Spurs Salaries and Luxury Tax Situation.

[Bruno]

Whenever a team sign a player or do a trade, there aren't only basketball considerations but also financial considerations. Only the basketball side matters for fans but if you want to understand moves made and have an idea about what moves will be done, you had to look at the financial side.
Basketball is the Yang, money is the Yin.


Spurs 09-10 salaries :

Players with a guaranteed salary :
Spurs have 15 players with a fully guaranteed contract.
Salaries for these 15 players are :
Tim Duncan: $22,183,220
Richard Jefferson: $14,200,000
Tony Parker: $12,600,000
Manu Ginobili: $10,728,130
Antonio McDyess: $4,500,000
Roger Mason: $3,780,000
Matt Bonner: $3,256,500
George Hill: $1,081,680
Ian Mahinmi: $989,670
DeJuan Blair: $850,000
Keith Bogans: $825,497 (he also get $207,845 from the league)
Malik Hairston: $736,420 (cost $825,497 against the tax)
Alonzo Gee: $150,000
Garrett Temple: $111,000 (cost $111,685 against the tax)
Curtis Jerrels: $59,217 (cost $106,829 against the tax)
Marcus Haislip: $462,808 (bought out)
Michael Finley: $1,882,353 (bought out)
Curtis Jerrells: $75,000 (waived, his contract was $75K guaranteed)
Cedric Jackson: $26,917 (10 days contract, cost $48,559 against the tax)
Garrett Temple: $26,917 (10 days contract, cost $48,559 against the tax)
Marcus Williams: $25,000 (waived, his contract was $25K guaranteed)
The total salary for these 15 players is $78,550,359 ($78,730,987 against the tax)

Spurs 10-11 salaries :

Players with a guaranteed salary :
Spurs will have 6 players with a fully guaranteed contract and without team or player options.
Salaries for these 5 players are :
Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,650,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
The total salary for these 6 players is $50,972,354

Players with a player option:
Richard Jefferson has a early termination option with a salary of $15,200,000.

Players with a partially or non-guaranteed salary:
Malik Hairston has a $854,389 fully non-guaranteed salary for 2010-2011.
Curtis Jerrels, Alonzo Gee and Garrett Temple have a $762,195 fully non-guaranteed salaries. Gee's contract becomes $100K guaranteed on July 1st, $200K guaranteed on November 25th and $300K guaranteed on December 20th.Temple's contract becomes $35K guaranteed on July 1st, $110K guaranteed on August 5th.
These 4 players contracts are a great trade asset for the 2010 summer.

Spurs payroll:
We can expect that Jefferson won't opt out. In this case, Spurs payroll will be $66.2M for 7 players.


The Luxury Tax:

What is the luxury tax?
The luxury tax is a mechanism whose first goal is to reduce the differences between the richest and the poorest franchises.
In Early July, the league calculates a threshold based on an evaluation of its revenue for the next season. At the end of the season, teams whose payroll is higher than the luxury tax threshold pay a dollar for each dollar above the threshold. The money given by all the taxpayers is then divided. Each team bellow the tax gets 1/30th of this money and the rest is either equally divided between all the franchises or used to help franchise(s) with serious financial troubles.

The double penalty system:
A team above the tax is two time penalized. First, they had to pay the $ for $ tax. Second, they don't get 1/30th of the luxury tax money given by NBA teams.
This system has two consequences:
- The $ for $ tax pushes teams with payroll significantly higher than the luxury tax threshold to lower their payroll.
- The redistribution system pushes teams that are just above the tax to go just under. What is problematic for a team $100K above the tax isn't the additional $100K to pay in tax but the $3M you don't get during the redistribution.

Luxury tax threshold in 09-10:
The 2009-2010 luxury tax threshold is $69.92M (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/11931796)

Total luxury tax paid in 09-10:
This number is really important for a team close to the luxury tax level because it determines how hard they should try to stay/go under the threshold.
A team below the tax will get about $4M in redistribution this year.

Impact of the luxury tax on Spurs for 09-10:
Spurs will pay $8.7M in luxury tax for 09-10.
The Ratliff trade and buy outs for Haislip and Finley have helped Spurs to save some money. Between the luxury tax savings and the salaries not given, Spurs have saved about $3.1M with these 3 moves.
Spurs also haven't taken the cheapest road to fill the end of the roster: they have tried some players with 10 days contract and have filled the 15 roster spots. These moves have cost them about $600K.

Evaluation of the luxury tax threshold in 10-11:
The 10-11 luxury tax level will be calculated in July 2010 and based on the basketball related income in 09-10. With the economical crisis, this income is very difficult to evaluate.
In July 2009, the league sent a memo with projections of the luxury tax threshold between $61.2M and $65M. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4312837)
In December 2009, people were more optimistic with $54M as projected salary cap. (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/11723/what-will-next-summers-salary-cap-be) It means that the luxury tax threshold will be around $66M.
In April 2010, salary cap projections again raises to reach $56.1M (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5099980). It means the luxury tax threshold should be at $68.4M.

Impact of the luxury tax on Spurs for 10-11:
If Jefferson picks his option, Spurs should be about $2.2M below the tax with 7 players under contract. Spurs will end up in the luxury tax territory even if they fill their roster with cheap players. The question is now: how far is the ownership ready to go into luxury tax territory?


After 2010-2011:

Players under contract for 2011-2012:
5 players have contracts for 2011-2012:
- Tim Duncan with an early termination option of $21,300,000.
- Manu Ginobili with $12,981,038 salary.
- Antonio McDyess with a $5,220,000 salary. Only $2,640,000 is guaranteed until July 1st 2011. This contract could end up as a nice trade asset in June 2011.
- George Hill with a $1,540,463 salary. This year is a team option that must be picked before November 1st 2010.
- DeJuan Blair with a $986,00 salary. Only $500K are guaranteed.

Players under contract after 2011-2012:
Only Dejuan Blair and Manu Ginobili are under contract in 2012-2013. Ginobili has a $14,107,492 salary. Blair has a $1,054,000 salary that is fully non-guaranteed until November 1st 2012 and becomes fully guaranteed after that.

What can we say about that:
It's nearly impossible to draw some conclusions give that it is in more than 2 years and that the CBA will change in 2011.
Spurs will likely enter in a rebuilding cycle soon so not having too much long term contracts is a good thing.

PS: Salaries numbers comes from ShamSports (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp). Thanks to Sham for his great work.

[Mel_13]

Absolutely awesome summary of the Spurs financial status. Should be required reading before constructing scenarios.

:toast

[Bender]

great write up... I learned a lot.

[GooberNuts]

Thanks for this. Really helpful information

[TheProfessor]

That was epic. Thank you.

This thread should be cited any time someone asks a salary cap question.

[duncan228]

Fantastic Bruno. Thank you. The money side can be confusing, you've created a perfect guide to help understand it. :toast

[Bruno]

Thanks to all. :toast

[tomtom]

Excellent read thanks

[objective]

if Gist and/or Sanikidze were signed to the minimum, do they still count towards the tax as 2nd rounders, or does the second round charge only factor in with present picked 2nds, like only 2009 2nds get the lesser charge for 09/10?

[Obstructed_View]

I've been thinking that this offseason's chance of being decent hinges on Finley. If he leaves, the youth movement can commence with one decent free agent brought in. The Spurs have plenty of young talent that fits right into those roster slots, and the salaries should match right up.

If he stays, the Spurs are going to be forced to either scrap next season or start giving up players and 2010 cap room.

[Spursmania]

Thank you, Bruno.:toast

[Libri]

I was looking for this. :clap

[lurker23]

Thanks for the summary Bruno, great job.

I had a question in the Michael Finley thread, I was curious if you (or someone else) knew the answer:


Question on Finley's contract: this past season, he had what was effectively a no-trade clause because he had Bird Rights and was on a one-year contract. If he picks up this option, does he still have those veto rights, or do they go away under some technicality similar to "he is now on a two-year contract." ?

Either way, since July 1 is a key date for Finley's contract and Fabricio's, do you feel that they will try to put some pressure on Finley to decide as soon as possible?

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Wow Bruno, fantastic post.

Thanks for putting this together :toast

[timvp]

Great job, Bruno. I was going to do a salary thread but this is much better and more comprehensive :tu

At least all Spurs fans admit there is a "plan" this time around. It used to be hard to get Spurs fans to believe that there was a 2004 Plan and a 2008 Plan.

lurker23, yes, Finley can be traded after he picks up his option. He'll no longer have any trade protection.

Regarding Oberto, it's too bad the date on his contract isn't August 1. July 1 basically means the Spurs would have to trade him on draft day. Bruno, do you know if the Spurs and Oberto can agree to push that back to August 1 to make it easier to trade him? I've heard of pushing those types of dates back but I'm not sure that is allowed in this situation. And I'm guessing Oberto's agent wouldn't do it since it doesn't really help Oberto at all.

Losing that first round pick in the Thomas trade isn't so nice right now but the solace is that the Spurs probably would have traded it away anyways. At least with 37 the Spurs actually have reason to pick a player and keep him on the roster.

And yeah, I agree with OV that this summer could come down to Finley. Perhaps Pop can talk him out of picking up that second year. Who knows, maybe he'll opt out in hopes of landing somewhere else for the LLE for two years. Business-wise, it could make sense. He's coming off a season where he shot abnormally well and that combined with his health means he could land his final multi-year deal. After this coming season, I can't imagine he'd get more than the minimum.

[lurker23]

lurker23, yes, Finley can be traded after he picks up his option. He'll no longer have any trade protection.

And yeah, I agree with OV that this summer could come down to Finley. Perhaps Pop can talk him out of picking up that second year. Who knows, maybe he'll opt out in hopes of landing somewhere else for the LLE for two years. Business-wise, it could make sense. He's coming off a season where he shot abnormally well and that combined with his health means he could land his final multi-year deal. After this coming season, I can't imagine he'd get more than the minimum.

However, can't Finley picking up his option be a positive? If the Spurs encourage him to decide before the draft (so that they can more fully assess all their options on draft day), and he chooses to take the $2.5 mil, he becomes another trade chip the Spurs have. I'd argue that with Finley's current production, his expiring contract of $2.5 mil would have more trade value than Bonner's or Thomas's contract, and about as much as RMJ's.

[Bruno]

if Gist and/or Sanikidze were signed to the minimum, do they still count towards the tax as 2nd rounders, or does the second round charge only factor in with present picked 2nds, like only 2009 2nds get the lesser charge for 09/10?

What is important is the status of the player when he signs his contract. If Sanikidze or Gist sign a minimum contract, they won't do it as FA but as 2nd round picks. Their contracts will count as 2nd rounder against the tax.

If Spurs makes moves that push them really near or over the luxury tax, players like Gist and this year second round picks will have a serious edge over Hairston and Williams only because of their respective cost against the tax.



Bruno, do you know if the Spurs and Oberto can agree to push that back to August 1 to make it easier to trade him? I've heard of pushing those types of dates back but I'm not sure that is allowed in this situation. And I'm guessing Oberto's agent wouldn't do it since it doesn't really help Oberto at all.

They can postponed the guaranteed deadline if both sides sign a document. Lakers did it in 2005 with Divac's partially guaranteed contract.

And as you and lurker23 have said, it would help Spurs if Finley made his choice before the draft day and/or Oberto agreed to push back the date where his contract becomes fully guaranteed.

[lurker23]

I could be wrong, but the more and more I look at this situation, the more and more I smell a draft day trade. The three second round draft picks (especially 37) are nice little nuggets to have in a trade, and with their many expiring contracts, they could easily trade for a player who makes $5 mil, or $8 mil, or $11 mil, or $15 mil. The flexibility is endless.

[lurker23]

Here's a question: the NBA has a rule against trading away your first round draft pick in consecutive years. However, if I recall correctly, that goes away as soon as your traded pick is made. So, if the Spurs first rounder in 2010 is a necessity in a particular deal, the earliest that trade can be made is right after OKC picks at 25, correct?

[Bruno]

Here's a question: the NBA has a rule against trading away your first round draft pick in consecutive years. However, if I recall correctly, that goes away as soon as your traded pick is made. So, if the Spurs first rounder in 2010 is a necessity in a particular deal, the earliest that trade can be made is right after OKC picks at 25, correct?

