Here's a look at our current cap space going into this summer.

Assumptions:

1. Crawford opts out, as he already has said he will.

2. We are willing to renounce all other free agents except Joel Freeland as soon as we need cap space to sign other free agents. That includes Crawford, Felton, Craig Smith, Victor Claver (just $1.05M), and Przy (we can still resign him if we want. We only have non-Bird rights, so renouncing him doesn't hurt our ability to resign him). JJ Hickson is handled in the table with his cap hold and without his cap hold (renounced).

3. The table includes draft picks at #7 (figuring we move down one spot after the lottery) and #11. Thanks to Storyteller for a link to the 2012-13 rookie scale numbers.

About the table:

1. Teams must have 13 players on the roster. There is a minimum player charge to cap space of $474K for every player less than 12 players (since signing a free agent with the cap space gets you to 13 players). If we renounce JJ Hickson, then his cap hold is replaced by that minimum cap space charge.

2. As I have been saying for months, it is crucial to our cap space that we use the space (sign other free agents) before we sign or match an offer to Batum because we have Bird Rights to Batum, which means we can go over the Salary Cap to retain him. Until we re-sign or match a Batum offer sheet, he only counts against our cap space as a $5.4M cap hold (Dave has an article on the front page about this, which he has now updated with the correct information). But that may be difficult because other teams will try to sign him quickly and force us to match using our cap space (before we get other free agents signed) to make it less likely we would match.

3. The first 2 columns of the table show our cap room if we re-sign or match a Batum offer sheet AFTER we use our cap space on other free agents, and the last 2 columns show our cap space if we re-sign or match Batum for $10M (a worst case guess) BEFORE we use our cap space on other free agents. Note the effect is $4.6M ($10M-$5.4M) on our cap room.

4. The 1st and 3rd columns show the effect of JJ Hickson's cap hold, which is $5.9M. The 2nd and 4th columns show our cap space if we renounce Hickson to create more cap space to sign other free agents. If we make the Qualifying Offer to Hickson, which is only about $3M, we can still renounce it to get the cap space back. Unfortunately, unlike the Batum situation, we only have non-Bird rights to Hickson, so we could only go about $3M over the cap to retain him and he is likely to get a $4M-$5M offer. So if we retain him (by making a separate offer or matching an offer sheet) his actual salary must fit within our salary cap room, but his actual salary will probably be less than his cap hold.

1. If we do NOT resign Hickson we should have about $17.5M to sign other free agents if we get it done before resigning Batum, or $12.9M to sign other free agents if we sign him to a $10M contract first.

2. If we want to keep open the option to resign Hickson, we will lose about $3.9M off those numbers because of his cap hold, or lose his actual salary minus about $474K from our cap space if we do re-sign him.

Alternative Trade the Draft Picks option:

I'm on the record predicting that the Blazers will trade the draft picks for a veteran starter. I expect the Blazers to trade both draft picks (assuming they get both picks) AND try to include Shawne Williams in the deal, returning a starting player (targeting, but not necessarily getting a PG) and a lower 1st round draft pick. The effect that would have on their summer cap space depends of course on the salary of the incoming player and the success in getting another team to take Williams. But moving Williams and getting one lower 1st round pick in return, would mean they could get back a player that makes around $5.5M without changing their summer cap space, and by trading for a player still on a rookie contract they could increase their summer cap space.

I suspect a lot of us would like to know exactly where we are right now with 2012 cap space.

So I'm posting this with the assumption that I probably have some of it wrong, but I hope this is the best way to lure Storyteller into either correcting it for the benefit of us all, or just posting his own version. I'll modify this as it gets corrected in the comments section (so it will be correct for anyone wanting the information) or delete it if Storyteller does his own version.

From Storytellers website:

Our 2012 guaranteed contracts:

LaMarcus Aldridge 14,000,000

Wesley Matthews 6,505,320

Luke Babbitt 1,892,280

Elliot Williams 1,442,880

Nolan Smith 1,365,720

Kurt Thomas 1,352,181

Shawne Williams 3,135,000

Subtotal 7 players = $29,693,381

(I understand the Blazers want to buy out Shawne Williams contract, so that number may change, but the buyout price will still count against the cap.) I assume Williams will exercise his player option for next year (a 100% safe bet) and that Crawford will opt-out (a very high probability unless something very unexpected happens).

