RJ's Contract Details

[rmt]

Wasn't expecting 4 yr 40 mil. But FO has to have faith in the man to offer him the money.

I'll never understand the constant bitching and whining from fans who think they could make a better GM. It's a god damn roller coaster ride with you people. Its pathetic.

It's one thing to have faith in Duncan, Parker or Manu since they've brought rings to this team but RJ - what has he done but been an "ill-fit" all season long.

If players like Nazr (or Butler/Haywood in DAL) can come in mid-season/after ASB and actually contribute while RJ has had a training camp, pre-season, regular season and playoffs to figure it out and still can't, what makes you or the FO think that anything will change? He shot 5/17 in his last 2 playoff games, averaging 8 points - he still hasn't figured it out - that's what pathetic.

And when it comes time to re-up Parker and Hill, where's the money to come from?

[baseline bum]

Now to cap off this trainwreck of an offseason, the Spurs need to trade Blair to the Lakers for Dick's special friend Luke.

[jcrod]

Trust me - unless we draft another David Robinson or Tim Duncan by some fluke lottery ball mojo we're going to be a lottery team once again the moment Duncan retires.

I know Spurs fans think amazing big men grow on trees but thats a really bad misconception.

When Duncan retires and if Parker is still around, they will not be a lottery team. Parker will be 30 and with a young core group of Tiago, Blair, Hill and Anderson (if he pans out). Parker did wonders two years ago with less talent (Gimpy TD, Finely, Bonner and Udoka). They will have cap room to sign some talent so I don't buy its a given they'll be a lottery team. Duncan hasn't been Duncan for awhile now.

If Parker is gone, then yeah lets hope for another fluke lottery gem.

[Obstructed_View]

I'm not sure how MIG thinks the Spurs are going to get a lottery pick before they become a lottery team.

[jcrod]

About Jefferson. The Spurs had to sign him, we had no choice. Starting salary at 8.4 mil is not great, but its not as bad as some make it out to be. What bothers me is the 4th being guaranteed.

[kobyz]

why not to offer 32 million? nobody will give him close to this and RJ will still say thanks for this offer!

[DesignatedT]

why not to offer 32 million? nobody will give him close to this and RJ will still say thanks for this offer!

link to where nobody will give him close to that.. or are you just assuming.

[Obstructed_View]

About Jefferson. The Spurs had to sign him, we had no choice. Starting salary at 8.4 mil is not great, but its not as bad as some make it out to be. What bothers me is the 4th being guaranteed.

What bothers me about it is the fact that he never becomes an expiring contract and that he's here for three extra years. Unless the Spurs get very very lucky, the whole RJ fiasco is an example of throwing good money after bad.

[AFBlue]

Good God, a fully guaranteed $11M for a 34yr old that showed next to nothing in his only season with the ballclub...that is rediculous. Honestly, I could've been content with RJ back for 3 years at a number that doesn't effectively constrain roster flexibility in out-years...but I just don't see that with this deal. And to pre-empt the whole "who's going to care after Duncan and Ginobili are gone?" argument...

<-----------------this dude will.

After TD and Manu retire, the Spurs will be left with some nice young pieces to re-up and hope to build around. But, none of these guys are ready at this point to fully step into those roles, and those are some awfully big shoes to fill. So, the Spurs also need the flexibility to add additional, potentially major pieces to the roster. Having RJ at $11M is likely to severely hinder that.

Yeah, I'm definitely not liking what this deal means for long-term impact of the ballclub.

:depressed

[GrandeDavid]

This is a good signing and its been a very good offseason. Anyone who says otherwise needs to remember that there are other teams in the League, bigger markets and the Spurs have done a pretty good job with what's available. Sure there are several much better small forwards and centers in the League, but San Antonio ain't having them in reality. Adding Splitter was nice, and bringing back Jefferson was a wise move. Jefferson can and will only get better with that infamous "corporate knowledge" acquired. If he were such a bad fit, such a poor on court and locker room presence then he would have been given his pink slip like Roger Mason.

Obviously the Spurs' front office have made some botches, such as the Luis Scola to Houston disaster, but all in all they've done a good job this summer and I'm looking for the Spurs to be better next season. I think they'll have as good a shot as anyone to beat the Lakers, assuming they stay healthy. But health is an X factor for any team in the NBA.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure how MIG thinks the Spurs are going to get a lottery pick before they become a lottery team.

I knew someone was going to say that.

I guess I was reference the Spurs being a lotto team only because of injuries and not because they were terrible. When Duncan is gone they will simply be terrible.

[GrandeDavid]

Jefferson just turned 30, so when his contract is up in four years he'll still be 33, albeit completing 33 years. Again, I don't think the Spurs had many better options in this market. Good job bringing back Jefferson, fellas.

[MannyIsGod]

What bothers me about it is the fact that he never becomes an expiring contract and that he's here for three extra years. Unless the Spurs get very very lucky, the whole RJ fiasco is an example of throwing good money after bad.

wait, so you're going to call me out on my weird post and then turn around and post that RJ never becomes an expiring contract? You think the Spurs are going to pay him forever? Pretty sure he's an expiring the moment he picks up his option.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and people who think this isn't a lotto team without Duncan are doing one of two things:

1) Seriously underrating Duncan even the way he is now.
2) Seriously overrating players like Blair and Hill.

[AFBlue]

Obviously the Spurs' front office have made some botches, such as the Luis Scola to Houston disaster, but all in all they've done a good job this summer and I'm looking for the Spurs to be better next season. I think they'll have as good a shot as anyone to beat the Lakers, assuming they stay healthy. But health is an X factor for any team in the NBA.

I'm also looking forward to the Spurs being better next season. What I'm not looking forward to is the possibility that Parker walks because the Spurs are unwilling to meet his salary demands due to the substantial luxury tax hit they'll take. I'm also not looking forward to the following years when Jefferson's fully guaranteed contract increases to eight figures and hinders the FOs ability to both extend their current young core and still add significant pieces via free agency.

But next year, yeah it's going to be great.

Unfortunately, I personally won't be able to enjoy the majority of this wonderful next season because I'll be taking a nice six-month vacation to the sandbox...but that's neither here nor there. I should be back for SPAM and the playoffs, which is what really counts.

[kaji157]

May i ask a question here?

Do we have 100% certain that the 4th year is fully guaranteed? I´ve read in Manu´s forum that is partially guaranteed.

Do we have the specifics on the Bonner contract?

[Solid D]

May i ask a question here?

Do we have 100% certain that the 4th year is fully guaranteed? I´ve read in Manu´s forum that is partially guaranteed.

Do we have the specifics on the Bonner contract?

What will you do with all of this information, if it was made available to you?

[Obstructed_View]

wait, so you're going to call me out on my weird post and then turn around and post that RJ never becomes an expiring contract? You think the Spurs are going to pay him forever? Pretty sure he's an expiring the moment he picks up his option.

From a value-to-the-team standpoint, he never does. If the final year is his option, he doesn't become an expiring contract because only he knows if he's going to opt out. Case in point: Richard Jefferson three weeks ago.

And yeah, I couldn't resist on your post.

[MannyIsGod]

From a value-to-the-team standpoint, he never does. If the final year is his option, he doesn't become an expiring contract because only he knows if he's going to opt out. Case in point: Richard Jefferson three weeks ago.

And yeah, I couldn't resist on your post.

What you mean is that in his 3rd year he won't be an expiring contract. I can't see any reason on earth why RJ opts out of that fourth year. In any event, the contract will have plenty of expiring value in the final year just like every other expiring contract.

[mingus]

damn, reading some of the posts here ... i guerss i just have more optimism about next year.

i think there's a lot ot look forward to and I happen to think the window is still very open for us.

Last year we had RMJ and Bogans as back up sg and sf, respectively. Anderson obviously is way more talented than both of those guys. Neal was a star in Europe an has more weapons offensively than Mason.

[DPG21920]

Lol pessimistic unrealistic moron

:lol How are all the people that hate this unrealistic?

People smarter than you or I (namely Bruno and Timvp) hate it.

So you truly think this contract has absolutely no negative effect one way or the other?

[MaNu4Tres]

:lol How are all the people that hate this unrealistic?

With all due respect, your fucking clueless.

I was talking about El Nono's wishful unrealistic scenario where he claims Spurs could have netted Korver or Mike Miller in a straight up sign and trade for R.J quite simply.

I disagreed and claimed that scenario was very unrealistic and very-far fetched.

*Hence the pessimistic unrealistic moron remark.*

Get a clue.

[AFBlue]

damn, reading some of the posts here ... i guerss i just have more optimism about next year.

i think there's a lot ot look forward to and I happen to think the window is still very open for us.

Last year we had RMJ and Bogans as back up sg and sf, respectively. Anderson obviously is way more talented than both of those guys. Neal was a star in Europe an has more weapons offensively than Mason.

Counting on Anderson and Neal, who have not proven anything on the NBA level, to be better than RMJ and Bogans will probably lead to disappointment.

They aren't the reasons you should be optimistic. The reasons you should be optimistic are...

1) Tony Parker healthy and fresh
2) Tony Parker healthy and fresh
3) Return of key players
4) Addition of Splitter to frontline
5) Development of young core (Hill, Blair, Temple/Hairston/Gee)

[kaji157]

What will you do with all of this information, if it was made available to you?

Nothing good, for sure...

[DPG21920]

With all due respect, your fucking clueless.

I was talking about El Nono's wishful unrealistic scenario where he claims Spurs could have netted Korver or Mike Miller in a straight up sign and trade for R.J quite simply.

I disagreed and claimed that scenario is very unrealistic and very-far fetched.

*Hence the pessimistic unrealistic moron remark.*

Get a clue.

:lol You mad? You kept telling me "I don't get it" because you said there is no negative impact to this deal, so I thought you were referring to that because El Nono was on that side of the argument.

:lol at your throw away lines:

"I see you just don't get it"

"With all due respect, you are f*cking clueless"

"Get a clue"

You are like a human cliche.

[MaNu4Tres]

:lol You mad? You kept telling me "I don't get it" because you said there is no negative impact to this deal, so I thought you were referring to that.


:lol at you throw away lines:

"I see you just don't get it"

"With all due respect, you are f*cking clueless"

"Get a clue"

You are like a human cliche.

I never said there was ZERO negative impact on the deal, I just simply tore down a few of your reasons why it supposedly negatively impacted the Spurs.

[kaji157]

Counting on Anderson and Neal, who have not proven anything on the NBA level, to be better than RMJ and Bogans will probably lead to disappointment.

They aren't the reasons you should be optimistic. The reasons you should be optimistic are...

1) Tony Parker healthy and fresh
2) Tony Parker healthy and fresh
3) Return of key players
4) Addition of Splitter to frontline
5) Development of young core (Hill, Blair, Temple/Hairston/Gee)

I would say that if there are any real reasons to think high are.

1- Tp being healthy and fresh from the begining.
2- Manu being healthy and fresh from the begining.
3- 2nd year from RJ, Dyess, Blair and Temple.
4- Addition of Splitter.
5- Younger and hunger thrid fiddles.

[DPG21920]

Not really "tore" down. You used hypothetical situations and opinion to refute some of what I said though.

I have seen you say nothing about the potential negative effects. All you have done is say "tell me how there is a negative to this". Implying you don't see one.

[AFBlue]

I would say that if there are any real reasons to think high are.

1- Tp being healthy and fresh from the begining.
2- Manu being healthy and fresh from the begining.
3- 2nd year from RJ, Dyess, Blair and Temple.
4- Addition of Splitter.
5- Younger and hunger thrid fiddles.

Manu was healthy and fresh from the beginning last year....that's not a change. Besides that, you repeated everything I said. But the fact that you agree means we have reached consensus. That feels good.

[kaji157]

Manu was healthy and fresh from the beginning last year....that's not a change. Besides that, you repeated everything I said. But the fact that you agree means we have reached consensus. That feels good.

Manu was healthy, but not fresh. Remember he said a couple of times how he lacked strenght on his legs and felt rusty.

[AFBlue]

Manu was healthy, but not fresh. Remember he said a couple of times how he lacked strenght on his legs and felt rusty.

In that case, Tony will be healthy but not fresh to start the season...still, it's better than injured.

[DPG21920]

I never said there was ZERO negative impact on the deal, I just simply tore down a few of your reasons why it supposedly negatively impacted the Spurs.


:lol

Jefferson is not a washed up scrub by any means.


