https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-damian-lillard-expected-to-get-191-m-supermax-deal-from-trail-blazers-this-summer-134616480.html

Sources: Damian Lillard expected to get $191M supermax deal from Trail Blazers this summer

Chris Haynes
Yahoo Sports
May 21, 2019, 8:46 AM


PORTLAND, Ore. — Damian Lillard and the Portland Trail Blazers are expected to come to terms over the summer on a four-year, $191 million supermax contract extension, league sources told Yahoo Sports.

Lillard would officially qualify for the supermax if he’s voted to one of the three All-NBA Teams, which is virtually a lock for the four-time All-Star.

Lillard has two years and approximately $62 million remaining on his current deal. The extension would put him under contract for the next six years, and he’d be 35 years old by the time the deal expires, perhaps solidifying his status as arguably the greatest Trail Blazer of all time.

According to rival executives, a new pact for Lillard would almost certainly include a player option, something the guard bypassed on his previous deal.

“We’ll focus on the later,” Lillard told Yahoo Sports after the Blazers’ 119-117 Game 4 overtime loss to Golden State Warriors on Monday night.

The seven-year veteran led the Trail Blazers to the Western Conference finals for the first time in 19 years before being swept by the defending champions.

“Look at what we did this year,” Lillard told Yahoo Sports. “We played without our starting center . We played without CJ toward the end of the season. So, looking at that, we were still able to get here. We were one step away . And not only here, we had double-digit leads in three of the four games. I think getting here is reassuring that we can get the job done.”

Although Lillard wasn’t able to have a breakout offensive performance because of the Warriors’ ultra aggressive traps and double teams and a nagging rib injury, his competitiveness and perseverance were admired from the opposite bench.

“Dame is a special player,” Warriors star Draymond Green told Yahoo Sports. “He just keeps battling. He loves this team and this city, and you respect the fact that he wants to win here and do it his way. He’s an ultimate competitor, and you can tell he’s from Oakland. He’s going to find a way to get it done.”

The series proved Portland is still a few pieces away from legitimately contending for a title. For the second consecutive year, the game plan was to take Lillard out of the game by swarming the star and forcing him to pass and rely on his teammates to hit big shots.

Roster depth also remains a major concern for Portland. Including the regular season and postseason, Lillard led the league in minutes played with 3,488.

If Neil Olshey — the Blazers’ president of basketball operations — decides against making a trade or stretching the contracts of Evan Turner or Meyers Leonard, then Portland is likely headed for another season over the luxury tax threshold and it would severely restrict the team’s options in the offseason.

“We just have to continue to improve with the guys we have,” Lillard told Yahoo Sports. “And then if it presents itself where we can get some guys in that can maybe take us to the next level, then look at that. I think that’s all we can do.”

Another major decision for the Trail Blazers is the future of their head coach, Terry Stotts. The team holds his option for the 2019-20 season, but it would likely require an extension this summer to get Stotts to return to the sideline.

Stotts was not pleased when he wasn’t offered an extension last year, sources said. As the second-winningest coach in franchise history and coming off a 53-29 record that equated to the third seed in the West this season, Stotts is deserving of a new deal.

“It's a disappointing loss, but for me it was an outstanding season,” Stotts said Monday night. “The guys in the locker room are special. It's been a special season. Always tough to lose the last game of the year, but I couldn't be more proud of the group that we've had.”

The Trail Blazers watched the Warriors celebrate on their home court as Golden State heads to a fifth straight NBA Finals. The Blazers were so close to extending the series, but realize how much more they need to grow.

“We’re one step away from the Finals, and I see it’s the maturity and understanding how steady you have to be,” Lillard told Yahoo Sports. “We played great in spurts. We had four great first halves. But those moments where we kind of let up and relaxed and we stopped doing the things that gave us that lead and they pounced on us because they don’t change the way they play. They just keep going, keep doing the same stuff. They overtook every game that way.

“I think one of things we needed was experience and knowing what it’s like to play this far into the season. We’ve never been this far in the playoffs, so I think the experience is something you need. And obviously as players, we’ve got to improve. We have to improve as players. We were in some positions where we weren’t able to capitalize. All of us. From top to bottom. We’ve got to improve. And once those situations present itself again, we’ll be able to hold on.”

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2690801&mesg_id=2690801&page=#2694234

May 21st: the Trailblazers are committed to a future of mediocrity by giving the same player the Supermax.

Cool.

and that goes for all those guys except for Steph who obviously is the exception...

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2696182&mesg_id=2696182&page=#2696626

finishing every season 20 or so games above .500 and winning playoff series is above mediocre.

that's basically a totally different team lol

>finishing every season 20 or so games above .500 and winning
>playoff series is above mediocre.