I don't know exactly when is the soonest Spurs can trade their 2010 pick during the draft day but it isn't really a problem.
Spurs and the other team can agreed on a trade during the draft and make it official by sending papers to the league a couple of hours after the draft.

[lurker23]

I don't know exactly when is the soonest Spurs can trade their 2010 pick during the draft day but it isn't really a problem.
Spurs and the other team can agreed on a trade and make it official by sending papers to the league a couple of hours after the draft.

But I guess the bottom line is that after the draft the 2010 first round draft pick becomes a tradeable asset.

Not that I'm a fan of trading our first rounder every single year, but trading the 2010 first rounder might be more palatable than trading, say, George Hill.

[Mel_13]

As we watch the FO attempt to improve the quality of the supporting cast this summer, a little perspective and history is in order. The challenge to accomplish their mission will be greater this summer than any recent year.

In the financial history of the Spurs, the 2005-2006 season marks a significant divide. The 2005 CBA and the new Luxury Tax went into effect. That was also the year that Tony's 66M extension kicked in. Since that year the Big 3 have had the three highest salaries on the team. The budget for the supporting cast has essentially become the money left under the tax after paying the Big 3.

While the Spurs have increased their budget each year since then at the same rate that the tax limit has increased, the automatic increases in the salaries of the Big 3 have increased at a greater rate. As a result, the budget for the supporting cast has decreased since then both in real dollars and as percentage of the overall budget.

Here are the numbers (Lux Tax Limit - Big 3 Salary = budget for supporting cast)

2005-2006 (61.7 - 31.7 = 30M or 48.6% of the Tax limit)
2006-2007 (65.4 - 35.1 = 30.3M or 46.3% of the Tax limit)
2007-2008 (67.9 - 38.6 = 29.3M or 43.2% of the Tax limit)
2008-2009 (71.1 - 42.1 = 29M or 40.8% of the Tax limit)
and using Bruno's guesstimate in the OP
2009-2010 (71 - 45.5 = 25.5M or 35.9% of the Tax limit)

So while the Spurs had almost half of their budget to devote to a supporting cast in 2005-2006, they will have little more than a third of the budget this summer for the same purpose.

Taken one step further, the Spurs have contractual obligations of 23.4M to eight current supporting players. The task for the FO is to make deals that will transform that ineffective eight man group into a much more effective 10-12 man group while spending no more than a total of 25.5M. That, fellow Spurs fans, is a very tall order. Transforming the current bunch into a championship-contending supporting cast will be even harder.

[Bukefal]

Thanks, very interesting, informative read, especially about the luxury tax!

[mountainballer]

did ever a championship team come out of the free agency? I can't remember. as Bruno mentioned, there are 3 way to improve: trades, draft and free agency.
but if we look at the championship teams of the last years, all of them were built by draft and trades. (I'm talking about the cornerstones, not the role players)
Spurs only by draft (Tim, Tony, Manu), Celtics, Heat, Pistons, Lakers, Bulls by a combination of picks and trades.
the last FA signing I remember that turned into a top three player on a championship team was Billups, but he wasn't a big money signing, back then he was the typical MLE signing.
all the other max signings out of cap room didn't turn teams into champs. very often they didn't even improve the team.
I think free agency is good for finding complementary players, but not for building the foundation of a big team.
the reason is simple. to be able to make a max signing, the team needs to be below the cap that far, that there usually isn't enough depth left. you may add a star, but to finish the whole building, the team usually doesn't have the potential left.
trades are a different thing. via a combination of contracts, you can get those players, that are crucial to finally win it all. see Shaq to Heat. KG+RA to Celtics. Sheed to Pistons. maybe Gasol to Lakers. maybe Mo Willams to Cavs.
that's why I'm not a fan of all the free agency scenarios.
if the Spurs in fact reduce the team to just Tony and Tim and a few rookie contract players, they will very likely find themself without a top FA and even if they do find a decent player, they would be to thin to compete. (we need to see that a big signing 2010 automatically means that Manu is no longer with the team)
improvement via trade is the much better strategy. and this will be the year to do it, there will be more star players on the market for dump packages than ever. Spurs might not be as lucky as the Pistons in 2004 or the Lakers in 2008, but a nice player can be all theirs, if they pull the trigger. I'm absolutely sure that another title can only be won, if the Spurs keep the big three together (pray for Manu's health) and add one significant piece. forget the 2010 free agency. 2012 will be the year to re start from scratch. till then they have 3 more shots. if they take some risk this summer.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

did ever a championship team come out of the free agency? I can't remember. as Bruno mentioned, there are 3 way to improve: trades, draft and free agency.
but if we look at the championship teams of the last years, all of them were built by draft and trades. (I'm talking about the cornerstones, not the role players)

In terms of championship, the closest I can think of is the pretty big overhaul the Miami heat had after the 2005 season (Riley even got criticized for trading so many players that already were on an established ECF team). At least I'm pretty sure it was after 2005 and not 2004.

[loveforthegame]

Bruno, thanks for the informative post. It's extremely helpful for those of us who don't understand all the ins and outs. Best job I've seen.

If I remember correctly, Finley let the FO know his decision a few days before the draft the last time he had a PO. I suspect he does so again especially if he's picking it up.

[Streakyshooter08]

Great job Bruno. :tu

Thanks for the breakdown.

[JUUOT]

Bruno, taking the early lead for the summer MVP! I still come here regularly but do not take the time to post. But some good hard work was put in this post and this is the type of post that helps the overall quality of the board and make spurstalk what it is.
Tanks Bruno.
Same goes for timvp.
MERCI spurstalk

[Bruno]

Here are the numbers (Lux Tax Limit - Big 3 Salary = budget for supporting cast)

2005-2006 (61.7 - 31.7 = 30M or 48.6% of the Tax limit)
2006-2007 (65.4 - 35.1 = 30.3M or 46.3% of the Tax limit)
2007-2008 (67.9 - 38.6 = 29.3M or 43.2% of the Tax limit)
2008-2009 (71.1 - 42.1 = 29M or 40.8% of the Tax limit)
and using Bruno's guesstimate in the OP
2009-2010 (71 - 45.5 = 25.5M or 35.9% of the Tax limit)

So while the Spurs had almost half of their budget to devote to a supporting cast in 2005-2006, they will have little more than a third of the budget this summer for the same purpose.

Nice point.

Spurs had to do a better job at spending their money on role players. The most basic rule is that you don't give money to players that don't play.

The core of a team is 8 players (2 PGs, 3 SG/SF and 3 PF/C). A 4th SG/SF and a 4 PF/C also get some playing time. The rest of the roster doesn't play.
If you spend more than $3M on your 9th or 10th player, you're wasting money.
If you spend more than $1.5M on your 11th to 15th player, you're wasting money.

Spurs have often overpaid these end of the bench players :
05-06: Nazr(4th PF/C): $5.5M, Barry(4thSG/SF): $4.7M, Oberto (5th PF/C) : $2.3M.
06-07: Barry(4th SG/SF): $5.1M, Ely(6th PF/C): $3.3M, Bonner(5th PF/C): $2M, Butler (7th PF/C): $2.2M.
07-08: Horry(4th PF/C): $3.6M, Bonner(5th PF/C): $2.7M.
08-09: Bowen (4th SG/SF): $4M, Oberto (5th PF/C): $3.6M.

My point isn't to trash Spurs front office, every FO makes mistakes. However, there is money to save compared to the previous years. Even with $5M less to spend in the supporting cast, Spurs had enough money to build a very good team if they have a nearly perfect summer.

[Man In Black]

Thank you, Bruno.:toast
+1000 :flag:

[Obstructed_View]

did ever a championship team come out of the free agency? I can't remember.

Shaq left Orlando.

[mountainballer]

So while the Spurs had almost half of their budget to devote to a supporting cast in 2005-2006, they will have little more than a third of the budget this summer for the same purpose.


good point.
this leads to the question: can in todays NBA a team win a title without paying lux tax?
I doubt it. yes, we used to laugh about the Knicks and Mavs, who couldn't get it done while spending 30% more money than the Spurs. all true.
but if we look at the currently best teams, they spend 10-20 million more than the Spurs and that's what makes the difference.
if you spend this kind of money in a smart way, this means:
+10 million = one all star player, or 2 starter quality role player, or 3 decent bench player.
+20 million= one superstar, or 2 all stars, or one all star and 2 quality role player. etc. etc.

what I try to say:
when you stay under the threshold, while you pay one superstar and 2 all stars, it means you MUST NOT have any player on your roster, who isn't actually better than the money he gets. that's almost impossible, even for the best management in the world.
and that's also the difference to the Lakers, Cavs and Celtics.
let's just guess. we would have added to this roster (a healthy Manu assumed) 2 quality MLE players. (just a guess, Salmons and Przybilla. I mention them, because Spurs wanted both at some point and were willing to pay them the MLE money they make).
I claim that our big 3 plus this 2 plus the average bench crop we have now, is about at the level of the current Lakers and Cavs.
the roster would cost about what the Lakers and Celtics spend and still be far under what the Cavs.
this situation doesn't change next season. by some smart moves the Spurs will be able to assemble a decent team and still stay under the threshold. but a contender? almost impossible. you would need 2 or 3 miraculous FA or trade steals to make this happen. but that's nothing you can count on, especially since the Spurs haven't been very lucky in this department in the last years.

[Mel_13]

this leads to the question: can in todays NBA a team win a title without paying lux tax?
I doubt it.

this situation doesn't change next season. by some smart moves the Spurs will be able to assemble a decent team and still stay under the threshold. but a contender? almost impossible. you would need 2 or 3 miraculous FA or trade steals to make this happen. but that's nothing you can count on, especially since the Spurs haven't been very lucky in this department in the last years.

I agree. I believe the Spurs will take steps to improve the team and definitely will get younger. But I think they will have a limit somewhere around 8M for a trade target. Now if a Gasol-type opportunity presents itself (Bosh), they will be willing to put all their eggs in one basket for a move that makes them a serious contender. But players like Carter and Jefferson make way too much money for the improvement they offer the team.

One more thing about the difficulties facing the FO this summer. There will other customers for every good player that some team wants to move in a salary dump. For every desirable player there will be a minimum of five teams that can offer more cap relief than the Spurs. The three teams with cap space (MEM, DET, and OKC) as well as Portland and Dallas. And there are probably others. The Spurs will have to wait until those teams have satisfied themselves before they move to the top of the list.

Many around here will complain loudly as some talented player moves to another team, but the simple fact is that the Spurs do not have much to offer. Just remember, their trade bait are the same players that have been so harshly criticized.

[completely deck]

Now this is what I'm talking about. Great thread :tu

[spurtilldeath]

This is very informative. hats off...

[Brazil]

I didn't see this article posted and I'm not sure if it belongs to this section or not but I found it interesting : 2010 plan, gooden, sheed, Ian, spliter etc...

Bruno please feel free to move it or delete if already posted.

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009...6:53 am
Offseason Breakdown: Drew Gooden and the Frontcourt

Jump to Comments (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/04/29/offseason-breakdown-drew-gooden-and-the-frontcourt/#comments) I plan a long series of posts considering the Spurs roster, with consideration toward individual players and larger roster issues. At points, these posts might overlap with thoughts on the upcoming draft (forthcoming shortly). But they will be tagged differently. I wasn’t sure where to start with my offseason analysis, but Pop’s DNP of Drew Gooden in last night’s loss seems like a good place.

Should the Spurs resign Drew Gooden? I think not. Let me explain.

The 2010 Cap Strategy
The Spurs are currently in good cap position for 2010 (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/04/29/2008/12/12/countdown-to-2010-day-566/#comments). I think they could abandon their 2010 free agent strategy, but only for a few specific circumstances. One such circumstance would be the ability to take on a star player in a trade. I call this the Vince Carter Exception. But it could also apply to odd circumstance players such as Josh Childress (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-144/Josh-Childress-Smiles-at-Your-Exchange-Rate.html). If the Spurs can land an impact player, they should. Damn the 2010 torpedoes. Otherwise, it makes sense for the Spurs to stay the 2010 course.
Resigning Drew Gooden for the full MLE (his asking price, methinks) messes with all this. He played well as a Spur, but I’m not sure he makes a lot of sense for the team going forward, especially if it compromises the Spurs ability to land an impact player via trade or through 2010 free agency. As good as Gooden is, he’s a role player. With the health concerns that surround the team’s age, they need to swing for the fences. The team needs to add a game changer. And they’ll need cap space to make that happen. Gooden only makes sense on a one year deal or if he’ll take a less than market value multi-year contract, but I doubt he’ll have much interest in those options.
The 2010 talks tends to center around bigs such Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh, Yao Ming and Dirk Nowitzki. But those players only have opt out clauses next summer. They may not be on the market. It will be interesting to see whether or not the cold economy discourages those guys from leaving money on the table. In that case, the Spurs might want to modify to a 2011 plan, or some such. You can find a helpful list of the player pool here (http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9031). The current assumption, however, is that many of those players should be available. The Spurs should fall into a wait and see holding pattern.