Giving him a deal 3 yr/24-27 mil or 4 yr/30-32 mil (4th year being partially guaranteed or having a team option) is a good and fair deal to make and it doesn't necessarily hinder the Spurs future by any means.

Explained here..

He did not get that deal and you did say it does not hinder the Spurs future. Unless you did not mean it that way.

[MaNu4Tres]

Not really "tore" down. You used hypothetical situations and opinion to refute some of what I said though.

I have seen you say nothing about the potential negative effects. All you have done is say "tell me how there is a negative to this". Implying you don't see one.

Pretty sure I tore them down.imo But you have a big ego, so I'll let you believe otherwise.

[The Truth #6]

As usual, a lot of people are working really hard to make lemonade out of this.

Our window, if it's even still open is next year. If RJ is so important than let him play his last year, see how we do by mid-season, and then at that point make assessments on trading RJ, and TP, depending on how things shape up.

Instead, they go full retard on deals to Bonner and RJ - players no one gives a crap about...but us.

It looks like they overestimated how the FA period would go and gave in to RJ's restructuring of his contract. Maybe it looked good at the time, but there's no way it looks good now. The dude is lazy. Even if he learns the system, he has no more incentive to play hard. When has he shown an ability to persevere? He's going to mail it in even worse the next 4 years. He wasn't working with Pop. The whole thing stinks. Ironically, his stats go up in 3 years when the team is in the tank and we're Milwaukee v. 2.0.

Looking back it's sad to see how poorly Bowen was treated in his last year compared to how well RJ has been treated with this ridiculous contract. Just bizarre.

[AFBlue]

I go with DPG in this argument...partially because I believe him, but mostly because he's the man for his place and time. I'm talking about the dude here.

[AFBlue]

Instead, they go full retard on deals to Bonner and RJ

:lol

And as everyone knows...you never go full retard.

[ThaBigFundamental21]

Way to much money, and a year to long at that.

[DPG21920]

Pretty sure I tore them down.imo But you have a big ego, so I'll let you believe otherwise.

:lol Another throw away line.

Link to my big ego?

I can link to yours by telling people "they just don't get it" & to "f*ck off" & calling them "uninformed idiots".

Then you use hyperbole to claim you "tore down" arguments. That reeks of ego right there.

Then I catch you lying about saying "you never said there is no negative impacts". I quoted it.

Just because you think RJ's fully guaranteed, 4 year contract is an asset and disregard the effects in the final year or two (not from signing FA's with extra money, but the ability to re-sign TP and to bring on other players because they are capped out and are only willing to spend so much) does not mean you "tore" any thing down or that your opinions are any more valid.

Like I said, people way smarter than you and I think this deal sucks.

[DPG21920]

I go with DPG in this argument...partially because I believe him, but mostly because he's the man for his place and time. I'm talking about the dude here.

:lmao

[MaNu4Tres]

You used hypothetical situations and opinion to refute some of what I said though.

I have seen you say nothing about the potential negative effects. All you have done is say "tell me how there is a negative to this". Implying you don't see one.

:lol @ hypothetical situations.

I have nothing more to say to you.

Go dig up more quotes from me, and try to degrade me by making false accusations.

But to answer your question, I actually don't like that the 4th year is guaranteed now with a player option. In my perfect world it would be a 3 year deal, where his expiring becomes a valuable trading asset as Duncan's 20 million comes off the books. Now Spurs will have to wait another year to try to use his expiring(if he opts in) in a trade scenario where they net an expiring contract and a player for the future.

[AFBlue]

I should also have keyed in on this one...


The dude is lazy.

The dude is most certainly that. Possibly the laziest in Los Angeles county, which would put him in the runnin' for laziest worldwide.

[DPG21920]

:lol @ hypothetical situations.

I have nothing more to say to you.

Go dig up more quotes from me, and try to degrade me by making false accusations.

But to answer your question, I actually don't like that the 4th year is guaranteed now with a player option. In my perfect world it would be a 3 year deal, where his expiring becomes a valuable trading asset as Duncan's 20 million comes off the books. Now Spurs will have to wait another year to try to use his expiring(if he opts in) in a trade scenario where they net an expiring contract and a player for the future.

Why are you laughing? You used a hypothetical argument about RJ's contract. You thought it would only be 32M guaranteed. It's not. That is reality.

You also use hypothetical that he might not opt in and that he is a trade chip.

How am I trying to degrade you? You are going wayyyyyyyyy overboard. Almost Ericb territory.

You tell me I don't have a clue, tell me to f*ck off, tell other people they are uninformed idiots, tell us you "tear down" our arguments and then when we quote actual things you say, you accuse us of having egos and say we try to degrade you?

lol what?

[MaNu4Tres]

Then you use hyperbole to claim you "tore down" arguments. That reeks of ego right there.

I seldom act as such, I only do when warranted and I'm the type of guy that doesn't take nonsense from anyone. So be it.



Then I catch you lying about saying "you never said there is no negative impacts". I quoted it.

I never said there is absolutely no negative impact. There is no negative impact and "doesn't necessarily hinder the Spurs future by any means" are two different things. Doesn't necessary hinder the Spurs future means for the most part it doesn't hinder the future by any means.





Like I said, people way smarter than you and I think this deal sucks.

And people WAAAAAY smarter than you think this deal is the right and fair and doesn't necessarily hinder the rebuilding process. (Such as R.C Buford and Gregg Popovich.

[DPG21920]

I seldom act as such, I only do when warranted and I'm the type of guy that doesn't take nonsense from anyone. So be it.

What did I say that warrants you acting like that? Please show me. You taking something the wrong way is a different story.








And people WAAAAAY smarter than you think this deal is the right and fair and doesn't necessarily hinder the rebuilding process. (Such as R.C Buford and Gregg Popovich.

Another perfect example of your ego. I always said people smarter than "YOU & I", never just you. I did that on purpose. You try to single me out while raising your point.

Your counter point that people smarter than "me" only adds to the point I was making. It does not detract from it.

My point was it is foolish and egotistical to say you tore down any arguments because there are clear arguments to be made on both sides by smarter people than YOU & I.

[Chieflion]

Guys, can't we all just be friends?






Is the blue font needed?

[benefactor]

lol robbery

[Chieflion]

lol robbery

I thought that post came out before the official contract details did.

[MaNu4Tres]

You aren't aware of what bad contracts do to teams rebuilding process.

You can say screw the future all you want, but you look silly doing so when your team has no shot at a title now IMHO.



No you are not aware.

R.J's new deal won't hinder their rebuilding process with Manu and Tim making maximum salary the next 2 seasons. Spurs wouldn't be able to afford a significant free agent anyway the next 2 years with or without R.J's new deal.

His new deal doesn't handcuff them in any potential signings or take away their future 1st round picks either.

I also care about the future, but I'm fully aware R.J's contract (when it won't be as valuable to other teams --the first 2 seasons) won't hurt the Spurs from adding anything because of cap situation with Manu, Tim, Splitter, Bonner, Anderson, Blair, Hill, McDyess, Gee, Temple under contract. They will still only have around 5-7 million to make additions via MLE/ LLE with or without R.J's new deal.

Entering his 3rd season, Tim's contract comes off the books for 20 million. Which frees up money to add a significant free agent ( If Spurs can find a match) and Spurs will have a valuable expiring contract in Manu to use as a valuable trading asset to net assets for the future.

Entering his 4th year, if Spurs pass on the options that were available the previous season or if the free agents simply don't want to come to SA (which is reasonable), the Spurs then will have even more money with Manu's contract coming off the books ( If he isn't traded for future assets already). Also, R.J's contract be an expiring trading asset before or during his final season to give the Spurs an asset for the future. If not, then Spurs will use the money coming off the books for the 2014 summer.



TP could very well be gone bc of this and your "explanation" does nothing to truly refute that. It is purely your opinion, like this is many of ours.



With R.J, Splitter, Bonner, Anderson and Neal now signed Spurs will be close to 58 million for the 2011/2012 season without Parker.

With Parker, if his deal is back loaded, they may be able to fit him under the luxury tax (70.37 million; current lux-level; most likely to change) still if he doesn't look for a max-deal. If he looks for a max deal, Spurs will still be able to afford him under the luxury tax by McDyess retiring and by Spurs waiving one of Gee/Hairston/Neal (whichever doesn't pan out).

If he does look for a max-deal, I don't expect Parker to be resigned especially if he has a so so year for his standards and if Hill and Temple continue to show significant progress next year.

Here are other reasons:


There was no realistic scenario the Spurs could have done to put them in a better position the next two years. At least realistically.

I'm all for giving the young guys an opportunity as well.

And next year even with Jefferson, the young guys will have a significant opportunity with Finley, Mason and Bogans all gone. (10-20 MPG at the 2; 15-18 MPG at the SF position.)

So saying you rather give the young players an opportunity instead of re-signing R.J doesn't make sense.


To my understanding you have been pretty damn adamant on the Spurs letting R.J go and signing a player like Simmons, Nachbar, Hayes (best case signings) to play 24-28 minutes a night.

Do you understand that scenario (instead of the current scenario; R.J re-signed) just gives the young players 6-8 more minutes a night?

So you'd be willing to sacrifice significant talent at the starting SF position (Jefferson for Simmons, Nachbar, Hayes at best*) in order to free up a measly 6-8 minutes a night for the young wings? That makes no sense.

As I said already, the young players will still be given a significant opportunity with the newly re-signed R.J because of Mason, Bogans and Finley all gone.


Do you realize if Spurs signed Simmons or Hayes with the remainder of the MLE for say 3 years, the difference between their contract and R.J's is not close to 10 million?


1st year: (R.J's)8.4 million- (F.A) 2.365 million = 6.04 million
2nd year: 9.28 million- 2.55 million = 6.78 million
3rd year: 10.16 million- 2.74 million = 7.42 million

Even if it was 10 million extra in cap space like you say, which it is obviously not, the Spurs would still not be able to afford a significant free agent anyway with or without R.J the next two seasons, which was stated here


R.J's new deal won't hinder their rebuilding process with Manu and Tim making maximum salary the next 2 seasons. Spurs wouldn't be able to afford a significant free agent anyway the next 2 years with or without R.J's new deal.

His new deal doesn't handcuff them in any potential signings or take away their future 1st round picks either.

I also care about the future, but I'm fully aware R.J's contract (when it won't be as valuable to other teams --the first 2 seasons) won't hurt the Spurs from adding anything because of cap situation with Manu, Tim, Splitter, Bonner, Anderson, Blair, Hill, McDyess, Gee, Temple under contract. They will still only have around 5-7 million to make additions via MLE/ LLE with or without R.J's new deal.

Entering his 3rd season, Tim's contract comes off the books for 20 million. Which frees up money to add a significant free agent ( If Spurs can find a match) and Spurs will have a valuable expiring contract in Manu to use as a valuable trading asset to net assets for the future.

Entering his 4th year, if Spurs pass on the options that were available the previous season or if the free agents simply don't want to come to SA (which is reasonable), the Spurs then will have even more money with Manu's contract coming off the books ( If he isn't traded for future assets already). Also, R.J's contract be an expiring trading asset before or during his final season to give the Spurs an asset for the future. If not, then Spurs will use the money coming off the books for the 2014 summer.


*NOTE JUST MY OPINION- NOT FACT*
We can agree to disagree on this. :toast

There were no signs to suggest that R.J's athleticism was declining and I don't think he's an average player. In fact, he has a high talented ceiling to reasonably believe he has the ability to improve to be more efficiently effective in a multitude of ways (not just one way like Mason(shooting) or Bogans(decent defense)).

If he didn't have such a proven resume and if he was one-dimensional with a low ceiling like a Mason or Bogans then I'd agree with you. But that is not the case with Jefferson. IMO

So to say he can't change from last year, when he's proved year in and year out to be a top 10 small forward in the league doesn't make sense to me.

Spurs had much bigger issues and weaknesses last year, such as a horrid nucleus of a bench in Mason, Bogans, to an extent Bonner over Blair (which they have already improved simply by having Anderson and Hairston on the roster in place of Mason, Bogans).

The second major weakness was the fact that the interior defense had deteriorated and was the worst it had ever been in the Duncan era (which they improved by signing Splitter).


Spurs are spending 6.04 million more in year one /6.78 million more in year 2/7.42 million more in year 3 because they don't want the team to regress as a whole with new additions (Splitter, Anderson, fresh Parker/Manu, improved Blair/Hill, Hairston finally getting an opportunity).