Jesus fucking Christ

And what did your CURRENT genius do with poor talent
in Atlanta BEFORE he inherited the league's best player?

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2696182&mesg_id=2696182&page=#2696723

sad.

and the heart and soul of the organization... now he’s destined to lead them to mediocrity.

Weird.

== Super Max eligible

soon either.

One has a "supermax" deal and the other wants one.

I agree partly with the sentiment

Why commit that much salary and years?

They've got him through 30Y.O. season

What's the rush to offer a supermax that kicks in on the other side of 30Y.O.?

Then again, Dame's a 50/40/90, perennial MVP candidate, all-star and all-nba

I can see why POR would want to lock him up

I just hate these supermax contracts

$48M/yr...for a guy that's not even a top 5 player = nah, too much

>I agree partly with the sentiment
>
>Why commit that much salary and years?
>
>They've got him through 30Y.O. season
>
>What's the rush to offer a supermax that kicks in on the other
>side of 30Y.O.?
>
>Then again, Dame's a 50/40/90, perennial MVP candidate,
>all-star and all-nba
>
>I can see why POR would want to lock him up
>
>I just hate these supermax contracts
>
>$48M/yr...for a guy that's not even a top 5 player = nah, too
>much

see John Wall

Bron's making $35M, I can't rationalize giving anybody more than that

...but it's not my money...

>see John Wall
>
>Bron's making $35M, I can't rationalize giving anybody more
>than that
>
>...but it's not my money...

Right, is Steph going to be worth $45mil 3 years from now? Probably not but at least you can say he's earned it with the unparalleled level of success he's brought his franchise.

Chris Paul's contract? Yikes.

There have been four players to lead Portland to the WCF: Walton, Drexler, Sheed, and Dame. Four ever. In fifty years. The best players Portland's ever had were either drafted by them or acquired by them via trade very early in their careers.

Portland's not a huge free agent market. They won't sign the Brons and Durants. They are as good as the talent they develop can make them. It's in their best interest to tell Lillard, "You're a lifer." Because they don't have realistic alternatives.

Of course Dame deserves to get paid and play his entire career in POR

What should be obvious, is POR needs more help if they truly have ideas of being champions

But...that's not even my issue

My issue is the amount and length

Why tie your franchise to what is sure to become an albatross of a contract?

Any references to a team maxing a +30Y.O. player and then winning a chip?

does't he sign one somewhere else?

the market is what it is.

1, he's not a FA

2, if a team wants to bid up to $48M/yr, they can have him

Dame, CJ and Nurkic all expire in 21'

If you max Dame now...why wouldn't those guys expect the same?

I have no idea what the maxs look like for CJ and Nurkic

Nurkic is on a rookie contract...?

Embiid just got maxed for like $25/30M a year

CJ's making the same as dame...so a max would be in that $45/50 a year range

= you're already against the cap.

I would try to negotiate something more reasonable with Dame

...looking down the barrel of the next best players also in line for contracts...

again, not my money

but I don't think he's worth it

any examples of a +30Y.O. NBA getting maxed and then winning a championship?

LAL literally had to wait for Mamba out, before they could get into FA sweepstakes

>does't he sign one somewhere else?
>
>the market is what it is.

Danny Ainge could've given him the supermax and that franchise would've been crippled for years.

2. Who are you going to trade him to and get back for value?

They're potentially on their up-swing right now, and Lillard is the best player they've drafted in about 35 years. He's an all-star, an all NBA-team player, just lead the Blazers to the WCF, is the leader of the best Blazers team in nearly two decades, is universally beloved by the fanbase, puts asses in the seats, and hit a shot that they'll be showing in arena highlight packages for the next 35 years. The league came up with Supermax contracts so teams like the Blazers could re-sign players like Lillard. Why would they not offer him one?

... people in here keep talking like Portland can do what LA and Boston can do in terms of free agency. When was the last time Portland got a star in free agency? I'm trying to think of a bigger name than Kenny Anderson, but I'm coming up empty.

Supermax/Maxing a +30Y.O.

When has that lead to a championship?

only one "thing" regularly works. Have one of the following players on your team:

Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Steph or Lebron.

Those players account for 16 of the 20 titles in the max contract era.

So either have one of those players, or the odds are massively against you no matter what kind of contracts you give out. ]

Update: 17 of 20 titles. I forgot Shaq was on the '06 team.

not sure if your reply is for or against

I think the point that's being overlooked IRT supermax

not only was it implemented so franchises could hold on to players

but more specifically...to hold on to the players you mentioned

Looking at that list...why would you pay Dame $48M...?

To get swept next year?

They need different levels for this supermax shit.

...to evaluate team building strategy since you either have one of the three best players in the league or you don't.

