Reply With Quote
There's something ed up about paying three point five million for the rights to a player and that player just gets paid like two hundred thousand.
Evans is going to be a very nice PG. Spurs should have paid the $3 1/2 million or so to get the pick the Clippers used and bought him instead, not Bell. Spurs could have played him next season, driven up his value and then possibly used him to trade up in the draft next year. And no bell would not be as valuable trade bait.
There's something ed up about paying three point five million for the rights to a player and that player just gets paid like two hundred thousand.
Spurs should have drafted me.
I see you like to waste money.
Team definitely needed another PG.
Absolutely embarrassing that teams are willing to sell these picks for cash instead of, you know trying to make their teams better?
I think its a great idea to do these things imo. For example, a team that spent too much cannot do this, but a team that's saved money (doesn't waste on contract bloat) can afford to build their team faster
Sounds good in theory but the teams selling the picks are small market teams that are financially strapped and the teams buying the picks are large market teams with wealthy owners. One more thing skewing the league by giving large market teams an advantage. None the less Spurs should take advantage of this, particularly with their superior player development program. Imagine if they'd picked up McCaw, played him some to establish his value and say thrown him in with Green to move up in the draft or just kept him.
Yeah but Spurs don't take chances anymore unless they're signing 6'11 softies who can't post up DPOY James Harden to max contracts.
White is a good enough point off the bench
He will be better then Manu off the bench.
No we should've just drafted him at 29.
Chicago is a small market? Washington's sold picks before. Philly has too (though part of the reason was roster space). I'm sure it's small market teams in a few instances but this is generally false.
And if they're so cash strapped, why not get control over cheap players?
Only reason cash consideration should be allowed should be to balance out trades where the team literally has no other assets that work. And only reason teams should be selling draft picks is if they have roster size constraints or cap space (but then why not just draft and stash?)
Read an article that said the Spurs only had 500K to spend on a pick since they sent 3 million to Utah in the Diaw trade. I was hoping they would buy one until I saw that.
BTW, I HATE Skype autocorrect with a passion.
Last edited by Notorious H.O.P.; 06-24-2017 at 10:16 PM.
Is the limit $3.5M on the cash consideration part?
yes
I hope Ginobili plays another 10 years just aggravate the out of you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
