Offseason Rumors/News
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
Dame in classic Dame fashion never said he'd leave, but suddenly there were weird rumors, like that Jody Allen didn't return his calls.... then this morning he denies that, says they have a great relationship... a few hours later big extension.
It's dumb in some ways but....
Portland's fans don't seem to care that much about winning a title, They would rather be a 4-7 seed with Dame for another 3-4 years than re-set and take a chance at being bad.
It's dumb in some ways but....
Portland's fans don't seem to care that much about winning a title, They would rather be a 4-7 seed with Dame for another 3-4 years than re-set and take a chance at being bad.
I think people are overestimating the impact of Dame leaving would have on the fans of Portland. They have always had great fans and I think the effect would be minimal as long as they were trying to get better. I’m not sure you could find one fan saying they were changing allegiance if you don’t sign Dame for a season 4 years from now.
Of course, I could be the one underestimating.
Of course, I could be the one underestimating.
It’s crazy top basketball players are making double top baseball and football players. I get the economic reasons behind it, it’s just not something I thought I’d ever see.
Yup. If Harden bounces back, they'll be great. They'll have to count on his health and fitness and Embiid's, but man, that's a pretty good roster. I love Thybulle, Harris and Maxey are nice complementary pieces and Maxey has room to grow. Now, if Harden gets hurt again, and Embiid misses time...
Yes absolutely. Sometimes we forget the business side of this game and Lillard is the face of that franchise. Not every team has championship aspirations……in fact, I’d say close to half don’t.
I don't really understand the folks saying "The Blazers are happy to be mediocre" with Dame. What else are they supposed to do here? What would make them actually get better? They have two choices - add to Dame, which it seems like they're trying to do, or trade Dame.
So, yeah, they could trade Lillard and that would net them likely a player or players that aren't as good as Dame and then some draft picks, and then they'll also bottom out to make their own pick better... and then what? Because those players they draft aren't guaranteed to be good, and then if they are good, it will likely take a while for them to get there. Probably not before Dame turns 36. Maybe they'd have more cap room, but what does that get you nowadays? Jalen Brunson?
If you're going to have to wait that long for a chance at having a team that's better than the one you have now, why not delay the start of it, have some fun years with Dame (maybe Sharpe hits and you're ceiling gets higher) and do that after he leaves to be a bench piece on a championship team or retire. They have a playoff team now - why rush to bottom out when that won't pay dividends for years?
So, yeah, they could trade Lillard and that would net them likely a player or players that aren't as good as Dame and then some draft picks, and then they'll also bottom out to make their own pick better... and then what? Because those players they draft aren't guaranteed to be good, and then if they are good, it will likely take a while for them to get there. Probably not before Dame turns 36. Maybe they'd have more cap room, but what does that get you nowadays? Jalen Brunson?
If you're going to have to wait that long for a chance at having a team that's better than the one you have now, why not delay the start of it, have some fun years with Dame (maybe Sharpe hits and you're ceiling gets higher) and do that after he leaves to be a bench piece on a championship team or retire. They have a playoff team now - why rush to bottom out when that won't pay dividends for years?
I mean... sure, but that argument works better if you DON'T needlessly extend him. Dame has 3 years left on his deal, why make it 5? Coming off an injury? Why not play this year, see where you are then make a decision.
Edit- also I think it's not that hard to imagine being as good without Dame in 2 years as they are now. Dame (pre-extension particularly) had real trade value, they could have been adding a Harden-like return. Except unlike HOU they would have solid young players to add to. They wouldn't have to strip down to the studs like OKC for example, they could re-set rather than re-build. The Celtics did it twice, New Orleans is a playoff team 3 years post-AD with whom they were fringy, Wolves re-set quickly post Butler,
Last edited:
Trade him to a team in contention to be a third star so those fans will be happy. Obviously.
Ideally, sure. But if he doesn't get what he wants and demands a trade, what kind of return do they get get when dealing under duress?
I think star players in the NBA have as much leverage as any players in any sport, and they're using it. It's good that guys are getting paid, but it really is a lousy dynamic.
