Kahn attempts to explain Gomes' buyout. The fun begins at the 1 minute mark. For those of you paying attention, Webster is on the books for $4.344 mil before July 1st compared to Gomes' $3.982 mil. How much is the buyout? Even if it's a cool mil, the slotted salary at 16 + Gomes' buyout is less than Webster's deal. Looking forward, this trade costs them more cap space in future years. Kahn is very clearly referencing 2010 off-season cap space. He is correct in saying there will be some savings on this front. He's probably referring to a number in the $500,000-$2 mil range. Is that number absolutely necessary for the team's off season plans? We'll find out. After all, signing Darko is going to take some coin.
almost 2 years ago
Stop-n-Pop
34 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
So what are the odds...
That Pritchard sat Kahn down and explained to him how taking Gomes off of his hands would be really beneficial to the Wolves and Kahn just flat-out bought it.
by vjl110 on Jun 25, 2010 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
0.0%
Questioning Kahn’s abilities as a talent evaluator is fair game, but to suggest that this guy lacks the intelligence to understand salaries/cap structure is just ridiculous.
I would agree generally...
But I don’t understand the point he is making. Sure Gomes would have given us a cap hit if we couldn’t move him before July 1, but it is absurd for him to imply that this would have happened if Portland didn’t “do us a solid” and take Gomes off of our hands. The Wolves ideally didn’t want to pay his buyout, but they should have had countless opportunities to turn him into a good player by shopping him to a team looking to cut their cap-hit from 5ish to 1ish.
It seems clear that Gomes was an asset that Kahn included in this deal, either because it was needed to get Webster (and he is lying through his teeth trying to convince us that we actually won by getting Portland to take him), or, Kahn is a fool and was tricked into thinking that Gomes was somehow a toxic contract rather than an asset.
He is either being sleazy or ignorant. I would have been very much on the sleazy side before yesterday, but now I just don’t know.
He's lying...
…and he’s been caught red handed and he’s trying to talk his way out of it. They cannot make a straight up trade for 16 and Webster with their cap situation. That’s just made up. They needed the salary offset before July 1st. There was no “favor” here. They needed to include Gomes to make it work. I have no idea why he’s trying to spin it like this.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I hope someone in the media...
manages to make him wriggle on the hook a little bit for this one. It really isn’t cool to try and blatantly pull one over on your fan base.
We should
have been able to cut Gomes take the minimal salary hit, then trade cap space for Webster on July 8th if we really wanted him. This is assuming we couldn’t have gotten an asset in return for Gomes before July 1st, which I find hard to believe we couldn’t have. It didn’t need to happen at the draft, I’ll be very surprised if Portland can’t flip Gomes for an asset within the next few days.
No reason that #16 should have been thrown in.
My initial reaction was the same...
hugely disappointed that we seemingly gave up that contract for nothing, but the more I think about, the less pissed I get. What could we have received for Gomes?
1) a player that another team wanted to dump…if so, why would we want said player? Anybody that is not worth $4M a year to their current team is probably not a very attractive asset
2) a first rounder…not likely. If a team doesn’t want to commit $ to a first round pick, they’d rather sell it for hard cash, not a contract they can buy out (which obviously uses cash).
3) deal sweetener…this was the most likely use of that contract. But again, you have to find the right deal first. I think we can assume one did not emerge, and thus we were under the gun…and would have had to bank on a deal emerging in the next four business days (to get in under the July 1 deadline).
yes Kahn’s spin on this is confusing, but I don’t think that we had as many options as some believe.
Even if all of your assumptions are true..
Kahn still lied in presenting it as if we got the better of Portland taking on Gomes. Maybe Gomes isn’t as awesome of an asset as some of us think, but if we offered him up for a future 2nd rounder on June 30th, our phones would have been ringing off the hook. The question isn’t whether or not he is an asset, the question is how big of an asset is he.
We will revisit this July 1st when we see who Portland flips him for.
Putting a positive spin on transactions is part of Kahn’s job description. I do think that Kahn may be a little insecure and feel a constant need to try to assert his presumed intellectual superiority…but, whatever, it doesn’t make him a bad person or an incompetent GM.
Good point on seeing what Portland is able to do with that contract, although my guess is that they will package it with another player if they move it. And, thus it won’t be a true apples to apples comparison.
I don't believe he's lying omitting some info but not lying
Gomes contract is a huge asset to a team with an expendable player with 120% of Gomes salary looking to cut capspace. They trade someone slightly more expensive than Gomes for Gomes lose the other contract and then let Gomes go to save themselves several million after the cap hole. Problem is if no one offers anything worth while or refuses to deal with us we are left with the contract. If this happens then we let Gomes go and save several million, but still have some cap hold. We’re better off than with Gomes on the roster, but worse off than if we obtained an asset for him in return. If we had waived the white flag in surrender of obtaining anything for Gomes contract and were no more worried about moving it so avoid the caphold and buyout than I believe Khan was right Portland did us a favor. A favor to help minimize the damage done from our failure to do anything of value with what could have been an asset.
It doesn't make sense.