So unless Portland has KD or Steph or Lebron next year, it's almost certainly a theoretical discussion anyway.

Therefore I don't think "no one's won a title with a 30+ year old max player" is a strong argument against max contracts, or this one specifically.

what do they do with CJ and Nurkic?

How do they improve their roster with 1/3 of the cap going to 1 guy?

if it's a team building strategy...how does that work?

which is very very limited.

I think the NBA is not in a great spot right now with how max contracts work. But I also don't think Portland has any choice but to sign him.

I also think everything about the NBA is extremely strange because there's just a few players who decide absolutely everything.

If you don't have one of the three best players in the league on your team, you have a nearly non-existent statistical chance of challenging for a title, let alone winning one.

It's a very, very unique sport in that regard.

I have no idea how any of this works...but this is OKS, so of course I have an opinion

The SUPER/maxes feel more arbitrary than merit based

I think they need more stipulations

There isn't a world where this list makes sense based on accomplishments;

Stephen Curry $37,457,154 Golden State Warriors
Russell Westbro $35,665,000 Oklahoma City Thunder
Chris Paul $35,654,150 Houston Rockets
LeBron James $35,654,150 Los Angeles Lakers
Blake Griffin $31,873,932 Detroit Pistons
Gordon Hayward $31,214,295 Boston Celtics
Kyle Lowry $31,000,000 Toronto Raptors
James Harden $30,570,000 Houston Rockets
Paul George $30,560,700 Oklahoma City Thunder
Mike Conley Jr. $30,521,115 Memphis Grizzlies

Half them dudes aren't even the best player on their own team

I don't think they predicted the cap to rise as slow as it has.

I love the idea of a supermax, but the execution of it is definitely a problem.

I'd love to hear how risking making your best player in 20 years feel unappreciated leads to the team improving.

Dame
CJ
and Nurkic all expire in '21

I try to negotiate a deal with Dame that leaves me enough cap space to keep the next best 2 guys as well

Setting the precedent that POR will max it's guys because that's all they can do...leads to an untenable situation in a couple of years

TBH, my personal opinion...I let him play out 2 years for $61M

See how Dame time's running then

Why SUPERmax him now?

and in the likely event he doesn't do that, you have no choice but to max him or let him walk.

pointed out above in the link in reply #2, the only teams in the last 40+ years to win a title with their best player under 6'4" are the Bad Boy Pistons and the 2015 Warriors. That's it, that's the list.(c)T. Kornheiser

Dame will turn 29 this summer. He will be 31 when this "supermax" kicks in. Will Dame still be an All-NBA player then? Probably not.

This team is probably peaking right now, I don't see them getting much better or finishing much high over the next few years. Is it wise to invest almost $200mil in a smaller guard on the downside of his career?

Steph's contract is going to hurt on the back end too but at least that franchise will have reaped the benefits of that investment.

Because, like, Dame is arguably (probably) a better all around basketball player than Russ. And the fact that he doesn't rely on athleticism as much should only lengthen his prime.

This post is dumb.

>Because, like, Dame is arguably (probably) a better all
>around basketball player than Russ. And the fact that he
>doesn't rely on athleticism as much should only lengthen his
>prime.

Head to head stats suggest otherwise: http://bkref.com/tiny/PBETJ

in their playoff matchup but historically Russ has dominated him and it really hasn't been close.

I've watched all of these games, by the way. I'm obviously a biased Blazers fan, but I'm willing to admit when someone has our number.

For example--I remember Jrue Holiday dominating Lillard in Dame's rookie year when he played for the Sixers, and it not only informed my opinion of Holiday's talent, but also informed my fear of him before the Blazers played New Orleans last year in the playoffs.

I've never been afraid of Lillard in a matchup against Westbrook. Ever.

Here are the numbers in the past four years (since 2015-2016), which I figured is a good starting point because that is the duration of Lillard's tenure leading the team, post-Aldridge.

Lillard: 28.0 ppg 44/32/92 , 4.3 rpg, 6.9 apg, 1.5 spg, .64 bpg
Westbrook: 29.7 ppg 43/27/77 , 7.6 rpg, 8.7 apg, 1.4 spg, .57 bpg

Even with OKC's season sweep against Portland this season--which included 2 games that the Blazers should have won--Russell's quote-unquote dominant performance against Dame netted him a Won-Loss record versus Portland of... wait for it... 7-7.

Couple that with Dame's undeniable--numbers, eyetest, whatever--DOMINANCE of Westbrook in this season's playoffs, and you tell me who's been busting that ass for years.

You're a moron

and the comp model might actually be the best in sports.

It's the one sport where diminishing returns is almost precisely predictable: Post 32, everyone starts to slide a bit.