Football players only play 17-20 games a season, compared to multiples of that for basketball players. Of course, many more fans watch a given football game. Of course baseball is sort of the opposite, tons and tons of games. I assume the gate for baseball must dwarf the other sports - but I assume the t.v. money is much less per game.
I think what is interesting to think about is the disparity between the stars and the non-stars and how much they get paid. I'm curious how similar or dissimilar that is between professional sports.
I think few teams have really regretted trading aging stars. (probably just Chris Paul)
There are the interpersonal reasons that matter. With all of the change in ownership, the fact that they may be selling, they want to show the fanbase and their players that there is stability. You also want to reward the player who stays and never pulled a Durant/Kyrie/Simmons/Harden, etc. We pretend like these guys are robots but they're not - look at how the Celtics players didn't appreciate being treated like assets when DA was in charge.
What's the worse thing that happens here? Dame gets injured and the Blazers are bad I guess, which means that they'd be in the exact same position if they traded Dame. If Dame just straight up sucks, it's the same issue - they're bad, but they were going to be bad anyway. Either way they get a high draft pick. If the problem is that a 36 year old Damian Lillard is making them too good to get a high spot in the lottery, then that's probably still a tradeable contract that they can get off of.
John Wall was on the books for last year's Rockets and he played a key role in them tanking the last couple years despite taking up a large, large portion of their salary cap. Everyone loves the Rockets' future now and no one was saying, "Man, if only they could get that bloated John Wall contract off their books." Dame could be the next John Wall or he could be traded for the next John Wall. Who cares? It's just ownership money. By the time you're tanking, you're not trying to use that cap space on real players anyway, you're just renting it out to collect assets.
EDIT: To be clear, not saying "Wow, what a great signing!". I'm more just arguing that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
That may be true. I don't know what the true value of a star is to a team not in contention. How many asses in seats and other money-making opportunities does that mean for a franchise? I'd love to see a metric for that.
For a non-destination franchise that rarely attracts stars and usually has to develop their own, letting one go seems to be hard.
This is just straight up not true though. Being bad (not necessarily a given) because you traded a star to be good in the future is not at all the same as being bad because you have a rotting corpse eating your cap space and getting nothing for it.
Wall is a terrible comparison, because he was a salary dump... they GOT assets for eating him, and the reason that people love the Rockets; future is because the DID trade their own big star face of the franchise and got a ton of asset for him.
It's the exact same thing - if you're bad, you're bad. It doesn't matter how clean your cap sheet is. When these stars get traded, it's not the actual return on the trade that makes the team better - it's that you become terrible enough to enter a lightly weighted lottery with your own pick.
They love the future because of Jaylen Green and Jabari Smith, and it didn't matter that there was an overpaid star sitting on their bench. If the ping pong balls went another way and they got Jalen Suggs, people wouldn't be talking them up.
This is all just a matter of timing - the Blazers are going to suck at some point, why doesn't it matter if it happens now or later? For all the love OKC gets, they keep having to play like dogshit year in and year out, and there's talk of them sucking again this year to have another crack at a franchise player. Once you go down that path, you're pot-committed and how long can you go on waiting for luck? Take the wins while you can - only the hardcore fans give a shit about young guys who may never work out.
I mean... you're on a board for a team that is built around the return from a star trade that did not bottom out for multiple years.
Even then, a lot of the optimism in the team you chose (HOU) is about their future assets, Sengun is a big part of it too (got him for the pick they got for eating Wall). The value you get back is very much important. Teams with just their own bad picks and nothing else have a much much harder road than a team with a bunch of assets. Whether they use those to trade (see the early 2000 Celtics who traded a bunch of guys including an All-Star off a playoff team for a 1 year tank into trading for 2 HOFs) or draft (see early 2010s Celtics who drafted Brown and Tatum), they give you many more chances to improve your team than just being bad does. Sure you could end up squandering it... but a front office that does that is likely to have done even worse with less assets. One way you can help yourself not be hostage to ping pong balls and the often unpredictable nature of youth development/scouting is by getting more chances.
