap matters before you call things "silly".

BTW, the major point of the Randolph trade was to get him out of town so that Aldridge could get PT with Roy and Oden and so that he wouldn't embarass the team any more than he already had in the past.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> why wouldn't Paul come here? Roy, LA, and Oden have been annointed by the NBA no less as the next big thing.


By exercising Early Bird rights, NO can sign him a year earlier which is in his interest in case a bad injury happens and lowers his percieved value... plus they can give him a higher offer then other teams regardless of how much capspace other teams might have. This set of rules gives smaller market teams a better shot at keeping their top talent.

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> By exercising Early Bird rights, NO can sign him a year earlier which is in his interest in case a bad injury happens and lowers his percieved value... plus they can give him a higher offer then other teams regardless of how much capspace other teams might have. This set of rules gives smaller market teams a better shot at keeping their top talent.
> 
> STOMP


At the same time, if Rashard Lewis can get an 120 million dollar contract, what could Chris Paul get? Now do you start to see the other side of the coin? If he wants to take the chance, he can get a hell of a lot more money.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Expiring contracts and cap space can be used for things other than signing free agents. They can be used to facilitate trades and in sign-and-trade situations. Expiring contracts and trade exemptions are both very valuable commodities to teams looking to shed salary and reduce luxury tax obligations.

With the way the current CBA is structured, signing a top young free agent (like Paul or Williams) is HIGHLY improbable. The current CBA makes it MUCH more financially rewarding for a player to re-sign with his current team. How many young guys are going to walk away from a their first big, non-rookie scale contract to take substantially less money (say ~$10 million less over the life of the contract) to go play somewhere else? Signing Chris Paul or Deron Williams outright in the summer of '09 just isn't going to happen. How much the Blazers are or aren't under the cap in this situation is irrelevant. They wouldn't be able to sign either one of them even if they were $50 million under the cap. The CBA puts a limit on what the Blazers can offer, and that limit is far less than what they can get by simply re-signing with their current teams.

As others have stated, that cap space could be used to overpay a good, but not great, free agent who's current team is "going in the different direction" (i.e. Seattle letting Rashard Lewis walk and get overpaid by Orlando). You might luck into a top 50 player this way, but you won't get a top 10 (or even top 20) player with an outright free agent signing. Anybody that good will be re-signed by their current team.

Three possibilities exists to land a top 20 player. One way would be a disgruntled superstar that forces a trade. This happened with Shaq, AI and KG (although he also falls under the second scenario, too). 

The second is when a team is looking to rebuild and dump a big, long term contract. If you have a bunch of cheap young players and a big expiring contract, you become an attractive trading partner. If you are under the cap and can take back more salary than you send back, you become an even more attractive trading partner. Throw in a couple draft picks and it's practically a done deal. This is exactly why KG ended up in Boston and not LA or Phoenix. In Garnett's case (and to a lesser extent, Iverson's) it involved both a disgruntled superstar AND a team looking to dump salary and begin the rebuilding process (unlike the Lakers, who _wanted_ to remain competitive after trading Shaq). 

Boston had a ton of young guys to offer. Al Jefferson was the only one that had really proven himself, but all the other guys were young, cheap and had "upside". The clincher was Theo's expiring contract. Boston was the only trading partner capable of giving Minnesota everything they wanted (cheap, young talent, a big expiring contract and draft picks). Come 2009, the Blazers will have all those things, in abundance, plus they will be under the cap, making them an even more attractive trading partner in the "disgruntled superstar" scenario. And, they have a filthy rich owner who is willing to hand out cash, overpay and take on long term contracts if it means a shot at a title. 

Finally, there is the sign-n-trade. In some cases this just a variation on the first two. Basically, a team has a very valuable free agent. They can't afford (or don't want to) resign that player to a huge, long term contract, but they also don't want to lose their best player and get absolutely nothing in return. That's when they start looking sign-and-trade. This works out great for the player, he can still get the extra money available by re-signing with his current team and he gets immediately traded to a team in a better situation. For the team, they may lose their best player, but they get something back (usually some combination of two, or more, of the things Minnesota got back from Boston - cheap, young talent, expiring contracts and draft picks. If trading with a team under the cap, they might also get back a trade exemption. 

In all these scenarios, being under the cap, having a surplus of young, cheap talent, excessive draft picks (all those second rounders) and expiring contracts makes you a very attractive trading partner.

Who will the Blazers be able to get? Had to say. It's hard to predict who will be disgruntled, which teams will be looking to win now and which teams will be looking to cut costs and commit to a total rebuilding effort. The point is, if there is someone available the Blazers will be in a perfect position to take advantage of the situation. They may end up getting nothing, that's the risk you take, but if someone is available, they are sure to be in the mix.

I'm not saying it will happen, but if Kobe isn't traded before than (and, I believe, even if he is) that will be the summer he can opt out of his contract and REALLY force a trade. If he does finally force the Lakers to trade him, Portland, more than any other team, will have the pieces in place to get the deal done. And, even if he is traded somewhere like Chicago, his contract, complete with opt out clause, goes with him. So, if things don't work out with his new team, he can force another trade in 2009. Point being, unless Kobe is 100% happy with his situation in 2009, he can force a trade by threatening to exercise his opt out clause. I'm not saying he is the Blazers target, or even that he'd want to come here (although by then we will have the foundation in place for him to earn his "ring without Shaq"), just that it's one possibility and IMHO less far fetched than signing Chris Paul or Deron Williams.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> At the same time, if Rashard Lewis can get an 120 million dollar contract, what could Chris Paul get? Now do you start to see the other side of the coin? If he wants to take the chance, he can get a hell of a lot more money.


