Reason to trade Mahinmi?

[VI_Massive]

Can someone please explain to me the reasons to trade Ian Mahinmi? From my understanding, trading him would likely be a salary-cutting move. It would save the Spurs the rest of what he's owed this year, about 700K I think, plus the discount on the luxury tax from lowering the payroll by that much. In total it would save about 1.5 million, I think.

The possible upside though, and I think a lot of ST agrees with me, outweighs saving that comparatively small amount of money. The payroll is already 80 mill. According to what we've heard, R.C. and Pop persuaded Holt that the team needs to spend more to compete against the LAs and Bostons of the league.

Those teams, especially LA, have many talented, athletic bigs. We need similar players to keep up. They are rare, and coveted by teams who have them. It appears we may have one with Ian. As we all know, the team is getting older, especially on the front line, and needs young athletic big players. In most of the trade talks we have on this board, a young big is often at the top of the wish list. I think we'd all like someone who is a bit more experienced and plays better D than what it seems Ian has to offer, but is what we could find in the trade market going to be significantly better than Ian, more experienced in the Spurs system, any cheaper?

I know a lot of this is repetitive and well-known to those who follow the team, but I'm trying to lay out all the reasons I see to keep him vs. the minimal benefit of saving not a lot of money. I really don't see the logic. I hope this thread isn't too repetitive and I'm hoping it can focus specifically on the reasons to trade him. Can people please explain them to me?

PS: If the Spurs do trade him, this message board may burst into flames.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

1.5 million is 1.5 million, no matter how you present it, this is lots of money and agreeing to a payroll in the range of 80 mil doesn't mean they can afford to continue throwing money left and right. Saving 1.5 mil without sacrificing an asset would probably represent a good opportunity for the Spurs.

Moreover, if Ian is traded for a TE, like NJ's, there would be an open roster spot, which could be used if certain player becomes available after the trade deadline, like we've done with Big Dog, Gooden, etc.

Mahinmi has to beat Blair for minutes in order to squeeze into the rotation, I don't think he could and Blair, obviously, has more long-term value to the Spurs, given their respective contractual situation.

[mountainballer]

1.5 million is 1.5 million, no matter how you present it, this is lots of money and agreeing to a payroll in the range of 80 mil doesn't mean they can afford to continue throwing money left and right. Saving 1.5 mil without sacrificing an asset would probably represent a good opportunity for the Spurs.

Moreover, if Ian is traded for a TE, like NJ's, there would be an open roster spot, which could be used if certain player becomes available after the trade deadline, like we've done with Big Dog, Gooden, etc.

Mahinmi has to beat Blair for minutes in order to squeeze into the rotation, I don't think he could and Blair, obviously, has more long-term value to the Spurs, given their respective contractual situation.

+1
especially agree about the roster spot. ok, this could also happen via a 2 for 1 trade, but why not be prepared as soon as possible. buy out talks heat up the last days. (even if as usual the most buy outs will happen after deadline)
whenever a bought out veteran hits the market, the Spurs will be on of the leading candidates.

[kace]

.
Mahinmi has to beat Blair for minutes in order to squeeze into the rotation, I don't think he could and Blair, obviously, has more long-term value to the Spurs, given their respective contractual situation.


OK for the money part.

but about the rotation, and without getting too hyped with mahinmi performance, i think he deserves the right to show what he can bring.

If all our bigs keep playing at their current level and Ian could be able to play like he did last game, how far do you put him in the bigs rotation behind Tim ?

It's obviously too soon to be too excited by Ian, but the kid surely deserves to play some minutes to see what we have with him.

[VI_Massive]

+1
especially agree about the roster spot. ok, this could also happen via a 2 for 1 trade, but why not be prepared as soon as possible. buy out talks heat up the last days. (even if as usual the most buy outs will happen after deadline)
whenever a bought out veteran hits the market, the Spurs will be on of the leading candidates.

Do y'all know who the likely buy out candidates are?

[yavozerb]

1.5 million is 1.5 million, no matter how you present it, this is lots of money and agreeing to a payroll in the range of 80 mil doesn't mean they can afford to continue throwing money left and right. Saving 1.5 mil without sacrificing an asset would probably represent a good opportunity for the Spurs.

Moreover, if Ian is traded for a TE, like NJ's, there would be an open roster spot, which could be used if certain player becomes available after the trade deadline, like we've done with Big Dog, Gooden, etc.

Mahinmi has to beat Blair for minutes in order to squeeze into the rotation, I don't think he could and Blair, obviously, has more long-term value to the Spurs, given their respective contractual situation.

If the spurs were trying to save $ why would the spurs trade Ian for a pick and TE only to re-sign another player for about the same or more $ to replace his roster spot. What $ would that save? If indeed they trade Ian it will be in package deal or simply to save $ and leave his roster spot empty.

[Chieflion]

Do y'all know who the likely buy out candidates are?
The Washington Wizards may have a few players, that is for sure. Players like Darko Milicic, Nate Robinson may be bought out. Reports are saying Darko and the Knicks are working on a buyout, but Darko has been shooting his mouth off that he wants to return to Europe and play ball.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

OK for the money part.

but about the rotation, and without getting too hyped with mahinmi performance, i think he deserves the right to show what he can bring.

If all our bigs keep playing at their current level and Ian could be able to play like he did last game, how far do you put him in the bigs rotation behind Tim ?

It's obviously too soon to be too excited by Ian, but the kid surely deserves to play some minutes to see what we have with him.

Totally agree that he deserves to get some burn but after so many years with the Spurs the staff probably know everything there is to know about him. It's easy to get excited over one great performance, and kudos to him, but IMO this one game does not change the Spurs or anyone else's perception about him.

Best case scenario would be if he keeps playing this way and earns himself minutes, but the odds are against him. It'd be awesome if he has suddenly blossomed though.

