Reply With Quote
I disagree with the second part. I don't think bringing Tiago had anything to do with the RJ situation... but we're both guessing.
If you give me a choice of having RJ as an expiring or possibly getting Chandler at cost of RJ's new contract I pick the former every time.
And yes, they would have signed Splitter. There is actually a bigger chance they'd have no Bonner.
I disagree with the second part. I don't think bringing Tiago had anything to do with the RJ situation... but we're both guessing.
Yes, you have.
A future first round has a $0 trade value.
Chandler trade value is his salary ($2.13M).
Spurs can match Chandler salary with Jerrells+Temple+Gee but it would put them over the tax and cost them something like $5M. If Spurs wants to do a trade for Chandler without going over the tax, McDyess has to be traded.
And I also would like that Spurs trade Bonner before McDyess but it isn't an option since Bonner cna't be traded before December 15th.
You would also need to find a taker for that contract... Isiah is not running the Knicks anymore...
Bonner's contract isn't worst than most of the contracts bigmen have received this summer.
That doesn't make them good contracts.
October 4, 2005: Traded by the Chicago Bulls (as a 2007 1st round draft pick) with Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis to the New York Knickerbockers for Jermaine Jackson, Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, a 2006 1st round draft pick (LaMarcus Aldridge), a 2007 1st round draft pick (Joakim Noah), a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Kyrylo Fesenko) and a 2009 2nd round draft pick (Jon Brockman).
Come back, Isaiah. We need you.
Ok, time to put this thread to bed..next
dude, get over it..Bonners contract is cheap compared to other big men who bring much less and are dime a dozen at that postiion
Agree but if teams are ready to sign players to these "bad" contracts, I see no reasons why they wouldn't be ready to trade for these "bad" contracts.
And it's far from sure McDyess current contract is better than Bonner's one.
With his trade kicker and the guaranteed part of his 2011-2012 contract, a team would pay $8.3M for one year of a 36 years old McDyess.
For Bonner, it's $11M for 3 years.
Since RJ's contract was such a financial coup for them, I'm not sure that it's just expected that they're going to avoid going into the tax again.
Are they under the tax right now?
Ugh, I plead total ignorance at all things financial. Bruno's the man on that stuff. I assume by the way they're talking that the Spurs are right at the edge right now. I don't know that there's been a definite statement that they're completely unwilling to exceed the tax if the right deal comes along. They did it last year, and got kind of a reprieve with this under the table deal for RJ.
Bruno is wonderful at explaining the financial stuff. If anyone's interested, he's got some good info in the Think Tank.
Spurs Salaries, 2010-2011 Edition
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158106
They're under the cap so long as they go with the league minimum of 13 players.
And to O_V's point, I'm a firm believer they're a willing taxpayer if they believe the payment has legitimate championship potential. And the savings from Jefferson's refinancing might even encourage them to pay a little tax for a player that's not of the no-brainer variety, but has some potential and actually addresses a need.
I don't believe the thought of being a taxpayer is as terrible a notion as some believe it to be.
Holt's intentions were to capitalize on Duncan's last years, even if it meant tax for them to do so. The fact that they saved some money or that the first year of that investment didn't pay off the way they hoped, hasn't changed that intent, IMO.
They'll return to their fiscal sanity and business model of yesteryear when Tim's no longer a viable championship centerpiece of a team.
That time isn't now.
I liked this thread until Bruno indicated what was needed to trade in order to recieve chandler. I do not at all mind a 1st rd pick, but in no way will giving up Mcdyess make in this offer make this team better. Unfortunatly this thread is strictly as advertised, a rumour, nothing more, but still funner than 99% of the other threads being talked about.
Chandler looks like a no-brainer if the FO can pull it off. (If it's not just some twitter nonsense.)
The only things that make me the least bit hesitant about Chandler.
Charles Smith.
Jackie Butler.
Charlie Ward.
This.
If we lose dice, we will be worse.
The Knicks could kick in $3 Million to help with any luxury tax concerns, but if they're willing to do that they could probably get a pick from some other team without losing Chandler.
You are right about the last game
But the game before that (where Kobe faked a back injury), Dice defended on Odom and did a great job
Does anyone know how reliable this source actually is?
Now you're exaggerating. Cheap? No. You could argue it's market-value considering what other stiffs are getting. The thing is, Bonner doesn't fill any needs in this team, and that money could have been better spent on another stiff that at least can rebound and help Tim inside.
And I am 'over it'. He's here and he's going to play. Doesn't mean I have to like it or not express my opinion about it.
I get your point, but it's hard to gauge what the league really thinks about Bonner's upside and his worth, seeing that the Spurs pretty much re-signed him fairly quickly. I'm not sure what's the value of a proven choker.
True, but the Dice situation was different, since we really needed to help fill up that position (coincidentally because Bonner couldn't rebound or defend to save his life). There's also the fact that Dice was one of the few sought after free agents that offseason. So maybe we paid a little extra for him (I thought the last year should have been a team option) in order to make sure he would join us, but he came to fill a need for the team.
jackie butler looms
What about the character issues? I don't mind a player smokin' a little weed and getting busted, but five baggies in the trunk sounds like he's doin' a little dealing on the side. Once you start breaking up some weight into individual packages, in most jurisdictions, that's prima facie evidence that you intend to sell it.
It's still hard to believe that Pop and R.C. fell for Larry Brown's assessment of Jackie Butler's lard ass to make a trade for him.
I think it was a FA signing but the point remains.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
