Over the last couple of months, there have been several posts, here at Blazers Edge, designed to paint a picture of Portland's anticipated cap position. I wrote about the subject after the March trade deadline, and more recently, BlazerFanSince1970 provided an excellent analysis of the numbers.

But now that the NBA Lottery has assigned Portland the #6 and #11 picks in next month's draft, we have an even better idea of what the team's cap position will be this summer. After the jump, I'll try to break down the numbers and what options the team will have once the new salary cap season starts on July 1st.

-- Storyteller | Twitter

Continue reading this post »

Of all the questions that I've been asked over the past four days, none has been asked more than this one: Do the Trail Blazers look to have more cap room as a result of the personnel moves they made last Thursday? Did trading Gerald Wallace provide the franchise with greater cap flexibility? Did the trade of Marcus Camby give Portland more money to spend in free agency this summer? My answer is a very definitive "maybe". A strong and powerful "it depends". An unshakable "perhaps". I'll try to walk you through it after the jump...


-- Storyteller | Twitter

Continue reading this post »

One of the changes in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement from the previous CBA was to the terms of the Traded Player Exception. Previously, a team that was over the cap could only take back 125% + $100,000 of the salary amount that they sent out in a simultaneous trade. But now, as long as the team remains under the luxury tax threshold after the trade is finalized, they can take back either 150% + $100,000 of the salary that they send out or 100% + $5,000,000, whichever is less.

The power of that rule (and for Golden State, the impact of the change) came to light in Tuesday night's trade between the Bucks and the Warriors. In that deal, 2 players making $21.26 million were traded for 3 players making $21.04 million. Sounds like an even trade financially, right? Neither team sent out significantly more money, right? So neither team generated a trade exception, right? Wrong.

In actuality, under the new trade rule, both teams generated significant trade exceptions. From Milwaukee's perspective, 100% + $5.00 million of Bogut's $12.00 million outgoing salary was able to absorb the combined salaries of Ellis and Udoh ($14.29 million). Meaning that essentially, Jackson's $9.26 million salary was traded for Brown's $6.75 million salary - which generates a $2.51 million trade exception. Not bad, especially considering that the Bucks actually see their Team Salary figure drop slightly.

Now, here's how the trade looks from Golden State's perspective: 100% + $5.00 million of Ellis' $11.00 million outgoing salary easily creates enough room for Bogut's incoming $12.00 million. And since 150% of Brown's $6.75 million outgoing salary is large enough to absorb Jackson's incoming $9.26 million salary, essentially Udoh's $3.29 million is traded for no incoming salary, meaning that the Warriors get a trade exception for that $3.29 million. Under the previous rule, 125% + $100,000 of Brown's salary would not have been large enough to account for Jackson's incoming salary, so no trade exception would have been generated. Similarly, had the Warriors been over the tax threshold, again, there would have been no trade exception created. But they were able to take advantage of the new rule and earn for themselves another trade asset that can be used any time in the next year.

Typically, when you think of scenarios in which significant trade exceptions are generated, you imagine one in which one team either trades away a lot more money than the other or uses an existing trade exception to facilitate the deal. Neither was true in this case. And, yet, each team created a sizable trade exception tonight, even though the Team Salary figures of both franchises stayed almost exactly the same.

All of this to illustrate a nuance of the trade rules that cap savvy teams will be able to take advantage of under the current CBA - it's possible under these rules to take back an equal amount of salary in a trade AND still generate a significant trade exception. It also points out yet another advantage for teams that are able to stay under the tax threshold - the ability to facilitate trades that might not be possible for teams over the threshold because of the difference between 150% and 125% of outgoing salary.

-- Storyteller | Twitter

This time of the season, there are always lots of rumors and suggestions regarding the Trail Blazers and what they might or might not do before the trade deadline. This year is no exception. But with the March 15th deadline quickly approaching, there are 4 storylines that I haven't seen anyone write about yet, so I thought I'd go ahead and start discussing them. Some are trade-specific, others look forward to the summer and free agency. But I think all four could play a part in the moves that the franchise makes - and doesn't make - over the next few months.

