Challenge: Get The Blazers Below The Tax / Consolidate Roster Spots

[Tim Lehrbach]

Portland is not paying the tax for this team and its just not a reasonable ask for them to do so because you believe Thybulle has more value than he actually does.

Portland has mostly been a competitive team so I know its an unusual spot, but paying tax for this kind of team actually costs the franchise in terms of value. Remember money has tangible value and the amount of money they would be giving up because you couldn't get pick 24 for Thybulle would be significant.

I know it sucks to think you have valuable players but can't realize value because the market doesn't value them as you do. Or it sucks to have to let a decent player go because of finances. But losing Thybulle isn't going to change the Blazers fortunes in terms of w/l or asset accumalation. Its okay.

Things we do not know:

1. Whether the Blazers will pay the luxury tax.
2. Whether they can recoup value for trading any of their players.

Your speculation is reasonable, but it should be worded as such and not as though the Trade Board has spoken and reality needs to follow suit.

[K_chile22]

Portland is not paying the tax for this team and its just not a reasonable ask for them to do so because you believe Thybulle has more value than he actually does.

Portland has mostly been a competitive team so I know its an unusual spot, but paying tax for this kind of team actually costs the franchise in terms of value. Remember money has tangible value and the amount of money they would be giving up because you couldn't get pick 24 for Thybulle would be significant.

I know it sucks to think you have valuable players but can't realize value because the market doesn't value them as you do. Or it sucks to have to let a decent player go because of finances. But losing Thybulle isn't going to change the Blazers fortunes in terms of w/l or asset accumalation. Its okay.

Things we do not know:

1. Whether the Blazers will pay the luxury tax.
2. Whether they can recoup value for trading any of their players.

Your speculation is reasonable, but it should be worded as such and not as though the Trade Board has spoken and reality needs to follow suit.

I know as a fan it's never fun to think about the salary tax but be realistic man. Judy Allen is not playing the tax for a terrible team. It just does not make sense. And if you don't want to move Brogdon or Thybulle for what you deem less than fair value bc they're too valuable then the presumption is you'd want to re-sign them instead of letting them walk for nothing so the whole "well they shouldn't trade those guys bc they'll be out of the tax when they expire" logic you've been saying makes no sense. You're paying the tax for a year to let those dudes walk instead of getting what you can and not paying the tax

[Tim Lehrbach]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

I think one thing other fans keep failing to take into account is our unique ownership situation.

Jody is playing with a dead mans money. It is money that will never come to her except in one way - by taking a "reasonable" fee for "managing" the asset. One might conspiratorially wonder whether what is considered "reasonable" by business standards has any tie to the amount of salary they manage but regardless there is really no reason not to spend what they can, the only other place that money is ever going is to charity when she sells. One can also only assume that the more revenue and ticket sales the higher fee a "reasonable manager" could maybe collect so there is potentially a strong personal financial incentive to spend dead paul allens money in order to increase revenue.

Now I do think the Blazers will duck the luxury tax but I think giberish hit the nail on the head early in the thread - we have a lot of different options to accomplish that and so can take the best option. We don't have to move a specific player so we are free to shop around. But I don't think the Blazers have much pressure to reduce salary much beyond that and they want to return to being competitive asap.

Also, everyone keeps talking about how injury prone our players are like we didn't just blatantly tank the last couple seasons but that might be tilting at windmills. Also FWIW Thybulle is one of the last players I want to move because I want to keep a defensive identity around this team, so empty calorie players like Simons and Grant (and even Brogdon though he is a winner) are much more palatable to move, at least IMHO.

[BlazersBroncos]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

I think one thing other fans keep failing to take into account is our unique ownership situation.

Jody is playing with a dead mans money. It is money that will never come to her except in one way - by taking a "reasonable" fee for "managing" the asset. One might conspiratorially wonder whether what is considered "reasonable" by business standards has any tie to the amount of salary they manage but regardless there is really no reason not to spend what they can, the only other place that money is ever going is to charity when she sells. One can also only assume that the more revenue and ticket sales the higher fee a "reasonable manager" could maybe collect so there is potentially a strong personal financial incentive to spend dead paul allens money in order to increase revenue.