[VI_Massive]

The only Mahinmi trade scenario that would not make me tear my hair out would be in a package deal for someone like Brendan Haywood or someone else very good. A salary dump would be infuriating. I still think trading him at all would be detrimental to the future of the team, but I understand how, given TD's age, we are in a "win now" mode.

[Bruno]

The problem is that Ian will be an UFA this summer and Spurs don't have bird rights on him.

Teams overpay for young athletic bigmen. For example, Ryan Hollins got $7M/3 years last summer. If Ian shows some good things, Spurs will have to spend a part of the MLE to keep him. Spurs will surely have other needs for their MLE like a SG/SF or Splitter.

Right now, Spurs are in a no-win situation with Mahinmi. He is still very green so he won't really be able to help the team short term wise. Long term wise, either he doesn't pan out and Spurs are wasting their time on him or he is good and Spurs will likely lose him this summer.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

A salary dump would be dumb, you would think the Spurs learned their lesson with Scola but then again Pop is a stubborn SOB.

Anyway, the only way the entire Spurs front office wouldn't deserve to have their heads ripped off for trading Ian is if it brought us a quality big in return, say like a Marcus Camby or someone that would fix our front court problems.

Bruno hit on the key point - he's going to cost more than he's likely worth this summer.

[VI_Massive]

The problem is that Ian will be an UFA this summer and Spurs don't have bird rights on him.

Teams overpay for young athletic bigmen. For example, Ryan Hollins got $7M/3 years last summer. If Ian shows some good things, Spurs will have to spend a part of the MLE to keep him. Spurs will surely have other needs for their MLE like a SG/SF or Splitter.

Right now, Spurs are in a no-win situation with Mahinmi. He is still very green so he won't really be able to help the team short term wise. Long term wise, either he doesn't pan out and Spurs are wasting their time on him or he is good and Spurs will likely lose him this summer.

Boy this is smart. It seems contingent on someone else being willing to overpay for Mahinmi, but that is very possible. Part of me thinks he could be helpful in the short-term, but that's almost certainly wishful thinking.

Can you explain why the Spurs don't have his Bird rights?

[Bruno]

Can you explain why the Spurs don't have his Bird rights?

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19



There is one more limit to the maximum salary that can be given using the Larry Bird exception. If the player was a first round draft pick and just completed the third year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise its option to extend the contract for the fourth season (see question number 41), then this exception cannot be used to give him a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised their fourth year option. In other words, teams can't decline the option in order to get around the salary scale and give the player more money.

Mahinmi's option was around $1.8M.

[Fabbs]

Ian cannot be allowed to eat into Bonner or Finleys minutes.
We need both of them if we are going to amass a total of one playoff win again.

Also the money spent on Ian is money that could be used to extend Finley.

Pops knows what he is doing, he's won 4 titles you know.

[VI_Massive]

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19



Mahinmi's option was around $1.8M.

So unless the team dipped into their MLE money, the max the Spurs could offer Ian would be the value of the option the team declined?

[Mark in Austin]

A salary dump would be dumb, you would think the Spurs learned their lesson with Scola but then again Pop is a stubborn SOB.

Anyway, the only way the entire Spurs front office wouldn't deserve to have their heads ripped off for trading Ian is if it brought us a quality big in return, say like a Marcus Camby or someone that would fix our front court problems.

Bruno hit on the key point - he's going to cost more than he's likely worth this summer.

I thought Pop was furious at RC for dumping Scola...

[OrEmuN]

Question: Don't we have early Bird rights for Ian?

[venitian navigator]

By not exercising his fourth year option Spurs have trasformed Mahinmi from a player developing for the team in a hidden diamond (in case they know the value and they won't play him...horrible decision for this year in case he shows signs he can help the team) or immediate trade value (expiring contract/young big).
Imho, like Bruno pointed out, if they think the guy has value for the team, not extending has been a wrong choice and and risk to put the Spurs in lose/lose situation...
If they don't play him thinking he has value, is just for giving him a contract a la Blair...but others team can bite as well (and we have to spend a big part if not all the mle on Splitter).

Not exercising the option, imho, does make sense only if they already decided that, in any case, the guy is not in the team future...and that would be a fail, considering Spurs spent a first choice for him and they developed him (at least in in nbdl) for years...

I, frankly, didn't understand the choice to not exercise the option...it was a risk worth to take, just considering he's more experienced in team's scheme's than Ratliff, Mc Dyess and Blair (and, probably, more athletic than all the trio) and that he never had a real chance to prove himself and that , in the worst case, he could have been used next year in trades, given the fact that next year would have been his last....

[VI_Massive]

Question: Don't we have early Bird rights for Ian?

I think the issue isn't the amount of time Ian's been with the team but the fact that they declined the option, like Bruno mentioned above.

[VI_Massive]

By not exercising his fourth year option Spurs have trasformed Mahinmi from a player developing for the team in a hidden diamond (in case they know the value and they won't play him...horrible decision for this year in case he shows signs he can help the team) or immediate trade value (expiring contract/young big).
Imho, like Bruno pointed out, if they think the guy has value for the team, not extending has been a wrong choice and and risk to put the Spurs in lose/lose situation...
If they don't play him thinking he has value, is just for giving him a contract a la Blair...but others team can bite as well (and we have to spend a big part if not all the mle on Splitter).

Not exercising the option, imho, does make sense only if they already decided that, in any case, the guy is not in the team future...and that would be a fail, considering Spurs spent a first choice for him and they developed him (at least in in nbdl) for years...

I, frankly, didn't understand the choice to not exercise the option...it was a risk worth to take, just considering he's more experienced in team's scheme's than Ratliff, Mc Dyess and Blair (and, probably, more athletic than all the trio) and that he never had a real chance to prove himself and that , in the worst case, he could have been used next year in trades, given the fact that next year would have been his last....