Ian Mahinmi and Tiago Splitter
The three important things to know about Drew Gooden’s game is that he’s an excellent low post scorer, mediocre rebounder and below average defender. The Spurs are best served to find a post option that reverses Gooden’s characteristics. In other words, they need a player who is an above average post defender, solid rebounder and merely decent at scoring the ball.
The Spurs have two players in their immediate pipeline whom might answer those calls. The first is Ian Mahinmi, who is signed to an inexpensive rookie contract. Mahinmi has shown lots of promise, but no one really knows what the kid has to offer. He set out the season due to injury, but was scheduled to be a part of the rotation last season. I’m not suggesting he is at Gooden’s level, but, on a cost-benefit analysis, if he can give the Spurs 6 and 6 at only 1 million a season, he’s probably a better option than Gooden. He’s also an able shot blocker and post defender, something the Spurs need.
We recently learned that Tiago Splitter could be available to the Spurs in the near future (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/04/29/2009/04/23/tiago-splitter-news/). He’s precisely the sort of big that San Antonio needs to add up front. But he’ll cost the Spurs more money than a typical rookie. The Spurs can’t afford to tie up their frontcourt cap with Gooden if they plan to bring Splitter over.

Other Options
I haven’t said as much yet, but I’m operating under the assumption the Spurs could move much of their frontcourt in a trade(s). I don’t think there is any guarantee that Fabricio Oberto, Kurt Thomas and Matt Bonner will be on next year’s team. They could be, but their contracts may be needed to accommodate a trade. One of the reasons the Spurs should be fine moving one or all of those players is that they have a couple end of the bench frontcourt options available–players that would occupy the same pine that Fabricio Oberto did this season.
I’ve already mentioned Ian Mahinmi and Tiago Splitter, but let me throw out a couple more names. Robertas Javtokas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwkeNIOkOo)‘ Russian contract has expired. He’s at least as good as Oberto and the Spurs own his rights. If he’ll sign at an affordable price, he’s a great option as a low minute rotation player. Another option is Toros standout Dwayne Jones (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/04/29/2009/04/11/two-big-wins-spurs-and-toros/). Jones has played professionally with the Cavs and now has a season with Austin on his resume. He’s a good rebounder who understands the system. The Spurs could sign him for 1/3 of what Oberto makes and get the same scoring and board production. Finally, the Spurs own the rights of James Gist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FoqQEi1aYk), who is something of a combo forward. He’s a long shot, but would benefit from a Spurs roster spot and the opportunity at a season-long Toros assignment. With Gist, a lot depends on his summer league productivity.
(Finally, there is Pops Mensah-Bonsu (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/04/29/2009/02/22/toros-watch-pops-throws-up-a-3918/), who is not available. That’s because the Spurs screwed the pooch by not buying out Jacque Vaughn and retaining Pops. We live. We learn. We try to move on. Hindsight is 20/20 this side of Manu Ginobili’s ankle injury, but I wish the Spurs had shown better judgement. This is not a Gooden/Mensah-Bonsu either/or. The Spurs should have signed both, but this was only possible by showing JV the door. Yet another regretful side effect of second-guessing George Hill.)

What Type of Player Could the Spurs Use?

Beyond the things listed above, we all know the Spurs could use a shot blocker. Tim Duncan has been the only true shot-blocker on the team since Rasho Nesterovic left, and Rasho’s defense obviously paled in comparison to David Robinson’s. Kurt Thomas is an excellent interior defender, but not as much of a shot blocking threat. Neither is Drew Gooden.
The Spurs could also use a big who can spread the floor. Matt Bonner is their current option, but he is not a Robert Horry replacement. Bonner’s virutal non-existence in the postseason, after a remarkable season in which he played to his ceiling, should have the Spurs thinking about pulling the plug on the New Hampshire Experiment. They’ve seen all that he has to offer. Perhaps they try something else.
The Spurs would also benefit from a big who is able to guard face-up 4s such as David West and Dirk Nowitzki. This is a long standing roster need. The combination of Matt Bonner and Ime Udoka is not the right answer.

Rasheed Wallace
Rumors of Rasheed Wallace’s desire to join the Spurs began back in February (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=tradetalk-090205), and they continue down to the present (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/sports/basketball/28dribble.html?_r=1&ref=sports). Wallace meets all of the Spurs frontcourt needs, save one. He’s old. But that’s actually not a bad thing this time around. Signing Wallace on a one year deal for part or all of the MLE fits within the Spurs 2010 strategy and answers current roster needs–he can block shots, defend and knock down threes. Signing Wallace to a short term contract also gives the Spurs roster flexibility in light of other possibilities, such as adding Tiago Splitter in 2010.

Verdict
In all likelihood the Spurs are better served to let Drew Gooden walk, especially if they’re able to sign Rasheed Wallace in free agency. Under that scenario, the Spurs would look to include the contracts of one or two bigs in a trade deal for an impact wing. Maybe that’s possible, maybe not. In any case, if the Spurs aim high they could remake their frontcourt rotation this offseason. After the dust settles, I’m hoping they return a roster of 5 bigs that looks something like:
Duncan/Wallace/Thomas/Mahinmi/Javtokas or Jones
This scenario is hopeful that Thomas steps away in 2o1o and is replaced by Tiago Splitter.
It’s a risky gamble to take on a few pairs of old legs. But it preserves their 2010 aspirations and provides some correctives to current roster issues.

[dbestpro]

I agree. I believe the Spurs will take steps to improve the team and definitely will get younger. But I think they will have a limit somewhere around 8M for a trade target. Now if a Gasol-type opportunity presents itself (Bosh), they will be willing to put all their eggs in one basket for a move that makes them a serious contender. But players like Carter and Jefferson make way too much money for the improvement they offer the team.

One more thing about the difficulties facing the FO this summer. There will other customers for every good player that some team wants to move in a salary dump. For every desirable player there will be a minimum of five teams that can offer more cap relief than the Spurs. The three teams with cap space (MEM, DET, and OKC) as well as Portland and Dallas. And there are probably others. The Spurs will have to wait until those teams have satisfied themselves before they move to the top of the list.

Many around here will complain loudly as some talented player moves to another team, but the simple fact is that the Spurs do not have much to offer. Just remember, their trade bait are the same players that have been so harshly criticized.

Cap space is good for signing free agents but it usually takes expiring contracts to make the trades. From that perspective one could argue that the Spurs are in the best shape of any team to facilitate a trade with a team that is looking to 2010 or beyond.

I think the elephant in the room may happen is through an extension and contract restructure for Manu. Maybe he signs for 4 years at 5 mil each and frees up another 5 mil for this year.

[Mel_13]

Cap space is good for signing free agents but it usually takes expiring contracts to make the trades. From that perspective one could argue that the Spurs are in the best shape of any team to facilitate a trade with a team that is looking to 2010 or beyond.



Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. For example, if a team has an 8M player and wants maximum cap relief, they can trade him to a team with at least 8M in cap space and receive a trade exception in return. No players have to be exchanged.

Recent example, Kurt Thomas and two first round draft picks from Phoenix to Seattle in exchange for a 9M trade exception and a conditional second rounder.

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/Search/SearchResults.php?Player=kurt+thomas&Team=&PlayerMovementChkBx=yes&BeginYear=&BeginMonth=&BeginDay=&EndYear=&EndMonth=&EndDay=&submit=Search

What I stated in my post is accurate. At a minimum, 5 teams (DET, MEM, OKC, Portland, and Dallas) will be in better position than the Spurs to offer cap relief to a team seeking to dump a contract . San Antonio may make a trade, but they have no better than the sixth best assets to facilitate a salary dump.

[Mel_13]

I think the elephant in the room may happen is through an extension and contract restructure for Manu. Maybe he signs for 4 years at 5 mil each and frees up another 5 mil for this year.

NFL type contract restructuring does not happen in the NBA. Manu will get his 10.7M in 2009-2010. Nothing will change that.

[DPG21920]

Do you think this is what the Spurs FO actually does? I mean, we are going pretty in depth and over multiple scenarios. I cannot imagine how it would be to do this with your job on the line.

Sounds like fun :smokin

[mountainballer]

What I stated in my post is accurate. At a minimum, 5 teams (DET, MEM, OKC, Portland, and Dallas) will be in better position than the Spurs to offer cap relief to a team seeking to dump a contract . San Antonio may make a trade, but they have no better than the sixth best assets to facilitate a salary dump.

all true, but this also doesn't mean, that this teams don't want to play the FA market and instead are willing to swallow another team's contract.
(btw. how should Dallas be able to offer cap relieve? they are far over the cap and don't have a significant trade exception.)
however, none claims that Spurs are in better position than any NBA team. just that they can offer a nice package, be it for cap relieve 2009 (Fab+Bruce) or 2010 (KT, Matt, RM).

[Mel_13]

all true, but this also doesn't mean, that this teams don't want to play the FA market and instead are willing to swallow another team's contract.
(btw. how should Dallas be able to offer cap relieve? they are far over the cap and don't have a significant trade exception.)
however, none claims that Spurs are in better position than any NBA team. just that they can offer a nice package, be it for cap relieve 2009 (Fab+Bruce) or 2010 (KT, Matt, RM).

I was responding to this post.


From that perspective one could argue that the Spurs are in the best shape of any team to facilitate a trade with a team that is looking to 2010 or beyond.

Of course, all of those teams will have their own agendas. My point was that we should not overestimate the value of the Bowen/Oberto deals, especially relative to the ability of other clubs to offer more.

As to Dallas, they have three major pieces and one big hammer.

1. Stackhouse has one year left at 7.25M, but only 2M is guaranteed.

2. Howard has next year at 10.9M and then a team option for 2010-11, so that contract is effectively an expiring contract.

3. Dampier has next year at 12.1M. His 13.1M for 2010-11 only becomes guaranteed if he reaches standards next year that he has never reached since becoming a Mav. That contract may also be regarded as an expiring deal.

4. Mark Cuban. While any deal the Spurs make to take back a long-term deal will be constrained by staying under the lux tax next year, Dallas will have no such limitations. So they can make deals that increase long-term obligations AND significantly increase next year's payroll.

[mountainballer]

1. Stackhouse has one year left at 7.25M, but only 2M is guaranteed.

2. Howard has next year at 10.9M and then a team option for 2010-11, so that contract is effectively an expiring contract.

3. Dampier has next year at 12.1M. His 13.1M for 2010-11 only becomes guaranteed if he reaches standards next year that he has never reached since becoming a Mav. That contract may also be regarded as an expiring deal.

4. Mark Cuban. While any deal the Spurs make to take back a long-term deal will be constrained by staying under the lux tax next year, Dallas will have no such limitations. So they can make deals that increase long-term obligations AND significantly increase next year's payroll.

ok, I see. the Stack contract in fact looks better than the Fab+Bruce package, in terms of pure cap relieve.

[dbestpro]

NFL type contract restructuring does not happen in the NBA. Manu will get his 10.7M in 2009-2010. Nothing will change that.


FYI

A contract for four or more seasons can be renegotiated after the third anniversary of its signing, extension, or renegotiation that increased any season's salary by more than 8%. Contracts for fewer than four seasons cannot be renegotiated. A contract cannot be renegotiated between March 1 and June 30 of any year. Only teams under the cap can renegotiate a contract, and the salary in the then-current season can be increased only to the extent that the team has room under the cap. Raises in subsequent years are limited to 10.5% of the salary in the first renegotiated season. The renegotiation may not contain a signing bonus. Contracts cannot be renegotiated downward (players can't take a "pay cut" in order to create salary cap room for the team) or to contain fewer seasons. The question then is what consitutes downward. In general terms downward refers to the amount of money owed on the contract.

