Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1

Post Reply
Merganzer
Senior
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:42 am

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Merganzer »

So, make it 11 in a row, 113-105 over Cleveland. Another great game for Lillard & McCollum, but this was a real team game, 17 for Mo, 11 for Chief and Turner, Two in a row where the opponent came back to with in 3, but the Blazers show up and take over at the end. 42-26, Up next: Detroit.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Phalanx wrote:
spacefrog13x wrote:I still think they resign Nurkic unless another team comes in with a ridiculous offer. When has Paul Allen ever let RFA's go for nothing? they overpaid to keep Batum and Crabbe in the past.
Okay, but you realize you just mentioned two guys as examples, neither of which are on the team now for financial reasons, right? I mean, I feel like you are making my argument for me. Let me ask you a question in return: For all of the bluster about Paul Allen's pocketbook, when was the last time he actually paid the luxury tax? Okay, I'll answer my own question: He last paid it in 2008/9, and before that for a couple of years during the Bob Whitsett days...you know...back when they used to be contenders. People think Allen doesn't care about that tax, but then, why did they give Crabbe and Vonleh away for nothing this year?

Because they care about the tax.
So my understanding from lurking BE is that by getting under the tax line this season, it will help prevent them from becoming a potential 3 year offender with the tax rules (which is when it gets even more costly) and that's when other bad contracts are up and the team could be blown up. So it would appear with the way they are playing right now that Paul will very likely pay the tax the next 2 seasons to see what this team can grow into or you've got a few expiring contracts to blow the thing up with. With the way they are playing right now and getting wins from their defense, it would seem to suggest that being patient right now and SPAM is the right approach. If he didn't want to pay the tax next year, more moves would have been made so I feel like that means 2 years of the tax is also inevitable to suggest this is the route we're going to see.
Image
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

Duck07 wrote: So my understanding from lurking BE is that by getting under the tax line this season, it will help prevent them from becoming a potential 3 year offender with the tax rules (which is when it gets even more costly) and that's when other bad contracts are up and the team could be blown up. So it would appear with the way they are playing right now that Paul will very likely pay the tax the next 2 seasons to see what this team can grow into or you've got a few expiring contracts to blow the thing up with. With the way they are playing right now and getting wins from their defense, it would seem to suggest that being patient right now and SPAM is the right approach. If he didn't want to pay the tax next year, more moves would have been made so I feel like that means 2 years of the tax is also inevitable to suggest this is the route we're going to see.
It's actually on the second year that a team gets the 'repeat offender' penalty. It can be a massive hit, up to $4.25 per dollar over the tax threshold (in addition to the bloated payroll), and if the Blazers do sign Nurkic, they are very likely to pay it. They also miss out on revenue sharing if they exceed the tax threshold. Obviously, we don't know what the Blazers will do, we can only go by clues and math, some of which I have tried to provide here. The question is whether or not Allen believes the team can win. Possibly, he is waiting for the playoffs to decide.

I think it is interesting that Nurkic is playing so little. Even in a hotly-contested game like tonight, he played less than 19 minutes, and Davis had over 21, and Collins played just under 8 to round out the 48 at center. Meanwhile, neither of our formidable post players Swanigan or Leonard got in the game. Instead, oh look, Harkless played an entire quarter at the 4, even though nobody is injured! I could have sworn someone said this wasn't possible...

So some of my evidence thus far that the cap situation will heavily influence what they do this summer:

1. They were willing to let 25-year old Crabbe go only a year after signing him, even though the situation at small forward is weak. They even took $20 million back in worthless payroll to make the deal happen.

2. They let Vonleh go to get below the tax even though it means playing Harkless at the back-up 4 now.

3. Nurkic is playing less than his average in close games. He also played 18 and 19 minutes vs. the Thunder and the Timberwolves, both games where the margin was single digits.

4. Despite rumors that there was interest in Ed Davis before the trade deadline, the Blazers held onto him, getting no value for his expiring deal, but retaining his Bird rights. Lillard also indicated he wanted to retain Davis.