Now I do think the Blazers will duck the luxury tax but I think giberish hit the nail on the head early in the thread - we have a lot of different options to accomplish that and so can take the best option. We don't have to move a specific player so we are free to shop around. But I don't think the Blazers have much pressure to reduce salary much beyond that and they want to return to being competitive asap.

Also, everyone keeps talking about how injury prone our players are like we didn't just blatantly tank the last couple seasons but that might be tilting at windmills. Also FWIW Thybulle is one of the last players I want to move because I want to keep a defensive identity around this team, so empty calorie players like Simons and Grant (and even Brogdon though he is a winner) are much more palatable to move, at least IMHO.

Incredible post that should be spammed whenever necessary.

And I 100% agree with your assessments on those last lines regarding the vets to move and keep.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

I think one thing other fans keep failing to take into account is our unique ownership situation.

Jody is playing with a dead mans money. It is money that will never come to her except in one way - by taking a "reasonable" fee for "managing" the asset. One might conspiratorially wonder whether what is considered "reasonable" by business standards has any tie to the amount of salary they manage but regardless there is really no reason not to spend what they can, the only other place that money is ever going is to charity when she sells. One can also only assume that the more revenue and ticket sales the higher fee a "reasonable manager" could maybe collect so there is potentially a strong personal financial incentive to spend dead paul allens money in order to increase revenue.

Now I do think the Blazers will duck the luxury tax but I think giberish hit the nail on the head early in the thread - we have a lot of different options to accomplish that and so can take the best option. We don't have to move a specific player so we are free to shop around. But I don't think the Blazers have much pressure to reduce salary much beyond that and they want to return to being competitive asap.

Also, everyone keeps talking about how injury prone our players are like we didn't just blatantly tank the last couple seasons but that might be tilting at windmills. Also FWIW Thybulle is one of the last players I want to move because I want to keep a defensive identity around this team, so empty calorie players like Simons and Grant (and even Brogdon though he is a winner) are much more palatable to move, at least IMHO.

Incredible post that should be spammed whenever necessary.

And I 100% agree with your assessments on those last lines regarding the vets to move and keep.

For clarity, those last lines are very much my opinion and not necessarily what I think the team will do. IIRC Cronin is a huge fan of Simons and Grant was kind of his first big move.

But I do think our only moves this summer will be pretty small. Hope I'm wrong because I could go for clearing house in a lot of regards but I don't think ownership or management sees it that way.

[JRoy]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

I think one thing other fans keep failing to take into account is our unique ownership situation.

Jody is playing with a dead mans money. It is money that will never come to her except in one way - by taking a "reasonable" fee for "managing" the asset. One might conspiratorially wonder whether what is considered "reasonable" by business standards has any tie to the amount of salary they manage but regardless there is really no reason not to spend what they can, the only other place that money is ever going is to charity when she sells. One can also only assume that the more revenue and ticket sales the higher fee a "reasonable manager" could maybe collect so there is potentially a strong personal financial incentive to spend dead paul allens money in order to increase revenue.

Now I do think the Blazers will duck the luxury tax but I think giberish hit the nail on the head early in the thread - we have a lot of different options to accomplish that and so can take the best option. We don't have to move a specific player so we are free to shop around. But I don't think the Blazers have much pressure to reduce salary much beyond that and they want to return to being competitive asap.

Also, everyone keeps talking about how injury prone our players are like we didn't just blatantly tank the last couple seasons but that might be tilting at windmills. Also FWIW Thybulle is one of the last players I want to move because I want to keep a defensive identity around this team, so empty calorie players like Simons and Grant (and even Brogdon though he is a winner) are much more palatable to move, at least IMHO.

Boom.

Good points.

[DiegoChara]

Here is a follow-up to my previous post.

The obvious question and possible drawback to my proposition is: "wouldn't it be better to get something for any one of the top 4 contracts than get nothing at all?"

The answer is probably not. The reason is one of timing. In order to get a good return on those top 4 contracts, it will most likely take patience and the teams that are going to deal for those contracts may in fact be looking at the same players that the Blazers want to bring in to play for them.

Keep Ayton too long and Goga signs with another team. So incentivize the transactions, make them relatively free and then aggressively recruit players who will better contribute to winning.

I’ve gotta tell ya, “I’d rather not acquire assets, because if I take the time to do so I might miss out on Goga Bitadze” is an all timer of a take.