[Mel_13]

FYI

A contract for four or more seasons can be renegotiated after the third anniversary of its signing, extension, or renegotiation that increased any season's salary by more than 8%. Contracts for fewer than four seasons cannot be renegotiated. A contract cannot be renegotiated between March 1 and June 30 of any year. Only teams under the cap can renegotiate a contract, and the salary in the then-current season can be increased only to the extent that the team has room under the cap. Raises in subsequent years are limited to 10.5% of the salary in the first renegotiated season. The renegotiation may not contain a signing bonus. Contracts cannot be renegotiated downward (players can't take a "pay cut" in order to create salary cap room for the team) or to contain fewer seasons. The question then is what consitutes downward. In general terms downward refers to the amount of money owed on the contract.

Thank you, I did not know about this provision in the CBA.

It does, however, preclude any downward renegotiation of Manu's contract due to the highlighted clause.

I am not aware of any NBA contract that has been renegotiated according to this provision, I wonder if it has ever been used. Certainly, the type of cap space-creating renegotiations we see all the time in the NFL seem to be prohibited.

Link for your reference:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q52

which includes this clause:

"Again, a team over the salary cap cannot renegotiate a contract"

[wildbill2u]

We are screwed with too many role players with guaranteed contracts that can't do the job any more and aren't tradeable because of it. Ref: Bowen, Oberto,Thomas, Finley.

Bonner and Mason proved why they were bench players at best in their previous teams--INCONSISTENCY, low defensive & rebounding skills. Playoffs showed their true values.

Hill, Mahimi, and all the rest of the 'potential stars' that just need Pop to give them 30 minutes a game (Gist, Hairston, Pops, etc.) are just pipe dreams in terms of guaranteed help that can be counted on for big years next year.

We will probably be forced to play out these contracts next year and therefore will not be competitive. We might even make the lottery with a little luck

On the upside, by the following year we should have a good cap space position and a better draft position because we aint goin' nowhere with these role players.

[Marcus Bryant]

:wtf

All of the role players with guaranteed contracts only have one season left and some of those are partially guaranteed.

All of them are tradeable as they can offer cap relief in the summer of 2010 to a team with contracts which extend beyond. In the case of Oberto and Bowen, they are even more attractive since their contracts are partially guaranteed.

[wildbill2u]

:wtf

All of the role players with guaranteed contracts only have one season left and some of those are partially guaranteed.

All of them are tradeable as they can offer cap relief in the summer of 2010 to a team with contracts which extend beyond. In the case of Oberto and Bowen, they are even more attractive since their contracts are partially guaranteed.

Great. They are tradeable--but for what? Why would anyone give away a great young player they like for the future just for some capspace?

What we'd get offered is our old guys for their old stars with long term contracts on the downside of their careers? (Think Vince Carter or Shaq or Sheed) Or players who weren't great but serviceable who are also on the way down and aren't likely to give us the energy and youth we need. (Check out Thomas' stats for the last five years) Guys like that will just put us in a hole later on so why go there?

We need to remake this team--but it will be difficult. Let these players ride it out this year and we will be the ones with all the capspace next year.

Of course it means another losing year during the limited time left for the Big 3.

[Duncan2177]

We are screwed with too many role players with guaranteed contracts that can't do the job any more and aren't tradeable because of it. Ref: Bowen, Oberto,Thomas, Finley.

Bonner and Mason proved why they were bench players at best in their previous teams--INCONSISTENCY, low defensive & rebounding skills. Playoffs showed their true values.

Hill, Mahimi, and all the rest of the 'potential stars' that just need Pop to give them 30 minutes a game (Gist, Hairston, Pops, etc.) are just pipe dreams in terms of guaranteed help that can be counted on for big years next year.

We will probably be forced to play out these contracts next year and therefore will not be competitive. We might even make the lottery with a little luck

On the upside, by the following year we should have a good cap space position and a better draft position because we aint goin' nowhere with these role players.

The spurs FO would be idiots to have the same team next year. Fuck that shit.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Great. They are tradeable--but for what? Why would anyone give away a great young player they like for the future just for some capspace?

Well, we have seen it happen increasingly in the league over the last two years, and with the lux cap coming down, you can bet you will see it more often as well.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

This thread is unbelievably epic. Thanks a lot, Bruno.

[lurker23]

So, I was thinking a little more about the Spurs salary cap situation going into the summer of 2010, specifically about this clause:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q30

Nutshell: Free agents still count against their old team's salary cap for ~130-200% of their old salary until they are renounced or signed.

This is where I need some number crunching help from Bruno or others, and please correct me if my calculations or assumptions are wrong. For the sake of argument, let's assume that all contracts stay as they currently are, with all options picked up and no extensions issued.

Players with their 2009-10 contracts listed:

Manu Ginobili- $10,728,130 (Bird Rights, counts 150% against cap)
Kurt Thomas- $3,800,000 (Bird Rights, counts 200% against cap)
Bruce Bowen- $4,000,000 (Bird Rights, counts 200%)
Fabricio Oberto- $3,800,000 (Bird Rights, counts 200%)
Roger Mason Jr. - $3,780,000 (Early Bird Rights, counts 130%)
Matt Bonner- $3,256,500 (Bird Rights, counts 200%)
Michael Finley- $2,500,000 (Bird Rights, counts 200%)

So, if my math is correct, the last 6 players on this list would count ~$39.6 million against the cap, with another ~$16 million for Manu. Obviously this can be resolved by renouncing these players, but I suspect that at least one or two of them probably need to come back to build a full team in 2010 and have at least some continuity in the program.

Obviously this won't be as huge a problem as the above list makes it out to be (distinct possibilities including not picking up the non-guaranteed parts of Oberto's and Bowen's contracts, Michael Finley and/or Kurt Thomas retiring, etc.), but there are a few key points that fall out of this:

1. The Spurs need to decide before free agency 2010 who is not part of the future (at least at their current price), and renounce their rights in order to get maximum cap space.

2. Is waiting until the 2010 offseason to re-sign Manu even an option? It would seem to me that the only real option is giving him an extension before that free agency period begins, since his $16 million against the cap would be very detrimental.

3. Does this make a trade a significantly easier option? A trade would allow you to get a good player now instead of in the free agency period, and would also potentially allow you to retain your rights to players you may want going forward, such as Roger Mason Jr. or Matt Bonner.

[Bruno]

Renouncing to a player "bird" rights is something very easy to do. You don't need to do it before the FA period. You can do it the same day than you use your cap space.

What will happens in case of a 2010 plan is likely the following :

On July 1st, Spurs won't renounce to their players. They will start negotiating with Spurs' and other teams' free agents they would like to sign.

At the end the moratorium (July 8th), Spurs will do :
1. Re-sign their own players with a cap hold higher than their new salary.
2. Renounce to the rights of the players they don't want to keep.
3. Sign free agents with their remaining cap space.
4. Re-sign their own players with a cap hold lower than their new salary.
5. Fill the roster with min contracts.

[pad300]

Also, of the players you list, there are 2 players whose Bird rights might not be immediately renounced (Manu, Mason). Both their bird rights are maybes depending on their next season (eg. if Manu gets injured again, or Mason flops in the playoffs again...).

As Bruno says, negotiations start on the 1st, and rights renunciations would happen the 8th...Contracts for either, neither or both will have been arrived at by that time.

[lurker23]

Renouncing to a player "bird" rights is something very easy to do. You don't need to do it before the FA period. You can do it the same day than you use your cap space.

What will happens in case of a 2010 plan is likely the following :

On July 1st, Spurs won't renounce to their players. They will start negotiating with Spurs' and other teams' free agents they would like to sign.

At the end the moratorium (July 8th), Spurs will do :
1. Re-sign their own players with a cap hold higher than their new salary.
2. Renounce to the rights of the players they don't want to keep.
3. Sign free agents with their remaining cap space.
4. Re-sign their own players with a cap hold lower than their new salary.
5. Fill the roster with min contracts.


Thanks Bruno. That order makes a lot of sense, and the intricate minutiae are interesting, at least to me. I think giving Manu an extension instead of waiting is the best course of action (at least around December-February, once we know his injuries haven't flared up again). This would provide the Spurs with a lot more certainty going into the off-season about what exactly they have to spend.

Going back to the OP of this thread, if the Spurs keep Hill, Mahinmi, and the Splitter draft rights, that brings their cap space down to $19.3 million. Manu's contract extension is likely to pay him somewhere between $6 million and $12 million in 2010. For the sake of argument, let's say the Spurs are able to convince him to take $8 million for the 2010 season. That brings their cap space down to $11.3 million. Is $11.3 million really enough to attract a big name? If money is their object, the biggest names can get more elsewhere.

Then the question is, what are your plans for Roger Mason Jr.? If you intend to keep his "Early Bird Rights," his cap hold would be $4.9 million, which would bring your cap space down to ~$6.4 million, which is hardly more than the MLE will likely be at that point. If you want to keep him and his market value is similar to his old contract, then when you resign him you free up $1.1 million, bringing your cap space up to $7.5 million.

Can someone see a flaw in this logic, particularly my second paragraph above? The more I crunch these numbers, the more I think a trade might be the best option.

[vander]

22 mill for TD :depressed
if he was a Free Agent right now he wouldn't get a deal for much more than 10 mil/yr

[SouthTexasRancher]

Damn fine work there Bruno. I hope Kori & Timvp paid you in Gold...:toast

[tp2021]

22 mill for TD :depressed
if he was a Free Agent right now he wouldn't get a deal for much more than 10 mil/yr

If he was a free agent, he could get as much money as he wanted.

[mountainballer]

Can someone see a flaw in this logic, particularly my second paragraph above? The more I crunch these numbers, the more I think a trade might be the best option.

no, I think you hit the point, which most people ignore consequently. if the plan is, to get a premium FA 2010, it means no extension for Manu. period.
maybe that's the plan, who knows. if they sacrifice Manu, yeah then they can go for a high price FA. does it make this team significantly better? I doubt it. maybe younger, if Manu's replacement is under 28 and so they get a competitive tandem in Tony and the new one for several years.

but if the plan is, get another championship till 2012, a trade is the only way to make this happen. and the time for this trade will be either this summer, or at deadline 2010.

btw. I'm pretty sure, that the VC scenario comes up again this summer. yes, this will mean lux tax and considering that VC is 32, there is also a risk to see him decline over the next 3 years.
on the other hand, VC's contract isn't bad for a team, that will have to totally rebuild in 2012. his contract will expire then, but the good thing is, it's last season is only guaranteed for 4 million. this means, the contract will become a very powerful weapon in 2011, because then it has a salary dump potential of 15 million $!
so, in the best case VC brings 2 more shots at a championship, in 2010 and 2011 and then becomes the crucial part of a blockbuster move, that helps to build a competitive team for beyond 2012.

[kace]

well, i'm far from a cap and salaries specialist so this thread is very informative for me.

all of this could lead to be a little pessimistic considering the spurs don't have too much room with the big 3 under contract.

but then i look at some teams:

- the cavs are right now probably the best team of the NBA with 35 M wasted in almost useless players who don't have playing time (Wallace, Snow, Szczerbiak).
i still think that the cavs depth could be a problem but still, no one can deny their current good shape and level.

- houston, who is doing very well in those PO even after Yao injury, are "wasting" right now 36 M in useless players (injured yao and t-mac). even only without T-Mac, that was still 21 M wasted

- Dallas who beat us, was spending 21,4 M in J.Kidd. i wouldn't say he's useless. far from it. he's playing very smart for the mavs. but i think it would be accurate to think a 10 M PG would give the same level of play and that's still at least about 11 M "wasted"

- Portland, if i don't make any mistake, was spending 30 useless M in Francis and Lafrentz. and still was a good team even if eliminated in the 1st round.

The young stars drafted not so long ago and who can't get yet 20 M contract are obviously a great thing to have (LBJ, Roy), and Spurs can't have that but that's not the only reason. (LBJ is still making 14.5 M and Dallas and houston don't have such players).

what i mean is that money is far from the only thing to take in account to have a great team. when i see what some others team are able to do with so much money wasted (for different reasons), i still think that we have enough to build a good supporting cast around the big 3.