I realize this - but surely you can see how the situations are different, no? Pierce and Garnett were the age when Lillard's contract runs out when they were traded. Should Boston have traded Pierce before the 2007-08 season when he was Dame's age now? Bottom out to get another lottery pick? They were pretty bad the year before.
If Portland traded him for some assets, I'd be fine with it. Again, I'm just saying it really doesn't matter what they do with him in the big picture. Here's an example:
In 2019, the Pelicans traded for an historic haul for Anthony Davis at the height of his value. Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball, Josh Hart, picks that became Jaxson Hayes, NAW, and Dyson Daniels. They also got the number 1 pick overall in Zion WIlliamson (the luck!), traded Jrue Holiday in 20 for a big haul, traded some of that combined stuff for CJ McCollum, and they have more picks on the way. In the intervening years they've gone... 30-42, 31-41, 36-46 (play in to 8th seed) and while young and talented, there's really no guarantee they'll even be .500 this year. Plus, though they've signed Zion to an extension, is there really any confidence that he's not going to ask for a trade soon?
In 2019/20, after years of people saying that they should trade Mike Conley and Marc Gasol at the peak of their value, the Memphis Grizzlies settled for some uninspiring packages (a couple of jazz firsts and Grayson Allen, a 2nd round pick from the Ratpors). They got lucky in the lottery and drafted Ja Morant, and then opportunistically have grabbed some depth and interesting players in the intervening years. They've had a much better record and I think you can say that the future is brighter for them despite all of the wonderful assets that NOLA has at their disposably.
Clearly, there's been some luck and bad management at play for those two franchises, but that's my point. The future is so murky no matter how many "assets" you have or youth or what have you. It's a total crapshoot, guys get injured, they don't work out, they don't like playing in a small market. If you have a guy like Dame who wants to stay - such a rarity right now - it makes some sense to keep him happy, bank some playoff appearances, and delay the inevitable lottery ticket scratching until you have to. It just doesn't seem so black and white to me that this kind of a commitment is dumb or like a failure of wanting to compete.
I am fine with not trading Dame. My point has more been that you don't need to extend him multiple years early, coming off a major injury, there is just no reason to do that, and if Dame says he'll force his way out... call his bluff, I'd rather sell too early on a guy when my team isn't very good even with him, than tie myself into what I know will be a negative asset. If POR was good... sure. But they aren't, and they just traded CJ and Norm Powell for very little, which tells me they don't have a real strong desire to go for it hard. If you aren't trying to (or going to) win now, why are you tying up your injured, aging small PG when there is zero reason to? Keep him... sure. Give him extra years way down the line at insane money just doesn't make sense. It particularly doesn't for Dame because along with all the things that make him a poor bet to age really well, he's built a whole brand around how he'd never ask out. He couldn't do more than have his agent leak some stuff this year. It's just a big unforced error. I feel the same way about it I do about the Beal no trade and kicker... there was zero reason to do it, and it gives you less flexibility to take paths to improve your team.
I dunno. A 25-win team without Dame would seem to make the Blazers irrelevant to me.
Why are we assuming they would be a 25 win team? A lot can happen in 3 years including deciding to sign Dame next year if that is what is needed. I just don’t think they needed to attach the years right now.
They’ve essentially been a 25-win team for the last decade if you take Lillard off team and they had motivation to add talent. They are the Hornets of the West.
Vulcan, Cronin and all of the Blazers folks agreed to this extension. They by definition feel like its a fair deal for them. Is it really a leap to think they thought this through? It would be a shock if this were unexpected by either side, in some form or another.
Blazers had kind of a weird season last year...
12-17 in games Lillard played
14-16 in games he didn't play, including 13-11 after he was done for the season
Then, after a 4 game winning streak they decided it was tanking time & lost 5 of their next 6 games by at least 30 points (with a 14 point loss mixed in), & finished the season on a 2-21 streak.
Not really sure what that tells you about anything, except the Blazers obviously aren't opposed to tanking. You can read into the other segments any which way you want...
