Offseason Rumors/News

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
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.
This is the sort of discussion that is interesting to me. Not some version of me sitting behind a phone/monitor and saying "gah, what dummies for locking in money owed to a guy who was washed last year and most definitely will fall apart due to his size, usage etc etc". Those may all be true but until the outcome has been crystallized, its all just speculation. There really is no discussion to be had unless you want to debate how the future plays out. That is uninteresting to me.

Does the tv deal expiry change our thinking about why the Blazers are doing it? It certainly makes more sense than them thinking that Lillard will defy aging or injuries. Portland more than likely wasn't just cajoled into this decision - there is some process at work here. Maybe the process is flawed or ill conceived but the background on that is far more fascinating than proclaiming a winner and a loser of a deal.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,857
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.
Right, Vulcan is obligated to sell the franchise, and soon right?

Is the franchise worth more as a sale with or without Dame?
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
This is the sort of discussion that is interesting to me. Not some version of me sitting behind a phone/monitor and saying "gah, what dummies for locking in money owed to a guy who was washed last year and most definitely will fall apart due to his size, usage etc etc". Those may all be true but until the outcome has been crystallized, its all just speculation. There really is no discussion to be had unless you want to debate how the future plays out. That is uninteresting to me.

Does the tv deal expiry change our thinking about why the Blazers are doing it? It certainly makes more sense than them thinking that Lillard will defy aging or injuries. Portland more than likely wasn't just cajoled into this decision - there is some process at work here. Maybe the process is flawed or ill conceived but the background on that is far more fascinating than proclaiming a winner and a loser of a deal.
You find it interesting because it backs up your pro-Portland stance

3-years in the future TV advertising $$$ is just as speculative as mid-30yr old PG play
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
You find it interesting because it backs up your pro-Portland stance

3-years in the future TV advertising $$$ is just as speculative as mid-30yr old PG play
I am not pro Portland. I am anti uninformed judgements. I have never said Portland is making the right decision. Just that those saying that they screwed up aren't evaluating with any rigor.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
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.
But explain how their championship equity is higher without Dame Lillard. I cited the Durant thing as a faint possibility, not a likelihood. You ask the question "What can they do to increase those odds?" Well... what's the answer to that question? What gives them more championship equity than Dame Lillard?

We look at the lens of these star trades as if Jaylen and Jayson are the typical returns when that's actually atypical (even more so because Jaylen was a pick that was booed by Boston fans and he's hitting his 90%+ outcome). We don't think of Jaxson Hayes, Nickeill Alexander Walker, and Dyson Daniels. We don't imagine that tanking teams are more likely to end up with Josh Giddey or Jalen Suggs or James Wiseman or Isaac Okoro or Onyeka Okungwu. Most of the top 10 becomes starters and role players (or busts), not stars, so how is that more valuable than Dame now? Like Jaylen Green looks really good - what is the likelihood he's ever as good as a 32 year old Dame Lillard? Is that an 80/90% outcome? It's not a given, I'll say that much.

And why do the extension now? Because Dame probably asked. Look around the league, guys are starting to ask out 3-4 years ahead of when their contract ends and then dictating the destination. So what's the harm in keeping him happy? What is the hypothetical penalty that the Blazers pay for this contract? Why would they need to get rid of Dame if he's not living up to the contract? Every team you listed was trying to compete - if they stink, and they're not trying to compete, they won't need to give up picks to get off of him.

RE: Kobe legacy contract - that probably paid off! You don't think Lebron looked at that and said, "Oh, this ownership group is going to take care of me no matter what and do whatever I tell them"? And how did it harm the Lakers at all? He was really bad and enabled them to get some high picks, which is what you want tanking teams to do anyway. All he did was waste ownership money, and who cares about that?
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
But explain how their championship equity is higher without Dame Lillard. I cited the Durant thing as a faint possibility, not a likelihood. You ask the question "What can they do to increase those odds?" Well... what's the answer to that question? What gives them more championship equity than Dame Lillard?