I agree, but maybe the team was reaching a saturation point as far as spending. Although the option was for next year and we have a ton of money coming off the books by then. Maybe it had something to do with how good Blair was looking at that time.

[hater]

Well with Splitter coming in. I don't see a spot for Ian. But I don't see why Pop would not play him this season and see what he got.

I expect to see more playing to Ian as long as Bonner is out

[Bruno]

So unless the team dipped into their MLE money, the max the Spurs could offer Ian would be the value of the option the team declined?

Spurs could also use the LLE on him ($2.08M) but they will need to use MLE to offer him more.

[Stump]

I was among those in favor of giving Ian the fourth year of his rookie contract. Now we're in a situation where we'll get burned if he pans out and we can't pay him enough. Bigmen with lots of potential always come at a high price no matter how much they've actually produced, and I seriously doubt $4.2M over two years would be the best offer out there if he can establish himself as a rotation player this year (understandably a big if).

If he is for real and can play at a high level in more games, I think the Spurs best option would be to go ahead and trade him while his stock is high. A successful Mahimni has no reason to stick around after the season, so why not get something in return for him? The Ian experiment ended this past summer when the front office didn't give him the last year of his contract; we SpursTalk posters just haven't realized it yet.

Best of luck to Ian whatever happens. As a Spur or otherwise.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Reason to trade Mahinmi?



The Rockets need a center.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I thought Pop was furious at RC for dumping Scola...

The top man in an organization never takes the fall for bad decisions if someone else under him can be pointed to.

[CGD]

Question: Don't we have early Bird rights for Ian?

Yes we do, and it's a point not yet mentioned in this discussion so far. Nonetheless while it would change the analysis, the outcome with respect to Ian would stay the same. Here's why:

Applying the Early Bird Exception the Spurs could offer Ian about $1.73M and not hit the luxary tax since that amount is 175% of Ian's last year's salary of $989,670. As you can see that figure is below the value of Ian's option which the Spurs declined (1.8M), so the offer would be legit (the same 1st Round pick rule Bruno indentified also applies to the EBE). Unfortunately, $1.73M may not be enough to resolve the issues already identifed (e.g., teams over paying for bigs).

Where I think the Early Bird Exception will be key is with respect to Roger Mason Jr. next summer. The Spurs will be able to offer RMJ up to $6.6M and get this exception since RMJ's last year salary is $3.78M.

[Darthkiller]

mahimini to the thunder for a 2nd rounder? presti was the one that wanted to draft him when he was the assist gm here .

[boutons_deux]

so we let Ian go, and Splitter doesn't come?

[Stump]

Are you sure about the early bird rights? The difference between qualifying for early bird rather than full bird rights is that a player only had a contract lasting two seasons (like Mason) rather than three. Ian will have been under contract for three seasons when his contract runs out at the end of this season, so why would it be early bird specifically?

If they do have early bird rights, the max they can give Ian is the MLE equivalent with raises for up to five seasons. That would be more than enough.

[VI_Massive]

mahimini to the thunder for a 2nd rounder? presti was the one that wanted to draft him when he was the assist gm here .

That could kill though. If Ian turns out to be good that could be the final piece the Thunder need (along with experience) to be a really killer team.

[pad300]

The problem is that Ian will be an UFA this summer and Spurs don't have bird rights on him.

Teams overpay for young athletic bigmen. For example, Ryan Hollins got $7M/3 years last summer. If Ian shows some good things, Spurs will have to spend a part of the MLE to keep him. Spurs will surely have other needs for their MLE like a SG/SF or Splitter.

Right now, Spurs are in a no-win situation with Mahinmi. He is still very green so he won't really be able to help the team short term wise. Long term wise, either he doesn't pan out and Spurs are wasting their time on him or he is good and Spurs will likely lose him this summer.

He's a UFA, yes, as we didn't pay for his extension (ie the Spurs have no formal opportunity to match an offer he signs). Why don't the Spurs have bird rights (the right to pay him as an exception to the salary cap); they have been paying him for 3 years (which is when Bird rights kick in)?

[PDXSpursFan]

Reason to trade Mahinmi?

He sucks. And 1 good game every 2 years doesn't change that.

[VI_Massive]

He's a UFA, yes, as we didn't pay for his extension (ie the Spurs have no formal opportunity to match an offer he signs). Why don't the Spurs have bird rights (the right to pay him as an exception to the salary cap); they have been paying him for 3 years (which is when Bird rights kick in)?

If you read a bit farther down, Bruno explained that by not picking up the option, the Spurs lost the Bird rights. Some posters say the Spurs still have his early Bird rights, I have no idea about that.

[pad300]

If you read a bit farther down, Bruno explained that by not picking up the option, the Spurs lost the Bird rights. Some posters say the Spurs still have his early Bird rights, I have no idea about that.

Not the same thing; the rule he sites says they can't pay him more than the value of what his 4th year would have been. However, they can still use the bird exception to pay that money, even if they are above the salary cap (which they assuredly will be). Bird rights would mean that a salary for Ian, for up to that value of 1.8 million could be paid, without impacting either the LLE or MLE funds for the 2010 offseason.

[FkLA]

Not sure why everyone automatically assumes this was a showcase game. Pop has been known to do some crazy line-up changes...Ratliff starts one day and gets like 5 DNPs in a row afterwards, Timmy sitting on the bench @ Tor, etc. It could very well have been a showcase game but it also might have simply been Pop mixing things up after the frustrating 4th quarter vs the Mavs.

[SenorSpur]

Finley + Mahinmi = (Rudy Gay) or (Thabo Sefalosha).

That's the only way it makes sense. The Spurs have already committed toward exceeding the salary cap this season. They have expiring contracts in Bonner, Finley and Mason.

Personally, I agree with VI and others who are against the Spurs giving up on this kid. In fact, given the relative age and shaky health of the current frontline, it's would absolutely assinine for the Spurs to simply give up on him. Ratliff could be gone next year. Dice has a limited shelf-life and I don't wanna hear anything about Splitter because his arrival is far from certain. Ian is here, he's been here and knows the system. All he needs is time, continued good health, and some faith by the damn fools that drafted him.