We now have to add in the salaries of 2 expected 1st round picks (which count against the team salary even before they are signed). Hopefully they are top 10 picks, so I'll guess at $4.5M for the total.

2 1st round picks = $4,500,000

Next we have to consider salary cap holds that the Blazers would not renounce. I'm assuming they would renounce all other free agents (including Claver) if needed to clear salary cap room to sign free agents this summer.

Batum $5,388,413 (2.5 x 2011-12 salary)

Freeland $850,800 (from Storytellers web page)

Subtotal 11 players = $40,432,594

Finally, 1 empty roster spot charge = $473,604

Assuming the salary cap remains at $58M (same as this year)

Total = $40,906,198 with Batum's cap hold, remaining cap space about $17.1M

The $17.1M applies to signing free agents BEFORE matching Batum's restricted free agent offer sheet. We can match his offer and go over the cap because we have Bird Rights.

However, if we have to match Batum's offer sheet (or we sign him to a new deal) before we use the $17.1M we lose cap space by the difference between Batum's actual new contract and his cap hold. So assuming Batum gets $11M the calculation becomes:

Total = $46,517,785 if Batum signs for $11M first, remaining cap space about $11.5M.

That's a significant difference (enough to sign Freeland if his cap hold is included).

Ok, Storyteller or other BE experts. What did I do wrong and or forget?

Nate something interesting (for a change) after the New Orleans win tonight. He said he thought the team needed 38 to 40 wins this season to make the playoffs. Just for fun I looked up a few numbers for the last 10 years.

On average the 8th place (final playoff spot) team in the West won 45.6 games, which is 55.6% of an 82 game season. That equates to winning 37 games in 2012's 66-game season. That's 1-3 fewer games than Nate's estimate, but Nate's estimate appears based on the last 4 years, where the 8th place team in the West won the 66-game equivalent of 37-40 games, and only less than 39 games in one year.

At this very moment the 8th place team in the West has won 55.3% of its games, which is almost exactly the 10 year average. So perhaps this season will not be very different than the average over the last 10 years.

Here's a chart that shows the last 10 years and what record the Blazers would have to achieve over their last 28 games to match the final playoff spot in those years. A 15-13 record would match the worst of the last 10 years (which only happened once) but 16-12 would have done the trick in 5 of the 10 years. On the other hand, they would have to go 18-10 to match the worst record in the last 4 years and 21-7 to match or beat all 4 years.

Finally keep in mind that they have only 12 games remaining at home and 16 games remaining on the road. When you consider that, I don't think it looks too good for the Blazers making the playoffs this year.

But what do you think?

How many wins do you think the Blazers would need to make the playoffs this year and will they do it? Vote in the Poll. Express your reasoning in the comments.

I have to applaud Jason Quick's latest article: Trail Blazers roster appears headed for overhaul

It looks like it was written based on an outline from my comments yesterday. Of course it wasn't, but clearly Jason and I are on exactly the same page (for the first time ever I think). Read the article and see. Here are my comments from yesterday:

It's up to the Front Office and Paul Allen now.

There’s nothing Nate or any other coach is going to do with this group. They not only lack talent but they have lost their heart too. I thought the addition of Crawford and Thomas would get them into the playoffs. Now I wouldn’t even bet on that.

Hang onto LA and Batum. Beyond that it doesn’t matter who goes. If you can get one good player for any combination that would be great, otherwise let them go. I don’t want to see another 1st round and out. I’d rather have a lottery pick.

Priority: Trade Wallace before he changes his mind and we are stuck with his $9.5M contract next year when he realizes he can’t afford to opt-out. His free-agent value (and trade value) could drop like a tock in the remainder of this season.