I wish NBA contracts that ran past age 31 were front loaded but cap standard.

You extend Dame for ages 32-35 (4yrs) @ $191M supermax, you pay him on the following schedule:

Yr1 = $75 mil ($48 mil counts toward the cap)
Yr2 = $65 mil ($48 mil counts toward the cap)
Yr3 = $30 mil ($30 mil counts toward the cap)
Yr4 = $21 mil ($21 mil counts toward the cap)

The avg salary should count toward the cap for the front loaded yrs (when the players value is closer to the Super/Max payment) and the cap hit lowers as the returns diminish.

This would allow teams to reward and keep their best guys but not hamstring the franchise when they're playing in their twilight.

As the cap stands, Supermaxing Dame's extension is really a bad business move. Dame at 35 won't be anywhere near as good as dame at 29 and at 35 he could be eating up 1/3 or more of your cap space.

>As the cap stands, Supermaxing Dame's extension is really a
>bad business move. Dame at 35 won't be anywhere near as good
>as dame at 29 and at 35 he could be eating up 1/3 or more of
>your cap space.

small market, not major FA friendly...has to do things like this to make sure that when they do get a guy, he stays long term. A good reputation goes a long way with players.

Portland's hope for improvement has to be via trades and good draft picks. I mean, Toronto got Siakam with the 27th pick. Giannis and Kawhi were 15th picks. They land the right rookie to add to what they have and it could push them closer to the top even with Dame on that salary.

>small market, not major FA friendly...has to do things like
>this to make sure that when they do get a guy, he stays long
>term. A good reputation goes a long way with players.

Maintaining a reputation of "if you play well for us, you're set for life" is really the only way Portland will *ever* get their best draft picks to stay with them long-term. That sense of reputation and loyalty. It's legit the only card a small market team can play.

So in *that* regard, outside of the hypothetical bubble, this is really the only business move Portland could make. Because making Dame feel unappreciated and having him walk at age 31 not only loses you maybe a couple of years of potential top-shelf Dame play, it probably *also* loses you future players down the line who may not trust that Portland would take care of them.

Dame didn't *have* to sign that max with Portland-- he could've tried free agency and tried places like LA/NY/Boston/etc-- but he did, he balled out, and now he's rewarded with a major contract for life in Portland. The agents of future stars who go to Portland note this kind of shit.

>Maintaining a reputation of "if you play well for us, you're
>set for life" is really the only way Portland will *ever* get
>their best draft picks to stay with them long-term. That sense
>of reputation and loyalty. It's legit the only card a small
>market team can play.

Who has that worked out well for?

>So in *that* regard, outside of the hypothetical bubble, this
>is really the only business move Portland could make. Because
>making Dame feel unappreciated and having him walk at age 31
>not only loses you maybe a couple of years of potential
>top-shelf Dame play, it probably *also* loses you future
>players down the line who may not trust that Portland would
>take care of them.

You don't let him walk at 31, you trade him for young players/draft picks.

>Dame didn't *have* to sign that max with Portland-- he
>could've tried free agency and tried places like
>LA/NY/Boston/etc-- but he did, he balled out, and now he's
>rewarded with a major contract for life in Portland. The
>agents of future stars who go to Portland note this kind of
>shit.

This is the modern NBA, that "loyalty" shit is out the window on both sides. Players want to get to where they can win and get the most money while doing it.

>>Maintaining a reputation of "if you play well for us,
>you're
>>set for life" is really the only way Portland will *ever*
>get
>>their best draft picks to stay with them long-term. That
>sense
>>of reputation and loyalty. It's legit the only card a small
>>market team can play.
>
>Who has that worked out well for?

To your point, this is a business. Yes, building title teams make you more profitable but keeping a competitive team, in a small market, is like printing cash. Portland has nothing BUT the blazers. If they are a winning/playoff team for 10 seasons and Dame is the catalyst...you've made hella cash likely (especially if you've managed the cap well).

But if Portland sucks for 10yrs, it might be so bad that you'd have to consider relocating the team but you'd likely end up in the same situation but in a different small market.

So, if I'm an owner and I want to keep printing cash, I pay Dame so that the "next Dame" can see I'm going to take care of him.

To an owner of a small market team, printing cash for 20 straight winning seasons is just as valuable as winning titles. Most owners know that winning a title is part lightening in a bottle so they focus on profit first, winning it all second.

Sometimes, we get into our 'fan' goggles when it comes to managing teams. These guys are really about that cake. If it was all about winning, they'd skirt on the luxury tax and go all in to get titles every season. And we know only a handful of teams are about that life.

>You don't let him walk at 31, you trade him for young
>players/draft picks.