As I've said before, 23 year-old, talented, athletic bigs are not growing on trees, nor are they falling out of the sky. The Spurs now have some evidence that there is something there and they would be Big Fools to turn this kid loose for some other team benefit.

[VI_Massive]

Not the same thing; the rule he sites says they can't pay him more than the value of what his 4th year would have been. However, they can still use the bird exception to pay that money, even if they are above the salary cap (which they assuredly will be). Bird rights would mean that a salary for Ian, for up to that value of 1.8 million could be paid, without impacting either the LLE or MLE funds for the 2010 offseason.

From my reading of http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19, it looks like the Spurs do have Ian's Early Bird rights but that only allows them to sign him for 175% of his salary the previous season or the average player salary, whichever is greater. The average player salary for this year is $5.854 million. 175% of Ian's salary this year is 1,889,370. What I'm wondering is if they are limited to signing him to 1.88 OR the average or anything in between. Also, with early bird rights the deal has to be between 2 and 5 years in length.

[SCdac]

I wouldn't be against SA resigning him, but I'd also wouldn't mind if we used him in netting a more playoff-ready big man, because frankly our championship window is closing more every season. I like the idea of talking it up with Presti in Oklahoma - if there was some way we could land one of Nick Collison (6.2 million) or Nenad Krstic (5.4 million) for Ian, Bonner, or whatever else that would be awesome, but I can't think of any reason OKC would part with either of 'em. Collison seems like more of a bruiser and Krstic is more of an offensive player, but both of them could be starting a C for us.

[CGD]

From my reading of http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19, it looks like the Spurs do have Ian's Early Bird rights but that only allows them to sign him for 175% of his salary the previous season or the average player salary, whichever is greater. The average player salary for this year is $5.854 million. 175% of Ian's salary this year is 1,889,370. What I'm wondering is if they are limited to signing him to 1.88 OR the average or anything in between. Also, with early bird rights the deal has to be between 2 and 5 years in length.

Yes, but keep reading the rules. You will see that the same limitation that applies to 1st Rounders with respect to the Bird Exception also applies to the Early Bird Exception. The most Ian can get is the value of the option the Spurs rejected earlier this season.

Basically the rules are set up to temper the potential for abuse, namley, to prevent teams from declining a player option "in order to get around the salary scale and give the player more money."

[dbestpro]

Spurs could also use the LLE on him ($2.08M) but they will need to use MLE to offer him more.

If through the course of the rest of the season he proves he can play significant minutes and is worth the money for a big man then you pay him.
If it costs the Spurs more money because the Spurs made a mistake then so be it. The worse thing you can do is make a mistake on this guy twice and he turns into a stud.

[objective]

Just trade him to Houston so he can be with management that knows how to use undervalued players.

[CGD]

Are you sure about the early bird rights? The difference between qualifying for early bird rather than full bird rights is that a player only had a contract lasting two seasons (like Mason) rather than three. Ian will have been under contract for three seasons when his contract runs out at the end of this season, so why would it be early bird specifically?

If they do have early bird rights, the max they can give Ian is the MLE equivalent with raises for up to five seasons. That would be more than enough.

Hmm... I was under the impression that this was Ian's second year. If this is his third year, then the Spurs should possess Ian's Bird's right subject to the limitation on 1st Rounder whose teams did not exercise their team option.

[galvatron3000]

what if next years Bigs are Duncan Mahinmi, Blair and Splitter should we trade Ian then or just run with that. Dyess maybe return but that's about it, Haislip will most likely be back overseas cause he can't get minutes with an injured Bonner down and Ratliff and Ian bench, SMH

[Marcus Bryant]

If there was a game for Pop to play Mahinmi just to see what he could do, it would be a home game against a bottom dweller. The only question is, why did it take so long? I think Pop is looking for a spark wherever he can find it.

[dbestpro]

If there was a game for Pop to play Mahinmi just to see what he could do, it would be a home game against a bottom dweller. The only question is, why did it take so long? I think Pop is looking for a spark wherever he can find it.

I agree. The team has had a lack of energy from everybody, even lair. Ian got excited and the team fed off of it, particularly Manu. On a side note it was so nice to see the oppossing player alter his shot (shooting rainbows) when driving to the hoop. Interior shot blocking D allows the perimter D to crowd the shooters and eveybody plays better. It may not last, but it was nice to see.

[CGD]

If there was a game for Pop to play Mahinmi just to see what he could do, it would be a home game against a bottom dweller. The only question is, why did it take so long? I think Pop is looking for a spark wherever he can find it.

I also think Pop was afraid of a let down against a crap team. If you put a hungry player out there with much to prove individually (including his summer FA worth!) their is a good chance the team will have the appropriate energy level.

[SenorSpur]

I agree. The team has had a lack of energy from everybody, even lair. Ian got excited and the team fed off of it, particularly Manu. On a side note it was so nice to see the oppossing player alter his shot (shooting rainbows) when driving to the hoop. Interior shot blocking D allows the perimter D to crowd the shooters and eveybody plays better. It may not last, but it was nice to see.

...and that interior shotblocking something that has been lacking for some time. As we know, Duncan has been toting the frontcourt defensive load for some time. Having another player who has the length and physical talent to provide support in those areas is a definite plus.

[galvatron3000]

I also think Pop was afraid of a let down against a crap team. If you put a hungry player out there with much to prove individually (including his summer FA worth!) their is a good chance the team will have the appropriate energy level.

Yea that's all we've been playing the first half of the season so why did it take this long. Especially after Bonner went down. Why lose a Big and then shorten the Big rotation by not playing Haislip or Mahinmi, that's why they are SUPPOSED to be on your bench, right?