It starts with a lack of talent. Then the talented player (LA) gets frustrated because he doesn’t have a PG and doesn’t have shooters to keep the double team off him. So pretty soon the players start pointing fingers at each other and the coach to get off the hook. Winning becomes less important as the players on the last year of their contracts realize they aren’t coming back to PDX and start thinking about how they can earn their next contract more than how they can win."

Jason's key points (below) mirror mine above -

"But the real problem is more simple: The roster is probably not as good as we all thought. ... Camby ... has deteriorated right before our eyes." "Wallace has become so inconsistent" "Felton has become ...so twisted and angry that he can't get out of his own way" "Wesley Matthews, hampered by his inability to handle the ball in the open court, has been exposed as a good bench player but not a starter."

1. Yep, lack of talent - check

2. Yep, Matthews isn't a starter - something I've also said for weeks - check

"He [Camby] is either not trying hard enough or his age has caught up with him." "Wallace ..., judging from his locker room demeanor, I'm not sure how much the losing is getting to him." "Felton has become so consumed at placing the blame of his poor play on anyone but himself that he has become a mental pretzel"

"The more immediate concerns are why this team has such a hard time playing hard, and such an indifferent attitude toward losing . Wallace has smiled and joked after losses. Felton has defended a near-.500 record." "I don't know if some of these guys are trying to get McMillan fired or if they are just sick of Portland and want out. "

3. Yep, loss of heart - check

"It's why Aldridge was as down as I've seen him after Thursday's loss to Miami." "Aldridge said "I never saw us being in this position."

4, Yep, LA's frustrated with his teammates - check

He had an all-star year and is ready to take it to another level. But he has no PG or shooters to get the double team off him, and in his first year as the team's uncontested leader is headed for the lottery or barely makes it to the playoffs to be destroyed in the 1st round. Either way it will be said he wasn't enough of a #1 Guy to get it done.

"Wallace ... likely he will opt in, considering the unlikelihood of finding a team willing to pay $11 million a year for a 30-year-old player who produces 13.4-points, and 6.3 rebounds."

5, Yep, one of my biggest worries right now is that we can't unload him before the trade deadline and he won't opt out, costing us cap space and forcing us into a fire sale give away next summer. - check

As I said at the top, It's Time For the Front Office and Paul Allen to Act. They have 2 weeks until the trade deadline. Get it done.

From the new CBA agreement:

A modified waiver process will be utilized for players waived pursuant to the Amnesty rule, under which teams with Room under the Cap can submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player’s remaining contract.

Dec 16, 2011  Madison Square Garden on  ESPN

And now here's your NBA Auctioneer, Daaaaavid Sterrrrrrrn

Stern: Thank you, thank you. Let's begin. The first player up for bid is Brandon Roy, formerly of the Portland Trailblazers. The bidding starts at $1M. Do I hear $2M? $2M? $2M? Ok, $1.5M from Golden State. Do I hear $2M? $2M?

Paul Allen stands up in the front row: Please help me out here. Throw a Billionaire a bone!

Stern: Yes, $2M from Minnesota. Do I hear $2.5M? $2.5M? $2.5M. Come on folks this is a former 3-time all star, let me hear $2.5M. Yes, that's $2.5M from  ...

Yeah, this is an ESPN TV special not to be missed.

But seriously folks ... I wonder how this is actually going to work? I suspect it is really going to be a silent auction and teams only get to make one bid per player (but wouldn't it be much more interesting if it were really a public auction with re-bidding allowed?). But suppose there are 5 or 6 players amnestied this year. About 7 teams are way under the cap, while another 8 or 9 are right around the salary cap and could maneuver to get lower. Those are all potential bidders.  Presumably some players are going to be waived on different dates, some on the same dates. Will each player be "up for bid" on the day they are waived? How long will the bidding be open per player? Can a team bid for more than one player even if just one bid would take them over the salary cap? What if they then win both bids? Which player do they take? Will teams wait for a player they expect to be waived (but might not be) and pass up another player that is waived first? Will some player go for a crazy low bid because no team wants to pass on getting an amnestied player for the minimum salary? What player will get the highest bid?

Yeah, ESPN should have worked this out with Stern, it might have been more fun than the college draft.