Storyteller | Twitter

Continue reading this post »

A summary of the terms for a new CBA that the league and the players have made in their 'handshake agreement' was released by Sam Amick of SI.com over the weekend. So even though the actual CBA has not been completed or officially voted upon by either side, discussions about the implications of the new rules have been posted by Larry Coon, by Chad Ford and John Hollinger, by our own Dave Deckard, and by a myriad of others over the last few days.

There are a few implications for Blazer players, however, that I have yet to see in print. So, after the jump, I want to take a closer look at how the revealed details could and will affect individual members of the Trail Blazers in the months and years to come. In each case, I'll be quoting from the released summary of agreed-upon provisions and trying to provide some analysis of how it applies to the player:

- Storyteller | Twitter

Continue reading this post »

BREAKING: NBA, PLAYERS REACH DEAL | 5 THINGS TO KNOW | TEAM SALARIES

----------------------------------------------

Hallelujah!  The lockout is over!   It looks like free agency and training camps will begin on December 9^th (missing my birthday by one day, but I’ll take the gift anyway….)  We don't know all the details about the new agreement yet.   But we do have a good idea of where the team stands, salary-wise, as they enter the free agent period.   So, after the jump, I'll give a summary of the team's position, followed by a bit of analysis:

Continue reading this post »

BREAKING: NBA, PLAYERS REACH DEAL | 5 THINGS TO KNOW | WHERE BLAZERS STAND

----------------------------------------------

As reported earlier this morning, it looks as though a tentative deal has been reached to end the lockout.   Under the handshake agreement, free agency would begin on December 9^th.   In anticipation of a fast and furious period of free agent signings before the season starts on Christmas Day, I’ve put together a summary of where each team stands in regards to team salary.  This is not a complete picture of the exact cap position of each team, so the number next to each team name is not their true cap number (as it does not include cap holds for free agents).  Instead, I am looking at the how much money is currently committed to player contracts in order to try to make some educated guesses as to what options are available for each franchise as we (finally) move into a period of signing rookies and free agents.

When negotiations for a new CBA broke down nearly two weeks ago, it was rumored that the new salary cap figure for 2011-12 would be $58.044 million and the tax threshold would be $70.307 million, identical to the figures of 2010-11.  I think it safe to assume that the new agreement will adopt these numbers (or very similar numbers) for the coming season, so keep that in mind as you look at each team's salary commitments.

Also note that an amnesty program that could provide true cap space is rumored to be part of the new agreement.  The numbers below paint a picture for each team before any use of this amnesty provision, so as players are waived under amnesty, these figures will, of course, change – perhaps dramatically.   For now, though, I want to simply provide a salary snapshot for each team and leave any amnesty discussion for either the comments section or for another thread.   In other words, this post is designed to be a beginning point for discussion, not a comprehensive summation of each team’s options – that will follow, I am sure, in the weeks to come as more details about the new agreement are made public.  However, with the assumption that the new agreement will not reduce or ‘rollback’ any current contract amounts, you can see where I show each team stands after the jump:

Continue reading this post »

A few days ago, Howard Beck of the NY Times and Sam Amick of SI.com each reported that the details for a new luxury tax system have been agreed to by the NBA and the Players' Union.  The new system has rightly been called more 'punitive' than the previous system, as the tax rate increases the further that a team is above the tax threshold.   Under the previous Collective Bargaining Agreement, teams were taxed $1 for every dollar that their Team Salary total was above that threshold.   However, this new system reportedly creates 'tiers' of taxation.   Teams will now be taxed $1.50 for each of the first $5 million that they are over the threshold, $1.75 for each of the next $5 million, $2.50 for each of the next $5 million and $3.25 for every dollar that their Team Salary is more than $15 million over the threshold.

The previous tax system had a significant impact on the Trail Blazers and this new system could impact them even more.   I'll try to break it down after the jump....

Continue reading this post »

Earlier today, Ben posted a link to Steve Aschburner's excellent interview with economist Kevin Murphy.   There has been some great discussion in the comments section of that post and I'd encourage you to participate in what's happening there.   However, one aspect of Murphy's comments triggered some thoughts in my mind that I believe warranted some deeper examination - comments regarding NBA franchise values and how they come into play in the ongoing negotiations between the owners and players.  Here's one quote that I found particularly thought-provoking:

Let's say the NBA is a $4 billion revenue business -- that's not exactly right but it's close enough. Then let's say you lose $200 million. That's 5 percent. OK, my franchises are worth -- let's make it simple, 2½ times revenue, which is well below Forbes [valuations] -- that's $10 billion. Now let's say it's appreciating at 4 percent a year. I'm getting $400 million in appreciation even though I only have $200 million in losses. I'm getting better tax treatment on the $400 million that I'm making, and I deduct at a higher rate the $200 million that I'm losing. Suddenly this picture doesn't look so crazy any more.