The Sonics could have paid Lewis more then the contract he signed with the Magic. Considering the strained relationship with their fanbase looming, they decided to go in another direction... mainly clearing their books for some lean times until their move. 

If Chris Paul doesn't get an Early Bird offer from the Hornets to his liking, he certainly could roll the dice by playing out his current deal and testing the market as a UFA... but the Hornets will still have the ability to pay him more the Blazers or anyone else. While the Hornets have been a notoriously cheap organization, thats changed of late with the fat contracts given to Peja and Chandler. Paul is the face of the franchise in every way and by far their best player. I very much doubt that they will be letting him get away by being outbid for his services. 

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> The Sonics could have paid Lewis more then the contract he signed with the Magic. Considering the strained relationship with their fanbase looming, they decided to go in another direction... mainly clearing their books for some lean times until their move.
> 
> If Chris Paul doesn't get an Early Bird offer from the Hornets to his liking, he certainly could roll the dice by playing out his current deal and testing the market as a UFA... but the Hornets will still have the ability to pay him more the Blazers or anyone else. While the Hornets have been a notoriously cheap organization, thats changed of late with the fat contracts given to Peja and Chandler. Paul is the face of the franchise in every way and by far their best player. I very much doubt that they will be letting him get away by being outbid for his services.
> 
> STOMP



Could have. Should have? Maybe, but doubtful. Actualy from what I read, Lewis offered the Sonics a "discount" to sign him (some 20 million less) and they still did not sign him. The thing is, anybody offered a contract over a 100 million dollars will make management and ownership think twice. The point that comes with it, is yes, teams can pry players away if they are willing to pay. It does happen, and can happen. 

Remember, some of the biggest athlete moves in the NBA have come from restricted free agents moving when they received a huge offer. Does the name Shaq ring a bell? It should. Orlando could have matched and they didn't. Think they regret it? You bet. But it does happen.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

hasoos said:


> Could have. Should have? Maybe, but doubtful. Actualy from what I read, Lewis offered the Sonics a "discount" to sign him (some 20 million less) and they still did not sign him. The thing is, anybody offered a contract over a 100 million dollars will make management and ownership think twice. The point that comes with it, is yes, teams can pry players away if they are willing to pay. It does happen, and can happen.
> 
> Remember, some of the biggest athlete moves in the NBA have come from restricted free agents moving when they received a huge offer. Does the name Shaq ring a bell? It should. Orlando could have matched and they didn't. Think they regret it? You bet. But it does happen.


It can and does happen if: 

A. The team isn't that thrilled with the player.

B. The team doesn't think he's worth the money or is in some cost-cutting mode.

C. The player really doesn't want to be with his original team and threatens to take the one-year qualifying offer to become a UFA, whereupon the team probably would decide to trade him prior to his becoming a RFA in oder to get some value in return.

I think it's a pipe dream to believe that either Paul or Williams will fit into one of those categories.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Could have. Should have?


I agree with the thinking of the Sonics management, so no. With or without Lewis, the Sonics were going to suck and lose a lot of games. More then that, they've pissed off their fanbase pretty thoroughly and ticket sales have suffered greatly. This would not have been mitigated by resigning Lewis... or even by sign and trading him for someone who wasn't another SF like their two lotto picks from this year. Going into a cost cutting mode and giving their cheap young talent made a lot of sense

I also agree with most everything in BNB's post on the start of this page. It explains in detail why targeting a top 20 player like Paul is a longshot at best. 



> Remember, some of the biggest athlete moves in the NBA have come from restricted free agents moving when they received a huge offer. Does the name Shaq ring a bell? It should. Orlando could have matched and they didn't. Think they regret it? You bet. But it does happen.


That was a while back and I'm thinking that it was a different era as far as the CBA rules regarding Free Agency. I also don't think teams ever had the ability to "match" another team's UFA offer. *R*estricted*FA* yes, but again, I'm guessing that wasn't the case back when SO signed with the Lakers.

little help anyone?

STOMP


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think their is only one really good player who we could possibly sign in 2009, Ben Gordon. The Bulls are going to have to hand out a MAX deal to Deng, already have Ben Wallace at the MAX, Kirk at around 9M and a great deal of young talent who will probably require a decent sized deal. Unlike Deron Williams, Andre Igoudala and Chris Paul, Gordon is not the best player on his team. I might be dreaming, but I think their is at least a minor chance we can snag him in 2009.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

STOMP said:


> The Sonics could have paid Lewis more then the contract he signed with the Magic.


I'm not sure this is true. I believe Lewis was a sign-and-trade for the maximum amount that Seattle could pay him. Orlando could not have offered him the same amount without the sign-and-trade. 

Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall point that it's much easier for teams to retain players then it is to sign players away from another team. Sign-and-trades are one of the few to ways to achieve this, and it generally requires either the team to not want to keep him (Lewis' case) or the player demanding out (Joe Johnson's case).