This still could hurt your rep and possibly kill your profit. If the young players/draft picks flop (highly likely) and your small market team stops having winning seasons...the cash printing slows.

Only way you trade Dame is if the team isn't winning/going to the playoffs anymore. But before you get there, he's pissed because you didn't supermax him when he became eligible. And he's probably bad mouthing the org for 2 seasons and swaying other players to not want to stay/play in Portland.

>This is the modern NBA, that "loyalty" shit is out the window
>on both sides. Players want to get to where they can win and
>get the most money while doing it.

You're right. This is a $$ decision more than loyalty. It's good for those type of optics though.


Edit: I should also clarify when I said 'bad business move' I meant that in the same terms you do...as it pertains to winning a title within the salary cap structure.

build through the draft?

They won a chip...after drafting Walton...?

Drexler era...drafted

Etc...

Point being...other than hitting on a generational talent through the draft...how does supermaxing THEIR guys get them closer to a chip

i.e. there's decades of it not working

You would think the FO would be trying to figure out how to get those final pieces for a legit chip team

Instead of just writing checks to show the league how loyal they are

IMO

They could let him walk in 2 years

and be back to a middling team in a couple of years rebuilding through drafts/trades

I just don't think the incentive of having a good rep in the league outweighs making the cut throat decisions to become a champion*

*can we admit this team overachieved by making the WCF and were very fortunate to meet an inexperienced team in the 2nd round

Getting swept in the WCF can't be the mountaintop that results in this contract

Drexler
Roy
Aldridge
Randolph
Sabonis

Trades:
Sheed

All these guys got a brinks truck and none of them won a title in Portland. Clyde was the only one to get them to the finals.

The Blazers have only missed the playoffs 14 times since becoming an NBA franchise. They've missed the playoffs 6 times since 1990. They typically field competitive playoff teams. In Portland, that's like a broken ATM machine spitting out $100 bills.

You have to keep that in stride considering how hard it is to win a title...especially in a small market.

If I'm a team owner, I weigh competitive team that prints cash vs capped out team that 'might' have a shot at a title along with the Warriors, Bucks, Raptors, Rockets, Nuggets, Wherever LeBron is, Wherever KD goes, etc.

So if I'm paying luxury taxes, eating into profit and still losing to one of those teams, how is that better? My fans are selling out the arena so long as we are a winning franchise and make the playoffs.

I'd bide my time, hope that our FO lands the 'lightening in a bottle' draft pick that compliments Dame, CJ, etc and keep the cash flow coming. When Dame flames out, get the next guy to lead us to similar results, rinse, wash repeat.

as is the salary cap.

>Drexler
>Roy
>Aldridge
>Randolph
>Sabonis
>
>Trades:
>Sheed
>
>All these guys got a brinks truck and none of them won a title
>in Portland. Clyde was the only one to get them to the
>finals.
>
>The Blazers have only missed the playoffs 14 times since
>becoming an NBA franchise. They've missed the playoffs 6
>times since 1990. They typically field competitive playoff
>teams. In Portland, that's like a broken ATM machine spitting
>out $100 bills.
>
>You have to keep that in stride considering how hard it is to
>win a title...especially in a small market.
>
>If I'm a team owner, I weigh competitive team that prints cash
>vs capped out team that 'might' have a shot at a title along
>with the Warriors, Bucks, Raptors, Rockets, Nuggets, Wherever
>LeBron is, Wherever KD goes, etc.
>
>So if I'm paying luxury taxes, eating into profit and still
>losing to one of those teams, how is that better? My fans are
>selling out the arena so long as we are a winning franchise
>and make the playoffs.
>
>I'd bide my time, hope that our FO lands the 'lightening in a
>bottle' draft pick that compliments Dame, CJ, etc and keep the
>cash flow coming. When Dame flames out, get the next guy to
>lead us to similar results, rinse, wash repeat.

The point is when Dame flames out but you're still paying him $40+ mil a season but your salary cap is maxed out and the team is no longer competitive and the fans stop coming.

>The point is when Dame flames out but you're still paying him
>$40+ mil a season but your salary cap is maxed out and the
>team is no longer competitive and the fans stop coming.

I agree to an extent. That's why I wish the Max deals worked differently with how they were paid out.

But again, Portland has a pretty good track record with making the playoffs/picking talent.

In 49 yrs, they've only missed the playoffs 14 times. I think the team owner feels like I stated earlier; print money as they won't suck for long if they eat that deal and don't land the next guy while Dame is on the roster.

>I agree to an extent. That's why I wish the Max deals worked
>differently with how they were paid out.
>
>But again, Portland has a pretty good track record with making
>the playoffs/picking talent.
>
>In 49 yrs, they've only missed the playoffs 14 times. I think
>the team owner feels like I stated earlier; print money as
>they won't suck for long if they eat that deal and don't land
>the next guy while Dame is on the roster.