5. Nurkic has already come out and stated he will become an RFA and test the market. Given Olshey's wont to overpay to keep free agents, I take this as a sign that the Blazers have not committed to giving him a big contract, otherwise it would have happened already.

6. Last week, they locked up Wade Baldwin through next year, which may indicate that Napier is also gone this summer.

Obviously, there are alternate explanations for all of these facts, but taken together, they seem to suggest that the cap is dictating their moves, and they are not likely to retain all of their free agents.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

From what I've seen online about the rules, I believe because Portland hasn't paid the tax for some years that it requires 3 years in 4 to accrue the repeat offender status starting in 2015-16.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax_(sports)
Image
oregontrack
All Pac-12
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by oregontrack »

Phalanx wrote:I think it is interesting that Nurkic is playing so little. Even in a hotly-contested game like tonight, he played less than 19 minutes, and Davis had over 21, and Collins played just under 8 to round out the 48 at center. Meanwhile, neither of our formidable post players Swanigan or Leonard got in the game. Instead, oh look, Harkless played an entire quarter at the 4, even though nobody is injured! I could have sworn someone said this wasn't possible...
and what quarter was this?
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
pudgejeff
Senior
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
GM: Sacramento Kings GM

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by pudgejeff »

Phalanx wrote:Any of the Blazers free agents would likely be signed using Bird rights rather than the MLE, which is used for free agents from other teams. Once the payroll crosses a certain point past the luxury tax, I think they hit a hard cap anyway, so many of the various exceptions become moot. I think you are missing the point though: It isn't that the Blazers aren't allowed to sign all of these players, it is that it is not in their financial interest to go over the luxury tax, give up revenue sharing, and pay the extra tax, particularly for a team that is not in contention.
I guess my question would be, what is your version of "in contention"? Currently 3rd in the west with 14 to go, coming up on 4th best record in the NBA. If that's not in contention, is your only acceptable position being the best team in the league? I actually find some of the things you say logical, but this kind of statement sort of unravels all that for me.
User avatar
pudgejeff
Senior
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
GM: Sacramento Kings GM

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by pudgejeff »

oregontrack wrote:
Phalanx wrote:I think it is interesting that Nurkic is playing so little. Even in a hotly-contested game like tonight, he played less than 19 minutes, and Davis had over 21, and Collins played just under 8 to round out the 48 at center. Meanwhile, neither of our formidable post players Swanigan or Leonard got in the game. Instead, oh look, Harkless played an entire quarter at the 4, even though nobody is injured! I could have sworn someone said this wasn't possible...
and what quarter was this?
Also, did you watch the game? Saying Harkless was playing PF was a bit of a stretch as it was all small ball lineups, he indeed was at the 4 spot but it was to matchup with Lebron and Jeff Green. I do actually like Mo at the 4 in general unlike the 2 of you it seems, just wanted to point out this was a bit different.
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

Duck07 wrote:From what I've seen online about the rules, I believe because Portland hasn't paid the tax for some years that it requires 3 years in 4 to accrue the repeat offender status starting in 2015-16.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax_(sports)
Your link didn't work for me, but I did find an article that agreed with you. I think I was looking under the old CBA. I think my argument is still valid though, they are trying really hard to avoid the luxury tax. The repeat offender thing just makes it worse.
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

pudgejeff wrote:
I guess my question would be, what is your version of "in contention"? Currently 3rd in the west with 14 to go, coming up on 4th best record in the NBA. If that's not in contention, is your only acceptable position being the best team in the league? I actually find some of the things you say logical, but this kind of statement sort of unravels all that for me.
It doesn't really matter what my definition of 'in contention' is, since I am not the one deciding whether or not to pay the luxury tax and also miss out on revenue sharing. It only matters what Paul Allen's definition is. As I said above, we already know that they haven't extended a fat contract to Nurkic, which is why he plans to test the market as an RFA. So I think Allen is waiting for the playoffs to see if he has a team that can win, or one that has a good record because they keep playing teams with injured stars, etc. I just disagree with the notion that Allen doesn't care about the tax. He clearly does, as evidenced by the moves they made this season.