12-17 in games Lillard played
14-16 in games he didn't play, including 13-11 after he was done for the season
Then, after a 4 game winning streak they decided it was tanking time & lost 5 of their next 6 games by at least 30 points (with a 14 point loss mixed in), & finished the season on a 2-21 streak.
Not really sure what that tells you about anything, except the Blazers obviously aren't opposed to tanking. You can read into the other segments any which way you want...
In my opinion there are 2 things I enjoy as a fan. 1. A good team that has a chance to compete for a title. 2. A shitty team with young players and draft picks that you want to watch develop. There is nothing more boring than a team like the Pacers or Wizards or Blazers that are mediocre with no chance of a title and no chance of drafting players that could develop into a title winner. Maybe there are fans that would rather see a Dame but man that just seems like no fun to me.
They really haven't. Before last year's hard tank they were a .500 team in games Lillard missed from 2016-2021 (as far back as my source went), honestly they weren't that much worse last year without him until they traded CJ and Norm Powell for nothing, shut down other guys and ran out G-League units, and that's with a guy taking up a ton of cap rather than adding talent. The year before Lillard they won 28 games, the 4 years before that wer3 48, 50, 54, 41, there is no indication that they'd suddenly become perennial cellar-dwellers. They might take a step back, but they might well be just as good in a year or two depending on return.
And have they been really trying that hard to add talent? They paid tax twice in 15 years. They kept a GM who refused to trade either of his undersized guards because they were the guys he drafted, even as year after year it failed because playing together made them worse. This is a team that very much has been run as a better talent, better injury luck version of the Wizards... we're in this to keep our guys and make the playoffs, and cash checks, we aren't looking for titles.
Eventually Dame is going to leave or retire. Are they going to be a 25 win team forever going forward? If so they need a new owner and gm.
It may turn out to be the right decision but I don’t think it was a good one to make at this time.
Dame played all 82 his 1st 3 seasons.
'15-'16 4-3 without
'16-'17 3-4 without
'17-'18 5-4 without
'18-'19 2-0 without
'19-'20 2-6 without
'20-'21 3-2 without
Main takeaway...super durable guy until last year.
19-19 without Dame over his 1st 9 seasons.
'15-'16 4-3 without
'16-'17 3-4 without
'17-'18 5-4 without
'18-'19 2-0 without
'19-'20 2-6 without
'20-'21 3-2 without
Main takeaway...super durable guy until last year.
19-19 without Dame over his 1st 9 seasons.
So your argument is they agreed to it so it must be the right decision? No one is saying they didn’t think it through. People are saying they think it is very risky to sign an aging guard coming off a season ending injury for 2 years at 122 million earlier than needed.
I also disliked the Gobert trade for Minnesota. I say that fully understanding they have more information than I do and they agreed to it and thought it through.
I also liked the Brogdon trade fully understanding he could get hurt and it might now work out. Also understanding that they have more information than I do and thought it through.
The argument that they have more information than fans is obvious. That doesn’t mean we can’t have opinions.
A teams record in games a star player misses is about as misleading of a stat as there is. You have the regular season letdown effect combined with the shorthanded team playing harder. That’s how this league has worked for decades. 19-19 without him in those games to me is an indication that they have pretty bad talent on the floor without him.
Dame Lillard is the most popular person, not athlete, but person in the State of Oregon. He is absolutely adored by the local fan base, and fans would turn on the team fast unless they absolutely threaded the needle on a deal and managed to both find Dame a better situation and get a return that made them better going forward. This is not a market that has an appetite for tanking.
It’s easy to suggest blowing it up from afar, but my read locally is that fans here would rather cheer on a Lillard team that wins 40-50 games every year than be bad for three years for a slim chance at being better in the long run.
It’s easy to suggest blowing it up from afar, but my read locally is that fans here would rather cheer on a Lillard team that wins 40-50 games every year than be bad for three years for a slim chance at being better in the long run.
19-19 indicates to me that it's perfectly fine talent, especially when you have the games after he's done for the year. Teams with really bad talent don't sustain without their stars for more than a game or two.