If the Spurs decided to save the 6.04 million+, the Spurs wouldn't have improved as much with the new additions because of the significant difference between Jefferson and Simmons or Hayes (best case scenario)starting.

By spending the money, Spurs are only significantly improving.

[MaNu4Tres]

I thought that post came out before the official contract details did.

It was before, and I said it had a chance being a steal because of his stock being at an all-time low. Obviously that is not the case now.

[DPG21920]

I don't get why you just re-posted all of that. It does not make any difference. I am now more interested in how you pulled an EricB :lol

At least you got me off of the RJ topic for now.

[DPG21920]

Also, it does handcuff them in signings because with him on the books, they might not want to take on another player (at whatever the salary would be). I could be wrong, but we will see.

Again, you act like there are no negatives and re post everything you said.

So lets do it this way. You post what you think some potential negatives could be.

[ElNono]

:lol @ hypothetical situations.

lol, there's not one projection posted by you in this thread that's not hypothetical.

TBH, I have no beef with you. I think what the FO did is very shortsighted, and that's my opinion, but we can sit down and argue all day and it's all going to be hypothetical situations looking down the line.

RJ is here, there's no going back. I didn't like the contract they handed him and neither I like the contract they handed to Bonner. I'm disappointed in that they bet from the get go on the status quo. But there's nothing I can do about it other than support the team and wish they both turn it around.

As I said earlier, this is water under the bridge now. Time to look forward and see what happens.

[Chieflion]

I am here to support the facts. Has RJ's athletic abilities declined? I say yes. There is no direct statistical proof to say he lost athletic ability but there are indirect numbers. It actually happened for quite a while now in 2007.

After RJ played a healthy 2005-2006 NBA season (rebounding percentage at 10.2%), in 2006-2007 season, he had an injury and only played 55 games. His rebounding percentage dropped 3% to 7.2%.

This isn't an outlier. RJ had 2 other seasons with his rebounding percentage above 10%, none of them after the 2005-2006 season. With the Spurs, his rebounding percentage is 8.3%, which is a slow but gradual improvement from 2007. Does this show his athletic ability has declined? Maybe. There are other examples of bigs whose rebounding percentage has declined while they become older and their rebounding rate drops gradually while they lose their athletic ability. And he played quite some small ball PF, which doesn't make the improvement really significant.

Moving on, steals percentage. In Jefferson's early years, he had good steal percentages. He always finished at 1% or higher except for 2 seasons. One is his injury-riddled 2006-2007 season, the other was past season, the 2009-2010 season. I think he shows some decline in his abilities here. Maybe he was used as a small ball PF a little too much.

Blocks percentage is an outlier here though. It stands out as an obvious outlier here. After Richard Jefferson's first 2 seasons in the NBA, he never averaged above a 1% block percentage. He did it last season. Otherwise, he was usually hovering around 0.4%. Is this sign of him not losing athletic ability or a sign of too much small ball PF? I don't know.

[MaNu4Tres]

So lets do it this way. You post what you think some potential negatives could be.

-R.J tearing an ACL or pulling a Grant Hill 2001 and Spurs are stuck with his salary for 4 years.

-R.J continually regresses significantly and has an even worse year than last year. Which could happen.

Even if these negatives do happen though, Spurs will be able to afford the same free agents as they would if they hadn't resigned Jefferson.

So signing him is irrelevant with what free agents they can add the next 2 seasons.

Entering season 3, Duncan's contract comes off the books and Spurs will be able to then afford a significant free agent. Spurs can even squeeze in another significant free agent if R.J is included in a sign and trade. (Far-fetched)

Entering season 4, Manu's contract comes off the books for the Spurs to have an opportunity to add even another piece and then R.J's contract becomes a valuable expiring asset.

[cd98]

I don't know if RJ's athletic ability has declined. All I know is that there hasn't been a Spur at the small forward position that could dunk like he did over Greg Oden and others in about 15 or so years.

If he's declined at all, it's not by much when he can still dunk on people like he did last season.

His "decline" has more to do with less opportunities than actual age in my opinion.

[ploto]

I am wondering when the dust settles how many Spurs fans will be laughing so much at other teams' deals when they see what the Spurs paid to keep Jefferson and Bonner for 4 more years!

[objective]

all the people posting about their concerns with how this terrible RJ contract will affect Parker are pretty much spot on.

Parker had to go public with Pop just to beg Holt to crap in another $2 million over 6 years. But now he sees how a one year disappointment gets paid beyond what is even considered the Spurs title window?

Paying RJ his ridiculous salary now, I don't see any way Parker is willing to give a discount. Nor Duncan if he ever re-ups.

Furthermore with all the talk over the years about how this would eventually become 'Tony's team' . . . how good could that team be when it's hamstrung by an Eddy Curry-sized contract albatross?

Maybe you can spin that year 4 will be an expiring, but expirings never got jack in return with LaFrentz and Szczerbiak. Even Chandler's expiring contract only got back modest one year savings but added future obligations like Matt Carroll and Najera's contracts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

-R.J tearing an ACL or pulling a Grant Hill 2001 and Spurs are stuck with his salary for 4 years.

-R.J continually regresses significantly and has an even worse year than last year. Which could happen.

Even if these negatives do happen though, Spurs will be able to afford the same free agents as they would if they hadn't resigned Jefferson.

So signing him is irrelevant with what free agents they can add the next 2 seasons.

Entering season 3, Duncan's contract comes off the books and Spurs will be able to then afford a significant free agent. Spurs can even squeeze in another significant free agent if R.J is included in a sign and trade. (Far-fetched)

Entering season 4, Manu's contract comes off the books for the Spurs to have an opportunity to add even another piece and then R.J's contract becomes a valuable expiring asset.

I do not know why you even bother. Its not like they are even trying to address anything you say. They just blather the same nonsense or throw out red herrings.

[ElNono]

-R.J tearing an ACL or pulling a Grant Hill 2001 and Spurs are stuck with his salary for 4 years.

-R.J continually regresses significantly and has an even worse year than last year. Which could happen.

Even if these negatives do happen though, Spurs will be able to afford the same free agents as they would if they hadn't resigned Jefferson.

So signing him is irrelevant with what free agents they can add the next 2 seasons.

Entering season 3, Duncan's contract comes off the books and Spurs will be able to then afford a significant free agent. Spurs can even squeeze in another significant free agent if R.J is included in a sign and trade. (Far-fetched)

Entering season 4, Manu's contract comes off the books for the Spurs to have an opportunity to add even another piece and then R.J's contract becomes a valuable expiring asset.

Yeah, but if he would not have opted out and he lays another turd this season, we could have had a nice $15m trading chip we could have traded for different/better talent to have one more go before Tim retires. Or swapped him for expirings or a TE that would have allowed us to do a trade at a later day. Obviously, that would mean the FO would have needed to take a fairly high tax hit for that to happen. They decided to avoid the tax instead and refinance RJs, and well, it's their money and their choice, so be it.

[TD 21]

This debate is still going on? Who has a long, drawn out back and forth and hijack's a thread like this? The nerve of some people...

I'm fairly certain this deal was in place before free agency even commenced. The Spurs probably talked Jefferson into opting out. Basically, you do us a favor (if it's not entirely wiped away, he single-handedly allowed them to drastically slash their luxury tax bill and re-sign Bonner, which we all knew they wanted to do), we'll do you a favor (give you a contract you won't get anywhere else).

He probably wouldn't have opted out had a deal like this not been presented to him beforehand. I doubt he'd have opted out and risked a deal like this being out there. Could the Spurs have lowered it when he agreed to accept it? Yeah, because there more than likely wasn't an offer even close out there. But if this was a standing offer for a few weeks, it's unethical to after the fact lower it when he agrees to accept it. It would also lead to him moping and his play probably being affected.

[ElNono]

This debate is still going on? Who has a long, drawn out back and forth and hijack's a thread like this? The nerve of some people...

I'm fairly certain this deal was in place before free agency even commenced. The Spurs probably talked Jefferson into opting out. Basically, you do us a favor (if it's not entirely wiped away, he single-handedly allowed them to drastically slash their luxury tax bill and re-sign Bonner, which we all knew they wanted to do), we'll do you a favor (give you a contract you won't get anywhere else).

He probably wouldn't have opted out had a deal like this not been presented to him beforehand. I doubt he'd have opted out and risked a deal like this being out there. Could the Spurs have lowered it when he agreed to accept it? Yeah, because there more than likely wasn't an offer even close out there. But if this was a standing offer for a few weeks, it's unethical to after the fact lower it when he agrees to accept it. It would also lead to him moping and his play probably being affected.

We all understand how it went down. The question is wether it made sense from a competitive standpoint for the Spurs to tender that offer to RJ in order to avoid the tax hit. Obviously, from the short term economic standpoint, it makes sense, but competitively speaking, did this deal made us better to try to maximize Duncan's last two seasons? What are the economic consequences long-term from this deal?

[MaNu4Tres]

It's w/e...

I've said my piece

I clearly understand R.J is not the picture-perfect fit, I have never donned R.J as the second coming or the Real Alexander. I'm just aware of the financial situation the Spurs have in place the next 2-3 years and how R.J's new deal doesn't affect who the Spurs can bring in via Free Agency because of the salary that is committed to the Spurs (even w/out R.J) for at least the next two years.

And I also understand Spurs couldn't have done better realistically in terms of filling their starting SF spot this off-season(even if R.J doesn't fit perfectly like Bowen did).

Which all collectively brings me to the notion I currently stand in.

[DPG21920]

Nothing but love for my man Manu4Tres though

[objective]

Entering season 3, Duncan's contract comes off the books and Spurs will be able to then afford a significant free agent.

I don't know how realistic that is if Parker is re-signed.

Year 3 salaries:

Parker if re-signed after 2011 will be a 10 year vet, meaning his max would start at 19 per based on the current deal just in the 11-12 year. But let's assume he doesn't hold RJ's contract against Holt in negotation and merely wants a modest raise.

Parker = 16
Manu = 14.1
Jefferson = 10.1
Bonner = 4.0 ? by year 3 I'm sure it could creep up that far
Splitter = 4.1
Blair = 1
Hill = 2.3
Anderson = 1.5 (equal's Eric Maynor's year 3)

That's 53 for 8 players. Plus roster charges and they're looking at being in MLE territory. Assuming the cap stays relatively the same after the new CBA, which isn't safe to assume.

[MaNu4Tres]

This debate is still going on? Who has a long, drawn out back and forth and hijack's a thread like this? The nerve of some people...

I'm fairly certain this deal was in place before free agency even commenced. The Spurs probably talked Jefferson into opting out. Basically, you do us a favor (if it's not entirely wiped away, he single-handedly allowed them to drastically slash their luxury tax bill and re-sign Bonner, which we all knew they wanted to do), we'll do you a favor (give you a contract you won't get anywhere else).

He probably wouldn't have opted out had a deal like this not been presented to him beforehand. I doubt he'd have opted out and risked a deal like this being out there. Could the Spurs have lowered it when he agreed to accept it? Yeah, because there more than likely wasn't an offer even close out there. But if this was a standing offer for a few weeks, it's unethical to after the fact lower it when he agrees to accept it. It would also lead to him moping and his play probably being affected.

Agreed.

[TD 21]

We all understand how it went down. The question is wether it made sense from a competitive standpoint for the Spurs to tender that offer to RJ in order to avoid the tax hit. Obviously, from the short term economic standpoint, it makes sense, but competitively speaking, did this deal made us better to try to maximize Duncan's last two seasons? What are the economic consequences long-term from this deal?

I think it did because like MaNu4Tres is alluding to, he's the best they could do at SF in the present and near future even though he's clearly overpaid. As it stands right now, the Spurs will still have enough flexibility in a few years (as MaNu4Tres has detailed) to add a significant piece or a few quality pieces.

Short term, it makes the Spurs better than they otherwise would have been without him in all likelihood and long term, it doesn't kill them. This is not the Raptors, who, prior to miraculously finding a taker for Turkoglu's contract, were hamstrung with Turkoglu's, Bargnani's, Calderon's and to a lesser extent, Jacks's contracts, long term. That's a shitty team in the present with a shitty outlook going forward and it didn't look like they had the flexibility to alter that. The Spurs should have flexibility.

[ElNono]

And BTW, I you take out RJ, the deal Bonner he just signed, and Tony, the Spurs were actually committed to a little over $42m for 2011/2012... I don't know what the CBA will look like then, but that's a good chunk of change by today's standards.