P.S. It doesn't make any difference what line-ups Harkless played against, he had 12 minutes last night at the 4 (I never even used the phrase 'Power Forward') and given the current team and rotation, he is likely to continue to get minutes there, contrary to what somebody was saying earlier.
oregontrack
All Pac-12
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by oregontrack »

i was more intrigued that you likened harkless STARTING at the 4 (alongside meyers leonard, no less) to be the same thing as a potential nurk-less line-up next year of collins and davis. this may be as simple as you and i disagreeing on what a frontcourt constitutes; stotts like running a super small line-up of napier, lillard, CJ, turner, and davis at times, too, and by the same token i don't consider turner to be a power forward when he does that. i consider that a one big-man line-up. maybe you disagree.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

oregontrack wrote:i was more intrigued that you likened harkless STARTING at the 4 (alongside meyers leonard, no less) to be the same thing as a potential nurk-less line-up next year of collins and davis. this may be as simple as you and i disagreeing on what a frontcourt constitutes; stotts like running a super small line-up of napier, lillard, CJ, turner, and davis at times, too, and by the same token i don't consider turner to be a power forward when he does that. i consider that a one big-man line-up. maybe you disagree.
Lots of things I could say here, but I won't. Instead, I will just politely suggest you go back and read what I actually said. Your main objection was that I included Harkless in the list of guys getting time in the 'front line'. You were clearly wrong, which for some reason doesn't feel like a very novel situation. You have to admit, it's pretty hilarious that even on a team WITH Nurkic (the context of our conversation was a team WITHOUT him), Harkless still played 12 minutes at the 4 in the VERY NEXT GAME after you made that argument.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Phalanx wrote:Your link didn't work for me, but I did find an article that agreed with you. I think I was looking under the old CBA. I think my argument is still valid though, they are trying really hard to avoid the luxury tax. The repeat offender thing just makes it worse.
For the 2013-14 season and onward, teams paid an incremental rate based on their team salary. They also have to pay a repeat offender rate, which is an additional dollar for every dollar over. For 2014-15 teams pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons. For 2015-16 and all subsequent seasons, teams pay the repeater rate if they were taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons. The table of rates is shown below.
That's the most important part that I got from it. I agree that they really wanted to avoid the tax this year because of the above rules but I think they had an idea going into and through this season that next year and the season after would likely be inevitable (or else they would have blown it up). The benefit is that while you might pay the tax next year to see how much they improve collectively and do in the playoffs this year and next, that the following season you have a few expiring contracts that are much easier to trade to try and get yourself under the tax line for the next 2 seasons.

If Paul Allen wants to see what this team has, I think he has no choice but to go the route of resigning Nurk and Ed and to pay the tax otherwise wouldn't they have made more moves before the deadline in order to stay under next season?
Image
oregontrack
All Pac-12
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by oregontrack »

Phalanx wrote:Lots of things I could say here, but I won't. Instead, I will just politely suggest you go back and read what I actually said. Your main objection was that I included Harkless in the list of guys getting time in the 'front line'. You were clearly wrong, which for some reason doesn't feel like a very novel situation. You have to admit, it's pretty hilarious that even on a team WITH Nurkic (the context of our conversation was a team WITHOUT him), Harkless still played 12 minutes at the 4 in the VERY NEXT GAME after you made that argument.
if you're arguing hark was the second tallest blazer on the court for 12 minutes and therefore logged some time as a stretch 4 and feel you've validated your point, OK.

all i'll say is look at the usage rates and match-ups, man. he defended george hill, cleveland's point guard, for 35 of the 51 cav possessions he played. he defended hood, korver, and clarkson a combined 5 possessions, and lebron 11. he was defended by korver, a strict wing player, 38 of portland's 51 offensive possessions. he was defended by lebron and jeff green a combined 6 times. by comparison, evan turner was defended by lebron and jeff green more than harkless was, and evan turner defended lebron and green more than harkless did. how many minutes "on the frontline" did turner log? are we considering turner a frontcourt player now? where are we drawing the line?