This recent article from the Rutgers Law Journal is written in plain English and seems to have extraordinary applicability to the player's antitrust lawsuits against the NBA.

The gist of the article is that the courts could decide based on the global market for professional basketball players that the NBA lacks enough "market power" to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which is the applicable law under which the players sue the NBA over labor practices.

The article lists other law journal papers by Edelman on similar subjects. 

DOES THE NBA STILL HAVE “MARKET POWER?” EXPLORING THE ANTITRUST IMPLICATIONS OF AN INCREASINGLY GLOBAL MARKET FOR MEN’S BASKETBALL PLAYER LABOR

Marc Edelman

This article examines whether, based on the recent globalization of the men’s basketball player market, a court today could find NBA teams to compete, in an antitrust sense, in an international market for men’s professional basketball labor. Part I of this article discusses how antitrust law applies to professional sports leagues, and explains why a sports league such as the NBA might seek to argue, from an antitrust perspective, that its players are part of an international labor market. Part II discusses the history of professional basketball in both the U.S. and abroad. Part III describes the differences between the NBA and foreign basketball leagues, and charts player movement between U.S. and foreign leagues. Finally, Part IV explores whether, based on information provided in Parts II and III of this Article, a court could reasonably find there to be an international market for premier men’s basketball labor.

The National Basketball Association ("NBA") represents perhaps the best test case for expanding the "lack of market power" defense. … NBA teams in 2008 lost between 10% and 16% of their workforce to foreign teams. (See Exhibit I: Movement of NBA Free Agents, 2008–09).8 In addition, as of January 2011, 67 of the NBA’s 450 players (12.7% of the overall league population) were both born and educated in foreign countries. (See Exhibits II, III, & IV: 2011 NBA Players from Overseas).9

V. CONCLUSION

Whether a finder-of-fact would deem the NBA to lack "market power" within an international labor market is a matter of great importance to NBA team-owners, as it affects whether the NBA team-owners, under antitrust law, may unilaterally implement league-wide labor restraints.

Based on the foregoing, however, it remains unsettled whether NBA teams compete in an international market for player labor. From a legal perspective, this uncertainty is due to disagreement about the proper definition of the word "practicable" in a labor market context, and thus uncertainty as to whether it is "practicable" for a professional basketball player to accept employment opportunities overseas.

Perhaps, the best presumption that can be reached at this time is that it would be wise for any men’s professional basketball player that seeks to bring a labor-side antitrust suit against the NBA to avoid doing so in the Ninth Circuit, where the holding of Tanaka seems to support a broad definition of the word "practicable" and thus a strong likelihood that the NBA players would be found to operate within an international labor market…

 Note that the players did in fact file their suit in the Ninth Circuit (Northern CA) as well as Minn (Eighth Circuit).  

Here's a terrific article on Decertification by Michael McCann a sports law professor and the Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School. A few of the highlights:

1. "Decertification ... Players would become independent employees of NBA teams and would lose union protections they currently enjoy."

2. "Decertification would provide players with a powerful legal weapon: the ability to file federal antitrust litigation against the league."

3. "How likely is it that the players would prevail in an antitrust litigation? Not likely."

4. "Decertification would probably be followed by the filing of antitrust litigation, which would take weeks or months to unravel, let alone resolve. ... the litigation process itself would give commissioner David Stern greater reason to cancel the remainder of the season."

5. "The NBA also boldly demands that if the union decertifies in a way endorsed by a court, the league should be able to declare all player contracts void and unenforceable. The league insists that because the Uniform Player Contract (signed by every NBA player) is contained in and governed by the collective bargaining agreement, player contracts should become void once the collective bargaining relationship between the league and players ends."

Do the rank and file players really want to go down this route, which will undoubtably mean an end to at least the 2011-12 season, and then try to get new deals that are as good as they have now without a CBA? The super-stars would certainly do better, but will the rank and file players believe they are going to get better deals without a CBA? What incentive will owners have to give guaranteed contracts to average players? Those players better hope they never get injured. In a post-decertification NBA it will may take years in court for players to get favorable rulings (if they get them at all) that the owners are violating antitrust laws. 