Either way, anyone expecting Paul or Williams to sign with us is chasing a pipe dream. Neither player has expressed dissatisfaction with their team to my knowledge, nor do I see either team letting them go.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Foulzilla said:


> I'm not sure this is true. I believe Lewis was a sign-and-trade for the maximum amount that Seattle could pay him. Orlando could not have offered him the same amount without the sign-and-trade.
> 
> Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall point that it's much easier for teams to retain players then it is to sign players away from another team. Sign-and-trades are one of the few to ways to achieve this, and it generally requires either the team to not want to keep him (Lewis' case) or the player demanding out (Joe Johnson's case).
> 
> Either way, anyone expecting Paul or Williams to sign with us is chasing a pipe dream. Neither player has expressed dissatisfaction with their team to my knowledge, nor do I see either team letting them go.


They don't have to be dissatified now. They have to be dissatified in 2 years. While I do agree with you about Williams, who has a very solid team behind him, I am not so sure about Paul. He plays with a couple of guys who are continual IR canidates, and typically because of that, the team underachieves. If New Orleans doesn't make the playoffs or improve the team, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he bails.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Something that has been said in this thread at least a couple of times isn't exactly accurate.

That is that a team holding bird tights on a player can sign him for 'more'. It's a yes and no on that one. 

For instance in the case of chris paul operating on a rookie scale contract, New Orleans can sign him to a contract starting at the maxumum level next season, and can do so without being restricted to cap space. For Paul it would be 25% of the salary cap. And no other team could offer paul next season. If he isn't extended then the following summer a team with the cap space can offer as much money to start as NO could. The Hornets still hold the advantage though, because they can sign him for 6 years versus other teams 5 years, and can give him 10.5% raises annually (10.5%of starting salary) versus other teams 8%. And of course they can match the offer.

For somebody like paul not to sign with NO, it could cost him at least 20million dollars not to extend if offered next season and over 10 million the following season. That's simply too much money to ignore with the possibility of injury always looming.

While a top level player on a rookie scale contract has never made it through the process to become a UFA (because of that incentive), it could happen and eventually will. Ben Gordon looks like a candidate right now.

Keep in mind...the incentive for a player to re-sign with their teams will be a good thing for portland when roy-aldridge-oden are due for an extension


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Foulzilla said:


> I'm not sure this is true. I believe Lewis was a sign-and-trade for the maximum amount that Seattle could pay him. Orlando could not have offered him the same amount without the sign-and-trade.
> 
> Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall point that it's much easier for teams to retain players then it is to sign players away from another team. Sign-and-trades are one of the few to ways to achieve this, and it generally requires either the team to not want to keep him (Lewis' case) or the player demanding out (Joe Johnson's case).
> 
> Either way, anyone expecting Paul or Williams to sign with us is chasing a pipe dream. Neither player has expressed dissatisfaction with their team to my knowledge, nor do I see either team letting them go.


Ha! I'd forgotten that Lewis was a S&T. As BNB highlighted above, that is a way for a FA to get the tip top dollars that only the player's current club can offer. I'm not sure if the players that the Sonics recieved back equated to this absolute maximum though.

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK, I'm old and get easily confused.

I was under the impression that players from the 05 draft (EG Paul) will not become UFAs until 2010. So, what we are actually talking about are players from the 04 draft who have not yet signed extensions.

Am I missing something?


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

STOMP said:


> The Sonics could have paid Lewis more then the contract he signed with the Magic. Considering the strained relationship with their fanbase looming, they decided to go in another direction... mainly clearing their books for some lean times until their move.
> 
> If Chris Paul doesn't get an Early Bird offer from the Hornets to his liking, he certainly could roll the dice by playing out his current deal and testing the market as a UFA... but the Hornets will still have the ability to pay him more the Blazers or anyone else. While the Hornets have been a notoriously cheap organization, thats changed of late with the fat contracts given to Peja and Chandler. Paul is the face of the franchise in every way and by far their best player. I very much doubt that they will be letting him get away by being outbid for his services.
> 
> STOMP


As I recall, Orlando and Seattle did a sign and trade, netting seattle a trade exception. So Lewis did get as much money as possible for as long as possible.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think their is only one really good player who we could possibly sign in 2009, Ben Gordon. The Bulls are going to have to hand out a MAX deal to Deng, already have Ben Wallace at the MAX, Kirk at around 9M and a great deal of young talent who will probably require a decent sized deal. Unlike Deron Williams, Andre Igoudala and Chris Paul, Gordon is not the best player on his team. I might be dreaming, but I think their is at least a minor chance we can snag him in 2009.


I'd rather have Eric Gordon. He can do everythin Ben Gordon does plus play defense! Also, he's cheaper. ~Nathan


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

HurraKane212 said:


> I'd rather have Eric Gordon. He can do everythin Ben Gordon does plus play defense! Also, he's cheaper. ~Nathan



:greatjob:
In the hands of a competent front office, the draft is THE most cost effective way to add talent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Remember, some of the biggest athlete moves in the NBA have come from restricted free agents moving when they received a huge offer. Does the name Shaq ring a bell? It should. Orlando could have matched and they didn't. Think they regret it? You bet. But it does happen.


No.

Shaq signed as an unrestricted free agent, first of all. Secondly, he signed in an era where there WAS no free agency.