[galvatron3000]

...and that interior shotblocking something that has been lacking for some time. As we know, Duncan has been toting the frontcourt defensive load for some time. Having another player who has the length and physical talent to provide support in those areas is a definite plus.

Good lawd, that's blasphemy to all the Bonner advocate who would rather have a pitiful Horry clone. No one wants shot blocking next to Tim but you and I. Bonner for LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VI_Massive]

Yes, but keep reading the rules. You will see that the same limitation that applies to 1st Rounders with respect to the Bird Exception also applies to the Early Bird Exception. The most Ian can get is the value of the option the Spurs rejected earlier this season.

Basically the rules are set up to temper the potential for abuse, namley, to prevent teams from declining a player option "in order to get around the salary scale and give the player more money."

I see that but the Early Bird limitation is for a player who "just completed the second year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the third season". Ian fits the regular Bird Exception, because at the end of the year (when he'll be re-signed or sign with a new team) he will have been a player who just completed the third year of his rookie contract but the team declined the fourth year exception. As I read it, he doesn't fit in the early bird limitation.

[ChumpDumper]

The top man in an organization never takes the fall for bad decisions if someone else under him can be pointed to.Right, so you're really talking about Holt and the other owners -- not Pop.

[objective]

The top man in an organization never takes the fall for bad decisions if someone else under him can be pointed to.

I thought the Pop public comments about Scola was just CYA.

re: taking the fall at the top . . .

remember the alleged scout who was blamed for the FO not knowing how old Nocioni was? Clearly the scout was responsible, the buck stopped with him.

[temujin]

He had a good game against one of the worst teams in the history of the NBA.

Before talking contracts and millions, wouldn't it be wiser to wait until he has, say, eight straight games in the NBA?

Possibly playing, not watching.

[lurker23]

The problem is that Ian will be an UFA this summer and Spurs don't have bird rights on him.

Teams overpay for young athletic bigmen. For example, Ryan Hollins got $7M/3 years last summer. If Ian shows some good things, Spurs will have to spend a part of the MLE to keep him. Spurs will surely have other needs for their MLE like a SG/SF or Splitter.

Right now, Spurs are in a no-win situation with Mahinmi. He is still very green so he won't really be able to help the team short term wise. Long term wise, either he doesn't pan out and Spurs are wasting their time on him or he is good and Spurs will likely lose him this summer.

After reading much of the thread, this is one of the few takes that is dead on. Bottom line, unless you seriously think Mahinmi is a title piece this year, then the Spurs don't have much to gain by not trading him and giving him a lot of minutes. I doubt the Spurs will bring him back next year if he costs any more than the minimum, and even that might be questionable.

Oh, and Mahinmi =/= Scola. He's given us no real indication that he's anywhere close to Scola. And if it turns out that he is the next long-term regret the Spurs have, trading him now shouldn't be the decision that fans lament for all eternity; rather, the move that sealed his fate (for better or for worse) was not picking up his option for next year.

[ceperez]

Oh, and Mahinmi =/= Scola. He's given us no real indication that he's anywhere close to Scola. And if it turns out that he is the next long-term regret the Spurs have, trading him now shouldn't be the decision that fans lament for all eternity; rather, the move that sealed his fate (for better or for worse) was not picking up his option for next year.

It's completely perplexing that they didn't play the guy for at least one game before the option deadline.

However, an expiring contract has a lot of value in the market and maybe the Spurs have their eye on another potential athletic big man (i.e. Serge Ibaka)

[HarlemHeat37]

I wouldn't mind trading Ian if it helps get a legit big man in return..a 3 for 1 trade for a guy like Haywood, or maybe if they trade Ian for the Nets potential 31st pick so that the Spurs would feel more comfortable giving up our own 1st rounder in a different deal..

If it's just to save money, that's very disappointing..while I understand the reality of the financial implications and the reality that a million $ is a lot of money, even to wealthy owners, it would still be giving up on a guy that has some upside to help us this season..while it's way too early to proclaim anything about Mahinmi after 1 game, he still IS the biggest non-Duncan big we have and by far the most athletic big man we have..it's kind of puzzling how he wasn't given a chance earlier in the season..

That Haislip signing sure turned out to be a waste though, even though it was a low-risk/high reward potential move..I understand that those types of results are likely in these kinds of situations(we lucked out with Bogans though, he's been good), it does look bad in the end..

[SenorSpur]

It's completely perplexing that they didn't play the guy for at least one game before the option deadline.

However, an expiring contract has a lot of value in the market and maybe the Spurs have their eye on another potential athletic big man (i.e. Serge Ibaka)

I like Serge Ibaka too, but I can't see Presti letting him go - even in a trade.

[SenorSpur]

I wouldn't mind trading Ian if it helps get a legit big man in return..a 3 for 1 trade for a guy like Haywood, or maybe if they trade Ian for the Nets potential 31st pick so that the Spurs would feel more comfortable giving up our own 1st rounder in a different deal..

If it's just to save money, that's very disappointing..while I understand the reality of the financial implications and the reality that a million $ is a lot of money, even to wealthy owners, it would still be giving up on a guy that has some upside to help us this season..while it's way too early to proclaim anything about Mahinmi after 1 game, he still IS the biggest non-Duncan big we have and by far the most athletic big man we have..it's kind of puzzling how he wasn't given a chance earlier in the season..

That Haislip signing sure turned out to be a waste though, even though it was a low-risk/high reward potential move..I understand that those types of results are likely in these kinds of situations(we lucked out with Bogans though, he's been good), it does look bad in the end..

How is it possible that Haislip is under contract for next year, but Ian is not? Here is a athletic big, that was a 1st round draft choice, still young, shows promise, but hasn't played. The Spurs brass doesn't what they have in this kid yet because they inexplicably chose not to play him - for some God-awful reason. Meanwhile, the Fakers have cultivated and developed Andrew Bynum into a starting big - and oh, he was drafted the same year as Ian.