[ElNono]

I think it did because like MaNu4Tres is alluding to, he's the best they could do at SF in the present and near future even though he's clearly overpaid. As it stands right now, the Spurs will still have enough flexibility in a few years (as MaNu4Tres has detailed) to add a significant piece or a few quality pieces.

Actually, he detailed that the Spurs could not add pieces in the next two seasons wether the Spurs would have offered RJ that deal or not. I don't agree with that, and I don't think his numbers are right.


Short term, it makes the Spurs better than they otherwise would have been without him in all likelihood and long term, it doesn't kill them. This is not the Raptors, who, prior to miraculously finding a taker for Turkoglu's contract, were hamstrung with Turkoglu's, Bargnani's, Calderon's and to a lesser extent, Jacks's contracts, long term. That's a shitty team in the present with a shitty outlook going forward and it didn't look like they had the flexibility to alter that. The Spurs should have flexibility.

But they don't. RJ's contract is untradeable until the 4th season basically. I suspect Bonner's too. It would have cost them more right now to take the tax hit, but they would have ended with more flexibility down the line, and more importantly, more options from a competitive standpoint. Obviously, they feel that saving the money now is more important, and that's their choice.

[TD 21]

And BTW, I you take out RJ, the deal Bonner he just signed, and Tony, the Spurs were actually committed to a little over $42m for 2011/2012... I don't know what the CBA will look like then, but that's a good chunk of change by today's standards.

Sounds great. Which big name free agent is coming to the Spurs, when there's a good chance Parker will be long gone, Duncan will be retired and Ginobili will be on his last legs?

Cap space is great...if you're in a market or a situation that will allow you to capitalize on it and by capitalize on it, I don't mean doing what the Clippers or Nets have done this off season. I don't mind what they've done (though the Petro contract was stupid), but they've spent a good chunk of their space on second and third tier players. Not exactly the types that are going to thrust them into contention for a championship.

The Spurs would likely be in the same position. Talking themselves into the Outlaw's and Foye's of the world, trying to save face after striking out on the big names, overpaying the aforementioned types just to fill out the roster.

Realistically, if a team like the Spurs wants to get back to the top (after Duncan is retired), they're going to have to do it through the draft as well as a few shrewd trades and under the radar free agent signings.

[ElNono]

These are the numbers I have for 2011/2012 without RJ, Bonner and Tony... feel free to correct them:

TD: $21.3 m
Manu: $12.9 m
Dice: $5.2 m
Splitter: $4 m
Hill: $2.1 m
Blair: $1 m

Total: $46.5m

I actually rounded up the numbers.

[elemento]

i don't think the deal was in place b4 the free agency at all. Why would it take so long ? It was a valid argument b4 Lebron's decision. I mean, many teams waited for Lebron's decision to start making some moves. Lebron not going to the Clippers or the Nets, would give RJ a shot to get the deal he wanted in the places he wanted to play.

But after the decision, RJ simply realized his value in the market was not as big as he thought.

RJ opted out because he thought he could have a 40m/4y deal somewhere else. In the beginning it was good for the Spurs because they could check the market and see the options available.

Since the market was so inflated, the Spurs just coudn't find a better replacement for RJ. RJ had the Spurs in his hands.

Or we sign RJ, or we start the season with d-league scrubs. IMO, that's what happened.

[MaNu4Tres]

These are the numbers I have for 2011/2012 without RJ, Bonner and Tony... feel free to correct them:

TD: $21.3 m
Manu: $12.9 m
Dice: $5.2 m
Splitter: $4 m
Hill: $2.1 m
Blair: $1 m

Total: $46.5m

I actually rounded up the numbers.

Add Bonner's 3.5 million (roughly)
Add Anderson's 1.2 million (roughly)
Add Temple 1 million
Add Hairston or Gee or Neal thats 1 Million ( They could keep all 3; which increases the payroll by 2 million)
Add their 2011 First round pick - 1 million (estimate)

That will leave the Spurs with roughly 7 million in cap space- Which is essentially the same as the MLE and the LLE Spurs would have available due to the re-signing of R.J.

[TD 21]

Actually, he detailed that the Spurs could not add pieces in the next two seasons wether the Spurs would have offered RJ that deal or not. I don't agree with that, and I don't think his numbers are right.



But they don't. RJ's contract is untradeable until the 4th season basically. I suspect Bonner's too. It would have cost them more right now to take the tax hit, but they would have ended with more flexibility down the line, and more importantly, more options from a competitive standpoint. Obviously, they feel that saving the money now is more important, and that's their choice.

That's what I said: "In a few years".

They might not be able to move Jefferson's contract specifically, but I mean overall roster flexibility. They're not locked in with four awful contracts and devoid of good young talent and/or draft picks.

elemento, why would it take so long? Because Jefferson's agent was seeing if he could find a better deal and/or fit. When he couldn't, they agreed to accept this offer (obviously, this can't be verified, but if this was all prearranged as I and others suspect, that would be the reasoning as to why it took so long to get done).

[ElNono]

Sounds great. Which big name free agent is coming to the Spurs, when there's a good chance Parker will be long gone, Duncan will be retired and Ginobili will be on his last legs?

When TD retired we're playing the lottery. There's no two ways to look at it.
And if you hit the lottery, you want to have the cap flexibility to build a team around whatever that piece is.

And BTW, what I was discussing was 2011/2012. That's TD's last run. You don't think he deserves to have the best possible team around him before he runs into the sunset? They could have had the flexibility to do just that for him, but now it's either RJ/Bonner work or bust.


Cap space is great...if you're in a market or a situation that will allow you to capitalize on it and by capitalize on it, I don't mean doing what the Clippers or Nets have done this off season. I don't mind what they've done (though the Petro contract was stupid), but they've spent a good chunk of their space on second and third tier players. Not exactly the types that are going to thrust them into contention for a championship.

RJ is the 5th option on this team. He's not going to thrust you anywhere either. That's why you want to keep your options to potentially upgrade from RJ if he lays another turd this season.


The Spurs would likely be in the same position. Talking themselves into the Outlaw's and Foye's of the world, trying to save face after striking out on the big names, overpaying the aforementioned types just to fill out the roster.

That's what we just did. Once TD goes away that's exactly what this Spurs team is going to look like. A $10m RJ and a $4m Bonner running around.


Realistically, if a team like the Spurs wants to get back to the top (after Duncan is retired), they're going to have to do it through the draft as well as a few shrewd trades and under the radar free agent signings.

They're going to have to hit the jackpot again. There's no two ways to look at it, IMO. I'm 100% with Many on this. People way underestimate Duncan and way overestimate the kids we have. There's not a single franchise player there. I'm even skeptic TP is one, but I expect him to walk after this season, so it's moot.

[ElNono]

Add Bonner's 3.5 million (roughly)
Add Anderson's 1.2 million (roughly)
Add Temple 1 million
Add Hairston or Gee or Neal thats 1 Million ( They could keep all 3; which increases the payroll by 2 million)
Add their 2011 First round pick - 1 million (estimate)

That will leave the Spurs with roughly 7 million in cap space- Which is essentially the same as the MLE and the LLE Spurs would have available due to the re-signing of R.J.

- I said without Bonner (which means I'm considering the scenario where Bonner didn't re-sign)
- Neil is $500k this season, not sure anything is guaranteed for 2011/2012
- Temple, Hairston and Gee are all unguaranteed for 2011/2012
- They don't have to pick in 2011. We've traded our first round pick many times.

So the only thing I missed was $1.2m for Anderson.
That brings the total to $47.7m committed money for 2011/2012.

That would leave nearly $11m under today's cap numbers (I do expect this to be lower under the new CBA, but obviously I also expect salaries to be adjusted accordingly).

[MaNu4Tres]

- I said without Bonner (which means I'm considering the scenario where Bonner didn't re-sign)

So your numbers are totally irrelevant with the scenario I laid out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

- I said without Bonner (which means I'm considering the scenario where Bonner didn't re-sign)

Then you are considering fantasy land.

[ElNono]

So your numbers are totally irrelevant with the scenario I laid out.

The scenario you laid out was one of many possible scenarios. You filled in the 'ifs' and 'buts' for your scenario and did your math.

I laid out a different scenario, filled in my 'ifs' and 'buts', and came out with different numbers.

The reality is that both are valid. We didn't need to sign up Bonner to a contract. We didn't need to offer RJ this contract. That's the scenario we've been talking about with DPG for many pages in this thread, and you keep on trying to impose what your scenario is, with your 'ifs' and 'buts', and if somebody doesn't agree, then we get the 'you don't get it'.

We do get it. We simply don't agree that it's the only way this could have played out. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand.

[benefactor]

Second year. That is all.

[MaNu4Tres]

- Temple, Hairston and Gee are all unguaranteed for 2011/2012

Most likely they will keep at least one (probably two) since they are valuable young cheap options to fill the roster ( realistically thinking)



- They don't have to pick in 2011. We've traded our first round pick many times.

All the trades Spurs have made that included 1st rounders have all netted additional salary in talent for upcoming years (Speedy Claxton- 1 year, Nazr 2-years, Kurt Thomas 1 year and resigned for 2 more; So you'd still have to credit salary still if your less likely scenario happens)

[ElNono]

Then you are considering fantasy land.

Sure, we're exploring what the different options were. Because we're being told that this was the best and only scenario, and that's just not true.
You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

[MaNu4Tres]

The scenario you laid out was one of many possible scenarios. You filled in the 'ifs' and 'buts' for your scenario and did your math.

I laid out a different scenario, filled in my 'ifs' and 'buts', and came out with different numbers.

The reality is that both are valid. We didn't need to sign up Bonner to a contract. We didn't need to offer RJ this contract. That's the scenario we've been talking about with DPG for many pages in this thread, and you keep on trying to impose what your scenario is, with your 'ifs' and 'buts', and if somebody doesn't agree, then we get the 'you don't get it'.

We do get it. We simply don't agree that it's the only way this could have played out. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand.

It's not hard for me to understand.

This whole topic is about R.J's Contract Details (If you can read)- Which is why I presented the financial scenario for the next 2-4 years with or without R.J's salary. Not with or without Bonner's.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, we're exploring what the different options were. Because we're being told that this was the best and only scenario, and that's just not true.
You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

I will participate by saying that it is futile to consider things that are impossible.

M4T basically laid out that regardless of the RJ signing we are not going to be able to sign free agents and also that despite the signing we would be able to sign TP and be under the luxury tax threshold.

If you want to complain about the Bonner signing then go right ahead but in regards to the RJ signing it is nothing but a red herring.

[ElNono]

Most likely they will keep at least one (probably two) since they are valuable young cheap options to fill the roster ( realistically thinking)

I'm not sure. Maybe they didn't work out by then,and we'll be trying out some other kids and paying the min. Maybe one did and we'll be spending an extra $1m there. Maybe they'll all make it, but I realistically think it's unlikely.


All the trades Spurs have made that included 1st rounders have all netted additional salary in talent for upcoming years (Speedy Claxton, Nazr, Kurt Thomas; So you'd still have to credit salary still if your less likely scenario happens)

Many scenarios for this one. They could trade down and get cash. They could pick and stash like Splitter.

[ElNono]

It's not hard for me to understand.

This whole topic is about R.J's Contract Details (If you can read)- Which is why I presented the financial scenario for the next 2-4 years with or without R.J's salary. Not with or without Bonner's.

Well, let's just add you also filled in a bunch of extra debatable blanks, which is why I questioned some of the figures.

You also assume that if we didn't add RJ, that we couldn't have traded his $15m in expiring for another piece of that value, which is actually a very likely scenario. Obviously, this whole thing comes down to paying the tax now or not (and I'll be the first to say it was a major figure, the savings can easily escalate to $15m).

[ElNono]

I will participate by saying that it is futile to consider things that are impossible.

M4T basically laid out that regardless of the RJ signing we are not going to be able to sign free agents and also that despite the signing we would be able to sign TP and be under the luxury tax threshold.

If you want to complain about the Bonner signing then go right ahead but in regards to the RJ signing it is nothing but a red herring.

Of course it's impossible right now. We were all aware of this before this thread started. What we're discussing is wether it's a good deal or not. Or wether there were other better/different scenarios. That's all. We're killing time with hypotheticals. Nobody is losing sleep over this.

[AFBlue]

It's w/e...