As for restricted free agents going unmatched by their teams: it's uncommon. A team like Golden State couldn't match the Wizards' offer to Arenas because of cap restraints, and it was the same with Boozer and the Cavs.

And I can't think of a single case where a team had Bird Rights on a restricted free agent where they let him walk. Has it ever happened? Given the newness of the current CBA/rookie contracts, I'd guess "no".

Ed O.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, I'm old and get easily confused.
> 
> I was under the impression that players from the 05 draft (EG Paul) will not become UFAs until 2010. So, what we are actually talking about are players from the 04 draft who have not yet signed extensions.
> 
> Am I missing something?


you are essentially correct although you may be off a year.

When portland has cap space, Paul would be RFA. Of course the assumption there is that Paul doesn't get an extension next summer. With NO knowing that several teams could have substantial cap space the same time as Portland, they would be unlikely to risk Paul getting a max contract offer from another team. It would be a year later and the max would be higher as the salary cap increases. 

The dynamic won't be the same next summer as it was this summer. Almost no teams will have cap space above the MLE next summer, so there was incentive for teams this summer to play hardball with their extension offers. That's why so few of the 3rd year players this summer signed extensions. I'd expect a lot of players to have their contracts extended next summer.

So the players who are on rookie scale contracts that could be UFA when portland has cap-space, are a year ahead of Martell Webster and Jarret Jack. The list would include players like luol deng, ben gordon, okafor, iguodala, josh's smith & childress from atlanta, andris biedrins, and delonte west.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> And I can't think of a single case where a team had Bird Rights on a restricted free agent where they let him walk. Has it ever happened? Given the newness of the current CBA/rookie contracts, I'd guess "no".


Lamar Odom, when he signed with the Heat, would be the only example I can think of offhand. He pleaded with the Clippers not to match. Of course this is the Clippers who are well known for letting their talent walk. Definitely a rare case however.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



hasoos said:


> Really? I see no problem with letting all 4 walk to bring in a player of high end caliber, especially at PG. I wouldn't even blink and pull the trigger on that as long as none of them have panned out. Normal run of the mill NBA players are a dime a dozen and can be replaced easily. Stars can not.


By 2009 Sergio, Rudy, Travis and Martell could cause a complete lack of interest in the free-agent market by developing into the players Whitsitt, KP, and their most loyal fans think they will.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> No.
> 
> Shaq signed as an unrestricted free agent, first of all. Secondly, he signed in an era where there WAS no free agency.
> 
> ...


Yes he was a free agent, but he might as well have been unrestricted, he gave Orlando a chance to match. What is the difference? If he had not given Orlando a chance to match, then sure. But he did.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



MARIS61 said:


> By 2009 Sergio, Rudy, Travis and Martell could cause a complete lack of interest in the free-agent market by developing into the players Whitsitt, KP, and their most loyal fans think they will.


Why are you bringing those names up. The names listed were Blake, Frye, Jones and Outlaw. While Outlaw is certainly among those names, I really don't expect him to ever be a superstar. 

Honestly, have you seen enough good in Travis Outlaw game to not pull the trigger if given the chance to sign Chris Paul? I don't think there any many GM's that would even think twice about that one.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



hasoos said:


> Why are you bringing those names up. The names listed were Blake, Frye, Jones and Outlaw. While Outlaw is certainly among those names, I really don't expect him to ever be a superstar.
> 
> Honestly, have you seen enough good in Travis Outlaw game to not pull the trigger if given the chance to sign Chris Paul? I don't think there any many GM's that would even think twice about that one.


Chris Paul will very likely get an extension next year before he ever becomes a free agent, because the possibility of injury gives him a very strong incentive to get the big money extension locked in.

Then even if he didn't, he will be a restricted free agent, so New Orleans can match any offer. I think the fact that has gone unmentioned here is that teams are limited in what they can offer a free agent. There is a maximum, and it's a lot less for a guy on a rookie contract than what Rashard Lewis got. Zach's $81 million 6-year deal was a near max contract, and with inflation added, Paul cannot be offered more than max by anyone. So all NO has to do is match a max offer, if he even got to RFA status without getting extended, which he won't.

So, is it clear now why Paul isn't an option?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



hasoos said:


> Why are you bringing those names up. The names listed were Blake, Frye, Jones and Outlaw. While Outlaw is certainly among those names, I really don't expect him to ever be a superstar.
> 
> Honestly, have you seen enough good in Travis Outlaw game to not pull the trigger if given the chance to sign Chris Paul? I don't think there any many GM's that would even think twice about that one.


Because they might make your point moot. I think TO and the others I named might become superstars, yes. Jones Blake or Frye? Never.

Chris Paul doesn't fit this team IMO, and no way you get him without losing Roy, Aldridge or Oden.

FA's are a fool's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They're free agents for one reason only. Their current team didn't think they were worth keeping.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Riiiiight - KP is a moron and a liar. Essentially that is the point of this thread. As I said, it's silly.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

*Re: cap space in 09 non exsistent*



MARIS61 said:


> Because they might make your point moot. I think TO and the others I named might become superstars, yes. Jones Blake or Frye? Never.
> 
> Chris Paul doesn't fit this team IMO, and no way you get him without losing Roy, Aldridge or Oden.
> 
> FA's are a fool's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They're free agents for one reason only. Their current team didn't think they were worth keeping.