They already made the first mistake by not picking up his option. Getting rid of him only compounds this mistake and makes absolutely NO sense. If the FO is going to continue their short-sighted approach toward player personnel, investing only in short-term, experienced options that are all on the north side of 30 years old and dumping young players before they develop, then the FO should forfeit all their future draft choices.

[Obstructed_View]

How is it possible that Haislip is under contract for next year, but Ian is not?
The same reason that Beno Udrih's option was picked up, but Ian's was not.

[wildbill2u]

I agree with the poster who said that not picking up Ian's option probably sealed his fate with the Spurs for a couple of reasons.

1. No matter what the kid says, the Spurs move probably pissed him off. If any other team comes close to that money with an offfer he will take it.
2. Since the Spurs avoided paying Manhinmi 1.7 on the option, they couldn't come close to that money they avoided without looking stupid.
3. They can't continue to play Mahinmi. What if he's one of those guys who doesn't look good in practice but comes to play at game time? They'll look dumb if he's adequate and dumber if he plays well. Playing him is a no-win situation for Pop and FO.

Summary: Spurs aren't about to check their ego at the door and turn around and keep him after not picking up the option. He's gone.

[wijayas]

Can someone please explain to me the reasons to trade Ian Mahinmi? From my understanding, trading him would likely be a salary-cutting move. It would save the Spurs the rest of what he's owed this year, about 700K I think, plus the discount on the luxury tax from lowering the payroll by that much. In total it would save about 1.5 million, I think.

The possible upside though, and I think a lot of ST agrees with me, outweighs saving that comparatively small amount of money. The payroll is already 80 mill. According to what we've heard, R.C. and Pop persuaded Holt that the team needs to spend more to compete against the LAs and Bostons of the league.

Those teams, especially LA, have many talented, athletic bigs. We need similar players to keep up. They are rare, and coveted by teams who have them. It appears we may have one with Ian. As we all know, the team is getting older, especially on the front line, and needs young athletic big players. In most of the trade talks we have on this board, a young big is often at the top of the wish list. I think we'd all like someone who is a bit more experienced and plays better D than what it seems Ian has to offer, but is what we could find in the trade market going to be significantly better than Ian, more experienced in the Spurs system, any cheaper?

I know a lot of this is repetitive and well-known to those who follow the team, but I'm trying to lay out all the reasons I see to keep him vs. the minimal benefit of saving not a lot of money. I really don't see the logic. I hope this thread isn't too repetitive and I'm hoping it can focus specifically on the reasons to trade him. Can people please explain them to me?

PS: If the Spurs do trade him, this message board may burst into flames.

I agree. It is a stupid move to shed a seemingly low salary by NBA standard. Got to see the upside! None of our bigs are that athletic.

[CGD]

I see that but the Early Bird limitation is for a player who "just completed the second year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the third season". Ian fits the regular Bird Exception, because at the end of the year (when he'll be re-signed or sign with a new team) he will have been a player who just completed the third year of his rookie contract but the team declined the fourth year exception. As I read it, he doesn't fit in the early bird limitation.

Yup, I think you're right. The statement that the "the Spurs don't possess Ian's Bird Rights" made earlier in this thread is not accurate. I made a similar observation yesterday:



Hmm... I was under the impression that this was Ian's second year. If this is his third year, then the Spurs should possess Ian's Bird's right subject to the limitation on 1st Rounder whose teams did not exercise their team option.

[VI_Massive]

Yup, I think you're right. The statement that the "the Spurs don't possess Ian's Bird Rights" made earlier in this thread is not accurate. I made a similar observation yesterday:

So just to re-cap and summarize:

1. Ian's regular bird rights limit the Spurs to offering him the value of the extension they declined.

2. Ian does seem to be eligible for the full early bird exception because the limitation that restricts his offer for regular Bird rights does not apply to his early bird rights. So if Ian is eligible for the full early Bird rights, the Spurs can offer him, without touching MLE or LLE, 175% of his pay, or the league average, which ever is higher. In this case that would be the league average, which for next year will be somewhere around 5 mill. The deal has to be between 2 and 5 years in length.

Do I have this right? If so, assuming the Spurs were willing to pay Ian up to the max available under early Bird, wouldn't they be able to make him a pretty solid offer in the offseason? Of course, someone else could blow them away, but they'd be able to give him like 3 years, 12 million or something, right? This is of course assuming they play him and performs well and stay healthy.

[pad300]

Follow up question to all this. IF Ian is traded, he is still a UFA. However, does the team he is traded too have full bird rights? The Spurs don't; they declined his rookie option, and can't pay him more than that would have been worth. The team he is traded to would have made no such decision. If this is the case, there is at least still some value in his bird rights, assuming he continues to play well. Otherwise, he is simply a small expiring contract.

[VI_Massive]

So just to re-cap and summarize:

1. Ian's regular bird rights limit the Spurs to offering him the value of the extension they declined.

2. Ian does seem to be eligible for the full early bird exception because the limitation that restricts his offer for regular Bird rights does not apply to his early bird rights. So if Ian is eligible for the full early Bird rights, the Spurs can offer him, without touching MLE or LLE, 175% of his pay, or the league average, which ever is higher. In this case that would be the league average, which for next year will be somewhere around 5 mill. The deal has to be between 2 and 5 years in length.

Do I have this right? If so, assuming the Spurs were willing to pay Ian up to the max available under early Bird, wouldn't they be able to make him a pretty solid offer in the offseason? Of course, someone else could blow them away, but they'd be able to give him like 3 years, 12 million or something, right? This is of course assuming they play him and performs well and stay healthy.

I've been tweeting back and forth with CBA guru Larry Coon about Mahinmi. He says that, for sure, a team cannot decline an option on a rookie deal and then subsequently pay the player more than the option. So it looks like SA is limited to offering Mahinmi the 1.8 value of the option or using LLE or MLE.