Murphy is clearly suggesting that appreciation of franchise value, over the long term, is more than enough to offset the claimed yearly operating losses being incurred by teams.   Is he right?  After the jump, I want to take a closer look at the numbers that he uses in his discussion of NBA franchise value....

Continue reading this post »

Mike Francesa of WFAN radio in New York interviewed Billy Hunter this past Wednesday, then interviewed David Stern on Thursday. Each interview is about a half hour long and is available to be heard via podcast.

I listened to both interviews last night with a critical ear, wondering if either man could be accused of ‘bending’ or ‘skewing’ the facts in an attempt to promote his point of view. Zach Lowe of Sports Illustrated and others have written about some of the questionable ‘facts’ presented by Commissioner Stern and I don’t want (or need) to duplicate their efforts. At the same time, I thought it would be appropriate to evaluate the numerical claims made by both men.

I don’t want to imply that most of what both Hunter and Stern isn’t true – I do believe that most of what they said during these interviews is indeed factual. That being said, though, I found that each of them said things that don’t seem to jive with what has been reported elsewhere. Find out what I mean after the jump:

Continue reading this post »

Once upon a time, there was a professional sports league at odds with the players' union. The owners' position was that the league's financial model was broken and that they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year. As such, they demanded greater cost certainty and greater restrictions on player salaries in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. The players disputed the validity of these figures and countered with a proposal that the owners claimed was not enough to bring the league back to profitability. So, when the existing CBA between the two parties expired, the owners decided to lock the players out.

The two sides carried on negotiations during the lockout, but it was clear that there was a large difference between their positions. The owners insisted on dramatic structural changes in the league's financial system, while the players lobbied for a continuation of the previous system with a few minor changes. The players were willing to give back some money, but were adamant that they would never agree to the central provisions of the owners' proposal.

Eventually, games started to be canceled, as the two sides could not come to consensus on terms for a new CBA. On one of the major points of disagreement, the owners had a number that they insisted that the players agree to. The players responded with their own number, which was flatly rejected by the owners. Over time, both sides made slight adjustments to their 'number', but were never able to find a compromise agreeable to both. Many in the media called for the two sides to meet in the middle, but neither side was willing to budge that far.

In the midst of their disagreement, the executive director of the player's union accused the league of not being a 'real negotiating partner'. The league's commissioner responded by saying that the players were the 'best athletes in the world' and deserved fair pay, but on a level that the league could afford. Both made apologies to the fans for the lack of games being played.

----------

Now, anyone who has been following the recent developments of the negotiations between the NBA and the NBPA might think I have been writing about the current lockout. But actually, this story is about what took place in 2004-05 between the NHL and the NHLPA. Late last year, I wrote that I thought that the NBA owners viewed the NHL lockout as a possible model for their current situation, and that they might follow the course that the NHL owners took 7 years ago. Sadly, nothing has happened to dissuade me from that perspective.

History tells us that the entire 2004-05 NHL season was eventually canceled and that no agreement between the two sides was reached until July of 2005. One of the major points of contention between the league and the union was that of a salary cap. The league wanted a hard salary cap of approximately $37 million. The player's union said that they would never accept such a cap. By February of 2005, the owners had moved to offer a $40 million cap while the union had begrudgingly made an offer of a $52 million cap. Eventually, the league went as high as $42.5 million and the union came down to $49 million. At that point, the media insisted that an agreement was possible if the two sides would just split the difference and compromise at $45-46 million.

Does this sound familiar, NBA fans?

How about this quote from NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, courtesy of USA Today:

"In one additional last-ditch effort to try to save the season, I gave an offer of another $2.5 million," Bettman said. "We were stretching to get there because we were projecting that under that deal, we would probably lose money for the next two years. ... When the union came back at $49 million, it was clear that there was no basis upon which we could make a deal."

That doesn't sound like any other league commissioner, does it?