[The Sebastian Express]

I do think it's rather tasteless to keep referring to her as playing with a dead man's money or dead paul allen's money. That was her brother. It can be framed another way that isn't crass, especially as she's made several investments in the team to improve facilities, staff and a G-league team.

But yes, Portland has intentionally sat their players for the majority of the last three years. This year we were bad, no doubt, and in the first year Dame was injured. But last year we were right in the mix for chasing for the play-in and we sat everyone to tank in the Wemby draft in the beginning/early weeks of march (except Dame, who we got to 58 games purely so he had the qualifying games for the scoring title if he could get there).

I also think it's important to note that for several years we've had regular posters on this board telling Portland to accept we can only get X for B player, player A is going to destination Y and we need to accept it. Only it hasn't happened. A lot of Blazers fans responding to you aren't saying we necessary think this is what Grant, Brogdon, Thybulle etc are worth and that Portland will not, under any circumstance, budge. We're trying to tell you the mindset of our team and what they're looking for from those players and how those players fit into our rebuilding attempt.

It kind of reminds me how we spent so long up until the deadline telling us we needed to trade Brogdon but also for some reason take back another guard in the deal, while we tried to tell you it made no sense for Portland to trade Brogdon for more guards who were younger and wouldn't be in the same type of mentor role as Brogdon.

[HartfordWhalers]

Definitely going to be intrigued to see how this plays out. Put me in the camp of the players might not be great value based off the results they are showing, but we will see. Sometimes players return surprising returns, both above and below what we expect.

[Texas Chuck]

Portland is not paying the tax for this team and its just not a reasonable ask for them to do so because you believe Thybulle has more value than he actually does.

Portland has mostly been a competitive team so I know its an unusual spot, but paying tax for this kind of team actually costs the franchise in terms of value. Remember money has tangible value and the amount of money they would be giving up because you couldn't get pick 24 for Thybulle would be significant.

I know it sucks to think you have valuable players but can't realize value because the market doesn't value them as you do. Or it sucks to have to let a decent player go because of finances. But losing Thybulle isn't going to change the Blazers fortunes in terms of w/l or asset accumalation. Its okay.

Things we do not know:

1. Whether the Blazers will pay the luxury tax.
2. Whether they can recoup value for trading any of their players.

Your speculation is reasonable, but it should be worded as such and not as though the Trade Board has spoken and reality needs to follow suit.

If you need to me to write imo in every post....what are we even doing here lol?

Of course its just like my opinion man. But its also right.

[Texas Chuck]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

Oh and now its just straight personal attacks because I didn't say imo. And its interesting that some of the Blazer fans made pretty declarative statements about what the team would and wouldn't do. But because I'm not a Blazer fan I need to tiptoe and make sure I say this is my opinion, but maybe they will pay tax for one of the worst teams in the league? I actually am paying the actual organization a complement by saying they are too competent to do this.

[AaronB]

Here is a follow-up to my previous post.

The obvious question and possible drawback to my proposition is: "wouldn't it be better to get something for any one of the top 4 contracts than get nothing at all?"

The answer is probably not. The reason is one of timing. In order to get a good return on those top 4 contracts, it will most likely take patience and the teams that are going to deal for those contracts may in fact be looking at the same players that the Blazers want to bring in to play for them.

Keep Ayton too long and Goga signs with another team. So incentivize the transactions, make them relatively free and then aggressively recruit players who will better contribute to winning.

I’ve gotta tell ya, “I’d rather not acquire assets, because if I take the time to do so I might miss out on Goga Bitadze” is an all timer of a take.

Just for clarity, Ayton has an EPM of -0.3 and Goga's is 1.4

Goga is just an example. Bid up the Knick Center and you still get him cheaper than Ayton.

The point is that Ayton is a starting C on a 21 win team. How good is he? EPM doesn't like him.

Why wait for a return?

Blazer fans think the team can take its time and wait out any move for the best value. This is wrong thinking. What Ayton does is take up 32 minutes per game (not to mention salary cap) that could be used as a selling point to a useful free agent.

Looks to me, like the other 4 at the top of the list, is that he (they) have more fame than game.

And just for understanding, I would not want Ayton on the Magic. He makes more than he is worth by a wide margin.