As far as the transfer of his bird rights to team receiving him in a trade, I have no idea.

[Bruno]

To clarify the situation with re-signing Mahinmi.

If Ian is still a Spurs this summer and Spurs wnat to re-sign him, they will have 4 options:
- Minimum contract: 1 or 2 years contract with a minimum salary ($885,120 for the first year and $947,907 for the second year)
- Re-signing using the limited bird exception they have: a contract from 1 to 6 years with a 10.5% raise. The first year can't be higher than $1,786,354M (the value of the 4th year of his rookie contract).
- Using the LLE: 1 or 2 years contract with 8% raise. The max salary for the first year is $2.08M.
- Using the MLE: 1 to 5 years contract with 8% raise. The first year of the contract can't be above about $6M (next summer MLE).

And if Spurs trade Mahinmi, the other team won't have full bird rights on him. Mahinmi's contract situation surely doesn't help his trade value.

[pad300]

To clarify the situation with re-signing Mahinmi.

If Ian is still a Spurs this summer and Spurs wnat to re-sign him, they will have 4 options:
- Minimum contract: 1 or 2 years contract with a minimum salary ($885,120 for the first year and $947,907 for the second year)
- Re-signing using the limited bird exception they have: a contract from 1 to 6 years with a 10.5% raise. The first year can't be higher than $1,786,354M (the value of the 4th year of his rookie contract).
- Using the LLE: 1 or 2 years contract with 8% raise. The max salary for the first year is $2.08M.
- Using the MLE: 1 to 5 years contract with 8% raise. The first year of the contract can't be above about $6M (next summer MLE).

And if Spurs trade Mahinmi, the other team won't have full bird rights on him. Mahinmi's contract situation surely doesn't help his trade value.

Well, congratulations to Spurs management on this one. They have well and truly fucked themselves by declining Mahinmi's option; they didn't even save themselves some tax space this year...

[Bruno]

Well, congratulations to Spurs management on this one. They have well and truly fucked themselves by declining Mahinmi's option; they didn't even save themselves some tax space this year...

Well, you'll be damn right if Mahinmi turns out as a good player. For the moment, it's way too soon to say.

[pad300]

Well, you'll be damn right if Mahinmi turns out as a good player. For the moment, it's way too soon to say.

Even if he doesn't turn out to be a good player, they have minimized his value. Right now he a very small expiring and nothing else. However, given the game he had against the nets, he clearly has some potential even if he never achieves it. But no team can trade for that potential; they have no way of keeping it. If a team trades for him they are limited to paying him a max of 1.8 million next year. Look at the contract Amir Johnson (Detroit) got. Ian can't be thrown into a trade as a prospect on a cheap contract.

[lurker23]

Even if he doesn't turn out to be a good player, they have minimized his value. Right now he a very small expiring and nothing else. However, given the game he had against the nets, he clearly has some potential even if he never achieves it. But no team can trade for that potential; they have no way of keeping it. If a team trades for him they are limited to paying him a max of 1.8 million next year. Look at the contract Amir Johnson (Detroit) got. Ian can't be thrown into a trade as a prospect on a cheap contract.

I think you're putting too much weight on one game. I'd argue that as it stands right now, he has more value as an expiring contract than as an unproven player who is owed close to $2 million next year. That might change if he has 5 more good games, but we'll deal with that "problem" when we get to it.

[OrEmuN]

To clarify the situation with re-signing Mahinmi.

If Ian is still a Spurs this summer and Spurs wnat to re-sign him, they will have 4 options:
- Minimum contract: 1 or 2 years contract with a minimum salary ($885,120 for the first year and $947,907 for the second year)
- Re-signing using the limited bird exception they have: a contract from 1 to 6 years with a 10.5% raise. The first year can't be higher than $1,786,354M (the value of the 4th year of his rookie contract).
- Using the LLE: 1 or 2 years contract with 8% raise. The max salary for the first year is $2.08M.
- Using the MLE: 1 to 5 years contract with 8% raise. The first year of the contract can't be above about $6M (next summer MLE).

And if Spurs trade Mahinmi, the other team won't have full bird rights on him. Mahinmi's contract situation surely doesn't help his trade value.

Do we have the LLE to offer to him ? I am under the impression that we have signed Haslip under LLE and as such, LLE is only available to us next year.

In any case, option 2 does not look too bad. Most probably no one is going to offer much for an player that they have hardly seen (I assume that Pop is not going to play him much) and we still can preserve MLE for Tiago.

Lets keep in mind that Tiago is the number one option and Ian is not. In any case, if Ian does break out, we will stash Tiago for another year and sign Ian on MLE.

[Bruno]

Do we have the LLE to offer to him ? I am under the impression that we have signed Haslip under LLE and as such, LLE is only available to us next year.

There were reports saying that Spurs have signed Haislip with the LLE but they were wrong.
Haislip has been signed to a minimum contract and Spurs will have a LLE next summer.



In any case, option 2 does not look too bad. Most probably no one is going to offer much for an player that they have hardly seen (I assume that Pop is not going to play him much) and we still can preserve MLE for Tiago.

Lets keep in mind that Tiago is the number one option and Ian is not. In any case, if Ian does break out, we will stash Tiago for another year and sign Ian on MLE.

The re-signing problem is only one if Ian plays some minutes and plays well.

Now look at what happens against Mavs and Lakers: Ratliff and Blair barely plays and Pop went with small ball and overplaying Duncan. Pop isn't obviously fine with Spurs current crop of bigmen. Bonner coming back should help but I'm quite skeptical that it will solve everything. Spurs will need an upgrade: a trade is by far the most likely solution but Pop could also give a try to Ian in a kinda desperate move.