The players today offered to settle for 52% of BRI. One percent is worth $40M per year.

Therefore, over a 6 year deal, with BRI growing at 4% per year, the players would gain an extra $531M if they got 52% rather than the 50% the owners offered them before any games were cancelled.

BUT, they have now lost 4 weeks of salary, which is worth $330M to them. 

So if the owners magically give them 52% tomorrow, they would now gain $201M ($531M-$330M) over 6 years, which is a mere $33.5M per year more than they would have got had they taken the 50% deal a month ago (and not missed any games).

Of course the NBA is never going to give them 52% so they aren't going to gain that $33.5M per year by refusing to settle.

In fact, when David Stern cancels the next 2 weeks of games, about 2 weeks from now, the players will have lost $495M this year while still trying to get that extra $531 TOTAL over 6 years. They will then be holding out for an extra $6M per season, which they will still never get, rather than have taken the original offer. 

I'll bet you can see where this is going (even if the players can't). One week of cancelled games later and the players will be bargaining to lose money compared to the deal they could have had to start the season on time.

What was the name of that famous economist that is advising them?

On Monday David Stern will announce the cancellation of the first 2 weeks of the regular season. At that moment the Players will have lost more money this season then they would lose this season if they agreed today to the Owners 50 percent BRI split offer.

Larry Coon goes through the numbers in this short article that should be required reading for the players.

Not only are the players going to lose money this season, but unless they get everything they are now asking for (get 53 percent) by Dec 16th, they will lose money over the 6-year length of a new CBA according to Coon's calculation.

Coon goes on to write:

That’s $120 million that separates them. Of course, that’s just in year one. Over the course of a six-year agreement, assuming four percent growth per year, the total is closer to $796 million. 

Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they [the Players] continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled. 

Of course, the players are not going to get 53 percent since that is their current offer. In the end, they will have to settle for less than that and that will move their break-even date even closer. If they eventually split the difference (51.5 percent) the break-even date occurs after only 5 weeks of the season is cancelled (using Coon's numbers). That should happen within the next 3-4 weeks. And I doubt the Owners will even move off their 50 percent offer.

Finally as Coon points out, with an average NBA career being less than 5 years, most of today's Players won't even have 6 years to recoup what they are about to lose in salary by refusing the Owners current offer. 

It's just Math 101.

This is the definitive story of Brandon Roy's performance in his teammate's own words (as transcribed by Casey Holdahl).

LaMarcus Aldridge: "... to see him getting his confidence back and to see him get back to rare form tonight, that was pretty big. I wish I had more energy to celebrate with him, but I was about to pass out.”

Patty Mills: "I'm sitting there going 'Whoa, am I in the NBA and am I really witnessing this right now?' That was unbelievable."

Gerald Wallace: "It was amazing. He got into a zone. He went to feeling like he couldn't miss. He put us on his back and carried us."

Nicolas Batum: "Just 'You still the man. You still Brandon Roy. We trust you, we believe in you.... We going to give the ball to you and you the man.' That's it."

Andre Miller: "Definitely a team effort until Brandon Roy, he woke up. Hit some tough shots, hit some big shots and just rode him and our defense home in the fourth."

Marcus Camby: "As players and teammates, we never really lost faith in him. We see him more than you guys probably see him. We see him in practice working on his game, working on his craft. All he has been saying is he wants the opportunity to prove himself, which he shouldn't have to because he's been great for this organization ever since Day 1 in this league. ...We never lost faith in him and he's proven why he's one of the better players we have in this league."

Rudy Fernandez: "It's unbelievable. It's amazing see one guy, has four injuries in the knees, both knees, play like that. I think it's impressive. It's unbelievable. It's amazing."

Wesley Matthews: "It's amazing. It's good to see. Beyond being a teammate, just as a friend, it's good to see someone who sacrificed so much, has been through so much in a short period of time, to step up on the biggest stage and come out for his team like he did. ... He knows he can do it, and he just went out there and did it."