I've been pessimistic about the prospects of a 2011-12 NBA season for some time now. I certainly don't want this to be a repeat of what happened in 2004-05 in the NHL, but.....I find the two situations eerily similar.

Let me also say that in various posts that I've made over the last 18 months, I've tried to lay out, to the best of my ability, facts about the reported proposals made by both the NBA and the NBPA. In the midst of these posts, I've tried not to make judgments on these proposals - that is to say, whether or not either side was 'right' or 'wrong' in doing so. This has been intentional. It's not that I don't feel emotion about the situation - I do - but it's because, in the end, I don't believe that resolution will come about based on what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Instead, I believe that an agreement will be made based on leverage, not on which side is 'right'.

Take again the example of the NHL. I wrote above about the disagreement about the size of a salary cap. In February of 2005, the owners went as high as $42.5 million while the players went as low as $49 million. Any guess as to the actual size of the salary cap when a new CBA was agreed upon in July of 2005? Conventional wisdom might say $45 or $46 million, right? In actuality, the salary cap for 2005-06 was set at $39 million. That's not a misprint. The final number was even lower than the owners' offer in February. Other aspects of the final agreement - such as the rollback of existing salaries by an amazing 24% for non-minimum contracts - also seemed to dramatically favor the owners. Those aspects of the owners' original proposal that the players vowed never to accept in November of 2004 were, in the end, ratified by 87% of the union's members in July of 2005. Did the owners win because they were 'right' or because they ended up with more leverage? I would argue the latter.

So, I have tried to avoid getting caught up in the discussion of 'which side is right?' in regards to the labor crisis. Because, in the end, I think it's irrelevent.....

By the way, if you're interested in reading more articles from 2004 and 2005 on the NHL lockout, here are a few that I used for quotes and information in the creation of this post:

From Sports Illustrated, November 3, 2004

From USA Today, February 16, 2005

From CNN, February 16, 2005

From ESPN, February 16, 2005

From ESPN, July 13, 2005

During the last couple of weeks, I've tried to crunch some numbers in an attempt to get to the heart of what the owners seem to be asking for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations with the Players Union (NBPA), and why their proposals seem to be so far apart from each other.  So far, I've posted two pieces on my own site related to this number crunching and am currently working on a third one that deals with revenue sharing - I hope to get that one up at some point in the next week.

Anyway, I read the online piece by Ken Berger at CBS Sports this morning that suggests that the two sides are about $2 billion apart (cumulative over a 6 year period) in trying to divide Basketball Related Income (BRI).  And it inspired me to consider one factor in these negotiations - the amount of interest that teams pay on a yearly basis to finance team purchases.  And, after looking at some numbers, it would appear that maybe this one issue might explain a big part of that difference.

Continue reading this post »

As I listen to the radio, read articles on the Internet and discuss basketball with friends, it's clear to me that Trail Blazer fans still have questions about Greg Oden's status with the franchise and what options the team has, in regards to contract offers for him.  So, I thought I'd go straight to the source and interview the Collective Bargaining Agreement itself to find out the answers to the questions that fans are asking.

Please remember that these are the answers given by the current CBA and only extend to things that can/will happen before it expires on June 30th.  The specifics of what will happen after that can only be answered by the next CBA, which has yet to be agreed upon.  However, the assumption is that the basic rules regarding contracts and contract offers will generally be the same under the next CBA as they relate to Greg's situation - some of the numbers might be different, but it is believed by most that the parameters of his situation will, for the most part, be the same.

The Blazers may have more options available to them after June 30th (and after a new CBA is in place).  They may be able make other, different contract offers to Greg at that time.  But for now, here is what the CBA has to say about their options during the rest of this month:

Continue reading this post »

OK, nobody's perfect.  Not in life, not in basketball, and certainly not in predicting what will happen in the NBA.  One of my recent predictions had to do with Dirk Nowitzki - and as it turns out, I might have been very wrong.  So, on this day of rest, I've decided to clear my conscious and come clean about some bad NBA predictions that I've made:

1. I said recently (a year or so ago) that no team built around Dirk Nowitzki would ever win an NBA Championship.  Sure, it still hasn't technically happened, but I certainly didn't expect the Mavericks to even get out of the West - not this year or any year with Dirk as their central piece.  I underestimated him and them.
2. I predicted that Kevin Love would never be any more than a bench player in the NBA.  We're both LOHS graduates, but I just didn't see it while watching him at UCLA.  I was wrong.
3. After seeing him get swatted several times during a Summer League game (against the Wizards), I predicted that NBA defenses would prevent Blake Griffin from making it big.  Wrong on that one, too.