MARIS61, have you worked for the same company your entire life? Assuming the answer is no, then you too might as well be a fool's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Changing teams, just like changing jobs, can happen for many reasons. It doesn't mean the commodity changing hands isn't valuable.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Does this team need cap space? A team with Oden, Aldridge and Roy with probably another lottery pick looks like a contender for years and years.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

garnett said:


> Does this team need cap space? A team with Oden, Aldridge and Roy with probably another lottery pick looks like a contender for years and years.


Need probably isn't the right word. Yes their future looks pretty bright, but why shouldn't their management try to do everything possible to put the best team out on the floor and shoot to become one of the better clubs of all time?

Though some great personnel moves and a bit of lotto luck, they are set up for a great run for the next decade or so. The 2009 window of capspace that Pritchard has opened could provide the cherry on top of their cake.

STOMP


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Stevenson said:


> Riiiiight - KP is a moron and a liar. Essentially that is the point of this thread. As I said, it's silly.


i don't think anyone has said pritchard is a liar or a moron. i think there would be people calling pritchard a liar if he says miles has two years left on his contract. i think there would be people calling pritchard a moron if he thinks or plans to have 25 millions under the cap without letting ALL of our expiring contracts walk and not signing our draft picks for the next two years. people would also think it's silly to think we have a realistic chance at signing chris paul.



Stevenson said:


> Miles expires in 2 years, Blake was signed for 2 years, etc.
> 
> The whole plan is to have $25 million freeing up in 2 years.
> 
> And why wouldn't Paul come here?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Chris Paul doesn't fit this team IMO, and no way you get him without losing Roy, Aldridge or Oden.


funny stuff



> FA's are a fool's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They're free agents for one reason only. *Their current team didn't think they were worth keeping*.


thats sort of true... these days this little kicker called the luxery tax is a factor in many personnel decisions. Retaining a decent player can end up costing a team the same as a superstar. It's nice to have an owner who can afford to go for it when the time is ripe regardless of the lux tax situation.

STOMP


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I believe Tom Penn, who is known as one of the best salary cap / collective bargaining agreement guys in the league, when he say's well have cap space in '09. I'll take his word over internet message board geeks like us. :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Riiiiight - KP is a moron and a liar. Essentially that is the point of this thread. As I said, it's silly.



There is a fine line between "lie" and PR spin!

The team traded Zach for non-basketball reasons, and KP was stuck with trying to justify it. 

If you don't agree, then please enlighten us as to what great UFA will be available to the Blazers in 09. (and don't say Paul or Williams, because they don't become UFAs until 2010!)


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

B_&_B said:


> I believe Tom Penn, who is known as one of the best salary cap / collective bargaining agreement guys in the league, when he say's well have cap space in '09. I'll take his word over internet message board geeks like us. :biggrin:


So what exactly did he say? It's easily possible for us to get some cap space, but it's a question of how much cap space we have and what players will be available. If we have less than the MLE in space, the only advantage we have is to make lopsided trades. If we have just over MLE, then we can't sign a star, but we do have the advantage in signing FAs when we compete against the majority of teams that only have the MLE. If we have enough to give a veteran max offer, then that's really something.

I don't know what comments from Penn you are referring to, but I'll be he didn't say that we will have the necessary cap space and the opportunity to sign Chris Paul. It doesn't take a geek to use simple addition and conjecture to figure out that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> I believe Tom Penn, who is known as one of the best salary cap / collective bargaining agreement guys in the league, when he say's well have cap space in '09. I'll take his word over internet message board geeks like us. :biggrin:


Bingo - that's the point I have been trying to make, but not as well as you just did.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> So what exactly did he say? It's easily possible for us to get some cap space, but it's a question of how much cap space we have and what players will be available. If we have less than the MLE in space, the only advantage we have is to make lopsided trades. If we have just over MLE, then we can't sign a star, but we do have the advantage in signing FAs when we compete against the majority of teams that only have the MLE. If we have enough to give a veteran max offer, then that's really something.
> 
> I don't know what comments from Penn you are referring to, but I'll be he didn't say that we will have the necessary cap space and the opportunity to sign Chris Paul. It doesn't take a geek to use simple addition and conjecture to figure out that isn't going to happen.


Exactly.

Being 5-6 million under the cap doesn't mean squat in the FA market, since teams over the cap can still make a comparable offer using the MLE.

Recent history suggests that to be a major player in the FA market you need to get somewhere around 15 mil under the cap. That will require a lot more than the Zach deal and Raef leaving.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

When Canzano did his article on cap space, I posted to his blog saying that the Blazers couldn't simply sign everyone and make all qualifying offers and have cap space. His reply to me was essentially, "Tom Penn said so. Thanks for posting." I tried posting a longer reply with all the numbers, but it didn't get through the blog censor, so it never made it to the O-Live site. 