I've said my piece

I clearly understand R.J is not the picture-perfect fit, I have never donned R.J as the second coming or the Real Alexander. I'm just aware of the financial situation the Spurs have in place the next 2-3 years and how R.J's new deal doesn't affect who the Spurs can bring in via Free Agency because of the salary that is committed to the Spurs (even w/out R.J) for at least the next two years.

And I also understand Spurs couldn't have done better realistically in terms of filling their starting SF spot this off-season(even if R.J doesn't fit perfectly like Bowen did).

Which all collectively brings me to the notion I currently stand in.


Nothing but love for my man Manu4Tres though

Well I'm pissed off at the both of you for pretty much overshadowing my comic tidbits with your incessant arguing.

[DPG21920]

At least we were arguing about basketball and not race or something stupid. I gave you a laugh a while back.

[MaNu4Tres]

At least we were arguing about basketball and not race or something stupid. I gave you a laugh a while back.

That is strictly your opinion, once again. You don't get it do you?

Get a clue! :downspin:

[DPG21920]

lol

[Chieflion]

lol

Get a clue. I was arguing about Pakistani curry and rearing cattle.

[DPG21920]

Oh man, I see where this is headed :lol

[ElNono]

So what do you guys think about Ratliff salary? :lol

[AFBlue]

At least we were arguing about basketball and not race or something stupid. I gave you a laugh a while back.

The dude abides.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The Spurs - where you try to fit a 30yo square peg into a round hole, and it costs you nearly 39mil to try...

Ugh.

I'm going to enjoy ripping on RJ all season as he fails miserably to deliver what the team needs... actually, no I'm not, I'm going to bash my head against the wall and cry in my beer.

Can't get over what a dumb move this was. Still, Pop and the FO know more than I do about basketball, so i really hope they've seen something I'm missing.

:pctoss

[timvp]

We made contact with the ultimate source regarding this contract and he said that it's a 4-year, $40 million deal.

Dug deeper since Don Harris and ESPN are claiming $38.8 million and this is the unconfirmed chain of events:

1) Spurs and RJ agreed to a 4-year, $40 million deal before free agency

2) RJ wanted the final year to be a player option

3) RJ and Spurs disagreed

4) Spurs told RJ to test market if he wasn't satisfied with the deal

5) RJ tested market

6) Negotiations continue. Spurs offer player option but on the condition that part of the guaranteed salary is converted to performance incentive.

7) Two sides agree on 4-year, $38.8 million deal with a player option. Additional $1.2 million available in performance incentives.

I'm not sure if the performance incentives will be classified as "likely" but RJ's side of the negotiation call in a $40 million contract ... so I'm guessing the incentives aren't too impossible.

[ElNono]

Thanks for the update, timvp :tu

[Blackjack]

Appreciate it. Knew it had to be prearranged. Basically they put it on the table and told him to come back when he was ready to sign, more or less. Hard to believe they really decided to pay him that much, though.

WTF, it's their money and the Spurs weren't going to sign anyone else of consequence. Hopefully by some miracle RJ figures out a way to earn that check for the next 2 years. After that, I really couldn't care less about his contract. It is what it is and what really is it going to prevent them from doing when Tim's gone and Manu's in his last year, if Tony is even here?

I'm just, meh, at this point . . .

[ElNono]

Appreciate it. Knew it had to be prearranged. Basically they put it on the table and told him to come back when he was ready to sign, more or less. Hard to believe they really decided to pay him that much, though.

WTF, it's their money and the Spurs weren't going to sign anyone else of consequence. Hopefully by some miracle RJ figures out a way to earn that check for the next 2 years. After that, I really couldn't care less about his contract. It is what it is and what really is it going to prevent them from doing when Tim's gone and Manu's in his last year, if Tony is even here?

I'm just, meh, at this point . . .

It's probably what it took to convince him to opt out. smh

Like you said, it's anecdotical at this point... Let us proceed...

[Boss]

So does this mean RJ could be making $12.2 mil in his final year

[Solid D]

So does this mean RJ could be making $12.2 mil in his final year

Estimated new contract
2011 $8,400,000
2012 $9,282,000
2013 $10,164,000
2014 $11,046,000 (option)

[Boss]

Estimated new contract
2011 $8,400,000
2012 $9,282,000
2013 $10,164,000
2014 $11,046,000 (option)

Timvp, just posted some RJ contract news on the previous page. Basically there's a performance incentive in the final yr that would push his deal to 4 years $40 mil rather than $38.8 mil

[Solid D]

Timvp, just posted some RJ contract news on the previous page. Basically there's a performance incentive in the final yr that would push his deal to 4 years $40 mil rather than $38.8 mil

Ah, I missed it. $1.2M additional performance incentive. Thanks Boss.

[D-rob fan]

For those of you that don't like this contract, it's not as bad as it seems.

Let's say RJ never opted out and the spurs were set to pay him $15 million this season. Using details of the rest of the salaries from hoopshype, our team salary would be $75,867,728. With the luxury tax at $70 million, that would result in the spurs having to pay a luxury tax of $11,735,456 ($5,867,728 x 2).

Now that RJ has resigned for less, the spurs will be under the luxury tax. In doing so, they can then be set to recieve a luxury tax payout for being a team under the tax. Lets assume that payout is a conservative $3 million. That means this year alone, RJ's new contract saves the spurs $14,735,456. RJ's new contract pays out $38,892,000 over 4 years. So subtracting that from the full length contract, his 4 year contract is in essence only $24,156,544. That's appoximately $6 mil a year. For a player of RJ's caliber, that is certainly nothing to complain about.

Another way to think about it is say RJ opted in and spurs had to pay his $15 mil and tax which comes out to $29,735,456. Subtract that from RJ's new contract and that means we basically signed RJ for a 3 year (2011-2014)extension for only $9,156,544. Now that sounds even better!

Team Salary (salary in parenthesis assumes old RJ contract)
Tim Duncan -$18,700,000
Tony Parker - $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili - $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson - $8,400,000 ($15,000,000)
Antonio McDyess - 4,860,000
Matt Bonner - $3,000,000*
Tiago Splitter - $3,400,000
James Anderson - $1,361,400
George Hill - $1,157,160
DeJuan Blair - $918,000
Malik Hairston - $854,389
Alonzo Gee - $762,195
Gary Neal - $500,000*
TOTALS:
$69,267,728 ($75,867,728)
*estimated

[toki9]

Using details of the rest of the salaries from hoopshype, our team salary would be $75,867,728. With the luxury tax at $70 million, that would result in the spurs having to pay a luxury tax of $11,735,456 ($5,867,728 x 2).


Luxury tax is calculated as 2X each dollar over the tax threshold? It's not 1X?

[Strike]

Luxury tax is calculated as 2X each dollar over the tax threshold? It's not 1X?

Dollar for dollar. If they're $5,867,728 over the threshold, they pay $5,867,728 in luxury tax money, bringing the total bill to $81,735,456 (salaries + luxury tax).

[ElNono]

Luxury tax is calculated as 2X each dollar over the tax threshold? It's not 1X?

It is 1x...

[Blackjack]

If you're over the tax line you pay double on the dollar.

If you're below the tax line, then go over the tax line, you're losing out on a would-be ~$3.3M this year and you're paying double on the dollar.

So if you're $2M over you're paying $4M.

But if you're below the tax line, by say even $50K, then you go over $2M? You're losing the $3.3M and you're paying $4M in tax. You're essentially out $7M.

[MannyIsGod]

If you're over the tax line you pay double on the dollar.

If you're below the tax line, then go over the tax line, you're losing out on a would-be ~$3.3M this year and you're paying double on the dollar.

So if you're $2M over you're paying $4M.

But if you're below the tax line, by say even $50K, then you go over $2M? You're losing the $3.3M and you're paying $4M in tax. You're essentially out $7M.

Exactly, its necessary to not only take into account the amount you pay in a penalty but the rebate amount you miss out on. RJ was set to make about 15 mill this next year but the reality is that he was actually going to cost the Spurs closers to 22-23 million for one year.

23 million for one year or 40 million for four years is really a financial no brainier.

[ElNono]

If you're over the tax line you pay double on the dollar.

If you're below the tax line, then go over the tax line, you're losing out on a would-be ~$3.3M this year and you're paying double on the dollar.

So if you're $2M over you're paying $4M.

But if you're below the tax line, by say even $50K, then you go over $2M? You're losing the $3.3M and you're paying $4M in tax. You're essentially out $7M.

Nope. You pay 1 dollar for each dollar over the cap.

[ElNono]

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

Look at entry #16

[Blackjack]

If you're $1 over, you're paying for that $1. But then you're also forced to match that dollar with another dollar, thus double on the dollar.

[Blackjack]

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

Look at entry #16

I've been reading it for 2 days. :lol

[ElNono]

If you're $1 over, you're paying for that $1. But then you're also forced to match that dollar with another dollar, thus double on the dollar.

You're paying that $1 dollar per the salary. Then you need to match it with an extra $1. The first dollar you always pay as part of the contract. So what you're paying is 1x whatever amount is over the tax line.

The previous message claimed that RJ would put the Spurs $5m over the lux tax line and the Spurs would have to pay $5m * 2 = $11m in tax. That's not correct.

[Blackjack]

You're paying that $1 dollar per the salary. Then you need to match it with an extra $1. The first dollar you always pay as part of the contract. So what you're paying is 1x whatever amount is over the tax line.

The previous message claimed that RJ would put the Spurs $5m over the lux tax line and the Spurs would have to pay $5m * 2 in tax. That's not correct.

I made no reference to his post. Only stated the facts as I know them. Back to the FAQ. :hungry:

[ElNono]

I made no reference to his post. Only stated the facts as I know them. Back to the FAQ. :hungry:

That's why you're the #1 poster... :toast

[Blackjack]

That's why you're the #1 poster... :toast

I'd be blushing if My Omnipotence would allow it. :king

[D-rob fan]

You're paying that $1 dollar per the salary. Then you need to match it with an extra $1. The first dollar you always pay as part of the contract. So what you're paying is 1x whatever amount is over the tax line.

The previous message claimed that RJ would put the Spurs $5m over the lux tax line and the Spurs would have to pay $5m * 2 = $11m in tax. That's not correct.

Your right, I messed up in my explanation. Spurs would have to pay $5m in tax but also pay the $5 of regular salary over the luxury tax limit. I was still thinking in these terms for explanation of the final dollars but made the mistake of saying the tax was $11 m. The end result in values still work though.

[Blackjack]

Easy way to look at it, if you're over the cap by $5M:

Owner pays the player $5M earned.

Owner pays the league $5M in tax.

It's not $10M to the league, but it's $10M out of the owners pocket. Thus, double on the dollar.

[toki9]

Thank you to everyone who clarified the lux tax rules...but in terms of comparing the Original vs New contracts, it doesn't really matter what the restructured contract may have saved the Spurs--the team is still paying the final price tag. So wouldn't an all-in-cost comparison be the simplest way of looking at it?

In other words, the remaining 1 year of the original contract would have cost $15MM (contract) + $5.8MM (Tax) + $3MM (Tax payout loss) = $23.8MM for 1 year, as opposed to $40MM for 4 years.

[toki9]

Easy way to look at it, if you're over the cap by $5M:

Owner pays the player $5M earned.

Owner pays the league $5M in tax.

It's not $10M to the league, but it's $10M out of the owners pocket. Thus, double on the dollar.

Right, double on the dollar from salary perspective, but dollar for dollar from tax perspective.

[MannyIsGod]

Thank you to everyone who clarified the lux tax rules...but in terms of comparing the Original vs New contracts, it doesn't really matter what the restructured contract may have saved the Spurs--the team is still paying the final price tag. So wouldn't an all-in-cost comparison be the simplest way of looking at it?

In other words, the remaining 1 year of the original contract would have cost $15MM (contract) + $5.8MM (Tax) + $3MM (Tax payout loss) = $23.8MM for 1 year, as opposed to $40MM for 4 years.


Isn't that what I said above?

[ElNono]

Thank you to everyone who clarified the lux tax rules...but in terms of comparing the Original vs New contracts, it doesn't really matter what the restructured contract may have saved the Spurs--the team is still paying the final price tag. So wouldn't an all-in-cost comparison be the simplest way of looking at it?

In other words, the remaining 1 year of the original contract would have cost $15MM (contract) + $5.8MM (Tax) + $3MM (Tax payout loss) = $23.8MM for 1 year, as opposed to $40MM for 4 years.