We look at the lens of these star trades as if Jaylen and Jayson are the typical returns when that's actually atypical (even more so because Jaylen was a pick that was booed by Boston fans and he's hitting his 90%+ outcome). We don't think of Jaxson Hayes, Nickeill Alexander Walker, and Dyson Daniels. We don't imagine that tanking teams are more likely to end up with Josh Giddey or Jalen Suggs or James Wiseman or Isaac Okoro or Onyeka Okungwu. Most of the top 10 becomes starters and role players (or busts), not stars, so how is that more valuable than Dame now? Like Jaylen Green looks really good - what is the likelihood he's ever as good as a 32 year old Dame Lillard? Is that an 80/90% outcome? It's not a given, I'll say that much.

And why do the extension now? Because Dame probably asked. Look around the league, guys are starting to ask out 3-4 years ahead of when their contract ends and then dictating the destination. So what's the harm in keeping him happy? What is the hypothetical penalty that the Blazers pay for this contract? Why would they need to get rid of Dame if he's not living up to the contract? Every team you listed was trying to compete - if they stink, and they're not trying to compete, they won't need to give up picks to get off of him.

RE: Kobe legacy contract - that probably paid off! You don't think Lebron looked at that and said, "Oh, this ownership group is going to take care of me no matter what and do whatever I tell them"? And how did it harm the Lakers at all? He was really bad and enabled them to get some high picks, which is what you want tanking teams to do anyway. All he did was waste ownership money, and who cares about that?
Because tanking eventually leads to higher equity outcomes than mediocrity, if you are a competent organization.

Unloading Dame for young talent & a picks package while he is still valuable is the best way to get that generational talent & complementary pieces to be able to get an actual championship nucleus in the future.

Would they necessarily ever get back to the levels of semi-decent they can expect to be at now if they move Dame/Grant/Nurk/ everything not chained down? No, but this hypothetical future team has a much bigger ceiling than any Dame-led team.

To me that portion is clear-cut. & it's also clear-cut to me that they like having DAME there & having him play his entire career there would probably mean something to them, & he certainly lifts their floor greatly if he's healthy, like he has been his entire career until last year. Plus he's fun to watch.

So both sides have merit, & I don't have any issue with anyone who comes out on either side - I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that their championship equity over the next 5-10 years is higher keeping Dame than trading him. Only one team a year end the championship, though, so there's more to running an NBA team than just chasing that trophy with no regard to anything else.

LeBron wanted to go to LA for his brand & because they let him run the franchise. I somehow doubt he would have gone to Portland, no matter how loyal they are. But I didn't say it was a bad thing - the Lakers just had no championship equity those years & have up other chances for improvement.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Because tanking eventually leads to higher equity outcomes than mediocrity, if you are a competent organization.
I don't believe this has been proven out - "competent" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, because you're pretty much just retroactively looking at the times it worked and pretending like the times it didn't was only b/c of bad management. Yes, it's great when luck goes your way and you land on Ja Morant, but guys miss in the draft, guys get injured. I mean the Blazers just epically tanked this year, only got the 7th pick for it, took a high upside guy in Sharpe and now he's out for the SL with a shoulder injury already. That's a more enjoyable and rewarding experience - essentially making a wish every year - than squeezing what you can out of your franchise's greatest player?

The Sixers took the consensus top player in 3 out of 4 drafts and that has led to them... reaching heights lower than the Trailblazers for the last half decade. IDK, you say "5-10 years" and I look at the sixers, I look at the Wolves, these other teams that tanked or keep tanking and we're almost 10 years in with no conference finals even to speak of. The equity's only higher in the sense that it's a tabula rasa so all possibilities are on the table, but the actual equity is higher with him in the short term and then the same in years 5-10 as it would be 1-5 if they trade him now.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
I don't believe this has been proven out - "competent" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, because you're pretty much just retroactively looking at the times it worked and pretending like the times it didn't was only b/c of bad management. Yes, it's great when luck goes your way and you land on Ja Morant, but guys miss in the draft, guys get injured. I mean the Blazers just epically tanked this year, only got the 7th pick for it, took a high upside guy in Sharpe and now he's out for the SL with a shoulder injury already. That's a more enjoyable and rewarding experience - essentially making a wish every year - than squeezing what you can out of your franchise's greatest player?