Like I said what happened 49 years ago is irrelevant. Today contracts are different and the salary cap is different. The team ownership is even different. They've had mixed results in the draft, they hit back to back on Dame and CJ the rest haven't been that great. And part of the problem is if you max Dame out then what are you going to do with CJ?

>To an owner of a small market team, printing cash for 20
>straight winning seasons is just as valuable as winning
>titles. Most owners know that winning a title is part
>lightening in a bottle so they focus on profit first, winning
>it all second.

I forget the exact numbers, but I think they've missed the playoffs like nine times in 48 seasons. Some surprisingly small percentage. They're very good about routinely winning, and I imagine it's largely because they treat their players so well.

https://www.blazersedge.com/2015/7/4/8878773/lamarcus-aldridge-san-antonio-spurs-portland-trail-blazers-sign-contract

Because the Blazers did with LaMarcus, exactly what you said they should do with Dame, and it didn't lead to a title. As a matter of fact, they took a step back and had a worse record than the yr before LMA left for the last 3 seasons. This was their best season since he split.

And he split because the Blazers wouldn't give him a 5 yr max extension at big dollars (though they paid him well on his second contract).

You gotta pick a side Truth lol

younger players/draft picks

Look at it like this:

If you been making steady bank at your current gig for 10 yrs straight, with decent increases and you're otherwise happy with the results and this company is about as rock solid stable as a company can get but...

You get offered a role at a start up where you get more power, a decent raise and stock options


Are you gonna f*ck with your guaranteed cash, or jump on that start up that could be out of business within 24 months with a few wrong decisions?

This is basically the decision the Blazers have in front of them.

>Look at it like this:
>
>If you been making steady bank at your current gig for 10 yrs
>straight, with decent increases and you're otherwise happy
>with the results and this company is about as rock solid
>stable as a company can get but...


What if your company has to lay everybody else off because they're paying you so well and you have to work extra on nights and weekends and you're salary so you don't get overtime pay?

what the Warriors are today or close to it.

If Brandon Roy and Gren Oden don't have their injury problems those guys along with Aldridge and Batum would've been running the league.

Now that they have a healthy star in Dame I can see why they want to hold on to him but I still think the back-end of that contract will hurt the franchise long-term.

>what the Warriors are today or close to it.
>
>If Brandon Roy and Gren Oden don't have their injury problems
>those guys along with Aldridge and Batum would've been running
>the league.
>
>Now that they have a healthy star in Dame I can see why they
>want to hold on to him but I still think the back-end of that
>contract will hurt the franchise long-term.


^^^This demonstrates everything we're talking about. Risk on draft picks, missed ops, overpaying to keep the team competitive.

I think Portland will find a way to digest Dame at 34 making that salary. But they'll likely fall off a little if they don't nail a few drafts or trades before then.

The Pelicans are going through that scenario right now. Best player they've drafted in their history and when healthy, at least one of the 5 to 10 best players in the league. And even the best potential deals that they could make for him won't get them nearly as much as they'd be giving up. Which is why they're hoping and praying that a Zion is amazing enough to make Davis want to stay.

With the Blazers you've got the best player in 35 years now with play-off success who wants to stick around forever. You don't gamble with that.

one of the draft picks you get develops into a star.

>Which is why
>they're hoping and praying that a Zion is amazing enough to
>make Davis want to stay.

I think that ship has sailed, AD is gone, he's ready to compete now and not way on Zions development.


>With the Blazers you've got the best player in 35 years now
>with play-off success who wants to stick around forever. You
>don't gamble with that.

He may want to stick around forever but he won't be great forever but if you pay him like he will be they will eventually regret it.

The Wizards felt like they "had to" sign John Wall to that contract and look at them now.

That Chris Paul contract is going to haunt the Rockets.

There are a ton of bad long-term deals out there that at the time the teams felt like they "had to" do it but regret it now.

The back-end of Steph's contract probably won't be pretty but the Warriors are playing with house money with the success they've had over the last 5 years.

This is actually a perfect illustration of what I'm trying to convey

LMA was in the same situation with POR

They let him walk

His last season in POR, they lost in the first round of the playoffs

Yes, their regular season Ws decreased over the next couple of years

...but they won their 1st round matchup the following season...

i.e. worse is argumentative

Better is not

They obviously had a their best season in a long time this year

with Ws and playoff Ws

LMA was also entering into 30 Y.O. season around the time of the POR exit

and his numbers dipped in SAS

LMA could have been maxed by POR

they let him walk

were not worse for it, and it only took 3 years to be a better team

So why would they max Dame, given that example?