There would have been other, more expensive implications too. For example, signing Splitter and Neal would have cost 2x as much, since the Spurs would have had to pay lux tax for those contracts (about an extra $3.5m in the tax bill)

[toki9]

Isn't that what I said above?

Yes, yes, it is. Sorry for the redundancy. Missed your post.

[Blackjack]

Right, double on the dollar from salary perspective, but dollar for dollar from tax perspective.

That's why I made sure to clarify -- I wasn't thinking that it'd come off as multiplying by 2 after crossing the threshold. It's double on the dollar. Had the owner been forced to pay $5M to the player and then $10M in tax for being over $5M, that'd be triple on the dollar. Once to the player and two times to the league.

[toki9]

There would have been other, more expensive implications too. For example, signing Splitter and Neal would have cost 2x as much, since the Spurs would have had to pay lux tax for those contracts (about an extra $3.5m in the tax bill)

Would they have? I thought the OP original calculation of $75.8MM included Splitter and Neal's salary already figured in--so $5.8MM is all-in over the tax threshold #?

[toki9]

By the way, has this thread crossed the ridiculous threshold for number of back-and-forth over pointless minutiae? ;-)

[tuncaboylu]

That's why I made sure to clarify -- I wasn't thinking that it'd come off as multiplying by 2 after crossing the threshold. It's double on the dollar. Had the owner been forced to pay $5M to the player and then $10M in tax for being over $5M, that'd be triple on the dollar. Once to the player and two times to the league.


And there is another charge eists for the teams who are overluxury tax:

The luxury taxes which are paid by teams are collecting in a pool and the teams who do't pay luxury tax are sharing that money.

For exapmle, let's ssum that last year 5 teams paid 50M luxury tax last year. The remaining 25 tams is getting this 50M. 50/25 = 2M for each team.

[Blackjack]

You haven't been here long enough, obviously. :lol

Just for the hell of it:


Players with guaranteed contracts
Duncan + Parker + Ginobili + McDyess + Blair + Hill : $50.82M
Matt Bonner: $3.05M
Tiago Splitter: $3.4M
Richard Jefferson: $8.4M
Gary Neal: $.85M (against the tax)

$66.52M for 10 players

James Anderson will likely be signed. His salary will be between $0.91M and $1.36M.

Change that $8.4M of RJ's to the $15.2M he was due and go with the median salary for Anderson ($1,135,000) and you come to a number of $74,455,000 for 11 players -- the tax line is $70,307,000.

That's $4,148,000 in tax for 11 players. Even if they went with 13 and signed minimum players they're paying $6M in tax . . .

[Obstructed_View]

All this number crunching is really impressive, and while I have no doubt that the Spurs saved themselves money from a business standpoint, the fact remains that, from a basketball standpoint, they've taken an overpaid player that doesn't fit well with this team who was here until the trade deadline and turned him into an overpaid player that doesn't fit well with this team who's here for four years. Many people questioning the decision to retain RJ are focusing on that rather than the financial windfall Peter Holt bought himself into.

[MannyIsGod]

In the scenario laid out above losing the ability to trade RJ's expiring is a very valid criticism of the restructured deal because it would have dropped the Spurs below the LT if they traded him at the deadline (or before for that matter) as well.

I guess the Spurs figured a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Fabbs]

I guess the Spurs figured a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Species Playoffticus Chokeritus Softo aka Dick Jefferson donning his renewed Spurs jersey:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-zOrAL1V5Jg/SMPF77s8dzI/AAAAAAAAAMI/XMIDFqpo0Kk/s400/condor.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All this number crunching is really impressive, and while I have no doubt that the Spurs saved themselves money from a business standpoint, the fact remains that, from a basketball standpoint, they've taken an overpaid player that doesn't fit well with this team who was here until the trade deadline and turned him into an overpaid player that doesn't fit well with this team who's here for four years. Many people questioning the decision to retain RJ are focusing on that rather than the financial windfall Peter Holt bought himself into.

From a basketball standpoint they signed the best FA SF they could afford.

[quentin_compson]

From a basketball standpoint they signed the best FA SF they could afford.

Or that was willing to come to SA (see Barnes, Matt).

[Obstructed_View]

From a basketball standpoint they signed the best FA SF they could afford.

From a basketball standpoint they didn't even look at anyone else and signed a decent guy for too many years and too much money.

[DPG21920]

From a basketball standpoint, they said their goal is to win a title and they did nothing to achieve that goal all the while adding long term money problems with an aging player.

[Chieflion]

From a basketball standpoint, they said their goal is to win a title and they did nothing to achieve that goal all the while adding long term money problems with an aging player.

Good job, DPG. So, you had a solution that could let the Spurs join the ranks of the Lakers and the Heat? Please share it with us if you do.

[DPG21920]

Good job, DPG. So, you had a solution that could let the Spurs join the ranks of the Lakers and the Heat? Please share it with us if you do.

Good job, Chieflion. So, you had nothing either. You realize we are fans and not in the front office? Your little argument that since I could not personally orchestrate an off season that vaults the Spurs into true contention it means my opinion is wrong is damn silly.

I do know that when a team gets swept, and their goal is to win a title, it takes pretty major overhaul if you truly want to reach said goal.

I don't know what could have happened outside of opinion and fictional, but logical trade ideas, but I do know that what they did is not good enough.

Holla black.

[Obstructed_View]

Good job, DPG. So, you had a solution that could let the Spurs join the ranks of the Lakers and the Heat? Please share it with us if you do.

So since the Spurs couldn't sign Lebron James and Chris Bosh, they might as well overpay for players that don't fit the system and lock them in for several years? You actually thought about what you were going to type and this argument is what you came up with? Really?

[will_spurs]

So since the Spurs couldn't sign Lebron James and Chris Bosh, they might as well overpay for players that don't fit the system and lock them in for several years? You actually thought about what you were going to type and this argument is what you came up with? Really?

The Spurs didn't overpay any player (*) except Bonner (and that's still a big if since we don't know what other teams would have offered him). As far as players not fitting the system, I guess you mean RJ - I think there's hope.

As for the other solutions, they all revolve under expecting junior players will turn into All-star vets in 6 months... which even Parker, Hill or Blair couldn't do. Perspective is seriously lacking on this board.

The reality of it is that with Duncan, Ginobili and Parker already on the books for significant salaries, there's just no cap space at the moment, and the Spurs will have to find a way to win with those 3 without being able to attract any other All-Star to the team. Get used to it. The Spurs FO job is to bring in the best role players, and they are trying hard.

Whenever faced with the fact that there weren't other significant FA deals to be inked by the Spurs for the kind of money they could spend, all this discussion becomes moot.

(*) Anybody who thinks the Spurs overpaid RJ should take a Finance 101 course asap.

[Chieflion]

Good job, Chieflion. So, you had nothing either. You realize we are fans and not in the front office? Your little argument that since I could not personally orchestrate an off season that vaults the Spurs into true contention it means my opinion is wrong is damn silly.

I do know that when a team gets swept, and their goal is to win a title, it takes pretty major overhaul if you truly want to reach said goal.

I don't know what could have happened outside of opinion and fictional, but logical trade ideas, but I do know that what they did is not good enough.

Holla black.

I didn't have an idea, so I am not bitching. The FO hasn't done us wrong much in the past, so I will trust them, if not for one last time. I will post my opinion in this thread. We don't have a top 8 NBA player in the NBA anymore, so we don't have that star power the other contenders do. Adding depth wasn't the answer. Yes, it takes a lot of overhaul, but the overhaul can't happen unless said top 8 player in the league can come over to the Spurs or it will take quite a few years, sadly the Spurs know they don't have that luxury of time. You post good arguments, but the Bobby Simmons idea was really dumbfoundingly ridiculous. Holla black.:toast

[oligarchy]

The Spurs didn't overpay any player (*)

(*) Anybody who thinks the Spurs overpaid RJ should take a Finance 101 course asap.

Maybe you need basic math for elementary school students?

4 years/39 million. :lol

he OPTED OUT on July 1. They didn't owe him anything; they didn't have to resign him, so don't try the, "They saved 6.8 million on his salary and XXX for luxury tax."

I'm not sure if you know this. When a player OPTS OUT, you don't owe them the salary for that year. So, let's walk you through it: Richard Jefferson, who was due 15.2, opted out. When he did that, the Spurs didn't owe him anything. They could have signed a minimum player and saved almost 8 million versus what they paid out to him. That's finance 101 for you.

:wakeup

[DPG21920]

We are all operating under the premise the Spurs and RJ had a deal in place. That is the mistake. Once that was done, the Spurs were hand cuffed

[oligarchy]

You can operate under that premise, but he opted out. The Spurs did not have to pay him anything.

[Obstructed_View]

(*) Anybody who thinks the Spurs overpaid RJ should take a Finance 101 course asap.


$40,000,000 > $0


As for the other solutions, they all revolve under expecting junior players will turn into All-star vets in 6 months... which even Parker, Hill or Blair couldn't do. Perspective is seriously lacking on this board.
I'll say it's lacking. Since I'm sure you aren't implying that Richard Jefferson is going to be an all star in six months (something he's never been), I'm not sure why you're asking his replacements to do the same thing, so that must be a strawman - apology accepted.

What the Spurs need from that position is outside shooting, some free throw attempts, and decent defense. No part of that is an outrageous expectation from the guys that are here plus whoever the Spurs could have signed during the offseason, particularly since there's some evidence that the "junior players" can do exactly those things at least as well as RJ did last season.

[pad300]

You can operate under that premise, but he opted out. The Spurs did not have to pay him anything.

Actually, I have a question for the CBA experts out there. As many have stated, it is generally assumed that a pre-arranged deal was made:

Jefferson opts out of his last year and in return the Spurs put a 4 year/40 Million deal on the table for him.

If such an arrangement was made with a player from another team, it would definitely be tampering. Similarly, the Joe Smith deal (Smith was a Wolves FA at the time), where he took a small contract from the Wolves in return for the promise of a larger contract later, was considered a CBA violation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Smith_%28basketball%29#Timberwolves_salary_cap _scandal

How could such a deal between the spurs and Jefferson not be a CBA violation?

[Fabbs]

Actually, I have a question for the CBA experts out there. As many have stated, it is generally assumed that a pre-arranged deal was made:

Jefferson opts out of his last year and in return the Spurs put a 4 year/40 Million deal on the table for him.

If such an arrangement was made with a player from another team, it would definitely be tampering. Similarly, the Joe Smith deal (Smith was a Wolves FA at the time), where he took a small contract from the Wolves in return for the promise of a larger contract later, was considered a CBA violation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Smith_%28basketball%29#Timberwolves_salary_cap _scandal

How could such a deal between the spurs and Jefferson not be a CBA violation?
Xs 10.
We can only hope Splitter rocks and Blair stays healthy and gets minutes from coach Moron.

And since obviously no team offered Soft Dick more, why would Bumford and Popazit offer Dick such a ridiculous contract? In fact did any team offer Soft Dick anything? What a joke the FO/Zit surrounding Tim Duncar with a quality frontline continues to be.

Spurs bidding against the Spurs.

[MannyIsGod]

We are all operating under the premise the Spurs and RJ had a deal in place. That is the mistake. Once that was done, the Spurs were hand cuffed

They weren't handcuffed before? I'm pretty sure RJ wasn't opting out with out this.

[oligarchy]

Actually, I have a question for the CBA experts out there. As many have stated, it is generally assumed that a pre-arranged deal was made:

Jefferson opts out of his last year and in return the Spurs put a 4 year/40 Million deal on the table for him.

If such an arrangement was made with a player from another team, it would definitely be tampering. Similarly, the Joe Smith deal (Smith was a Wolves FA at the time), where he took a small contract from the Wolves in return for the promise of a larger contract later, was considered a CBA violation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Smith_%28basketball%29#Timberwolves_salary_cap _scandal

How could such a deal between the spurs and Jefferson not be a CBA violation?

It would be a CBA violation, if they could prove it. E.g., Dick was stupid and said they talked about it before July 1st, but it's plausible deniability until evidences is brought forth. One thing that they have going for them is that Jefferson made his intentions known and what he was looking for around April; that he would opt for long term security. I could be wrong, but I believe he even gave an example 4 year/40 million contract.

[MannyIsGod]

The Joe Smith situation also spanned several NBA seasons and several one year contracts in order to build up bird rights.


There's nothing illegal about the Spurs saying opt out and we'll sign you long term or RJ proposing the same.