And I don't know what Spurs will do with Splitter. He :splitter Spurs in 2008. I'm not sure Spurs FO is willing to "reward" him by offering a big fat contract with him. I can see Spurs saying "you sign for the rookie scale or stay in Europe", especially if they don't badly need him.

[venitian navigator]

I think that in any case Spurs will need him next year...Mc Dyess and Duncan are aged, Ratliff won't be here, Blair, Haislip and Mahinmi are not exactly proven nba players and Bonner is an outside shooter more than a real big... We need a young body than can make what a true big should make : rebound, defend and block shots. Splitter, also if still not with nba experience, fits the scheme : he's long, plays good defene, rebounds dedcently and block shots. I don't know if hes worth the entire mid level, but I seriously doubt that if we solw-ball him offering just the rookie scale he could easily choose to stay overseas...with a little damage for him (he will still command big european money, given he's surely one of the best five bigs in Europe at the moment) and a big damage for Spurs (that will difficultly find a player of that kind, even not at a good price, in nbe market).

[objective]

I'm not sure Spurs FO is willing to "reward" him by offering a big fat contract with him. I can see Spurs saying "you sign for the rookie scale or stay in Europe", especially if they don't badly need him.

I can picture that happening, easily. Even if they do badly need him. That wouldn't stop them from offering $1 million a year AND lecturing him about how no one is guaranteed minutes, so he could forget even asking about a role.

[SenorSpur]

I think that in any case Spurs will need him next year...Mc Dyess and Duncan are aged, Ratliff won't be here, Blair, Haislip and Mahinmi are not exactly proven nba players and Bonner is an outside shooter more than a real big... We need a young body than can make what a true big should make : rebound, defend and block shots. Splitter, also if still not with nba experience, fits the scheme : he's long, plays good defene, rebounds dedcently and block shots. I don't know if hes worth the entire mid level, but I seriously doubt that if we solw-ball him offering just the rookie scale he could easily choose to stay overseas...with a little damage for him (he will still command big european money, given he's surely one of the best five bigs in Europe at the moment) and a big damage for Spurs (that will difficultly find a player of that kind, even not at a good price, in nbe market).

:tu. Good points here.

There isn't any question that we need this guy. Frankly, the fact that the Spurs were dumb enough NOT to pickup the kid's option and the fact that we're having this forum debate to justify him being retained, is insane.

Given his natural raw skills, and the small sample of what we've seen recently, along with his continued development, Ian could be a very integral part of the Spurs future. Hell, they've already invested 4 years in him. Pair him up alongside Blair and Splitter and these 3 guys could allow the Spurs to build a rather formidable frontline. This will help the Spurs hedge themselves against an almost certain talent dropoff.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unless the Spurs are planning a total roster makeover when Duncan shuts it down, tanking a few regular seasons, and breaking out the ol' rabbit's foot, on their way back to New York for the NBA Draft Lottery, in a mad search for the #1 pick and the next Tim Duncan or David Robinson, they can ill-afford to let young talent walk out the door. That goes for Ian, Blair, Hill, & Hairston, too.

For 20 years, the Spurs have been so fortunate to have had not one, but two franchise centers. In all likelihood, that will not happen anytime soon. The Spurs probably will not be bad enough to be an annual lottery team and the number of underclassmen and foreign players pouring into the draft have all worked to change the talent pool landscape of the NBA draft. A franchise-saving, quick-fix, savior is not likely to be heading their way anytime soon. The Spurs are going to have to grow their talent from within.

It's too late to take out auto insurance after the car has been demolished in an accident.

[Obstructed_View]

Could this be the second big roster emergency the Spurs end up with because they were banking on Splitter's arrival and ended up holding the bag when he didn't?

[SenorSpur]

Could this be the second big roster emergency the Spurs end up with because they were banking on Splitter's arrival and ended up holding the bag when he didn't?

Could be. And that's what scares the "s" out of me. This smells like the makings of the Scola fiasco all over again. How does that old saying go about a bird in the hand.....?

Even if the Spurs didn't have Splitter in the vault, no team can afford allowing young talent to walk.

[callo1]

He will reach 20,000 fouls before he reaches 1,000 pts?

[Agloco]

Reason to trade Mahinmi?

He sucks. And 1 good game every 2 years doesn't change that.

:rolleyes

[EricB]

Reason to trade him is if you get someone in return that can improve your team NOW and the next year or two to win a ring.

[Russ]

There is obviously something between Spurs' management and Mahinmi. What it is, I will leave to those in the know.

In any event, for Ian's sake, I hope it is something that he arguably deserves, i.e., perceived laziness or lack of competitive zeal.

Hopefully, it is not just one faction in management taking it out on another for recommending the drafting Mahinini in the first place -- that would truly be unfair to the kid.

[Marcus Bryant]

Let's not overthink this.

Mahinmi was Presti's pick. RC has to get the glory.

Pop can't quit veterans. The older, the better.

There's nobody in the organization who stands to benefit from Mahinmi blowing up. So he'll do so elsewhere.

[SanAntonioSpurs23]

Blair damn!!!!

[Obstructed_View]

There's nobody in the organization who stands to benefit from Mahinmi blowing up.

Someone might want to ask the players on the team if they're willing to sacrifice a title just to keep management from looking uber stupid for nine months.

[angelbelow]

I guess we better ship Ian out before we lose him for nothing. don't think hes gonna play anymore.

[murpjf88]

Reason to trade Mahinmi?

He sucks. And 1 good game every 2 years doesn't change that.

Its not that he sucks, Pop has never even given him a chance. He's still raw, and he needs game experience to get better. Unfortunately, I think the ship has sailed on the Mahinmi express. Pop has probably already made up his mind about Ian's future, and its not in San Antonio. I just hope this one doesn't come back to bite us in the ass like the Scola trade did. He still has a lot of potential, whether he ever reaches his full potential, only time will tell.

[yavozerb]

Mahinmi for Batum..Portland still searching for a big and protland has plenty of sg/sf on the roster..