The Sixers took the consensus top player in 3 out of 4 drafts and that has led to them... reaching heights lower than the Trailblazers for the last half decade. IDK, you say "5-10 years" and I look at the sixers, I look at the Wolves, these other teams that tanked or keep tanking and we're almost 10 years in with no conference finals even to speak of. The equity's only higher in the sense that it's a tabula rasa so all possibilities are on the table, but the actual equity is higher with him in the short term and then the same in years 5-10 as it would be 1-5 if they trade him now.
Ok, let's go with the counter-example. When has a team in the Blazers position ever gone from meh to championship caliber as their star gets older?

The best example may be the Paul Pierce Celtics but like...KG & Ray Allen aren't walking through that door.

They started tanking way too late if that was their goal. Not really sure what Sharpe's shoulder injury has to do with ~any of this.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Ok, let's go with the counter-example. When has a team in the Blazers position ever gone from meh to championship caliber as their star gets older?
2011 Mavericks, the late era Spurs, hell people were talking about trading Draymond and Klay because they were negative value contracts last year - I'm not saying that the Blazers will reach these heights, but if they make the playoffs, second round a couple of times over the next 2-3 years, that's closer to a championship than 25-57 and hoping the dice roll in your favor.

They started tanking way too late if that was their goal. Not really sure what Sharpe's shoulder injury has to do with ~any of this.
Sharpe is an example of the crapshoot you enter when you tank. His shoulder injury is an example that shit happens, he's going to miss development time, probably start off really slow because he's not used to the speed of the game, etc. The standard for the draft, even the top 5, is that shit doesn't work out in your favor most of the time. Last year's draft was good but it was an aberration - look at the Edwards draft, the Zion draft, the Luka draft, the Fultz draft, the Simmons draft, on and on and tell me how many of those top 10 or 5 picks would improve championship equity for the Blazers even 10 years from now. Like even if you got to pick with hindsight, it's only 4 players out of 50 if I'm being generous and even then there's no guarantee it'd be better than the next few years with Dame (are we sure the Mavs with Luka will be better than the Blazers next year?) There's a reason why a "bird in hand" has been around as a saying for thousands of years.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Ok, let's go with the counter-example. When has a team in the Blazers position ever gone from meh to championship caliber as their star gets older?

The best example may be the Paul Pierce Celtics but like...KG & Ray Allen aren't walking through that door.

They started tanking way too late if that was their goal. Not really sure what Sharpe's shoulder injury has to do with ~any of this.
The 2011 Mavs are the classic example of keeping their star and just tweaking the edges over and over until they get the right mix. The 2014 Spurs are another. You could even make the case for this year’s Warriors.

Also, context matters. You may win championships by drafting Michael Jordan or Kevin Durant, but you could also be the franchise that drafted Bowie or Oden. Selling hope doesn’t work for everyone.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
The 2011 Mavs are the classic example of keeping their star and just tweaking the edges over and over until they get the right mix. The 2014 Spurs are another. You could even make the case for this year’s Warriors.
Nothing like finding out you're on mute (JK)
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Nothing like finding out you're on mute (JK)
Sorry, I had started this post, got distracted by kids and came back to finish later, not seeing your post. Great minds think alike.

This discussion is all very interesting, but so much of each poster’s interpret depends on using a very small amount of data points to suggest outcomes that may not even be consistent with the franchise goals. Yes, in a vacuum, Dame’s contract looks bad, but that ignores the risk of many other bad outcomes that could just as easily happen if they don’t do it. Tanking is not a panacea.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
2011 Mavericks, the late era Spurs, hell people were talking about trading Draymond and Klay because they were negative value contracts last year - I'm not saying that the Blazers will reach these heights, but if they make the playoffs, second round a couple of times over the next 2-3 years, that's closer to a championship than 25-57 and hoping the dice roll in your favor.