[DPG21920]

They weren't handcuffed before? I'm pretty sure RJ wasn't opting out with out this.

No they weren't hand cuffed before. In fact, if RJ does not opt out they get exactly what they want; RJ to fill the SF need that lines up with the perceived one year window. Then they still get his expiring to possibly trade.

[elec99]

Maybe someone touched on this before, but this deal kinda reminds me of the botched deal the cavs were gonna pull with boozer. I believe he was a restricted FA, so they had a "gentleman's agreement" to make him an unrestricted FA (something like that) with the assumption he would resign, but he jetted for the jazz for a much bigger deal.

My theory (only a theory) is that we also had a gentleman's agreement with RJ. He gets a bigger/longer contract but spurs pay about 9 instead of 15 mil per year. I dont think either party thinks RJ will be at the spurs for 4 yrs, thus no 38 mil. So I think front office is looking at anywhere between 9-18mil, with some other team picking up the other 18 mil.

Sure, spurs could've pulled a boozer and then said see ya as soon as RJ opted out. But they have a little more class than boozer does. That's the theory anyway.

[oligarchy]

The Joe Smith situation also spanned several NBA seasons and several one year contracts in order to build up bird rights.


There's nothing illegal about the Spurs saying opt out and we'll sign you long term or RJ proposing the same.

I didn't say illegal. I said against CBA policy/rules.

Why would John Hollinger write following?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=winners-100726


[The Jefferson re-signing] raised eyebrows in front offices around the league, many of which suspected that there was a prearranged deal between the two parties. [...]

That said, we have no smoking gun that there was any kind of prearranged deal between the Spurs and Jefferson. We don't even have a smokeless gun. All we have is the circumstantial evidence above, as well as two other pieces of information:

1. The Spurs don't sign bad contracts.

2. This is the worst contract of the summer.


If there's no CBA problems, why couldn't they have said it was pre-arranged from the beginning? Why would Hollinger even worry about a smoking gun if they are free to discuss contracts before July 1st?

[Obstructed_View]

If there was a handshake agreement between RJ and the Spurs, I can't see any difference between the Boozer/Cavs agreement which was a violation of the rules.

If the NBA decides to investigate, they'll look at what the Spurs got for their 40 million dollars and decide they've been punished enough.

[MannyIsGod]

No they weren't hand cuffed before. In fact, if RJ does not opt out they get exactly what they want; RJ to fill the SF need that lines up with the perceived one year window. Then they still get his expiring to possibly trade.

:lol

So they weren't handcuffed but RJ was still going to be here. Geez, I can how RJ being here and RJ being here are two completely different scenarios.

[oligarchy]

Being here for 1 year - 15.2 million -- possibly trade midseason, or wave buh-bye at the end of the season.

Being here for 4 years - 40 million -- 4th year fully guaranteed at ~11 million. LOL.

Nope. NO difference in those two scenarios.

[DPG21920]

:lol

So they weren't handcuffed but RJ was still going to be here. Geez, I can how RJ being here and RJ being here are two completely different scenarios.

If you can't see how an expiring RJ being here for the perceived one year window at 15M is different than him being here for 4 years/40M, I can't help you.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't say illegal. I said against CBA policy/rules.

Why would John Hollinger write following?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=winners-100726



Oh you didn't say it was illegal you said it was illegal.

What exactly did you think I meant by illegal? Its not like I was saying the FBI was going to come tear down Pops door.





If there's no CBA problems, why couldn't they have said it was pre-arranged from the beginning? Why would Hollinger even worry about a smoking gun if they are free to discuss contracts before July 1st?

Or if there are CBA problems perhaps you can direct me to the part of the CBA that was violated? There very well may be a clause but I'm not familiar with it and it would seem rather ridiculous. You can't negotiate with a player to opt out and resign a longer term deal? That seems like a pretty stupid rule if true.

AFAIK, there was nothing that violated any league rules with Boozer.

[MannyIsGod]

If you can't see how an expiring RJ being here for the perceived one year window at 15M is different than him being here for 4 years/40M, I can't help you.

Its obviously different but you're ignoring that fact that for half of Duncan's remaining tenure (maybe the entire duration if there is a work stoppage) Richard Jefferson was going to be here.

[MannyIsGod]

As far as Joe Smith and Carlos Boozer, the only thing that was illegal was Joe Smith and the Twolves being stupid and signing an agreement regarding the 3 one year deals.

[oligarchy]

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? If you want to argue, call your mom on the phone and say, "I know who my dad is." Then when she says, "nuh uh," you say "uh huh." Continue on with this diatribe for a few minutes. It'll be like you posting here a few times.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? If you want to argue, call your mom on the phone and say, "I know who my dad is." Then when she says, "nuh uh," you say "uh huh." Continue on with this diatribe for a few minutes. It'll be like you posting here a few times.

Butthurt poster is butthurt.

Its not my fault you were wrong.

Better luck next time. :toast

[Obstructed_View]

Butthurt poster is butthurt.

Its not my fault you were wrong.

Better luck next time. :toast

No, confused poster is confused, because you're not making any sense at all. Do you have a point?

[oligarchy]

lol, calling someone butthurt, when they are really butthurt because they can't refute anything. "I win!"

You crack me up stubby. "I WIN! I WIN!" "I don't prove anything, I WIN!"

Now, go do your homework and find out why Hollinger would use the term "smoking gun."

[MannyIsGod]

lol, calling someone butthurt, when they are really butthurt because they can't refute anything. "I win!"

You crack me up stubby. "I WIN! I WIN!" "I don't prove anything, I WIN!"

Now, go do your homework and find out why Hollinger would use the term "smoking gun."

Oh I missed the part where you proved that what the Spurs and RJ did was against the CBA. Hollinger used the term smoking gun to point out they didn't have any evidence that the Spurs had a prearranged agreement with RJ.

Is reading comprehension that difficult? At what point does Hollinger state that what the Spurs did was against the rules?

[MannyIsGod]

If there was a handshake agreement between RJ and the Spurs, I can't see any difference between the Boozer/Cavs agreement which was a violation of the rules.

If the NBA decides to investigate, they'll look at what the Spurs got for their 40 million dollars and decide they've been punished enough.

My point is that you're both wrong. Its not a violation of the rules. The Boozer situation was not a violation of the rules and this situation was not a violation of the rules.

You think Gund was going to violate the rules then go on the record and say in the media "Hey Boozer just renigged on our agreement that violated the rules - I just figured I'd throw that out so I can lose draft picks like my friend McHale!"?

[DPG21920]

Its obviously different but you're ignoring that fact that for half of Duncan's remaining tenure (maybe the entire duration if there is a work stoppage) Richard Jefferson was going to be here.

No I am not. The entire reason I don't like it is bc he is here 4 years instead of 1.

[oligarchy]

Yes. Reading is apparently difficult for you. Scoreboard!

[MannyIsGod]

No I am not. The entire reason I don't like it is bc he is here 4 years instead of 1.

I understand that, but this segway was in reference to the handcuffed comment. The Spurs were always handcuffed by RJ. I get that people wanted them to go out and get someone this off season but if they had a deal with RJ lined up then that was never a possible situation.

We can argue day and night about possible trades but neither are scenarios were the Spurs are necessarily free to do whatever they want. You needed either a team willing to trade for Jefferson who has someone better or a better fit.

They weren't going to be able to bring anyone in the following offseason because if they extend Tony they'll have no room and if they don't extend Tony then we're fucked either way.

The only scenario lost is the possible trade due to his expiring but that was never a sure thing to bring back a more talented player or a better fit.

[Muser]

:corn:

[dbestpro]

Being here for 1 year - 15.2 million -- possibly trade midseason, or wave buh-bye at the end of the season.

Being here for 4 years - 40 million -- 4th year fully guaranteed at ~11 million. LOL.
.

To be fair..

1 year 15.2 + 7.6 mil tax penalty = 22.8 mil or
4 year 40 mil = 17.2 mil for 3 years above 22.8 existing due......

Average real cost for new contract 5.7 mil for 3 years.

[gilmor]

Second year. That is all.

Yup.. Just 2 years and Spurs will go lottery. Actually I would think is just 1 year unless Splitter proves me wrong.

[oligarchy]

I understand that, but this segway was in reference to the handcuffed comment. The Spurs were always handcuffed by RJ. I get that people wanted them to go out and get someone this off season but if they had a deal with RJ lined up then that was never a possible situation.

We can argue day and night about possible trades but neither are scenarios were the Spurs are necessarily free to do whatever they want. You needed either a team willing to trade for Jefferson who has someone better or a better fit.

They weren't going to be able to bring anyone in the following offseason because if they extend Tony they'll have no room and if they don't extend Tony then we're fucked either way.

The only scenario lost is the possible trade due to his expiring but that was never a sure thing to bring back a more talented player or a better fit.

So, they couldn't use the MLE on someone next year? ~6 million is less than the ~9 million they will pay to Jefferson to next year. That's 3 more million to put on Tony's contract. Seems logical.

[oligarchy]

To be fair..

1 year 15.2 + 7.6 mil tax penalty = 22.8 mil or
4 year 40 mil = 17.2 mil for 3 years above 22.8 existing due......

Average real cost for new contract 5.7 mil for 3 years.

You are calculating a tax penalty and salary they did NOT have to pay. He opted out on July 1st. I'm not sure if you saw that. They didn't owe him a salary. They could've signed MannyIsGod for a min contract and saved 8 million.

[anonoftheinternets]

Yes. Reading is apparently difficult for you. Scoreboard!

u dint answer the question... why is "smoking gun" = illegal? can u pull up the CBA and show the clause where it said its against the rules?

[MannyIsGod]

So, they couldn't use the MLE on someone next year? ~6 million is less than the ~9 million they will pay to Jefferson to next year. That's 3 more million to put on Tony's contract. Seems logical.

I'm sorry is there a provision in the RJ contract where they lose the MLE?

[MannyIsGod]

You are calculating a tax penalty and salary they did NOT have to pay. He opted out on July 1st. I'm not sure if you saw that. They didn't owe him a salary. They could've signed MannyIsGod for a min contract and saved 8 million.

Except that its likely the only reason he opted out was to sign the deal the Spurs offered him. You know, that smoking gun and bullshit you were yapping about above?

No new deal then RJ never opts out.

Of course the Spurs could have screwed him but I'm sure that would just have made getting free agents so much easier in the future.

[dbestpro]

You are calculating a tax penalty and salary they did NOT have to pay. He opted out on July 1st. I'm not sure if you saw that. They didn't owe him a salary. They could've signed MannyIsGod for a min contract and saved 8 million.

We would have not opted out unless this was already in the works.

[oligarchy]

u dint answer the question... why is "smoking gun" = illegal? can u pull up the CBA and show the clause where it said its against the rules?

Why do I need to provide the evidence? Can provide the evidence that it is not?


I'm sorry is there a provision in the RJ contract where they lose the MLE?

Dude. You are fucking moron. Did you type some shit and not even comprehend what you were typing?


They weren't going to be able to bring anyone in the following offseason because if they extend Tony they'll have no room and if they don't extend Tony then we're fucked either way.

Why would they have no room next year? If they don't re-sign RJ, they have room. They would have that thing.. what's it called? Oh, it's the called the MLE. Next year, 6 million is less than 8 million, no? Do we need will_spurs to give us a finance lesson?


Except that its likely the only reason he opted out was to sign the deal the Spurs offered him. You know, that smoking gun and bullshit you were yapping about above?

No new deal then RJ never opts out.

Of course the Spurs could have screwed him but I'm sure that would just have made getting free agents so much easier in the future.


We would have not opted out unless this was already in the works.

I didn't know you guys worked in the front office.. That's sweet, what's that gig like?

[ChumpDumper]

They would have that thing.. what's it called? Oh, it's the called the MLE.Why do they not have it after signing RJ?

[oligarchy]

Why do they not have it after signing RJ?

Exactly. Works in either case, if he did or didn't. They'd still have it.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

So like I was saying, with or without RJ they don't have any cap room.

Thanks but try to keep up.

[MaNu4Tres]

:sleep

[Obstructed_View]

My point is that you're both wrong. Its not a violation of the rules. The Boozer situation was not a violation of the rules and this situation was not a violation of the rules.

You think Gund was going to violate the rules then go on the record and say in the media "Hey Boozer just renigged on our agreement that violated the rules - I just figured I'd throw that out so I can lose draft picks like my friend McHale!"?