There is zero indication that the talent around him at any point was 25 win talent, you only need to look at CJ going to another team without a midget guard and being one of the best players in a late season playoff charge, or Powell's career (before that they had Aldridge, etc.) Dame is really good, the talent around him was also pretty good, more often then not it was a poor fit, in that they loaded up on smallish guards who were offense heavy, when Dame is also small, and plays no defense, such that losing Dame made CJ more effective. There is far more evidence that the Blazers had solid mid-level NBA talent than any argument that it was Dame and a bunch of scrubs. If Dame had missed all year in say 2018, the team is worse... but it's probably a 45-47 win team instead of 53,
I agree, that's probably true, but still doesn't really justify an extension with 3 years left (other than it's a PR ploy because they know the team is going to be pretty bad this year), I mentioned it upthread, the Blazers don't particularly want to win at a high level and fans are okay with that to an extent few other fanbases are. They just want to stay out of the tax, hopefully make the playoffs and coast.
Of course it’s a PR move. The collapse of the Olshey regime is still fresh, and Jody Allen has done nothing to redeem herself with the local fanbase. Pair that with the strange off-season they had and it was clear that they wanted to show that they were committed to Dame for the rest of his career. Not sure it was really a basketball decision.
I don't have an argument and my post was directed at the forum in general. I apologize for any confusion.
We aren't cool though because nowhere in my post- which again wasn't @ you because the general consensus seems to be down on Dame's career here- did I say anything about the opinions of you or anyone else. I said nothing of that sort.
I was simply expressing a view that the Portland front office likely planned for this. I am assuming they understand the risks with Lillard's age, size and physical condition. I may be dead wrong on all of that.
I know a few die-hard Blazers fans and I understand how beloved Dame is in Portland. @cheech13 nails it imo. Lillard is an icon and its not just symbolic. He helps sell sponsorships and generate other revenue streams. There is likely some economic rationale behind keeping him around in addition to the good will angle.
I think we can understand why the Blazers are doing it, and say that from a purely basketball sense it makes little sense.
It's basically like the Kobe contract, a deal to keep an incredibly popular player in town through his decline at a massive price, with the knowledge it probably means you'll never contend again until it's over. Dame isn't as far into decline as Kobe was, but he also wasn't as good at his peak, and his team never won anything with him either.
There are reasons franchises do this, but at the same time.... that Kobe deal was so bad it not only got the GM fired, it cost the lead owner his spot.
In terms of the deal.. it's pretty indefensible in looking at good vs bad transactions and the idea that the goal of an NBA team is to win a Championship. It is also understandable when you recognize that some franchises aren't looking to win Championships.
I'd be curious what Blazers fans think.
On the one hand they love Dame, and they get their superstar locked up even if he'll probably not be a superstar by the time it's done.
On the other hand, they just spent a season cutting salary and throwing away any pretense of trying to win games. POR had good teams and a loyal fanbase before Dame, wonder how many of those people are less than thrilled at the prospect of punting what will likely be 5-8 years
It's basically like the Kobe contract, a deal to keep an incredibly popular player in town through his decline at a massive price, with the knowledge it probably means you'll never contend again until it's over. Dame isn't as far into decline as Kobe was, but he also wasn't as good at his peak, and his team never won anything with him either.
There are reasons franchises do this, but at the same time.... that Kobe deal was so bad it not only got the GM fired, it cost the lead owner his spot.
In terms of the deal.. it's pretty indefensible in looking at good vs bad transactions and the idea that the goal of an NBA team is to win a Championship. It is also understandable when you recognize that some franchises aren't looking to win Championships.
I'd be curious what Blazers fans think.
On the one hand they love Dame, and they get their superstar locked up even if he'll probably not be a superstar by the time it's done.
On the other hand, they just spent a season cutting salary and throwing away any pretense of trying to win games. POR had good teams and a loyal fanbase before Dame, wonder how many of those people are less than thrilled at the prospect of punting what will likely be 5-8 years
We interrupt this episode of "Dame In The Middle" to drop this massive Woj bomb from yesterday:
View: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1545474807948398592
Frank the Tank is off the market. Carry on.