Sharpe is an example of the crapshoot you enter when you tank. His shoulder injury is an example that shit happens, he's going to miss development time, probably start off really slow because he's not used to the speed of the game, etc. The standard for the draft, even the top 5, is that shit doesn't work out in your favor most of the time. Last year's draft was good but it was an aberration - look at the Edwards draft, the Zion draft, the Luka draft, the Fultz draft, the Simmons draft, on and on and tell me how many of those top 10 or 5 picks would improve championship equity for the Blazers even 10 years from now. Like even if you got to pick with hindsight, it's only 4 players out of 50 if I'm being generous and even then there's no guarantee it'd be better than the next few years with Dame (are we sure the Mavs with Luka will be better than the Blazers next year?) There's a reason why a "bird in hand" has been around as a saying for thousands of years.
Mavericks records by year...

'01 53-29
'02 57-25
'03 60-22
'04 52-30
'05 58-24
'06 60-22
'07 67-15
'08 51-31
'09 50-32
'10 55-27
'11 57-25

They were a solidly good to excellent team for 11 straight seasons, culminating in a title.

Blazers haven't won more than 54 games in a season in this era & that was 9 seasons ago. They've only had a winning record 3 of the last 6 seasons. They're not protecting what the Mavs were protecting in terms of a quality product.

The Spurs didn't win less than 50 games for 18 STRAIGHT YEARS.

The Warriors won the title 4 seasons ago & not unloading guys with negative value is not the same as holding onto a star when you can't build a team around him.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
Incoming hot take...

The Blazers hanging on to Lillard is closer to the Wiz hanging on to Beal than it is any of those situations.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,014
Imaginationland
I don't know that Lillard (32-36) is going to be meaningfully better than Beal (29-33) over the life of their current contracts, and Wall/Beal were always like an east coast lite version of Lillard/McCollum. I can see the comparison, although the Blazers in their current form definitely have a higher ceiling (such as it is) than the current Wizards.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
I don't know that Lillard (32-36) is going to be meaningfully better than Beal (29-33) over the life of their current contracts, and Wall/Beal were always like an east coast lite version of Lillard/McCollum. I can see the comparison, although the Blazers in their current form definitely have a higher ceiling (such as it is) than the current Wizards.
Yeah, it's amazing the string of low upside mediocre players the Wiz insist on drafting every year like they're 1 piece away or something.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
An interesting question is which deal—Beal or Lillard’s- is less wise? I can see either case.

To me, they are both statements the team doesn’t really prioritize winning a championship. Which is ok, even if it is not what I’d want my team to be declaring
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Mavericks records by year...
Sorry, I'm losing track of the goalposts you're moving. Is the issue regular season record? Or playoff success? Because from 06 to their their title, the Mavs made it to the semis once and lost in the first round every other time. There were definitely questions about that team, about Dirk, and if they could ever be "championship caliber". Were the Jazz of the last couple years championship caliber by your standards? And don't act like people weren't questioning breaking up the Warriors, believing that they were too old and injured to ever win again. The smart play according to some was to get "assets" for Dray and Klay instead of continuing to compete with them.

Do I agree with you that Dame would need a lot of help to get those lofty heights? Fuck yes - I don't think the Blazers are winning the Championship in the near future. Over the next four years, between 26 and 29 teams are also not winning titles.

I'm just saying I understand ownership looking at it like "we have probably a 35% chance to go to the second round of the playoffs in the next few years and then who knows what can happen OR we can trade Dame and then have an 8% chance of drafting a player who will be as good as him now" and electing to go with the former option. I don't think either option is particularly more serious when it comes to "championship equity."
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
Sorry, I'm losing track of the goalposts you're moving. Is the issue regular season record? Or playoff success? Because from 06 to their their title, the Mavs made it to the semis once and lost in the first round every other time. There were definitely questions about that team, about Dirk, and if they could ever be "championship caliber". Were the Jazz of the last couple years championship caliber by your standards? And don't act like people weren't questioning breaking up the Warriors, believing that they were too old and injured to ever win again. The smart play according to some was to get "assets" for Dray and Klay instead of continuing to compete with them.

Do I agree with you that Dame would need a lot of help to get those lofty heights? Fuck yes - I don't think the Blazers are winning the Championship in the near future. Over the next four years, between 26 and 29 teams are also not winning titles.

I'm just saying I understand ownership looking at it like "we have probably a 35% chance to go to the second round of the playoffs in the next few years and then who knows what can happen OR we can trade Dame and then have an 8% chance of drafting a player who will be as good as him now" and electing to go with the former option. I don't think either option is particularly more serious when it comes to "championship equity."
The issue is that those were good to very good teams & the Blazers are not a good to very good team. Using examples of good to very good teams getting over the top does not mean a mediocre team is going to suddenly make a large jump.