Feel free to make your own confessions.  It's good to get out from underneath bad predictions every once in awhile, to come clean and find rest in admitting your own fallibility....

ed: bumped to front page

With an impending lockout in sight, as the current Collective Bargaining Agreement will expire on June 30th, there has been a lot of speculation both in the media and here on BlazersEdge as to what the new CBA will look like once the owners and the NBPA (player's union) come to an agreement.  I wish I could tell you what that agreement will entail, but I don't own a crystal ball.  No one knows with full certainty what  the rules will be under a new CBA.  We do, however, have a good idea of what the owners are suggesting that it looks like, based upon their most recent proposal.

I have seen and heard discussions of single pieces of this proposal, but have yet to see anyone try to put together a full picture of what has been proposed.  So I thought I'd compile various media reports and try to do so.  Note that it is extremely unlikely that every element of this proposal will actually make it into the new CBA, as the NBPA quickly rejected the proposal earlier this month, but by understanding what the owners appear to want, we might be better able to predict what the landscape could be like for the NBA to conduct business in the future.

Continue reading this post »

I am pessimistic about a 2011-12 season.  And let me be clear about what I’m trying to say.  It’s not that I’m pessimistic about the Blazers’ prospects for the 2011-12 season, I’m pessimistic that there will be a 2011-12 NBA season at all.

Most NBA fans are aware that the current Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA owners and the NBA Player’s Union expires at midnight on June 30th.  Without a CBA in place, the owners will lockout the players starting on July 1st.  That means no free agent signings until a new CBA is agreed upon.  It also means that there will be no contracts for players drafted in June and probably no Summer League games.  And, as we saw in 1999, if a new CBA is not agreed upon by the time fall rolls around, we might see games lost.  In that case, a shortened season was able to be salvaged – this time, we might not be so lucky.

In order to understand my pessimism, it’s important to understand what’s happened over the last 14 months.  Both the owners and the player’s union have known for some time that the current CBA would not be in place beyond the end of June.  As such, negotiations for a new CBA have been going on for well over a year.  Where have those negotiations brought us?  Let’s take a look at the timeline:

Continue reading this post »

Lots of talk today around Blazer-dom about 'whose team is it?"  Roy's? Aldridge's? McMillan's? Allen's?

In the midst of this discussion about who's the Alpha Dog, there is an inherent tone of trying to understand leadership.  I know that we've talked about leadership and the Blazers before, but perhaps things have changed since it was last a major topic on this site.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about leadership and basketball - especially related to the Blazers, but feel free to write more generally if you'd like.  Some possible topics for discussion:

1) Do you have to put up the biggest stats (esp. points scored) to be the leader?

2) Is there such a thing as bad leadership?

3) Does every team have a leader?

4) Can there only be one leader on a team?

5) And maybe the most relevant: Is this discussion of "whose team is it" really a discussion of leadership or is it about something else?

I could write for pages on this, but let me try to do a quick summary of my thoughts just to get the ball rolling.  (I'll probably chime in at other times in this thread to expand on this)  Personally, I'd define leadership by identifying who the other players (coaches? front office personnel?) follow.  And I'd say that good leadership is filling your role - doing what you are able to do towards helping the team win games - and pro-actively encouraging others to follow your example (ie, challenge them do what they are uniquely able to do).

Let 'er rip...

I've been waiting for Forbes to publish their yearly valuation of NBA franchises, which are usually released in December but weren't made available this year until late January.  I've also been waiting to see how the numbers are interpreted by members of the local media, and there have been several interpretations over the last day or so.  Mike Tokito of the Oregonian wrote a piece in which he does a good job of summarizing the data and observations of the Forbes piece.  Ben Golliver, here at BlazersEdge, provided a link to the Forbes article with a quick summary, and his piece has generated a few comments.  Django Radonich-Camp also provided some commentary in his piece at the Portland Roundball Society, focusing mostly on how the team has improved their operating income figure from a low of -$85 in 2002-03 to last year's nearly $11 million.  I didn't see any piece about this topic at the Columbian website, at Rip City Project, at Bust a Bucket, at Casey Holdahl's blog, at Mike Barrett's blog or at iamatrailblazerfan.com.