[mountainballer]

?
you talk as if there was a "wasted money exception" in the CBA.
yes, other teams waste money. so what does this help the Spurs? Cavs waste a lot, but they also carry a payroll of 92 million, that's 23 more than the Spurs. pretty much room to swallow some bad contracts.
what we know is, the Spurs will never ever climb to that regions of spending.
it was mentioned in this thread before. for several years, the big 3 were somehow "cheap" compared to some other star cores. but now they are combining for 45 million. that's no longer a discount price. to carry this and have a decent supporting cast and not pay lux tax, you must not waste a single $. and that's almost impossible, even for the best management.
(and the Spurs haven't had exactly a lucky management in the last years.)

[kace]

?
you talk as if there was a "wasted money exception" in the CBA.
yes, other teams waste money. so what does this help the Spurs? Cavs waste a lot, but they also carry a payroll of 92 million, that's 23 more than the Spurs. pretty much room to swallow some bad contracts.
what we know is, the Spurs will never ever climb to that regions of spending.
it was mentioned in this thread before. for several years, the big 3 were somehow "cheap" compared to some other star cores. but now they are combining for 45 million. that's no longer a discount price. to carry this and have a decent supporting cast and not pay lux tax, you must not waste a single $. and that's almost impossible, even for the best management.
(and the Spurs haven't had exactly a lucky management in the last years.)

what i meant it's that even with little money, there's a way to get great role players to make a very solidteam. Even if these team have a biggest payroll than the spurs, if you look at the "useful" money, you got:

- cleveland useful money = 56.8 M (total payroll less big ben, snow and wally)
outside their big 3 (LBJ, big Z and Mo williams), they got 23 M for role players.

- houston useful money: right now 39 M (without tmac and yao) !! (with Yao: 54 M). take out a poor current big three of Artest, scola and Battier and you only have 21.6 M for others players. and still, without t-mac and yao, houston manage to do well, like they did last year.

-Portland useful money: 50 M (total payroll - francis and lafrentz). OK Roy as a young player is cheap but still, you got a good team with 50 M

- Spurs: 69.3 M. for role players outside the big 3: 27.3 M this year (about 25 M next year). less than previous years, but compared to the others team above, we're not so bad. that's what i meant. with smartness and a little luck, there's a way to get a good supporting cast and so a great team with this money.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

what i meant it's that even with little money, there's a way to get great role players to make a very solidteam. Even if these team have a biggest payroll than the spurs, if you look at the "useful" money, you got:

- cleveland useful money = 56.8 M (total payroll less big ben, snow and wally)
outside their big 3 (LBJ, big Z and Mo williams), they got 23 M for role players.

- houston useful money: right now 39 M (without tmac and yao) !! (with Yao: 54 M). take out a poor current big three of Artest, scola and Battier and you only have 21.6 M for others players. and still, without t-mac and yao, houston manage to do well, like they did last year.

-Portland useful money: 50 M (total payroll - francis and lafrentz). OK Roy as a young player is cheap but still, you got a good team with 50 M

- Spurs: 69.3 M. for role players outside the big 3: 27.3 M this year (about 25 M next year). less than previous years, but compared to the others team above, we're not so bad. that's what i meant. with smartness and a little luck, there's a way to get a good supporting cast and so a great team with this money.

I see your point, but l'm with Mountainballer on this.

You give examples and you conveniently take away the mistakes of the other teams by subtracting the bad contracts from their payroll, yet you don't take away any contract from the Spurs payroll. In other words, while it is true that these teams have some good roleplayers, they also have noticeable expensive mistakes, which they can afford. The Spurs, on the other hand, cannot afford to make even a small(ish) mistake by giving some player a bad contract, J Butler, being the most obvious reference.

You want our management to get as good and cheap roleplayers as the other mentioned teams, but without the inevitable mistakes they do. I find this pretty unrealistic. Every FO makes mistakes.

We'd have to rely on our big 3 being as good or better than the other teams' big 3 to have a chance. Only then will the roleplayers take part in the equation.

[kace]

I see your point, but l'm with Mountainballer on this.

You give examples and you conveniently take away the mistakes of the other teams by subtracting the bad contracts from their payroll, yet you don't take away any contract from the Spurs payroll. In other words, while it is true that these teams have some good roleplayers, they also have noticeable expensive mistakes, which they can afford. The Spurs, on the other hand, cannot afford to make even a small(ish) mistake by giving some player a bad contract, J Butler, being the most obvious reference.

You want our management to get as good and cheap roleplayers as the other mentioned teams, but without the inevitable mistakes they do. I find this pretty unrealistic. Every FO makes mistakes.

We'd have to rely on our big 3 being as good or better than the other teams' big 3 to have a chance. Only then will the roleplayers take part in the equation.


well, you got a point. but still, i think it's rather easy to avoid such mistakes. i mean contracts like big ben, snow, tmac.... are easily avoidable.

the thing is i don't remember if those teams had to take those bad contracts in order to get those good and cheap role players. i don't think so.

but for me, even if i agree that it would need zero mistake from the FO, it proves that you can get a very solid supporting cast and relatively cheap if you put the good pieces together. Money is far from being the only part of the equation.

[Chieflion]

Miami would still have the most cap flexibility as Riley is a smart GM still.
Including Wade, they can sign another max FA (Bosh) and fill their team with role players (Cook) and solid starters (Chalmers/Beasley).

I think the 2010 plan is screwed.

[Marcus Bryant]

Great. They are tradeable--but for what? Why would anyone give away a great young player they like for the future just for some capspace?

How about a player who can help the Spurs win today and a draft pick? Not to mention that Bowen and Oberto can help a team cut payroll today. Trades aren't just made in terms of what is best for the team on the court, as we've learned with the Scola trade.




What we'd get offered is our old guys for their old stars with long term contracts on the downside of their careers? (Think Vince Carter or Shaq or Sheed) Or players who weren't great but serviceable who are also on the way down and aren't likely to give us the energy and youth we need. (Check out Thomas' stats for the last five years) Guys like that will just put us in a hole later on so why go there?


Where will this team be at when Duncan retires? The future is now. This team will inevitably take a hit when he's gone and can spend a few seasons accumulating draft picks and building with younger players (not to mention those already in the system).




We need to remake this team--but it will be difficult. Let these players ride it out this year and we will be the ones with all the capspace next year.

Of course it means another losing year during the limited time left for the Big 3.

No way. The window is 3 years. Duncan's gone after that. You aren't going to see a total overhaul. Use your cap flexibility now to land some talent and forget about wasting yet another season trying to do something that's best done when Duncan hangs it up.

[Knoxxx]

Ginobili at $8 million per year in 2010 sounds too high to me. I think we can resign him for something like $5 for 4 years, or $6 million for 3 years. He will be 33 next summer. I'm sure he will trade a few million another team might offer for a longer term deal with the Spurs. Come on now, who would want to pay him $8 million per year when he is 35+ years old? I believe he will negotiate in good faith to remain a Spur until retirement, and that will be a good deal for both parties.

[Johnny RIngo]

Spurs 2010 plan is crap. They will get stuck with cast offs. No one wants to play with a slim aging roster. We need to have a 2009 plan, then look to reload when TD retires in 2-3years.

Agreed. I'm tired of hearing about the 2010 plan. Spurs need to look to win now.

[Obstructed_View]

The worst part of the 2010 plan is that it seems to hinge on the Spurs' being able to attract a top level free agent; something they've never really done before. If they stink on ice next year, the chances of drawing said free agents go down, not up.

[objective]

Still seems that the 2010 plan depends on renouncing Manu or getting him to play for much less.

If that's the case, I'm thinking he'll go to Houston to play with Scola. The Rockets will have plenty of caproom.

[SenorSpur]

Excellent write up! :tu

Comprehensive summary that answers a lot of FAQs.

We should call you Professor Bruno from now on.

It's obvious the Spurs do need immediate help, yet are limited in their options. Still they cannot afford to sacrifice the 2009 season for the sake of the 2010 plan. Try selling that to TD, TP, Manu, or to the fans. It will be very interesting to see what direction the Spurs go in.

[Obstructed_View]

I think what they are betting on is grab'n 2 older players who want a title and are willing to take a bit less then they could get elsewhere or to be able to take players for nothing.....like the clips did with camby.....teams looking to dump guys for cap space, who knows maybe we get a couple real good players but 2010 is another season away and TD and Manu wont be any younger or more athletic then. Go all out this off season.....get Ariza, Artest, Gortat or trade for RJ or VC and win in 2009 and rebiuld later.

SPurs are close we just need a pcs who can score a bit and defend at bitl

Yeah, I remember when the Spurs thought that David was going to defer a lot of salary so the Spurs could have money to spend on all kinds of free agents, and they ended up losing Derek Anderson because Robinson threw a hissy fit. Those kind of plans have a tendency to blow up in your face. The Spurs could hope for another Glenn Robinson, but that's not exactly what they're going to need come 2010.

[buttsR4rebounding]

did ever a championship team come out of the free agency? I can't remember. as Bruno mentioned, there are 3 way to improve: trades, draft and free agency.
but if we look at the championship teams of the last years, all of them were built by draft and trades. (I'm talking about the cornerstones, not the role players)
Spurs only by draft (Tim, Tony, Manu), Celtics, Heat, Pistons, Lakers, Bulls by a combination of picks and trades.
the last FA signing I remember that turned into a top three player on a championship team was Billups, but he wasn't a big money signing, back then he was the typical MLE signing.
all the other max signings out of cap room didn't turn teams into champs. very often they didn't even improve the team.
I think free agency is good for finding complementary players, but not for building the foundation of a big team.
the reason is simple. to be able to make a max signing, the team needs to be below the cap that far, that there usually isn't enough depth left. you may add a star, but to finish the whole building, the team usually doesn't have the potential left.
trades are a different thing. via a combination of contracts, you can get those players, that are crucial to finally win it all. see Shaq to Heat. KG+RA to Celtics. Sheed to Pistons. maybe Gasol to Lakers. maybe Mo Willams to Cavs.
that's why I'm not a fan of all the free agency scenarios.
if the Spurs in fact reduce the team to just Tony and Tim and a few rookie contract players, they will very likely find themself without a top FA and even if they do find a decent player, they would be to thin to compete. (we need to see that a big signing 2010 automatically means that Manu is no longer with the team)
improvement via trade is the much better strategy. and this will be the year to do it, there will be more star players on the market for dump packages than ever. Spurs might not be as lucky as the Pistons in 2004 or the Lakers in 2008, but a nice player can be all theirs, if they pull the trigger. I'm absolutely sure that another title can only be won, if the Spurs keep the big three together (pray for Manu's health) and add one significant piece. forget the 2010 free agency. 2012 will be the year to re start from scratch. till then they have 3 more shots. if they take some risk this summer.

I agree 100%. I also think that because of that this needs to be a year when the Spurs are willing to go over the cap. If you are serious about taking advantage of Duncan's last few years then you have to be willing to do that.

[FromWayDowntown]

The worst part of the 2010 plan is that it seems to hinge on the Spurs' being able to attract a top level free agent; something they've never really done before. If they stink on ice next year, the chances of drawing said free agents go down, not up.

I think the shortsightedness of the 2010 plan lies in the growing sentiment that the guys at the top of that summer's class will stay put. There certainly seems to be a growing faith that Lebron will stay in Cleveland and Miami is openly discussing an extension with DWade.

It's one thing if Lebron and company are all moving around -- in that circumstance, the big market clubs, along with their old clubs, are all fighting for those studs and clubs like the Spurs have the opportunity to mine some nice things out of the "lesser" players in that class.

But if Lebron and Wade stay put, suddenly New York and others are fighting for the guys that the Spurs would have been more likely to attract. The Spurs aren't likely to win those fights -- as OV and others note, history is strongly against them. There could be no worse scenario for the Spurs than to put all of their eggs in the Summer of '10 basket, only to come away with nothing from that summer.

I'd still prefer to see the Spurs exploit other clubs' need to shrink payroll this summer.

[Mel_13]

I think the shortsightedness of the 2010 plan lies in the growing sentiment that the guys at the top of that summer's class will stay put. There certainly seems to be a growing faith that Lebron will stay in Cleveland and Miami is openly discussing an extension with DWade.