If you have a good to very good team you can make a jump to champion, even if it's flukey. If you're a fringe playoff team you can make a jump to...pretty good?

If the Blazers take that jump, they can have as much of a championship shot as the Jazz did.

You cannot get assets for underwater contracts. You give up assets to unload them. You can't have it both ways. The actual analog would be trading Steph, though. The Blazers literally unloaded CJ who is the Klay in your incorrect analogy here last season. What people actually questioned about the Warriors much more is why they didn't trade Wiseman & their draft assets to try to increase their chances of winning now.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
You cannot get assets for underwater contracts. You give up assets to unload them. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not having it both ways. You only need to unload the underwater contract if you care about competing. If Dame sucks, the Blazers will inherently also suck, and they won't care about competing. They can just hold onto his contract, or trade it for longer contracts and get assets in the exchange, and continue sucking (the exact same outcome as trading Dame). That's the worst case scenario - he could also just be perfectly cromulent and traded for a Conley style package in 2024 to a contender.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
But yeah, that's why I used the example of the '08 Celtics because they had topped out at 49 wins in the Pierce era & were coming off a losing season (where Pierce only played 47 games). The Celtics used their resulting 5th pick in a package to acquire Ray Allen & pulled off a separate trade for KG & boom, insta-champion from a similar spot the Blazers came from.

The teams that got there by "tweaking around the edges" only needed to tweak around the edges because they were already really good at basketball.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Where has it been said that the Blazers only need to tweak around the edges?

EDIT: Actually, forget it - we're arguing in circles. My argument boils down to valuing the Blazers competing for second round playoff losses from years 1-5, and your argument values their second round playoff losses from years 6-10. Which is a really dumb thing to argue about.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
I'm not having it both ways. You only need to unload the underwater contract if you care about competing. If Dame sucks, the Blazers will inherently also suck, and they won't care about competing. They can just hold onto his contract, or trade it for longer contracts and get assets in the exchange, and continue sucking (the exact same outcome as trading Dame). That's the worst case scenario - he could also just be perfectly cromulent and traded for a Conley style package in 2024 to a contender.
Unloading underwater contracts doesn't really have anything to do with competing - it has to do with pivoting to a new plan. But Dame can be a positive player & help his team win games & still not be worth $62m & cap them out as a 40 win team or whatever. The problem is cap allocation.

But, again, I'm not even arguing that they shouldn't have done it.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
Where has it been said that the Blazers only need to tweak around the edges?
Right here...

The 2011 Mavs are the classic example of keeping their star and just tweaking the edges over and over until they get the right mix. The 2014 Spurs are another. You could even make the case for this year’s Warriors.
Otherwise how are any of these teams analogous? Both you & Cheech cited the same teams. They are all teams that needed tweaking. The Blazers need an overhaul. Ergo, they are not analogous situations.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
An interesting question is which deal—Beal or Lillard’s- is less wise? I can see either case.

To me, they are both statements the team doesn’t really prioritize winning a championship. Which is ok, even if it is not what I’d want my team to be declaring
Beal.

Lillard is at least a good chance of being an All-NBA player for part of that deal, and you can unload it if you really need to (they won't).
Beal is arguably not a top 25-30 player, and you gave him a full no-trade
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Otherwise how are any of these teams analogous? Both you & Cheech cited the same teams. They are all teams that needed tweaking. The Blazers need an overhaul. Ergo, they are not analogous situations.
This is so disingenuous. You asked:

When has a team in the Blazers position ever gone from meh to championship caliber as their star gets older?
To which I cited the Mavs, a team that famously flamed out in the first round for years before finally winning the championship. I didn't say they were exact analogues or that they were in the exact same position. I just gave you the example that you were looking for, and then you moved the goalposts again because it was inconvenient to your argument.

You have the benefit of hindsight, and that's really cool when you're pointing out all the ways things went right. Teams don't have that, which is why they're not eager to toss a pretty good thing aside in favor of a total mystery box.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
Beal.