You have POR's big 3 under contract for 2 more years

I really don't understand doing it now

further, given the LMA example

I don't understand doing it at all

He could walk, and POR could be back to middling in a couple of seasons...even potentially better in a couple of years after his departure

also argumentative

What I don't think is up for debate, POR in the WCF is overachieving and not a result that will be repeated with this roster.

IRT LMA's exit from POR, it felt like they made a choice between him and Dame

given that example

Why put yourself in that position again, when you know 1 guy won't get it done?

They need CJ AND Nurkic (if he can return to full strength)

If they max Dame, and can't keep CJ AND Nurkic too...

They'll regress anyway.

you had guy that was the heart and soul of your organization and gotten you to the conference finals.

Even without IT's injury which supposedly nobody thought was that serious at the time, do you really want "back up the Brink's truck" and pay a smaller guard max dollars into his 30's?

Historically smaller guards don't age well. Chris Paul has been the exception and we've seen him start to break down. A big man is going to always be big regardless but for a smaller guard who's primary weapon is their speed and quickness, once that starts to fade its usually a wrap.

Dame Lillard won unanimous Rookie of the Year and followed that with 6 consecutive all-star caliber seasons while leading his team to the playoffs.

Dame *is* the franchise. He's completely indispensable.

steph, bron, kd, giannis, harden
after that there isnt anyone i'd give a supermax to tbh
teams gonna have to learn to let some of these guys go

Right now it's only Steph, Harden, Wall and Russ who have them.

AD, Giannis, Lillard, Beal, Klay and Kemba are up next.