if you can't figure out why i got a chuckle out of you comparing harkless and meyers leonard to possibly starting collins and davis next year, let's just chalk this up to another of your "I Feel I Am Right" moments next to your thoughts on the damian lillard extension and move on. it appears we've hit gridlock on this.
Last edited by oregontrack on Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

Duck07 wrote:
For the 2013-14 season and onward, teams paid an incremental rate based on their team salary. They also have to pay a repeat offender rate, which is an additional dollar for every dollar over. For 2014-15 teams pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons. For 2015-16 and all subsequent seasons, teams pay the repeater rate if they were taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons. The table of rates is shown below.
That's the most important part that I got from it. I agree that they really wanted to avoid the tax this year because of the above rules but I think they had an idea going into and through this season that next year and the season after would likely be inevitable (or else they would have blown it up). The benefit is that while you might pay the tax next year to see how much they improve collectively and do in the playoffs this year and next, that the following season you have a few expiring contracts that are much easier to trade to try and get yourself under the tax line for the next 2 seasons.

If Paul Allen wants to see what this team has, I think he has no choice but to go the route of resigning Nurk and Ed and to pay the tax otherwise wouldn't they have made more moves before the deadline in order to stay under next season?
Obviously, your interpretation depends on the narrative you are following. I think they probably have been trying to make moves to shed salary, and aside from Brooklyn's unexplainable craving for Crabbe, they haven't had any takers. Even with Crabbe, they had to take almost $20 million back in order to make that deal. Leonard's contract is a pariah, Turner, despite his loud protestations, is also ridiculously overpaid, and Harkless doesn't earn his money most nights either (he did have a great game last night, but they have been fairly rare). Since they consider McCollum 'untouchable', who else is there? They made the only moves they could, literally paying other teams to take Crabbe and Vonleh. The most interesting decision was keeping Davis, but again, I think it likely that he is insurance for not signing Nurk this summer.

We'll see what happens. I don't think they can sign both Ed and Nurk, it would likely put them in the highest luxury tax bracket.
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Portland Trail Blazers 2017-18 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

oregontrack wrote:
if you're arguing hark was the second tallest blazer on the court for 12 minutes and therefore logged some time as a stretch 4 and feel you've validated your point, OK.

all i'll say is look at the usage rates and match-ups, man. he defended george hill, cleveland's point guard, for 35 of the 51 cav possessions he played. he defended hood, korver, and clarkson a combined 5 possessions, and lebron 11. he was defended by korver, a strict wing player, 38 of portland's 51 offensive possessions. he was defended by lebron and jeff green a combined 6 times. by comparison, evan turner was defended by lebron and jeff green more than harkless was, and evan turner defended lebron and green more than harkless did. how many minutes "on the frontline" did turner log? are we considering turner a frontcourt player now? where are we drawing the line?

if you can't figure out why i got a chuckle out of you comparing harkless and meyers leonard to possibly starting collins and davis next year, let's just chalk this up to another of your "I Feel I Am Right" moments next to your thoughts on the damian lillard extension and move on. it appears we've hit gridlock on this.
I really don't want to insult your ability to follow logic or reading comprehension, but Dude, you need to go back and actually read what was said. Even if you include Evan Turner at the 4, my point is still completely valid. You could include Lillard for all the difference it makes. My point was that we don't have a 'formidable front court' without Nurkic. It's the same players as before Nurk got here, when the team was 25-35, except without Plumlee or Vonleh. Swanigan doesn't play, and Collins got less than 8 minutes last night. Stotts would rather play Harkless and Turner at the 4 than either of the rookies. They are that NOT FORMIDABLE. The fact that you are chuckling at Meyers Leonard is an indictment on your own stupid 'formidable front court' comment, since you included him in the list. This is a dumb argument.
Post Reply