Lillard is at least a good chance of being an All-NBA player for part of that deal, and you can unload it if you really need to (they won't).
Beal is arguably not a top 25-30 player, and you gave him a full no-trade
I would say Beal's overall contract is worse, but they kind of had to re-sign him & give him the max... just the added stuff puts it into wtf territory. Like at some point you have to call his bluff. Surprised he didn't get naming rights.

The Dame issue is timing. He's already under contract for 3 years. Do you really need to add a max 1-1 when he's coming off a mediocre by his standards & then injured season & you are paying for his 35 & 36 seasons? I mean, maybe? But only if he's demanding a trade if you don't (& if you can't get an amazing trade package from someone if you were to trade him).
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
This is so disingenuous. You asked:



To which I cited the Mavs, a team that famously flamed out in the first round for years before finally winning the championship. I didn't say they were exact analogues or that they were in the exact same position. I just gave you the example that you were looking for, and then you moved the goalposts again because it was inconvenient to your argument.

You have the benefit of hindsight, and that's really cool when you're pointing out all the ways things went right. Teams don't have that, which is why they're not eager to toss a pretty good thing aside in favor of a total mystery box.
I don't consider a team that has won 50+ games for 11 straight years, including a 67 win season, "meh" (although it's certainly much much closer than the next 2 examples).

I don't consider a team that has won 50+ games for 17 straight seasons, including several titles "meh".

I don't consider the freaking Warriors who already won 3 titles with their star "meh".

Maybe I didn't define "meh" sufficiently, but calling it disingenuous or goal-post shifting is straight up wrong.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,462
Somewhere
The Wizards/Blazers strategy of team building makes a lot of sense when you look at the performance of perennial tankers, especially from 10-20 years ago when you had teams like the Bulls (post-Pippen) tanking ad infinitum and even tanking during their rebuilding phases. Fielding a competitive team has value all on its own. No one wants to watch a piece of shit team and fewer still want to own one.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I would say Beal's overall contract is worse, but they kind of had to re-sign him & give him the max... just the added stuff puts it into wtf territory. Like at some point you have to call his bluff. Surprised he didn't get naming rights.

The Dame issue is timing. He's already under contract for 3 years. Do you really need to add a max 1-1 when he's coming off a mediocre by his standards & then injured season & you are paying for his 35 & 36 seasons? I mean, maybe? But only if he's demanding a trade if you don't (& if you can't get an amazing trade package from someone if you were to trade him).
Yeah---that's part of why the Dame one may be worse...you didn't need to do it at all. Beal, your choice was do it or lose him for little/nothing. At least, lose him for whatever you could get in a sign and trade.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
The Wizards/Blazers strategy of team building makes a lot of sense when you look at the performance of perennial tankers, especially from 10-20 years ago when you had teams like the Bulls (post-Pippen) tanking ad infinitum and even tanking during their rebuilding phases. Fielding a competitive team has value all on its own. No one wants to watch a piece of shit team and fewer still want to own one.
People keep using this false dichotomy... you don't HAVE to tear it down to the studs when you trade your star. Recently teams have, in part because they are chasing a chance at generational talents, but you can trade your star and stay in the middle if you want.... like last year, say the Blazers trade Dame for a package similar to the HOU/BKN Harden package (but without routing to other teams)... Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, Prince picks... add that to Norm Powell, CJ McCollum... that's a team that finishes in the 8-10 range in the West... maybe you package one of those picks to get another good player who isn't a super-star.. say Derrick White? Suddenly you're very much "competitive" in the same way as you have in most Dame years.... it looks different, but that's a team that can get to the 1st round of the playoffs and likely lose, which is what most Dame teams were.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
The Mavs definitely were a surprise champion. But they were the 7th favorite for the title preseason at 20-1 with a 57-25 o/u.

Win totals don't seem out yet, but the Blazers are around the 20th favorite at between 100-1 & 120-1.

That seems like a big difference, since the thing we're actually arguing about is title equity if you recall.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Maybe I didn't define "meh" sufficiently, but calling it disingenuous or goal-post shifting is straight up wrong.
You don't think a team that made the playoffs from 2013 to 2021 as "Good" so who knows how you define things.