AD and Kemba might not even get theirs depending on how the summer goes. Will Wall already locked in, Wiz only road to rebuilding might be to trade Beal for assets so he'd miss out on his if it isn't signed prior to him being traded (which if he's being traded, a lower salary and thus cap hit is more desirable).

~~~~~~~~~~~

To qualify for a supermax extension, a player has to be with the team he was on at the end of his rookie contract and entering his eighth, ninth or 10th year in the NBA. He also needs to have proved he's one of the most elite players in the league, in one of three ways:

• Winning MVP in any of the three most recent seasons;

• Winning Defensive Player of the Year in the most recent season or in the prior two seasons;

• Being named to an All-NBA team in the most recent season or in the prior two seasons.

Still, there is one other factor that isn't officially listed among the rules for supermax qualification, but might be the most important of all: the player has to want to re-sign with his current team, and the team has to want to give out the contract. Because, while the supermax extension was designed to help stem the tide of superstar player movement, it quickly became clear that wouldn't be the case.

we know AD is probably leaving NO, Giannis has a couple more years, will the Warriors really give Klay a supermax deal? And if so what does that mean for Draymond next summer? Will those guys be will to give GS the "hometown discount"?

...luxury tax it takes to keep the team's core together. Two weeks ago, Lacob gave an interview where he said he wanted Curry and Klay on the team "forever." He'd look like a jerk if he then didn't give Klay what he wanted in order to stay there.

And, moreover, they're opening the Chase Center next season, so they're going to want the team to be as familiar as possible. Especially IF the Warriors win the championship this year. So there's a very real possibility that they'll sign both Klay and KD to supermax deals during the off-season.

As for Draymond? He has said he's not taking any more discounts, and that he was underpaid during his last contract. Which is true, but it wasn't really the Warriors fault; the cap spiked and all of a sudden Mozgov was getting more money than him. Green signing with Klutch reinforces that he's not giving anyone any deals.

I don't know if he "deserves" the supermax. I've said before that on the Warriors, he's a max player. But I don't know if he on another team.

I'd say if KD leaves this summer, they definitely don't resign Draymond. Certainly not for the supermax. They let him walk and take their best shot at the best forward/best man on the market. Livingston and Iggy will also be off the books after next season, so they'll have more money to sign people.

If Klay and KD stay, I can still see a world where they let Draymond leave, only because the Spurs are the team model we're trying to pursue, and they're going to want to get younger.

"To qualify for a supermax extension, a player has to be with the team he was on at the end of his rookie contract and entering his eighth, ninth or 10th year in the NBA."

Also, if Klay gets supermaxed, Dray can't. Warriors already supermaxed Steph and teams are only allowed 2 supermaxes per roster.

Steph - Supermax
Klay - Supermax
KD - Max
Dray - Max
Warriors - Hella taxed

But I think this will be the end game and the team will play together through 2022 or 2023 before they have to break it up.

If everyone comes back, they probably win a few more titles too because the warriors are good at developing talent.

The press out here has long said that KD would be eligible for the supermax after he finished his third year here. I will say that I honestly didn't know that you could only have two supermaxes per team.

If it's Klay or Draymond getting one, then it will be Klay.

So Draymond is still eligible. If they were extending him this yr it'd be on the table because he won DPOY in 2017.

If they have to wait until next season, he'd have to make all-nba or DPOY again (assuming he won't win it this yr).

>So Draymond is still eligible. If they were extending him
>this yr it'd be on the table because he won DPOY in 2017.
>
>If they have to wait until next season, he'd have to make
>all-nba or DPOY again (assuming he won't win it this yr).

Well, he won't be DPOY this year; he's not one of the three finalist. And there's certainly no guarantee he'll be next year, though I imagine he really busts his ass because it's a contract year.

But still, it puts Draymond in the position where he knows that he likely can get his best possible contract the year before he's an unrestricted free agent. Kind of messes with the dynamic a bit where he might put the pressure on the Warriors to sign him now instead of next summer, when he knows for sure he can get a Supermax.

but I'm not so sure. But if they sign him AND Klay to max deals Draymond would probably be the odd man out. If KD leaves and they roll with Steph, Klay and Draymond it will be interesting to see what pieces they can put around them to stay competitive.

So I think he's off the Supermax slot too...which I suppose helps the Warriors from a tax stand point.

So small market teams would have a leg up on re-signing their homegrown talents come free-agent time.

of the supermax deal

WAS is probably going to have to move Beal
If POR maxes Dame, they probably can't keep CJ and Nurkic when they're up for deals

Other than the GSW striking gold on 2 elite players and committing to going into the luxury tax to keep them (Chips)...it feels like supermaxing A guy...forces these teams to move OTHERS

I'm sure that's not the intent, but that's the way it's playing out IMO.

>of the supermax deal
>
>WAS is probably going to have to move Beal
>If POR maxes Dame, they probably can't keep CJ and Nurkic when
>they're up for deals
>
>Other than the GSW striking gold on 2 elite players and
>committing to going into the luxury tax to keep them
>(Chips)...it feels like supermaxing A guy...forces these teams
>to move OTHERS
>
>I'm sure that's not the intent, but that's the way it's
>playing out IMO.

and the Warriors got lucky to an extent because Steph's balky ankles at the beginning of his career allowed them to get him to sign a below market deal for his 2nd contract and that's partly how they became what they are now.

When LeBron and Bosh went to Miami, they changed the rules so to give players more incentive to sign with that teams that drafted them. When ***that*** didn't work, they came up with the Supermax deals. They figured it would create parity and give the truly elite players a huge reason to stay with the team that drafted them.

And as Jalen Rose and Jay William said either this morning or yesterday, if you give a player a choice between an extra $80 million and a ***possible*** shot at a chip, almost all will take the $80 million.


>If POR maxes Dame, they probably can't keep CJ and Nurkic when
>they're up for deals

Well, they can decide that they want to pay a lot of luxury tax and sign both of them. If they draft well, and are able to sign some role players, than they're a relatively young team that might eventually be able to get a leg up on the Warriors.

>Other than the GSW striking gold on 2 elite players and
>committing to going into the luxury tax to keep them
>(Chips)...it feels like supermaxing A guy...forces these teams
>to move OTHERS

Again, that's only if they don't want to pay the luxury taxes. The Warriors owners have always said that they'll pay anything to keep the team together. Portland ownership could decide to pay a lot of money to keep the team as competitive for as long as possible and hope the Warriors slip. They, along with the Nuggets and the Clippers, look like the clear teams on the rise.

>I'm sure that's not the intent, but that's the way it's
>playing out IMO.

I'd say Charlotte is much more illustrative of your point. A team either just in or just out of the play-offs. Now the best player that they ever had is eligible for the Supermax, and they're faced with the prospect of signing him to deal a mega deal and having him eat up a ton of cap space, when in fact they really do need it to sign more players.

Portland isn't in nearly as a precarious position.

>Again, that's only if they don't want to pay the luxury taxes.
>The Warriors owners have always said that they'll pay anything
>to keep the team together. Portland ownership could decide to
>pay a lot of money to keep the team as competitive for as long
>as possible and hope the Warriors slip.

most owners will pay anything to keep a championship team together. The Blazers aren't that and a long way from being that lol

...is up to the fans and/or media.

That was the subtext of Lillard whining all the time that he wasn't an all-star or first team all-NBA or whatever. He signed an incentive-ized contract that rewarded him if he was an All-Star or on the All-NBA team. So part of this max deal is Portland rewarding him with the money that he missed out before.

At least the players have **some** say on All-Star voting. It's just the media who decides the All-NBA/DPOY/MVP/etc.. If the league is stuck on tying to supermax eligibility to those awards, they should remedy that.

get for CJ?