What will be interesting is if Portland flip Gomes to another team looking for cap relief in the next few days, like the Hornets. I imagine the burden will have been transfered then?
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
In hindsight...
I would have forced Portland to give us a future lottery protected first rounder (2011 or 2010). This seems like equal value. Basically swapping Babbitt (who we didn’t need) for a future first rounder and swapping Gomes’ cap relief for Webster. Perhaps Kahn attempted this b/c it sounds like this trade had been set-up for awhile.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 25, 2010 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know if that's good
we don’t need another PF and after last night, I don’t know if we need another SF if they somehow think he can play there.
Buckeyes are red, Wildcats are blue,
I wanted Evan Turner, But DeMarcus Cousins will do.
Apparently he even played some PG
even though he’s 6-10. Obviously that isn’t ideal, but he’s obviously very versatile.
FWIW...
Here are Webster’s games in his career where he played 30 or more minutes. I wish it were cumulative so we could see whether his averages (FG%, PPG, eFG%) are higher or lower than his overall numbers and whether Kahn’s claims have a lot of merit or not.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 25, 2010 11:42 AM CDT reply actions
What sticks out as a positive...
is the high volume and high percentage on threes. Exactly what we’ve been missing. Miller could have helped there, but he chose not to.
The downside...
In the games where he’s played 30 or more minutes, the Blazers are 27-56. Last year, they were 13-16 in such games. So it’s gotten better, but it’s obviously worse for a 50-win team to be sub-.500 when he plays a lot. FWIW I think his FG% will go up with more transition buckets, but it takes a bit of the shine off of the pro-Webster case (which I’m part of).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 25, 2010 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
What sticks out as a negative...
is that is games where he plays more then 30 minutes Portlands record is 28-55. When he plays less then 30 minutes they are 216-194…
by Bad News Wolves on Jun 25, 2010 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
One question that does arise
is did he play more because they were already down by a ton and he was “gaining experience” or did his playing more minutes cause them to be down a ton? I thought he had a positive /- (1.5 maybe) for whatever its worth although that can be attributed to him being a starter alongside Roy.
on top of that
he may also get more playing time when Roy or Batum are injured/foul trouble. Just some thoughts, I’m still 50/50 on if I like the trade or not.
Yeah i'll give you that and I'm not sure
which it is however I would rahter have Beasley for Gomes, just me.
by Bad News Wolves on Jun 25, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
I think last year's numbers are the best indication...
That was the first year he played that they were above .500 because of his injury the year before. 13-16 isn’t terrible, but it’s not good, either, especially for a 50-win team. I’m willing to reserve judgment since it’s clear he wasn’t a good fit in a slow-down system.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 25, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
It does check out
I did the math
In his 83 games of 30+ minutes
he scores at 15.2 pts per 36 minutes
and shoots at 46.1 % from the field
and 41.9 % from 3
In his other 218 games
he scores at 11.7 pts per 36 minutes
and shoots at 36.5 % from the field
and 33.6 % from 3
But I question if deserves to play 30+ minutes? I like him as a piece of the puzzle but not as a 30mpg starter.
by Jerwol on Jun 25, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good work
Those are decent numbers for a plus defender who might’ve been playing out of position on a team that didn’t fit his skills as well as the Wolves’ system might.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 25, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
But then if Kahn would have done the math on
Gomes
he’d see the same type of splits
in 195 games of 30+ minutes
he scores at 15.2 pts per 36 minutes
and shoots at 48.5 % from the field
and 39.8 % from 3
in his other 179 games
he scores at 12.3 pts per 36 minutes
and shoots at 39.6 % from the field
and 28.4 % from 3
I got a hunch this is pretty common with everyone in the league. I bet Pritchard point out the 30+ minute stat to Kahn.
Exactly!
Webster has the offensive potential to be as good as Gomes! Sure he has better defense and his 3 point range is potentially valuable. I would have been fine with the deal straight up, but to include a good first rounder reminds me of the Jaric trade. You want a young veteran? How about Gomes? If this team is seriously thinking about Webster playing 30+ a night we can look forward to the lottery for a few years.
I am still on the blunder side of this trade, the first I have seen from Kahn. If this was our only draft pick in this draft people would have been more pissed off.
That's pretty nice to see
A lot of people have been pointing toward Webster’s 40% career fg% as evidence that he can’t shoot, but when he gets the minutes, he can light it up from three point range.
Yeah, that's true
But at the very least, I think those numbers demonstrate that he has the ability to be a prolific three point shooter. Blazersedge describes Webster as a great defender, and while that could certainly be wrong, if it’s true, not many solid defenders have a resume with numerous games of a lot of threes made off of a good percentage.
Webster
Did he really say that Webster has been a star in this league for a few years during that interview.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
- Create-a-Caption: Tim Duncan puts some stank on it
- LeBron James won’t even give Lance Stephenson half a bar
- Let’s all hate the Oklahoma City Thunder shirts that take a needless shot at the team’s move from Seattle (PHOTO)
- The Golden State Warriors will likely move to San Francisco in 2017