The Mavs definitely were a surprise champion. But they were the 7th favorite for the title preseason at 20-1 with a 57-25 o/u.

Win totals don't seem out yet, but the Blazers are around the 20th favorite at between 100-1 & 120-1.

That seems like a big difference, since the thing we're actually arguing about is title equity if you recall.
Dude, wtf are you talking about at this point? If the Blazers traded Dame, would they have higher odds?
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
People keep using this false dichotomy... you don't HAVE to tear it down to the studs when you trade your star. Recently teams have, in part because they are chasing a chance at generational talents, but you can trade your star and stay in the middle if you want.... like last year, say the Blazers trade Dame for a package similar to the HOU/BKN Harden package (but without routing to other teams)... Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, Prince picks... add that to Norm Powell, CJ McCollum... that's a team that finishes in the 8-10 range in the West... maybe you package one of those picks to get another good player who isn't a super-star.. say Derrick White? Suddenly you're very much "competitive" in the same way as you have in most Dame years.... it looks different, but that's a team that can get to the 1st round of the playoffs and likely lose, which is what most Dame teams were.
So here you're advocating the Blazers field a worse team that's less entertaining, and one that doesn't get the value of lottery picks to boot. It's debatable that this team is better than last year's Spurs - very debatable. That's better than just holding onto Dame? What is anyone - players, fans, ownership - getting out of that route? I don't follow
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
You don't think a team that made the playoffs from 2013 to 2021 as "Good" so who knows how you define things.
They had a "good" run. Are they a good team? They'll probably be projected to win what? 40 games?

During that run their best seasons were comparable to the worst seasons of your comparison teams.

Is it a nice accomplishment & can it be nice to field a team that ranges from somewhat competitive to very competitive for an extended period? Of course.

Dude, wtf are you talking about at this point? If the Blazers traded Dame, would they have higher odds?
They have almost no chance of winning a title during this 5-year Dame window.

If they traded Dame, they would have a larger chance of rebuilding their team into a championship contender.

Is it likely they do? No.

Would they be in a better position in year 6 if they traded Dame rather than extending him? 99%+ yes. That's just how assets work.

So yes - if your only goal is to win titles, you should trade Dame. I don't think that's the Blazers only goal, & that's totally fine.

But citing the Mavs/Spurs/Warriors to show me that the Blazers have a championship equity is nonsensical to me.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
So here you're advocating the Blazers field a worse team that's less entertaining, and one that doesn't get the value of lottery picks to boot. It's debatable that this team is better than last year's Spurs - very debatable. That's better than just holding onto Dame? What is anyone - players, fans, ownership - getting out of that route? I don't follow
No I'm not advocating anything, I'm saying that this idea that the options are be mediocre with a star or terrible without him is not accurate, teams can and have traded stars and done so in a way that they didn't bottom out for multiple years. Though honestly in that scenario I laid out, they have extra picks in the future, just not quite as many. You could trade Dame and honestly have a team just about as good if you wanted, by trading one offense only super-star for depth and improved defense.... why you would... I don't know, but I'm not an owner of a team that is looking to make sure they are mediocre.

If I were the Blazers GM..... I would rip it down pretty deep... that team was going nowhere, and I would trust that the fanbase there is passionate enough to live through a re-build..... though if I were the GM a few years earlier, I'd have sold CJ and used draft picks to build a team around Prime Dame that could compete, but Olshey didn't do that and the owners didn't care that he didn't. Now they are in Dame's decline and CJ didn't have the trade value he once did, and they're stuck with no real paths forward beyond full rebuild or shoot for the 7 seed.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
They made not have had “championship equity” but they weren’t mediocre or meh either. This was the first year Dame missed the playoffs, and that was after a bad injury and an all time tank. There was a WCF run and another 54 win season. Maybe they should have done more but Dame’s prime coincided with a deep West and a historically good Warriors team.