View: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1545474807948398592
Frank the Tank is off the market. Carry on.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we can't say this. They're trying to keep their best player, maybe the best player in the history of their franchise, happy, committed, and on board with their direction. This was the earliest they can extend him but since it's so early it's also the least amount of years they can extend him (they can only do 2). So if Dame's camp comes to them this year and says "We want to extend" and the Blazers say, "Nah, let's see how this shakes out" and then Dame plays like an all-NBA player this year- still a possibility at 32 - they're bent over during next year's extension talks, when the max they can extend him is 3. Then they're paying $180 for 3 years.
With the new TV deal that will raise BRI by 50% when he's getting paid $60 mil, this contract will be fine, they can still trade it if they have to. Like I've said, this simply does not matter - it's just ownership money. It's not going to prevent them from doing anything in the future.
The flaw in this line of reasoning is the "they can still trade him if they have to"
Once 30+ small guards age, they become untradeable overnight, particularly if you're talking multiple years of a max.
The Blazers now have 5 years during which that could happen at any point AND during which they won't be title contenders.
Fun times ahead!
Do people here really believe that Portland's ownership and management haven't even considered that this extension might (its not a given, despite some of the near certain takes here) end badly for the franchise? Its possible I guess but highly unlikely. Yet they agreed to accept the very real, legitimate risk that Lillard breaks down at some point during his contract.
What are they missing or ignoring that we know?
What are they missing or ignoring that we know?
We can't really just appeal to authority of every team in the league or there really isn't much to discuss.
Team X did Y, so Y must be a good idea is not like exciting messageboarding.
They weigh the risks & rewards one way, posters weigh it however they want. Blazers have more information, but they also might be a bit close to the situation to be making the most rational decision.
The other potential issue is that posters may have a different goal for the Blazers than the Blazers have for themselves. Posters could think the Blazers should be going for championship equity & the Blazers could be thinking this is the way to keep their franchise value highest, or get the least fan backlash, or avoid bottoming out, or whatever else their goal is.
There's nuance & reason teams do all the things they do - the smarter the team, the more likely those things will be objectively smart.
Team X did Y, so Y must be a good idea is not like exciting messageboarding.
They weigh the risks & rewards one way, posters weigh it however they want. Blazers have more information, but they also might be a bit close to the situation to be making the most rational decision.
The other potential issue is that posters may have a different goal for the Blazers than the Blazers have for themselves. Posters could think the Blazers should be going for championship equity & the Blazers could be thinking this is the way to keep their franchise value highest, or get the least fan backlash, or avoid bottoming out, or whatever else their goal is.
There's nuance & reason teams do all the things they do - the smarter the team, the more likely those things will be objectively smart.
One thing getting missed in Dame's extension is that there is a very real chance Phil Knight owns this team by the time it kicks in.
Makes sense to keep the face of the franchise around to make sure the locals are happy and get as much of a premium as possible in a sale.
Makes sense to keep the face of the franchise around to make sure the locals are happy and get as much of a premium as possible in a sale.
People here are arguing that the Blazers made a bad decision given all the risks that come with Lillard and his specs. Yet Portland did so anyway. I don't care about squelching "oh that's dumb" posts here. Shade the Portland franchise all you want - its not undeserved. If you are in that camp, there is nothing more to discuss.
That said, if Portland somehow also has tumbled to the downside of this deal along with the rest of the planet and yet still did it, there is presumably some logic behind it. That's a more interesting discussion for me than asserting that my expertise as an NBA subforum poster makes me a qualified arbiter of what is good or not. I mean, it does but you all have no way of knowing that. I might be some rando with little to know information and an opinion. That's fine too but its worthless imo.
That said, if Portland somehow also has tumbled to the downside of this deal along with the rest of the planet and yet still did it, there is presumably some logic behind it. That's a more interesting discussion for me than asserting that my expertise as an NBA subforum poster makes me a qualified arbiter of what is good or not. I mean, it does but you all have no way of knowing that. I might be some rando with little to know information and an opinion. That's fine too but its worthless imo.