But here are the numbers (moldorf is close but has a few figures wrong - especially in regards to the players getting qualifying offers):

OK, as things sit now, assuming that all options are picked up and all qualifying offers are made, I show that the Blazers would have 16 players under contract in July of 2009 for a total of $74,126,706 in team salary:

Darius Miles - $9,000,000
Joel Przybilla - $6,857,725
Greg Oden - $5,361,240 (Team Option)
LaMarcus Aldridge - $5,844,827 (Team Option)
Steve Blake - $4,930,000 (Team Option)
Travis Outlaw - $4,000,000 (Team Option)
Martell Webster - $11,313,399 (Cap Hold after Qualifying Offer is made)
Brandon Roy - $3,910,816 (Team Option)
Channing Frye - $9,491,307 (Cap Hold after Qualifying Offer is made)
Jarrett Jack - $6,007,869 (Cap Hold after Qualifying Offer is made)
Sergio Rodriguez - $1,576,696 (Team Option)
Rudy Fernandez - $1,205,066 (Assuming he signs in Summer of 2008)
Petteri Koponen - $1,063,881 (Assuming he signs in Summer of 2008)
Joel Freeland - $1,063,881 (Assuming he signs in Summer of 2008)
1st Round pick in 2008 - $1,500,00 (My guess)
1st Round pick in 2009 - $1,000,000 (My guess)


What can (should?) the Blazers do to get under the cap in 2009?

1) Get Darius to retire. If he won't, then trade him for an expiring deal (such as the infamous Marbury deal).

2) Let Outlaw and Blake walk as FA's after two years on their current deal. Not picking up their team options clears nearly $9 million.

3) Don't let Webster and Frye become Restricted free agents. Sign them to extensions in 2008. Something like 3 years and $22.47 million for Webster and 3 years and $19.26 million for Frye should be about the maximum offers (I'll use these numbers below).

4) Don't sign (or trade for) any other players who will draw a salary in 2009. But do pick up on the team options for Roy, Aldridge, Oden and Rodriguez. Also, make a qualifying offer to Jack (his cap hold is large but not astronomically higher than what he'll actually end up signing for).


These 4 things put the Blazers under the cap in 2009, with 13 players under contract and $48,392,000 in committed salary.


Joel Przybilla - $6,857,725
Greg Oden - $5,361,240
LaMarcus Aldridge - $5,844,827
Martell Webster - $7,000,000
Brandon Roy - $3,910,816
Channing Frye - $6,000,000
Jarrett Jack - $6,007,869 (Cap Hold after Qualifying Offer is made)
Sergio Rodriguez - $1,576,696
Rudy Fernandez - $1,205,066 (Assuming he signs in Summer of 2008)
Petteri Koponen - $1,063,881 (Assuming he signs in Summer of 2008)
Joel Freeland - $1,063,881 (Assuming he signs in Summer of 2008)
1st Round pick in 2008 - $1,500,00 (My guess)
1st Round pick in 2009 - $1,000,000 (My guess)

I'm guessing this would give the Blazers about $11 or $12 million in cap room - perhaps more if the cap goes up significantly higher than it did this past year.

This is just one scenario - KP and Penn have given the franchise some options. The Blazers cannot keep everyone and get under the cap (I don't care what Canzano says...) but must make smart decisions if they want to be under the cap.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> I believe Tom Penn, who is known as one of the best salary cap / collective bargaining agreement guys in the league, when he say's well have cap space in '09. I'll take his word over internet message board geeks like us. :biggrin:



It may be absolutely true that we will have *some* cap space. That and $4 gets you a tall Latte. 

First, you don't need cap space - you need a LOT of cap space. Orlando had to grind their payroll down to about 70% of the cap just to sign Rashard Lewis.

Second, even if we have the cap space, there has to be someone out there who is worth spending it on! Call me old fasioned, but I don't like the idea of paying our 4th best player as much as Roy/LA/Oden combined.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Storyteller said:


> When Canzano did his article on cap space, I posted to his blog saying that the Blazers couldn't simply sign everyone and make all qualifying offers and have cap space. His reply to me was "Tom Penn said so. Thanks for posting." I tried posting a longer reply with all the numbers, but it didn't get through the blog censor, so it never made it to the O-Live site.
> 
> But here are the numbers (moldorf is close but has a few figures wrong - especially in regards to the players getting qualifying offers):
> 
> ...



The first problem I see with your scenario is the assumption that portland can trade Miles for an expiring. IMO, it won't happen...no chance. I think the best portland can hope for is that Miles is traded when his is an expiring contract. That's the same off-season when portland 'hopes' to have cap space.


You're right about Webster, Frye, and Jack. Next summer is the time to act, not a year later. I think the blazers need to start thinking about trade scenarios with those 3 players as parts of packages. Getting sometging for them via trade is better then letting them just walk after renouncing their rights. I missed that in my calcs, but my contention has always been that next off-season is critical, not only for the cap-space plan, but because portland will actually have their maximum number of options.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> The first problem I see with your scenario is the assumption that portland can trade Miles for an expiring. IMO, it won't happen...no chance. I think the best portland can hope for is that Miles is traded when his is an expiring contract. That's the same off-season when portland 'hopes' to have cap space.
> 
> 
> You're right about Webster, Frye, and Jack. Next summer is the time to act, not a year later. I think the blazers need to start thinking about trade scenarios with those 3 players as parts of packages. Getting sometging for them via trade is better then letting them just walk after renouncing their rights. I missed that in my calcs, but my contention has always been that next off-season is critical, not only for the cap-space plan, but because portland will actually have their maximum number of options.