It's one thing if Lebron and company are all moving around -- in that circumstance, the big market clubs, along with their old clubs, are all fighting for those studs and clubs like the Spurs have the opportunity to mine some nice things out of the "lesser" players in that class.

But if Lebron and Wade stay put, suddenly New York and others are fighting for the guys that the Spurs would have been more likely to attract. The Spurs aren't likely to win those fights -- as OV and others note, history is strongly against them. There could be no worse scenario for the Spurs than to put all of their eggs in the Summer of '10 basket, only to come away with nothing from that summer.

I'd still prefer to see the Spurs exploit other clubs' need to shrink payroll this summer.

I have always thought that 2010 plan is just like the 2008 plan and that it represents a fallback position rather than an organizational imperative.

Back in the summer of 2006, the Spurs traded Rasho and let Nazr walk. Every player they subsequently added had contracts that expired by 2008 and we began talking about the 2008 plan and defined it as a plan to have maximum cap space in 2008 to make significant changes. From my point of view, it actually represented a final fall back position that they would use only if other, better options did not materialize. So they would have the Feb, 2007 trade deadline, summer 2007, and the Feb, 2008 deadline to make moves before the summer of 2008 rolled along. As is turned out, the Feb 07 deadline passed, they won the title in 2007 and then extended/resigned Bowen, Oberto, and Bonner and the 2008 plan was dead.

Since then the Spurs have not added any new player (outside of first round picks) with a contract that extends beyond 2010. I believe they will look at ways to improve the roster through trades and FA this summer and will also be there at the Feb, 2009 trade deadline. I don't think there is any reason to believe, based on recent history, that the Spurs will stubbornly hold onto their 2010 cap space. I do think they will weigh the merits of any potential deal against what they might realistically get in 2010.

I say this not only because what your post says is true and I'm sure the FO is aware of it, but because going into the summer of 2010 with all their cap space intact leaves them at the greatest possible financial disadvantage vis-a-vis teams like the Lakers, Cavs, Mavs, etc. The Spurs already treat the lux tax as a hard cap and are outspent by 10-40M by some of the top teams. If they go into 2010 with cap room they will only be able to exceed the salary cap with vet min contracts. Most of the room between the salary cap and the luxury tax (about 12M) will go unused. I believe this represents the last option for the Spurs.

So time will tell, but I think the most likely scenario is one where a combination of trades, FA signings, and a possible Manu extension leaves the Spurs with total payroll commitments right around the salary cap going into the summer of 2010 and that they then use the MLE, LLE and their 2010 1st rounder to fill the space between the cap and the tax.

[lurker23]

So time will tell, but I think the most likely scenario is one where a combination of trades, FA signings, and a possible Manu extension leaves the Spurs with total payroll commitments right around the salary cap going into the summer of 2010 and that they then use the MLE, LLE and their 2010 1st rounder to fill the space between the cap and the tax.

:tu Good post. In many ways, being slightly over the cap with 8 players signed to contract is a stronger position than being $12 million under the cap with 5-6 players under contract.

[Mel_13]

:tu Good post. In many ways, being slightly over the cap with 8 players signed to contract is a stronger position than being $12 million under the cap with 5-6 players under contract.


Thanks

The Spurs operate on a budget. Since the advent of the 2005 CBA, the Spurs budget and the luxury tax limit have been almost the same number. Predictions of future actions by the Spurs that use the lux tax limit as the working budget number have the greatest chance of proving true.

It's also why I think that if the Spurs take a greater risk in a player acquisition than most recent moves it is more likely to be using the MLE on a player with a short resume (Gortat, for ex.) than in a blockbuster trade for a Vince Carter.

[Knoxxx]

So essentially we are just waiting until Finley's July 1 decision, which affects whether we have the full MLE available? What is the timeline here?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

So essentially we are just waiting until Finley's July 1 decision, which affects whether we have the full MLE available? What is the timeline here?

Not true. Even if Finley opts out we'd still be unable to use our MLE without going over the Lux tax. Ditto if Bowen's and Oberto's contracts are traded. The only chance to use the whole MLE is to waive them both and if Finley retires.

[portnoy1]

Pf - Duncan / Thomas / Bonner
Sf - Singleton / D.Jones
C - Nesterovic / Ratliff / Mahinmi
Pg - Parker / Hill
Sg -Mason jr. / Manu / M. williams

If Finley doesn't resign, then we can drop Bowen/Oberto and save about $6.5million if you include Finley not Resigning.

1 - we can Sign Rasho and finally have 7footer , and do the twin towers thing again. He made $8.4 last year, I would give him $3 or 4 million. He should understand that he is older and that he will be on a team that can win a title, unlike Indiana or Toronto.

2 - Sign Dahntay Jones He can be a defensive man off the bench. He is athletic and can dunk the ball. He is making under $1 million. We can give him $2 million an tell him the same thing we tell rasho ( you know, the whole championship thing ).

3 - Sign James singleton, He canget rebounds at the 3 position, he is athletic and has a decent shot. He is also 6-8, which will allw Pop to go small and not get killed on the boards if he wants Singleton to play the 4 position every now and then. He makes under $1 Million. we give him $1 or 1.5 million.

4 - Sign Theo Ratliff, He can block shots and is physical and strong. he is a good 6-10 and can play behind Duncan on the floor because of his shot - blocking. He makes under $1 million. we can give him $1 million.

and if at all possible trade Mason jr. / Bonner / Thomas for a scoring small Forward. Jefferson would be nice. If not, the other plan still works just fine.

Now we are a little younger , more athletic and better defensively. Everbody talks about how we couldn't score against teams and such. Defense wins championships. We have to get back to old school spurs defense. Twin towers / Pesky perimeter D'. Our scoring will get better if we have a healthy big 3, and few guys who can score 10-15pts any given night.

[mountainballer]

jesus, Rasho + Ratliff as the Spurs new center solution! put half SA on suicide watch!
and we don't get exactly younger and more athletic by signing and unathletic 33 years old player and a 36 years old player with more spare parts than a 1973 Fiat Spider.

the only interesting idea is Jones, but after his performance for the Nuggets he will command more than 2 million per. (or he has some more games like the last two, then his asking price will go down again)

[portnoy1]

jesus, Rasho + Ratliff as the Spurs new center solution! put half SA on suicide watch!
and we don't get exactly younger and more athletic by signing and unathletic 33 years old player and a 36 years old player with more spare parts than a 1973 Fiat Spider.

the only interesting idea is Jones, but after his performance for the Nuggets he will command more than 2 million per. (or he has some more games like the last two, then his asking price will go down again)
Ok you can still sign Singleton / D. Jones / T. Ratliff
However instead of cutting Bowen / Oberto, You can trade Them along with Kurt Thomas or Matt Bonner to Clippers for C - Chris Kaman. The Clippers get an Expiring contract ( Thomas or Bonner ) and also they get contracts they can buy out, Bowen/Oberto giving them almost $ 4 million to play with after they cut Bowen/Oberto and still have money on the table to build around or pay for their No. 1 draft pick. The spurs get a 7 Footer who is only 27, and can do it all. Rebound, Defend ( Block shots) score in the post and hit the J.


PF - Duncan 18pts 10rbs 1 blk
SF - Singleton 6pts 6rbs
C - Kaman 12pts 7rbs 1 blk
PG - Parker 20pts 7ast
SG - Mason Jr. 10 pts
Bench

Manu 16pts and the crazy, unexpected game saving plays.
D.Jones great Perimeter Defense and drives to the basket.
G. hill 7pts backup point and solid Defense on the ball
T. Ratliff 2pts 2rbs 1blk? / wont get alot of time but will be like a Dikembe Mutumbo. Will play 10min. here and there to defend, block shots and use fouls.

Manu / D. Jones / G.Hill will probably be the Rotation. Singleton will spend half of his time playing the 4 position since he is 6-8 and athletic and gets a tin of Rebounds. that way the spurs will go small and not get beat on the boards

2nd unit / Small unit

PF- Singleton
SF - Jones
C - Kaman
PG - Hill
SG - Manu

[draft87]

did ever a championship team come out of the free agency? I can't remember. as Bruno mentioned, there are 3 way to improve: trades, draft and free agency.
but if we look at the championship teams of the last years, all of them were built by draft and trades. (I'm talking about the cornerstones, not the role players)
Spurs only by draft (Tim, Tony, Manu), Celtics, Heat, Pistons, Lakers, Bulls by a combination of picks and trades.
the last FA signing I remember that turned into a top three player on a championship team was Billups, but he wasn't a big money signing, back then he was the typical MLE signing.
all the other max signings out of cap room didn't turn teams into champs. very often they didn't even improve the team.
I think free agency is good for finding complementary players, but not for building the foundation of a big team.
the reason is simple. to be able to make a max signing, the team needs to be below the cap that far, that there usually isn't enough depth left. you may add a star, but to finish the whole building, the team usually doesn't have the potential left.
trades are a different thing. via a combination of contracts, you can get those players, that are crucial to finally win it all. see Shaq to Heat. KG+RA to Celtics. Sheed to Pistons. maybe Gasol to Lakers. maybe Mo Willams to Cavs.
that's why I'm not a fan of all the free agency scenarios.
if the Spurs in fact reduce the team to just Tony and Tim and a few rookie contract players, they will very likely find themself without a top FA and even if they do find a decent player, they would be to thin to compete. (we need to see that a big signing 2010 automatically means that Manu is no longer with the team)
improvement via trade is the much better strategy. and this will be the year to do it, there will be more star players on the market for dump packages than ever. Spurs might not be as lucky as the Pistons in 2004 or the Lakers in 2008, but a nice player can be all theirs, if they pull the trigger. I'm absolutely sure that another title can only be won, if the Spurs keep the big three together (pray for Manu's health) and add one significant piece. forget the 2010 free agency. 2012 will be the year to re start from scratch. till then they have 3 more shots. if they take some risk this summer.


well, does shaq count? he didn't get the title right away, but he did get three in a row with l.a. and he was the mvp.

[Obstructed_View]

well, does shaq count? he didn't get the title right away, but he did get three in a row with l.a. and he was the mvp.

Yeah I pointed that one out earlier in the thread. I think.

[draft87]

and i guess if the magic pull through they'll be the ultimate title through free agency team.

turkoglu-FA from SA
pietrus-FA from GS
lewis-sign and trades count!

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I have 2 questions regarding possible draft moves:
1. If the Spurs were to buy a pick (say the Hornets' 21), where would that money come out of?
2. And would the $1.1M (salary on the 21st pick) spent on the drafted player come out of the MLE? If not, then where?

[DPG21920]

I have 2 questions regarding possible draft moves:
1. If the Spurs were to buy a pick (say the Hornets' 21), where would that money come out of?
2. And would the $1.1M (salary on the 21st pick) spent on the drafted player come out of the MLE? If not, then where?

The owners would just have to pay their own cash, it would come out of any money that they have.

The guaranteed salary would be from the rookie scale contract and would not come out of any thing the MLE or LLE consists of. It would just count against the cap, much like a league minimum contract or something like that.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:tu Thanks.

[Bruno]

A little update after that great trade and just before the draft:

Spurs 09-10 salaries :

Players with a guaranteed salary :
Spurs have 8 players with a fully guaranteed contract and without team or player options.
Salaries for these 8 players are :
Tim Duncan: $22,183,220
Richard Jefferson: $14,200,000
Tony Parker: $12,600,000
Manu Ginobili: $10,728,130
Roger Mason: $3,780,000
Matt Bonner: $3,256,000
George Hill: $1,081,680
Ian Mahinmi: $899,700
The total salary for these 8 players is $68,728,730

Player with a player option:
Michael Finley has a $2.5M player option for the 08-09 season. He must decide to pick or not before July 1st. So far, he hasn't made a choice.

Player with a non-guaranteed salary:
Marcus Williams contract is likely fully non-guaranteed and likely becomes more and more guaranteed with the summer advancing. His full salary for 09-10 is $825,497.

The Luxury Tax:

It is now almost sure that Spurs will be over the tax. Big props to the owners for allowing it.
If Finley pick his option, Spurs use the full MLE, the LLE and fill the whole roster, they could be as much as $11M over the tax. I don't know if Spurs ownership will allow it but I have some doubts.
If Spurs don't want to go that far against the tax, they can:
- Fill their needs with trades rather than free agency.
- Not have a full roster and decide to only have 13 or 14 players under contract.
- Sign second round picks. Second round picks are the cheapest way to fill a roster.