[AaronB]

I will understand perfectly well if the Blazers make a cost-cutting move. But what "makes sense" to Trade Board regulars is in no way determinant of reality. Texas Chuck can share his insights without the air of having a special grasp on the truth and without the condescension. Well, probably not, actually. It's the only way this board's core knows how to communicate their consensus.

I think one thing other fans keep failing to take into account is our unique ownership situation.

Jody is playing with a dead mans money. It is money that will never come to her except in one way - by taking a "reasonable" fee for "managing" the asset. One might conspiratorially wonder whether what is considered "reasonable" by business standards has any tie to the amount of salary they manage but regardless there is really no reason not to spend what they can, the only other place that money is ever going is to charity when she sells. One can also only assume that the more revenue and ticket sales the higher fee a "reasonable manager" could maybe collect so there is potentially a strong personal financial incentive to spend dead paul allens money in order to increase revenue.

Now I do think the Blazers will duck the luxury tax but I think giberish hit the nail on the head early in the thread - we have a lot of different options to accomplish that and so can take the best option. We don't have to move a specific player so we are free to shop around. But I don't think the Blazers have much pressure to reduce salary much beyond that and they want to return to being competitive asap.

Also, everyone keeps talking about how injury prone our players are like we didn't just blatantly tank the last couple seasons but that might be tilting at windmills. Also FWIW Thybulle is one of the last players I want to move because I want to keep a defensive identity around this team, so empty calorie players like Simons and Grant (and even Brogdon though he is a winner) are much more palatable to move, at least IMHO.

I would agree with this post nearly completely.

The only thing I would add is a quote from a really great TV series (Only Murders in the Building).

"You have plenty of time to figure things out, what you don't have is time to waste"

I would submit that this group of players have shown themselves to be at the bottom of the NBA for multiple seasons. It is not going to get better until they replace the minutes that the top 4 play with guys who buy into a winning identity.

I also think that people are looking at this the wrong way. The Blazers are not replacing the players that have shown that they will not win many games over multiple seasons. They are replacing the minutes that those guys are playing. The difference is subtle, but important. It takes the personal attachment to getting value out of the equation.

I think Thybulle is the kind of guy that you keep. The others, not so much.

[eitanr]

For Detroit/Portland is there an Ivey for Simons + pick swap deal (obv pending on where the teams pick) concept?

For example something like Ivey and 1 for Simons and 3 or 4?

[BlazersBroncos]

For Detroit/Portland is there an Ivey for Simons + pick swap deal (obv pending on where the teams pick) concept?

For example something like Ivey and 1 for Simons and 3 or 4?

Reroute Ivey somewhere else and I am game.

Think getting #1 and gambling Sarr can be Mobley'esque is worth it (Albeit I am far from convinced he is that good)

[Euphonetiks]

What about Robert Williams to the Pelicans for draft compensation?

I am not sure what his value would be with the injury history, but Pelicans could take the risk of adding interior defense and rebounding with the MLE giving POR a pick and $12.5M in savings.

[Norm2953]

Unclear Simons would be happy moving on from a 21 win Portland team to an even worse Detroit
team but I do think there is a way forward for Portland to trade up to get the #1 pick to get Sarr.

Most likely Detroit would re-route Simons to a team like Orlando

[eitanr]

Unclear Simons would be happy moving on from a 21 win Portland team to an even worse Detroit
team but I do think there is a way forward for Portland to trade up to get the #1 pick to get Sarr.

Most likely Detroit would re-route Simons to a team like Orlando

IDK, Detroit needs pure talent and Simons is till very young. Pistons would take this gamble IF they like Duren moving forward and rather not risk an akward center battle with two youth. If they trade back to get Risacher or another wing like Knecht, it could be a win-win.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I do think it's rather tasteless to keep referring to her as playing with a dead man's money or dead paul allen's money. That was her brother. It can be framed another way that isn't crass, especially as she's made several investments in the team to improve facilities, staff and a G-league team.

You are right. I was being overly crass in order to make a point of how this pot of money maybe matters less to her compared to most other owners where it is coming out of their own pocket, but perhaps I stepped over the line. I should have stuck more to saying something like "playing with house money" or something to not disrespect their relationship.

And honestly my problem is less with her, because she has been open with the purse strings and I don't mind owners leaving decisions up to more qualified people, but more with Bert and the Vulcan group who I feel have cast a pall over this team for way too long. So any resentment detected was bleed over from that more than anything.