Last edited:
How could Portland get "championship equity"? People assume that bottoming out leads to championships, but it doesn't. It leads to the hope of possible championships, because you're starting from square one again, but the likelihood that such a deconstruction leads to a "championship" or even like the conference finals is very slim. It typically leads to teams topping out as what the Blazers currently have.
Actual championship equity is holding onto Dame, keeping him happy, and seeing if he can convince KD to play there. It's not an unrealistic option if BK prefers Simons, Sharpe, plus picks and filler over Ayton at the Max or Miami's pu-pu platter. In that framing, this extension is a great idea.
I don't think we're appealing to authority here. We're simply stating that Portland has a lot of bad options on the table, because that's what happens when max players age. It's the nature of the league. It's not a slam dunk that this is stupid as some people posit.
Why is it that untradeable contracts seem to get traded the most in the nba? I remember when Rudy Gobert's extension was deemed untradeable. Chris Paul - untradeable. Russell Westbrook - untradeable. These untradeable contracts are only a problem when you're trying to compete - see the Lakers - and it seems like the folks negative on this move don't want them to compete anyway, so what is it going to matter in the end?
I think they're both equally fine conclusions to come to. All either side of the debate are doing is weighing the pros & cons & deciding if you personally think there are more pros than cons.
I've never even said it's a bad idea. I think the only thing I said is that it's a ton of $. There's virtually no chance 36 year old DAME will be worth 35% of the cap or a team with that cap requirement will win a championship because there's not enough room to put together a good enough team around him (without winning the lottery on a generational star on a rookie deal).
Does that make it a bad idea? Idk. Would I give it to him if he said he would demand a trade if I didn't give it to him? Maybe after quietly exploring the trade market & seeing if I could get back a package that would actually be worth it to trade him.
So Lillard’s contract was going to run out at the same time as the old TV deal and he would have been a free agent when the new deal kicks in (2-3 times the size of the old deal). Even with smoothing, assume most teams would have major money to spend. Apparently, neither Lillard or the blazers wanted to be part of that clusterf—k, so they both chose the security of an extension.
We are going to see a lot of teams and agents start planning around the 25-26 free agent season.
Equity is the % chance a team wins a championship. The Blazers are currently +10,000 to win the title next year. That includes the chance of a big trade, & the fact that the futures market is hugely juiced in the favor of the books.
So the betting odds put them at 1%, while their actual odds are lower. That's their equity of winning a title this year - way less than 1%.
What can they do to increase those odds? Well, for the last 10 years they've tried to build around Dame & this is where they've gotten.
I don't think they'd win the title with KD either, but that would definitely be a fun team. Why would Dame try to convince KD to come with the extension, but not without the extension, though?
If you think that's actually a thing that he would do, tell him you'll give him whatever extension & conditions he wants if he can recruit that next big star. He's been there 10 years, though. What star has he recruited? Who has been their biggest FA signing in the past 10 years?
All contracts are tradeable... it's just a matter of what you have to do to get off of them. Trading a guy when he has positive value is hugely more helpful for a franchise than trading him when he has negative value.
The Rockets thought the CP3 contract was so bad they traded '24 & '26 1sts & '21 & '25 swaps for RW who had an even worse contract.
Then, to get off RW's disaster contract, they had to trade a 1st to the Wizards for the right to take on John Wall's disaster contract where they paid him approximately $110m to play 40 games over 2 1/2 seasons.
& yes, the Thunder who are actually good at rehabbing value & selling high took all those picks from the Rockets & then also got a '22 1st, Oubre & Rubio for Paul. They traded Oubre for another couple picks & used Rubio to trade up from Jaden McDaniels to Poku (oops).
But bottom line, this is more one of those Kobe legacy contracts than something the Blazers will try to unload once it's underwater I'm pretty sure.
I read that to mean that those $s actually could be adjusted upward if the cap goes up significantly, but I could be wrong.
- Status