The 2010 Plan:

Jefferson has a player option of $15.2M for 2010-2011. He will without a doubt pick it so forget the 2010 plan.
The number to look at for 2010-2011 is now the luxury tax threshold. With 3 players (Duncan, Parker and Jefferson) with a combined salary of $47.5M and a luxury tax threshold likely lower than in 2009-2010, Spurs should be quickly close or over it.

[timvp]

Thanks. :tu

Let's hope that Finley doesn't come back and that Holt is willing to really push the envelope in regards to the tax.

[Chieflion]

Thanks. :tu

Let's hope that Finley doesn't come back and that Holt is willing to really push the envelope in regards to the tax.
I hope Finley does not pick up his player option. If he does, there are a few things Spurs can do.

1. Trade him for a 2nd round pick. We have seen Marcus Camby for 2nd round pick happen before.

2. Play him in limited minutes.

3. Trade him for a cheap big.

[loveforthegame]

If the Spurs have spelled things out to Finley which I'm sure they have because they've done so for Udoka then why hasn't he made his decision yet? Especially if they have told him that they'll look to trade him should he pick his option up.

[lurker23]

Thanks for the info, Bruno. Could you give us some idea how much resigning Fabricio Oberto and/or Bruce Bowen for the minimum would cost? I see that the minimum salaries for these two are $884,881 and $1,306,455 respectively, but how much would those contracts cost the Spurs both in terms of real money and cap/tax space?

[Brazil]

So RJ will make more money than TP and Manu... wow

[Bruno]

Thanks for the info, Bruno. Could you give us some idea how much resigning Fabricio Oberto and/or Bruce Bowen for the minimum would cost? I see that the minimum salaries for these two are $884,881 and $1,306,455 respectively, but how much would those contracts cost the Spurs both in terms of real money and cap/tax space?

You have three rules to know regarding minimum salaries contract :

1) "When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots"

2) When you calculate the luxury tax: "For players who signed as free agents (i.e., not draft picks), and make less than the two-year minimum salary, the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is used in place of their actual salary."

3) When you calculate the luxury tax: "For minimum salary players whose salary is partially paid by the league only the amount paid by the team (the two-year minimum salary) is taxed."

Quotes coming from http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

For 09-10, the min salary for a two-year vet is $825,497.

If you sign Bruce or Oberto to one year min salaries contract:
- Spurs would only pay $825,497 in salary. The rest will be paid by the league.
- They would count for $825,497 against the tax.

[lurker23]

You have three rules to know regarding minimum salaries contract :

1) "When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots"

2) When you calculate the luxury tax: "For players who signed as free agents (i.e., not draft picks), and make less than the two-year minimum salary, the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is used in place of their actual salary."

3) When you calculate the luxury tax: "For minimum salary players whose salary is partially paid by the league only the amount paid by the team (the two-year minimum salary) is taxed."

Quotes coming from http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

For 09-10, the min salary for a two-year vet is $825,497.

If you sign Bruce or Oberto to one year min salaries contract:
- Spurs would only pay $825,497 in salary. The rest will be paid by the league.
- They would count for $825,497 against the tax.

Thanks Bruno, major props. :toast :worthy: I'll have to keep those particular rules in mind. As expected, Oberto and Bowen are both very economical moves, assuming they want them back. I'd personally take them both.

[Obstructed_View]

If Spurs don't want to go that far against the tax, they can:
- Fill their needs with trades rather than free agency.
- Not have a full roster and decide to only have 13 or 14 players under contract.
- Sign second round picks. Second round picks are the cheapest way to fill a roster.


Splitter, Hairston, Gist. Problem solved.

[Bruno]

Quick question, I wasn't sure where else to put this. In order to sign draft picks like Gist and Blair, we just sign them right? We don't have to take out any part of our MLE or LLE correct? I understand we can't use the MLE or LLE if it gets in the way of the hard cap, but I don't think we have to worry about that.

Teams don't have special exceptions to sign second round picks. Like for other FA, Spurs can use the minimum salary exception, the LLE or the MLE.

Teams mainly use the minimum salary exception on second round picks. With it, they can sign the player to a 1 or 2 years contract with a min salary. If Spurs wants to give more money per year and/or more years to a second round picks, they will have to use a part of the MLE or LLE (LLE contracts are 1 or 2 years long).

It will be interesting what kind of contracts Blair will get. He is better than the traditional second round picks but his knees are a timebomb. If Spurs don't use the full MLE on other FA(s), I wouldn't be surprised to see Spurs giving him a 3 years contract with a team option on the third year.

[Mel_13]

On that note, is it possible to get a 2 year team option on second round draft picks or is that only for first round draft picks as of now?

It is possible. The Celtics signed Bill Walker to a 4yr/3M contract last year. The last two years are fully unguaranteed. The Celtics can waive him after the second year and be off the hook for the last two years.

Edit: Team must use cap space or part of the MLE to do this.

[Bruno]

A contract can only have a team option on the last year.

However, as Mel_13 said, you can give a contract with multi-years fully or partially no-guaranteed. It isn't technically a team option but it's quite the same thing.

[YODA]

IS it possible to update the original page with all the summer signings?

[Bruno]

IS it possible to update the original page with all the summer signings?

For the moment, I lack some contract infos about Spurs' contracts to do a full breakdown. I will edit the first post later in the summer when infos pop up.

The latest Spurs' cap situation.

Spurs 09-10 salaries :

Players with a guaranteed salary :
Spurs have 11 players with a fully guaranteed contract.
Salaries for these 11 players are :
Tim Duncan: $22,183,220
Richard Jefferson: $14,200,000
Tony Parker: $12,600,000
Manu Ginobili: $10,728,130
Antonio McDyess: $5,854,000
Roger Mason: $3,780,000
Matt Bonner: $3,256,000
Michael Finley: $2,500,000
George Hill: $1,081,680
Ian Mahinmi: $899,700
Marcus Haislip: $855,189
The total salary for these 11 players is $77,937,919

Player without a fully guaranteed contract:
Marcus Williams contract is likely fully non-guaranteed and likely becomes more and more guaranteed with the summer advancing. His full salary for 09-10 is $825,497.
Malik Hairston contract is likely partially guaranteed. His full salary is $736,420 but count as $825,497 against the luxury tax.

The Luxury Tax:

Luxury tax threshold in 09-10:
The luxury tax threshold is $69.92M for 2009-2010.

How far will end up above the tax:
If they don't do trades, Spurs will be at least $9M if they fill the roster with the cheapest way possible. If Spurs don't take the cheapest road, they will be easily be $10M above the tax. Thanks Peter.

[Knoxxx]

When will we get the confirmed new salary info on the usual sources (Hoopshype, Sham)?

Seems the list above needs to roll forward to 2010 for this thread, so we can try to speculate what the roster will be after 2009.

[Bruno]

First post updated.

[Brazil]

so with Bogans where are we?

[coyotes_geek]

Sham has the Spurs at $79.911M without Bogans. The Spurs are on the hook for $825k for Bogans. So that puts them at $80.737M for 16 players. Williams being $825k completely unguaranteed and Hairston being $736k with only a $50,000 guarantee.

[Bruno]

First post updated.
If I've make some mistakes, let me know.

[Brazil]

wtf is Bruno ?

[benefactor]

I was wondering the same thing the other day. He had gotten pretty bitter after the whole Parker debacle while Parker was playing in France. I'm wondering if it made him take a break from this place for a while.

He'll be back. :)

[Brazil]

I was wondering the same thing the other day. He had gotten pretty bitter after the whole Parker debacle while Parker was playing in France. I'm wondering if it made him take a break from this place for a while.

He'll be back. :)

I remember a thread where it was said that Bruno is gonna to contribute to an american site for European prospects something like that. Maybe he is quite busy doing that.

[pad300]

Is it possible to write an NBA contract that allows a player to take a leave of absence and play in a different league (eg the equivalent of a university sabbatical) under specific circumstances? Yes, this seems an odd clause to include, but consider the challenges of signing both Manu and Splitter. Both players must be concerned about a work stoppage in the 11/12 season, Splitter in particular.

A clause that said, in the event of a work stoppage in the NBA, the player is entitled to take a leave of absence from the club and seek employment elsewhere on a short term/temporary contract would allow them to alleviate these income concerns (benefits the player), allows them to stay in game shape (benefits the Spurs), and would likely make signing them much easier...

[Bruno]

First post updated. Let me know if I've make a mistake.


Is it possible to write an NBA contract that allows a player to take a leave of absence and play in a different league (eg the equivalent of a university sabbatical) under specific circumstances? Yes, this seems an odd clause to include, but consider the challenges of signing both Manu and Splitter. Both players must be concerned about a work stoppage in the 11/12 season, Splitter in particular.


I don't think it's something you can write in a contract. What happens during the lockout will be decided league wide.

During the 99 lockout, players were allowed to sign overseas but FIBA disagreed that Euro teams signed players for only a couple of months.

The bottom line is that p layers likely won't be paid during the lockout. So I don't see how the league can forbid them to play overseas. What will be important it that they are available at the end of the lockout if they want to get back their previous NBA contract.

[Bruno]

First post updated. :)

[Bruno]

First post updated with some additional infos on Temple and Gee contract (thanks to Sham).

Thee is something to note on how smart Spurs FO is when it comes to CBA tricks:

On March 23rd, Spurs decided to sign Temple for the remaining of the season and for 2010-2011. The usual way to do it is to sign him to a prorated minimum contract for the end of the year and to a minimum contract for 2010-2011 with some guaranteed money (let's say $50K). Given that Spurs will be over the tax in 2010-2011, Temple would have cost $100K to Spurs in 2010-2011 if he was waived at the end of the training camp.

There is a rule in the CBA that a player, that isn't signed as a draft pick, and who is paid less than a 2 years vet count like a 2 years vet against the tax. In Temple case, his 2009-2010 salary would have been $61,909 and Spurs would have paid $111,685 in tax on it.

Last summer, Spurs spend $5.35M of their MLE on Dice and Blair. $504K of their MLE was available. This remaining MLE was reduced by 1/170th each day after January 10th to be at $291K on March 23rd.

Here is the smart part: Spurs use a part of their MLE to sign Temple to $111,000 for the rest of the season and the min salary for the next year. Instead of giving him a $50K guarantee for 2010-2011, they gave him an additional $49K this year ($111K - $61,909). Spurs would have to pay $50K in luxury tax on the guarantee for 2010-2011 while they $0 in tax with their move: Temple still count for $111,685 against the tax this year. Spurs saved $49K in luxury tax with this move.

It's also a win scenario for the player: he gets his money sooner and if he stick with the team, he will earn more money than a player who signed the classical min contract with guaranteed money.

Spurs also use their MLE on Gee. The min contract for him was $45,759 with a $82,550 tax hit. They paid him $150K for the rest of the season. Gee get $104K more than a min salary and Spurs will pay an additional $71K for these $104K. Spurs saved $33K with that move.


It's also noteworthy that between the $150K paid to Gee this year and the $100K guaranteed on is contract after July 1st, Spurs will pay $500K with the luxury tax just to have him on training camp. That's a lot of money and a sure sign that Spurs are high on him.

[Blackjack]

Great info, Bruno. :tu

[benefactor]

Nice. :smokin

[Libri]

This should be a sticky thread.

[lurker23]

Thanks for the info Bruno, great stuff.


This should be a sticky thread.

I agree, can we sticky this? I know we already have a ton of stuff up there, but this is one of those threads I'm always looking for, and one that everyone should read before they propose anything.

[Bruno]

This thread is linked in the Link Dump (http://www.spurstalk.com/forumso/showthread.php?t=124971) thread as are some other Think Tank threads. I find it was a good way to easily access it without having too much sticky threads. Now, if you guys want it as a sticky thread, let's do it.

[elgato21]

Bruno? I've got a question for u...
how is the Splitter's situation right now? Im a caja laborals fan (splitter team), and here everybody says that Tiago will leave us...
Do you think Spurs will offer him the full MLE? of course i want him here , I just dont want him playng for madrid hehehhe

thanks again

[elgato21]

and Bruno, u know what? people says that u are the guy who find out the cba rule( the one that alows splitter sign a better contract).
is true?