To me, the most interesting response to the data was made by John Canzano in his daily column, which was not only available online but also in the print version of Thursday's Oregonian.  Interesting not because I agreed with everything that he wrote, but interesting because he did more than just summarize the Forbes data.  In fact, John wrote that this data provides Paul Allen with the opportunity to do several things:

• To speak publicly about his vision and intentions for the team
• Raise the player payroll and take measures to become a true contender

In regards to the former, I agree that it's nice when an owner communicates publicly about what he intends to do with his team - it helps to create a bond (however small) between an owner and the fans.  Isn't this what Mr. Allen did several months ago in his interview with Mike Barrett?  Should Mr. Allen perhaps make himself more widely available to other members of the media (ie, somebody who isn't on the Blazer payroll)?  That'd be nice.  But I don't expect it to happen all that often.  Sure, if Paul Allen were more like Mark Cuban, it might provide a bit more entertainment for us Blazer fans.  But it's just not that big a deal to me.

In regards to the latter, John seems to have forgotten something.  When he writes, "The Blazers player salary figures from 2010 ($64 million) is at a low point for the decade," he approaches the topic as if Portland's player salary figure this season is the same as it was last year, and that simply is not true.  In 2009-10, the Blazers paid out nearly $58 million in salary plus another $6 million in benefits and bonuses.  But in 2010-11, the Blazers will pay out between $69 million and $74 million (depending on which incentives are earned by Batum, Camby and Aldridge) in salary plus another $5-6 million in benefits plus the $5.7 million signing bonus paid to Wesley Matthews plus any luxury tax paid out at the end of the year, which could be up to nearly $4 million.  And, consider that if the team ends up paying luxury tax, they'll lose out on $3+ million in the annual refund that goes to teams below the tax threshold. Even assuming a 3% increase in revenues this season, all of that would take the team from $10.7 million in the black to anywhere from $1.5 to $14.0 million in the red if all other expenses are unchanged from last year.

John's point is a good one - if the Blazers are making money, shouldn't that be re-invested back into player salary?  Absolutely!  That's what we want to see as fans.  But his column acts as though the franchise will make $10 million again this season, and the numbers argue against that.  In fact, it looks as though because the team has already invested in a new contract for Wesley Matthews and extensions for Marcus Camby, LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy, they'll be back in the red at the end of the 2010-11 season.  It's not that John is wrong in his opinion about what should be done with surplus funds, IMO, it's that he seems to have forgotten that such an investment in player salary has already taken place.  The surplus is gone.

I do hope that the Blazers take advantage of any available opportunities to improve the team before next month's trade deadline.  But I can't in good conscience demand that they take on lots of extra salary in doing so simply because there's a perception that they're turning a profit of over $10+ million this season, because that is simply not true.

[NOTE: A copy of this response was also emailed to John]

During Jason Quick's interview with Larry Miller, the topic of a qualifying offer for Greg Oden was discussed, with Miller saying that "at this point, I don’t see us not giving the offer if Greg is doing the things we need to see him doing to get back on the court."  This statement has prompted a lot of talk about the topic, here on BlazersEdge, on other message boards and even on local talk radio.  I thought it might be helpful to review what is known about qualifying offers and how it relates to Greg Oden's situation.  So after the jump, I'll try to cover the basic facts but also give my own opinion on the matter.

Continue reading this post »

---------------------------------------

Editor's Note: A league source said Thursday morning the Blazers would pursue a disabled player exception in the aftermath of Greg Oden's microfracture surgery decision. -- Ben 

---------------------------------------

Original Post by Salary Cap Guru Storyteller:

I posted last night that I would be praying for Greg Oden and wait a day or two to discuss how his impending surgery affects the Blazers.  This post is my first attempt to begin that process, and will focus on the possibility of the Blazers getting and using a disabled player exception.  I've seen some posts online discussing this option and heard discussion on sports radio as well.  So, after the jump, I'll take a look at what a disabled player exception is, whether the Blazers are eligible to receive one, and how such an exception might be used.

Continue reading this post »