The plan since Cronin arrived has been to flip all the pieces around Dame that didn’t work into new ones. Is that a winning plan? It may not be, but it’s just resigning themselves to a decade of 40-win seasons. The plan is to win now with the best player in franchise history.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,920
The weird thing to me is that guys who have 3-4 years left in their contracts can demand trades and teams acquiesce. Why has the league allowed this kind of thing to happen, don’t contracts actually mean anything?
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
They made not have had “championship equity” but they weren’t mediocre or meh either. This was the first year Dame missed the playoffs, and that was after a bad injury and an all time tank. There was a WCF run and another 54 win season. Maybe they should have done more but Dame’s prime coincided with a deep West and a historically good Warriors team.

The plan since Cronin arrived has been to flip all the pieces around Dame that didn’t work into new ones. Is that a winning plan? It may not be, but it’s just resigning themselves to a decade of 40-win seasons. The plan is to win now with the best player in franchise history.
Their last 3 years have been meh, & I'm saying they don't have championship equity going forward, not relitigating their equity going backwards. They had a lot of fun teams they definitely would not wish to undo.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
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!
I’m not saying that Dame won’t be like your typical 30+ year old small guard…….but Dame isn’t your typical 30-yr old small guard. He’s elite and the elite ones don’t fall off a cliff without injuries that knock them out. Dame is closer to Chris Paul, Stockton and Nash than he is to the small guards we typically associate with falling off a cliff.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
I’m not saying that Dame won’t be like your typical 30+ year old small guard…….but Dame isn’t your typical 30-yr old small guard. He’s elite and the elite ones don’t fall off a cliff without injuries that knock them out. Dame is closer to Chris Paul, Stockton and Nash than he is to the small guards we typically associate with falling off a cliff.
It's interesting that none of those guys have titles.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
It's interesting that none of those guys have titles.
I'm on your side of this debate, but all 3 of these guys could easily have had titles with some different ball bounces.

They all had extremely significant championship equity during their careers at various points, including at advanced ages.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,278
I'm on your side of this debate, but all 3 of these guys could easily have had titles with some different ball bounces.

They all had extremely significant championship equity during their careers at various points, including at advanced ages.
Yeah, I didn't mean it as part of the debate & it's probably just a weird anomaly.

I think, in general, it's probably easier to build around an elite wing over an elite PG, though. Not sure who the best wing who never won a title is?
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
The weird thing to me is that guys who have 3-4 years left in their contracts can demand trades and teams acquiesce. Why has the league allowed this kind of thing to happen, don’t contracts actually mean anything?
This is where I am. I hope the Nets asking price for KD (an all star.. + 3 1sts) is their way of telling him he better consider playing. If there was team that could draw a line in the sand about guys not fulfilling their contracts (you really think Simmons is playing?) it's them. I mean if KD sits or Vince Carter in TO mails it in, his rep takes a bigger hit.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
This is where I am. I hope the Nets asking price for KD (an all star.. + 3 1sts) is their way of telling him he better consider playing. If there was team that could draw a line in the sand about guys not fulfilling their contracts (you really think Simmons is playing?) it's them. I mean if KD sits or Vince Carter in TO mails it in, his rep takes a bigger hit.
I'm with you on this (guys fulfilling contracts) BUT if the Nets get a haul for KD that's a complete windfall.

The only reason he signed with Brooklyn is because Kyrie talked him into it. They gave up nada for KD.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
The Nets are going to be disappointed with the offers they get for KD. The rule that precludes a team from trading for a second player with a max salary off his rookie deal has cut down on the number of young all stars that are available to the Nets. Jaylen Brown is probably the most desirable player
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
The Nets are going to be disappointed with the offers they get for KD. The rule that precludes a team from trading for a second player with a max salary off his rookie deal has cut down on the number of young all stars that are available to the Nets. Jaylen Brown is probably the most desirable player
Worth noting this is not the rule, it is ONLY designated player extensions.
It's a pretty small pool:
Bam Adebayo (Heat) Devin Booker (Suns) Luka Doncic (Mavericks) Joel Embiid (Sixers) De’Aaron Fox (Kings) Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (Thunder) Donovan Mitchell (Jazz) Jamal Murray (Nuggets) Michael Porter Jr. (Nuggets) Ben Simmons (Nets) Jayson Tatum (Celtics) Karl-Anthony Towns (Timberwolves) Andrew Wiggins (Warriors) Trae Young (Hawks)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.