[mountainballer]

I have to admit that I didn't completely understand all the tax implications and other details.
what I see (weather it's been the major intention or not) is a team, that needs to fill several roster spots, but hasn't a lot of options (MLE, BAE) to do this.
by creating all this non guaranteed contracts, the Spurs more or less created an additional MLE for them. and that's genius. really really genius.
the trade potential of the 4 contracts is 5.5 million $!
the best thing is, by different combinations of those 4 contracts you can create any needed number between 750K and the 5.5 million to facilitate a trade.
weather the Spurs use this option (and also create a higher tax bill) or not, is another story. point is, they are not only reduced to what the exceptions can bring in.
the ungaranteed contracts might even be more valueable than more money for FAs.
we don't know how the free agency will develop, but there is a good chance that the cap space teams are forced into bidding wars and then desperately look to increase their cap space by dumping a player. (TEs will be of the same value of course, but not many teams hold a 5 million $ TE)

who could be interested?
a team like the Bulls for example. James Johnson could be the deal.
or Heat and Cook. Nets and Yi. Wizards and Young. Kings and Laundry. OKC and Krstic or Collison. Minni and Gomes or Sessions. Knicks and Chandler.
quite some more I guess, if going deeper.

[Bruno]

Bruno? I've got a question for u...
how is the Splitter's situation right now? Im a caja laborals fan (splitter team), and here everybody says that Tiago will leave us...
Do you think Spurs will offer him the full MLE? of course i want him here , I just dont want him playng for madrid hehehhe

thanks again

The maximum contract Spurs are allowed give to Splitter this summer is $35M/5 years. The are also allowed to give Caja Laboral an extra $500K to pay a part of Splitter buyout.

Spurs will never offer that much money to an unproven NBA player like Tiago. I think they will offer him a 3 years contract with a salary between $3M and $4M per year. They will also give $500K to Caja Laboral and Splitter will use his contract to pay the rest of his buyout. It will be a similar contract to the one Scola got from Houston and Scola had a bigger buyout to pay.

Splitter is still under contract with Caja Laboral for 2 more years. He has in his contract a clause that allow him to leave Caja Laboral for the NBA for 1M (I'm not sure if it's in € or in $). It was also said that he has a clause to go to another European team but way higher (maybe in the €8M or €10M range).

Madrid or Barcelona won't pay that much money to get Splitter. The only way they become a serious candidates to get Splitter is if Querejeta agrees to lower Splitter's buyout amount for another European team. Given Querejata's past moves (Mickael, Prigioni and Vidal going to Madrid or Barcelona), I can see him really quickly say to other Europeans team: " if you give us €2M or €3M, Splitter can be yours."


and Bruno, u know what? people says that u are the guy who find out the cba rule( the one that alows splitter sign a better contract).
is true?

:lol
It isn't true.
NBA teams and good agents of course knew this rule. Some fans with a good CBA knowledge also knew it. This rule wasn't just known by Spurs fans (on this site and other ones) and I've shared it with them.

[Bruno]

the trade potential of the 4 contracts is 5.5 million $!


It's a little less than $5.5M.
There combined salary is $3,140,974. With the 125%+100K rule, the max salary Spurs can absorb in a trade is $4,026,217.

[elgato21]

thanks Bruno!
Like I say, I hope he arrive in San Antonio soon,
Real Madrid is struggling and i hear that they want our 21 so bad!!!
is like Duncan going to dallas, can u imagine?

[Big P]

http://www.nbadraft.net/state-cap-san-antonio-spurs-0

By Mike Misek

2010/11 San Antonio Spurs Payroll: $66 million
2010/11 NBA Salary Cap: $56.1 million
Roughly: $9.9 million over cap

Variables:

Tony ParkerTony ParkerRichard Jefferson - ETO for $15.2 million
Roger Mason - Unrestricted Free Agent
Matt Bonner - Unrestricted Free Agent
Ian Mahinmi - Unrestricted Free Agent
Keith Bogans - Unrestricted Free Agent
Malik Hairston - Non-guaranteed Team Option for $854K
Garrett Temple - Non-guaranteed Team Option for $762K
Alonzo Gee - Non-guaranteed Team Option for $762K
Curtis Jerrells - Non-guaranteed Team Option for $762K
Tiago Splitter - Rights retained, $863K cap hold. Splitter’s contract with Caja Laboral expires at the end of this season.
Nando De Colo - Rights retained
Viktor Sanikidze - Rights retained

Draft Picks - 20th pick and 49th pick.

The Good: The reason that the first round upset over Dallas should have been a surprise to no one is that the Mavericks are built for the regular season whereas the Spurs are built for the playoffs. This is not a cliché comment, but is reflective of San Antonio investing heavily in their top seven and less so in the back half and Dallas spending much more on 8-15. Over an 82-game regular season, the Mavericks have a much greater ability to absorb the bumps and bruises of long road trips and back-to-backs. San Antonio lost more than a few games this past season because they do not have the depth to best prepare their stars for the playoffs while also winning the next game. While they finished with the same record as Portland and Oklahoma City, those teams had to battle to get to 50 wins while San Antonio gave a few away. In the first round series, however, there were no back-to-backs and the number of minutes given to ninth to fifteenth men on the roster was microscopic. The series was decided because the core of San Antonio is still better than that of Dallas.

The Bad: The worry going forward, however, is it is getting more and more difficult to get Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker through the regular season and keep them healthy throughout the playoffs. It is not a guarantee that Hill, Splitter, Blair, and a first round pick will be able to carry enough weight to get the team through the regular season in one piece, and how the team handles this offseason will go a long way in determining whether the 2011 Spurs resemble the 2010 playoff team or the battered and bruised squad of 2009. It is still not certain whether the George Hill seen in the Dallas series is the same guy as the one who showed up against Phoenix. DeJuan Blair can be nothing short of great in the right matchup, but when facing length and/or athleticism can be taken out of the game.

The Future: If Richard Jefferson opts in and the Spurs choose to keep their sub-million dollar restricted free agents in the mix, San Antonio will enter the summer over both the salary cap and the luxury tax for only twelve players. For the team to sign Tiago Splitter, they will have to use their mid-level exception pushing them even further into the tax. The Spurs can afford to operate in the tax if they go deep into the playoffs and have multiple rounds worth of playoff gates to offset the tax. The problem will come if they go too far above the tax threshold of $67.1 million. The team might end up finding that replacing Matt Bonner, Roger Mason, and Keith Bogans with veteran minimum signings or rookies to be the best option to balance both the needed talent to compete and the budget. Trading Tony Parker would be doing the unthinkable, but if they received enough talent in return it might be a viable option. It would certainly go a long way to alleviating the tax burden. The worry, however, is that if George Hill is not ready to play as consistently well as Parker has, then the deal could kill any chance the Spurs have left of competing. I do not believe the Spurs would take that risk, but the budget may force the team into making a few interesting decisions this summer.

[elbamba]

Would it count against the Spurs if they offer jefferson a buyout of like $5 million for him to drop the option and go into free agency?

He would not lose as much money and he could be signed to a multi year deal in this scenario so he benefits, the Spurs would save some tax this year and perhaps they could do a sign a trade with a more reasonable salary and bring in a player that would fit the system. Is this possible?

[mountainballer]

Would it count against the Spurs if they offer jefferson a buyout of like $5 million for him to drop the option and go into free agency?

He would not lose as much money and he could be signed to a multi year deal in this scenario so he benefits, the Spurs would save some tax this year and perhaps they could do a sign a trade with a more reasonable salary and bring in a player that would fit the system. Is this possible?

I don't think it's allowed to pay a buy out BEFORE he decided to pick the option. (and that way get him off the cap).
theoretically I can see him take a buyout after he pulled the player option. but not 5 million. at 8-10 he might start to think about it. at this point he is a MLE player (at best), he won't get more than offers in the 20 million range. so he won't leave more than 5-7 million on the table to get the chance for long term contract.

[Bruno]

Sham has updated the guarantee stipulation on Temple contract.

A summary about the situation of players with a non-guaranteed contract:

Malik Hairston:
$854,389 salary
fully non-guaranteed

Curtis Jerrells:
$762,195 salary
fully non-guaranteed

Garrett Temple:
$762,195 salary
Cost $35K to have him in SL
Cost $110K to have him in training camp

Alonzo Gee:
$762,195 salary
Cost $100K to have him in SL
Cost $100K to have him in training camp

Spurs will also be over the luxury tax. All these player will cost an additional $854,389 against the tax if they are kept the whole year. The guaranteed money will also count double against the tax.

If Temple and Gee are still here for the training camp, they will have a significant advantage over Hairston and Jerrels. For example, keeping Hairston over Temple will cost Spurs $312K more or keeping Hairston over Gee will cost $292K more.

At the end, what will matter most is their production in SL/training camp but if these players are close on the court, money could be the deciding factor.

[DesignatedT]

Sham has updated the guarantee stipulation on Temple contract.

A summary about the situation of players with a non-guaranteed contract:

Malik Hairston:
$854,389 salary
fully non-guaranteed

Curtis Jerrells:
$762,195 salary
fully non-guaranteed

Garrett Temple:
$762,195 salary
Cost $35K to have him in SL
Cost $110K to have him in training camp

Alonzo Gee:
$762,195 salary
Cost $100K to have him in SL
Cost $100K to have him in training camp

Spurs will also be over the luxury tax. All these player will cost an additional $854,389 against the tax if they are kept the whole year. The guaranteed money will also count double against the tax.

If Temple and Gee are still here for the training camp, they will have a significant advantage over Hairston and Jerrels. For example, keeping Hairston over Temple will cost Spurs $312K more or keeping Hairston over Gee will cost $292K more.

At the end, what will matter most is their production in SL/training camp but if these players are close on the court, money could be the deciding factor.

Thanks for the info. So do you think its fair to say that Gee/Hairston and Temple/Jerrells will be competing with each other for a spot on the roster or could you see the Spurs keeping 3 or maybe all 4 of them on board?

also, who can play for the Toros?

[TD 21]

Barring something unforeseen, such as Hairston having a terrible summer league/training camp and Gee having an outstanding summer league/training camp, I can't see Hairston not making the team. Even if that occurred, the Spurs have had him and been grooming him long enough that I'd have to think he'd still make the team.

Gee probably needs a very good summer league/training camp to stick. He could get caught up in a numbers game. Say the Spurs draft a wing and sign a wing. Add that to Jefferson, Ginobili, Hill and Hairston and that's six guys ahead of Gee on the depth chart; seven if Temple makes the team. With the Spurs financial situation, he could get squeezed if they're not that enamored with him or if they feel like they'll have no use for him throughout the season. Then again, they could find him an intriguing enough prospect that they don't want to lose his rights and hang onto him even if he's not in the plans for next season. But they'd have to really like him to bite the bullet financially.

Temple I suspect will make the team. Like Hairston, he'd probably have to play himself off of it. The only way he's probably even in danger is if the Spurs draft Williams, his ball handling is better than advertised and they think he's capable of playing some point immediately.

Jerrells I can't see making the team. He'd have to play out of his mind in summer league/training camp and even then, I'm still not sure he'd make it. He'd need a lot to go his way outside of his own play, such as Temple playing terribly and the Spurs not drafting another guard who can handle the ball.

Temple, Gee and Jerrells are all eligible to be assigned to the Toros.

[Bruno]

So do you think its fair to say that Gee/Hairston and Temple/Jerrells will be competing with each other for a spot on the roster or could you see the Spurs keeping 3 or maybe all 4 of them on board?

also, who can play for the Toros?

Players in their first or second NBA year can play in D-Legaue. Only Hairston, who will be in his third year, won't be eligible to play in D-League.

I'm sure all these players will fight for roster spots. Whether 1, 2 or 3 are available will depend on what Spurs do in the draft or FA.

IMO, Temple and Gee are the favorites to get a roster spot. Spurs made a financial effort to steal them from team that wanted to keep them (Wizards and Kings). Jerrels is a long hot to stay. Hairston is in a complicate situation: he is the most expensive to keep and he isn't eligible for the D-League. He will have to show he is significantly better than the other players to stick with the team.