I'm actually hoping that Miles never plays again and retires for medical reasons and that the league authorizes the removal of his contract from the cap figure (see the first half of my #1).....but barring that, I don't see any other way for the team to get significantly under the cap without trading him for an expiring deal - that is, without making even more sacrifices than they have to. I'm not giving odds on this happening - I'm saying that in order to get under the cap, the Blazers have to make it happen.

Your calcs were very close - except for not counting rookie deals at 120% of their scale (which nearly all rooks sign for) and using the qualifying offer instead of the cap hold for restricted free agents. Also, 2009's 1st round pick plays into the equation.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> When Canzano did his article on cap space, I posted to his blog saying that the Blazers couldn't simply sign everyone and make all qualifying offers and have cap space. His reply to me was essentially, "Tom Penn said so. Thanks for posting." I tried posting a longer reply with all the numbers, but it didn't get through the blog censor, so it never made it to the O-Live site.
> 
> But here are the numbers (moldorf is close but has a few figures wrong - especially in regards to the players getting qualifying offers):
> 
> ...


Several issues:

One. You forgot about James Jones. His contract expires, so you have us just letting him walk. Not sure we will do that.

Two. As they are currently playing, Webster and Frye are not worth the money you have earmarked for them. (Unless they both improve from their current level) that has the team paying two guys "average" to above average salary levels for below average play.

Three. We let two average quality players on reasonable deals (Outlaw and Blake), just walk simply so we can net the cap savings.

Four. Wouldn't it be better to keep the more productive, cheaper players, and dump the less productive players, rather than extend them to more expensive deals?

Five. It will be hard to get rid of Darius Miles for an ending contract without sweeting the pot. Since extending Webster and Frye will be such an issue, a clever ploy for the Blazers would be to have Webster or Frye be part of that sweetener.

Six. The only Small Forward left on your roster is Martell Webster. And maybe a rookie. You extend Martell (the least productive of the healthy ones), let Jones walk, let Outlaw walk, and trade Darius for an ending deal. Ouch.

Seven. We have at least 5 guys on that roster that play point or part time point.

If the Blazers are serious about this cap space (they better have a good FA in mind if they are as decent rotation players will be lost in the process), they should try to bundle Darius with other players that may give them contract trouble and/or that are logjamed in our rotation. They need to do this by the end of next summer. I think trading deadline Feb 09 would be too late.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Aw shoot! I lost the link to Storyteller's salary site. Could somebody help an old fart out? :redface:


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Aw shoot! I lost the link to Storyteller's salary site. Could somebody help an old fart out? :redface:


www.storytellerscontracts.info

I'm hoping to do an update this weekend - it's been about a month :redface:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> www.storytellerscontracts.info
> 
> I'm hoping to do an update this weekend - it's been about a month :redface:


Glad to see you posting, Storyteller. 

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Several issues:
> 
> One. You forgot about James Jones. His contract expires, so you have us just letting him walk. Not sure we will do that.


For maximum cap space and to keep that roster slot open, yep, I'm saying just let him walk. My numbers addressed the guys that have guaranteed contracts in July 2009 (or in the case of the yet unsigned rookies, what their expected salary will be). Portland would have to indeed renounce Jones and LaFrentz to get under the cap significantly, and what about McRoberts and Green? Who knows? But my post was only designed to put the guaranteed numbers up there so that educated discussion could ensue.



> Two. As they are currently playing, Webster and Frye are not worth the money you have earmarked for them. (Unless they both improve from their current level) that has the team paying two guys "average" to above average salary levels for below average play.


My figure is listed as a 'maximum'. It takes into account that they might progress their production between now and July. Of course, signing them for less would mean more cap room.



> Three. We let two average quality players on reasonable deals (Outlaw and Blake), just walk simply so we can net the cap savings.


I'm not saying it's the best move. I'm saying that if the Blazers want to get under the cap, those are the types of choices that must be made.



> Four. Wouldn't it be better to keep the more productive, cheaper players, and dump the less productive players, rather than extend them to more expensive deals?


Of course. Thus my statement at the end of 'this is just one scenario'. Feel free to post your own. I didn't intend to post every possible way that the Blazers can get under the cap, but I did want to show that some tough choices would have to be made to do so.



> Five. It will be hard to get rid of Darius Miles for an ending contract without sweeting the pot. Since extending Webster and Frye will be such an issue, a clever ploy for the Blazers would be to have Webster or Frye be part of that sweetener.


Again, one other scenario. My point of bringing up the 'true numbers' is so that legitimate scenarios can be brought up - not that mine was the only one.



> Six. The only Small Forward left on your roster is Martell Webster. And maybe a rookie. You extend Martell (the least productive of the healthy ones), let Jones walk, let Outlaw walk, and trade Darius for an ending deal. Ouch.


Good point. What about Fernandez or Roy? They might be a little short to play SF unless the entire lineup was designed to 'go small'. Thus again the need for further scenarios.



> Seven. We have at least 5 guys on that roster that play point or part time point.


Rodriguez and Koponen. Roy's not a point in my mind. Jack is proving his best position is SG off the bench, IMO. Who else? One of the rookies?



> If the Blazers are serious about this cap space (they better have a good FA in mind if they are as decent rotation players will be lost in the process), they should try to bundle Darius with other players that may give them contract trouble and/or that are logjamed in our rotation. They need to do this by the end of next summer. I think trading deadline Feb 09 would be too late.


