CrushAlot wrote:Wow. Why did the blazers give that deal to turner if they are keeping Crabbe and McCollum? Both teams may regret matching these deals. It will be interesting to see if this impacts Marks ability to do deals with teams. Poison pill deals were only used twice before, once with a very cap conscious team and the other time where a team would pay a tremendous salary cap bill.

Give him $20M/yr, and the Blazers would be shelling out around +/- $80M/year to Lilliard, McCollum, Turner, and Crabbe.

Crabbe and Turner might play the 3 in a small ball lineup, I suppose.

Welpee wrote:

crzymdups wrote:THIS is exactly why I said Crabbe would be a waste of time. This this this.

Exactly, Portland made it known that they were matching any offer for Crabbe.

WaltLongmire wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Wow. Why did the blazers give that deal to turner if they are keeping Crabbe and McCollum? Both teams may regret matching these deals. It will be interesting to see if this impacts Marks ability to do deals with teams. Poison pill deals were only used twice before, once with a very cap conscious team and the other time where a team would pay a tremendous salary cap bill.

Have to conclude that they are not going to resign McCollum...or he becomes trade bait, since you figure he's going to ask for a lot of money when his present contract is finished.

Give him $20M/yr, and the Blazers would be shelling out around +/- $80M/year to Lilliard, McCollum, Turner, and Crabbe.

Crabbe and Turner might play the 3 in a small ball lineup, I suppose.

Well in a lot of ways it's similar to what Orlando did with Tobias Harris. You match because he is a trade asset and can be traded to a team other than the Nets later in the year.

Also, Stotts recently commented on how they were looking to use Aminu more as a 4 going forward so that opens the door for Turner and Crabbe to start at the 3. I imagine that they want to have two ball handlers on the floor at all time so having Turner to come off the bench would be smart. This way they can keep one of McCollom and Lillard on the floor at all times.

yellowboy90 wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Wow. Why did the blazers give that deal to turner if they are keeping Crabbe and McCollum? Both teams may regret matching these deals. It will be interesting to see if this impacts Marks ability to do deals with teams. Poison pill deals were only used twice before, once with a very cap conscious team and the other time where a team would pay a tremendous salary cap bill.

Have to conclude that they are not going to resign McCollum...or he becomes trade bait, since you figure he's going to ask for a lot of money when his present contract is finished.

Give him $20M/yr, and the Blazers would be shelling out around +/- $80M/year to Lilliard, McCollum, Turner, and Crabbe.

Crabbe and Turner might play the 3 in a small ball lineup, I suppose.

Well in a lot of ways it's similar to what Orlando did with Tobias Harris. You match because he is a trade asset and can be traded to a team other than the Nets later in the year.

Also, Stotts recently commented on how they were looking to use Aminu more as a 4 going forward so that opens the door for Turner and Crabbe to start at the 3. I imagine that they want to have two ball handlers on the floor at all time so having Turner to come off the bench would be smart. This way they can keep one of McCollom and Lillard on the floor at all times.

Agreed. Reminds me of Lins contract that we never matched. I didn't get that as I thought he would still be a trade asset.
I do get that the team that creates the poison pill gets to spread the contract out as far as salary cap hit goes. And the NBA needs to fix this imo.