Agreed. The problem with trading Darius is that if he retires (because of the knee surgeries) after the Blazers trade him , the other team gets $0 in cap relief. That's not appealing. Again, back to my ultimate hope that he simply retires and that his contract comes off the cap.


Sorry to all if my earlier post came across as 'this is the way to do it'. I wanted to post one possible scenario using the real numbers, while still saying that other scenarios are also possible. In fact, as I think about it, I'd almost rather keep McRoberts and let Frye walk - that would result in significant cap savings. But this point is clear - despite what Canzano intimated a couple of weeks ago, the Blazers cannot keep everyone and have either the roster spot or the cap room to make a big splash in free agency in the summer of 2009.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> www.storytellerscontracts.info
> 
> I'm hoping to do an update this weekend - it's been about a month :redface:



Thanks...for the info and the site itself! :biggrin:


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Storyteller said:


> Sorry to all if my earlier post came across as 'this is the way to do it'. I wanted to post one possible scenario using the real numbers, while still saying that other scenarios are also possible. In fact, as I think about it, I'd almost rather keep McRoberts and let Frye walk - that would result in significant cap savings. But this point is clear - despite what Canzano intimated a couple of weeks ago, the Blazers cannot keep everyone and have either the roster spot or the cap room to make a big splash in free agency in the summer of 2009.



I certainly didn't take it that way...I appreciated your perspective and corrections to my assumptions.

I think a medical retirement for Miles seems unlikely at this point. The official Blazer page has a video of him elevating and dunking over McRoberts wednesday...it looked pretty strong.

I'm not a big fan of the cap space plan anyway, and Miles may have some value when his contract is expiring (providing he's playing again)

I'd prefer that Pritchard pull out his trading hat and put it on this summer, preferrably a major trade that bot only brings in a player but allows portland to move up 2 or places in the draft. I think they'll have to do it.

I like your site by the way...good job and thanks for the effort.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> The only Small Forward left on your roster is Martell Webster. And maybe a rookie. You extend Martell (the least productive of the healthy ones), let Jones walk, let Outlaw walk, and trade Darius for an ending deal. Ouch.


If there is a position where I don't mind the club going on the cheap to attain a true talent at another position, it's the 3. There are just so many decent to good ones out there, I don't see that position as a priority. Seemingly every draft and Free Agency period features several good options... supply and demand is in the team's favor. 

The world champs picked up Bowen with a MLE... heck Portland's starter last year (Ime) was a last minute addition to the roster. Dude shot 40%+ from 3 and played solid D on a minimum contract. I expect Jones to be starting shortly, and he was attained just by giving PHX some $$$ (3Mil I think). His replacement there (Grant Hill) is doing great making only 2Mil this season. 

This doesn't mean that I'd be against having (and paying the going rate for) a star there, that would be great... I hope Pritchard is eventually able to put a stud at all 5 spots. I just don't think it would be a bad way to cut costs if the club feels it could land a true talent at another harder to fill position... say PG. The 3 spot could be adequately filled down the line one way or another.

STOMP


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

It's interesting to look at the numbers thus laid out. Where did you get the cap hold numbers? Webster and Frye's numbers look insanely high. Right now there is no way they are worth anywhere near their cap holds.

Basically, though, it comes down to letting go of some of our non-core players to add a potential all star and then filling in with lower priced players.

Some teams have done very well in free agency- the Suns come to mind and i'm sure there are others.

If we look at a core group of:

Oden
Aldridge
Roy
maybe next year's lottery pick

Then you can see that we'd be markedly improved to add say a Gilbert Arenas or a similar player to our core.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Where did you get the cap hold numbers?


I took my numbers here and multiplied them according to the information here.

As free agents with Bird rights coming off their rookie scale deal, Webster, Frye and Jack would count against the cap in an amount equal to 300% of their 2008-09 salary. That's if they're allowed to become restricted free agents.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

oh my god... tradetheo the biggest crybaby in the world is back.

must be out of weed again.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> oh my god... tradetheo the biggest crybaby in the world is back.
> 
> must be out of weed again.



So, explain to us what part of his argument is wrong? Tell us what great FA we will be signing in 09? We would all love to know!


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I just want to point out that being under the cap doesnt only help in landing FA's but also gives more flexibility in making trades. Being able to take back several million dollars more than we send out in a trade could help us land an unhappy all-star somewhere. Not that all-stars ever demand to be traded...


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

One more possible set of players to keep for 2009:


Przybilla $6,857,725
Oden $5,361,240
Aldridge $5,844,827
Webster $7,000,000 (signed to extension in 2008)
Roy $3,910,816
Jack $6,007,869 (cap hold as restricted free agent)
Rodriguez $1,576,696
Fernandez $1,165,320
McRoberts $1,000,497 (cap hold as restricted free agent)
Green $1,000,497 (cap hold as restricted free agent)
Koponen $824,200 (cap hold with expectation of signing in summer of 2009)
Freeland $824,200 (cap hold with expectation of signing in summer of 2009)
2008 1st round pick $2,255,880 (assuming #10 pick)
2009 1st round pick $1,099,100 (cap hold assuming #20 pick)

That's $44,728,867 for 14 players.

Bye bye to Frye, Jones, LaFrentz, Outlaw and Blake. Hello to bidding for the best player (SF?) on the free agent market.

Oh, and yes, Miles must retire.....


----------