Your point that we're both wrong is therefore wrong. Gund wrote a letter to the fans of Cleveland afterward where he says that an agreement is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and then goes on to explain the agreement that they had.

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gund_boozer_040714.html

[oligarchy]

:lmao

So like I was saying, with or without RJ they don't have any cap room.

Thanks but try to keep up.


You seriously are a fucking moron. I feel bad for you. :depressed

You said they had "no room" if they re-sign Tony next year. They can still bring in a player. They don't need cap room. If they used the MLE next year on a player, they would be about 3 million below what RJ will cost them next year. I know English is hard, it's okay.

Try to keep up dummy.

[MannyIsGod]

Your point that we're both wrong is therefore wrong. Gund wrote a letter to the fans of Cleveland afterward where he says that an agreement is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and then goes on to explain the agreement that they had.

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gund_boozer_040714.html

Yeah, written agreements are against the CBA. Gund didn't have one. Thats why it wasn't against the CBA like you said it was. The Spurs (as far as we know) didn't have a written agreement either which is why it wasn't against the CBA either.

[ChumpDumper]

You seriously are a fucking moron. I feel bad for you. :depressed

You said they had "no room" if they re-sign Tony next year. They can still bring in a player. They don't need cap room. If they used the MLE next year on a player, they would be about 3 million below what RJ will cost them next year. I know English is hard, it's okay.

Try to keep up dummy.So your strategy was to not have a small forward at all this season?

[dbestpro]

Is someone keeping score?

[oligarchy]

So your strategy was to not have a small forward at all this season?

What is this "my strategy" bullshit? I didn't say I had any strategy. I merely stated that it is was a fallacy to say that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony.

[ChumpDumper]

What is this "my strategy" bullshit? I didn't say I had any strategy. I merely stated that it is was a fallacy to say that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony.So it isn't your strategy.

Who said re-signing RJ would cost us Tony?

[MannyIsGod]

You seriously are a fucking moron. I feel bad for you. :depressed

You said they had "no room" if they re-sign Tony next year. They can still bring in a player. They don't need cap room. If they used the MLE next year on a player, they would be about 3 million below what RJ will cost them next year. I know English is hard, it's okay.

Try to keep up dummy.

Jesus Christ. Thanks for reaffirm the point you're arguing against. RJ's contract doesn't' change who they can bring in next season because they don't have any cap room either way.

[oligarchy]

So it isn't your strategy.

Who said re-signing RJ would cost us Tony?

Either read or shut the fuck up.

[MannyIsGod]

What is this "my strategy" bullshit? I didn't say I had any strategy. I merely stated that it is was a fallacy to say that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony.

Cool. Who argued that point? Can you give us a link to a post saying that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony?

[MannyIsGod]

Either read or shut the fuck up.

You should just stop posting.

[ChumpDumper]

Either read or shut the fuck up.U mad?

I did read.

No one said that that I saw.

Maybe you could show me which post to read in this 37 page thread.

[MaNu4Tres]

MannyisGod and CD FTW


:flag::lobt2:

[oligarchy]

U mad?

I did read.

No one said that that I saw.

Maybe you could show me which post to read in this 37 page thread.

No, I'm not mad. I just don't care to hand hold you as you cherry pick quotes to prove something I'm not even arguing about so you get you socks off. If you don't know what's being said, don't quote me about something I didn't say.

I didn't say they can play without a SF.

I said, they didn't need to sign him to 4 years. Everyone is under the premise that he was staying for 1-year if there wasn't some pre-arranged deal. Otherwise, the choice is 4 years. Then MiG said it handcuffs then in either case. I basically said, 1-year rental doesn't cripple the team.

MiG said they couldn't bring in a player next year if RJ stayed for the final year.

I said they had the MLE next year to use because they would be over cap. That would be 3 million less than what they are going to pay RJ next year.

It's all hypothetical bullshit that doesn't matter.

That is all.

[ElNono]

The only scenario lost is the possible trade due to his expiring but that was never a sure thing to bring back a more talented player or a better fit.

It wasn't a sure thing, but it's better to have the option than not have it, IMO. You can always embellish the trade offer with some picks and/or a kid like Blair and you have a $17 million or so in value to get a different piece for one last run in TD's final season.

But as it is, if RJ keeps on laying turds, then why even bother extending Tony? We're not going to be contenders so might aswell start tanking ASAP.

[ElNono]

Either read or shut the fuck up.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[DPG21920]

I understand that, but this segway was in reference to the handcuffed comment. The Spurs were always handcuffed by RJ. I get that people wanted them to go out and get someone this off season but if they had a deal with RJ lined up then that was never a possible situation.

We can argue day and night about possible trades but neither are scenarios were the Spurs are necessarily free to do whatever they want. You needed either a team willing to trade for Jefferson who has someone better or a better fit.

They weren't going to be able to bring anyone in the following offseason because if they extend Tony they'll have no room and if they don't extend Tony then we're fucked either way.

The only scenario lost is the possible trade due to his expiring but that was never a sure thing to bring back a more talented player or a better fit.

My handcuffed comment was in reference to the Spurs making the mistake of agreeing to the deal before RJ opting out. They could not go back on the deal when they saw how poor the market for RJ was and that is why I said they were handcuffed.

You are right. We can argue about hypothetical trades all you want, some logical, some not. But what we do know for sure is that paying someone 40M for 4 years that does nothing to help you win a title realistically is a bad idea.

We also know that doing essentially the same thing as last year, but bringing in a few rookies and one solid big man would not be enough to contend. I don't know what else they could have done, but it still does not make sense to sign RJ to a bad contract because of that.



I'm sorry is there a provision in the RJ contract where they lose the MLE?

Well considering the Spurs robbed Peter to pay Paul in terms of skirting under the LT, it is safe to assume they won't go that far into the luxury tax. I know Holt said he was willing last year, but this next year and beyond....not so sure.

[DPG21920]

Jesus Christ. Thanks for reaffirm the point you're arguing against. RJ's contract doesn't' change who they can bring in next season because they don't have any cap room either way.

It very well could change who they bring in next season because with him off the books, although that does not equate to more cap space, it does equate to financial flexibility with less commitments on the books.

[oligarchy]

It very well could change who they bring in next season because with him off the books, although that does not equate to more cap space, it does equate to financial flexibility with less commitments on the books.

Ding Ding. As I said, it would be almost 3 million (or more if you didn't spend the whole MLE) since Dick is owed around 9 million next year. That's also saying MLE is around 6.

[MannyIsGod]

It very well could change who they bring in next season because with him off the books, although that does not equate to more cap space, it does equate to financial flexibility with less commitments on the books.

I'm confident that they'll still use the MLE regardless of Jefferson's contract. We'll have to wait one year to know for sure, but yeah.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I'm not mad. I just don't care to hand hold you as you cherry pick quotes to prove something I'm not even arguing about so you get you socks off. If you don't know what's being said, don't quote me about something I didn't say.

I didn't say they can play without a SF.The option of not re-signing Jefferson was proposed. Considering the free agent market, that is pretty much de facto going without an SF.

And there was no quote made of anything you didn't say. A conclusion was drawn.


I said, they didn't need to sign him to 4 years. Everyone is under the premise that he was staying for 1-year if there wasn't some pre-arranged deal. Otherwise, the choice is 4 years. Then MiG said it handcuffs then in either case. I basically said, 1-year rental doesn't cripple the team.It certainly does hurt the team financially.


MiG said they couldn't bring in a player next year if RJ stayed for the final year.

I said they had the MLE next year to use because they would be over cap. That would be 3 million less than what they are going to pay RJ next year.That depends on Tony's new deal and the luxury tax threshold, none of which are currently known and which could be further affected by CBA negotiations.


It's all hypothetical bullshit that doesn't matter.

That is all.In that case, one should probably not get so worked up over it.

[oligarchy]

The option of not re-signing Jefferson was proposed. Considering the free agent market, that is pretty much de facto going without an SF.

That was something discussed in a parallel topic, but wasn't what was being "argued." The main premise of either Jefferson for 1-year or Jefferson for 4.



It certainly does hurt the team financially.

That depends on Tony's new deal and the luxury tax threshold, none of which are currently known and which could be further affected by CBA negotiations.


That's debatable, as explained. Keeping RJ for 1-year, would be better for Tony next year. The other point being, if RJ is bad fit, why keep him around longer with the possible impact of hurting Tony's chances of staying here?


In that case, one should probably not get so worked up over it.
indeed.

[MannyIsGod]

My handcuffed comment was in reference to the Spurs making the mistake of agreeing to the deal before RJ opting out. They could not go back on the deal when they saw how poor the market for RJ was and that is why I said they were handcuffed.

You are right. We can argue about hypothetical trades all you want, some logical, some not. But what we do know for sure is that paying someone 40M for 4 years that does nothing to help you win a title realistically is a bad idea.

We also know that doing essentially the same thing as last year, but bringing in a few rookies and one solid big man would not be enough to contend. I don't know what else they could have done, but it still does not make sense to sign RJ to a bad contract because of that.


Well considering the Spurs robbed Peter to pay Paul in terms of skirting under the LT, it is safe to assume they won't go that far into the luxury tax. I know Holt said he was willing last year, but this next year and beyond....not so sure.

Aldridge has a report out saying he's going to do it in the future as well but I understand your final point because I am pretty much in the opinion that they did make the extension to save money this year.

I don't think you can say RJ doesn't help you win a title. He definitely helps, but he doesn't put this team over the top. This team didn't lose last season because of RJ. He's an easy scape goat because he was brought in with a lot of fan fare and people thought it would put them over the top but the number one factor for the Spurs is health and they didn't have it last year.

RJ helps, but he doesn't put you over the top this year. He's a piece. He's not the ideal piece, but he's the best the Spurs have and had access to. Everytime I play poker I want a full house but I take top pair when I get it.

[DPG21920]

Aldridge has a report out saying he's going to do it in the future as well but I understand your final point because I am pretty much in the opinion that they did make the extension to save money this year.

I don't think you can say RJ doesn't help you win a title. He definitely helps, but he doesn't put this team over the top. This team didn't lose last season because of RJ. He's an easy scape goat because he was brought in with a lot of fan fare and people thought it would put them over the top but the number one factor for the Spurs is health and they didn't have it last year.

RJ helps, but he doesn't put you over the top this year. He's a piece. He's not the ideal piece, but he's the best the Spurs have and had access to. Everytime I play poker I want a full house but I take top pair when I get it.

This is where we disagree I guess. I don't think RJ moves you forward. I think he keeps you from *possibly taking a step back (*there are a lot of variables that could have worked out in the Spurs favor had he not opted out or not been resigned; possible trades, young guys surprising, FA...).

If you want to call that moving forward, then ok. I just don't see it that way. I also don't see the reason to pay what you described, which is best case scenario (meaning a piece, even though not the right piece), 40M over 4 years.

I am not blaming RJ for everything like I have said before. It is the situation and RJ just so happens to be that player. There were a lot of things wrong and RJ was in the group. Even though it was not all his fault, it certainly did not warrant a 40M/4 year deal imo, even if that was the best option.

Spurs imo, had to take the gamble with RJ for one year or take the gamble with young guys/FA and possible trades.

[ChumpDumper]

That was something discussed in a parallel topic, but wasn't what was being "argued." The main premise of either Jefferson for 1-year or Jefferson for 4.So Jefferson for one year puts the spurs so far into the luxury tax that they don't even sign Splitter. That's a possibility.


That's debatable, as explained. Keeping RJ for 1-year, would be better for Tony next year.And worse for now, which could make it worse for tony later.


The other point being, if RJ is bad fit, why keep him around longer with the possible impact of hurting Tony's chances of staying here?Is he that bad a fit?

As I see it, RJ did do the Spurs a favor by opting out and the Spurs rewarded him with probably one more year than they really wanted to give him. They may have only kicked the can down the road when it comes to luxury tax payments, but having the time to figure something out has its own value.

[quentin_compson]

Everytime I play poker I want a full house but I take top pair when I get it.

I think that sums up the whole RJ situation pretty well.

Probably the Spurs wouldn't have been able to get a better SF than RJ to come here right now. Alright, you could always trade Tony and definitely get a good SF (and a couple of other things) for him, but who is going to play PG in the S5? Anyone saying Hill is clearly delusional in my opinion.

So if you want to make the impression you're trying to get a team as competitive as possible for the upcoming season, RJ was the best option available.
Yeah, barring a miracle, the Spurs won't beat the Lakers, Splitter or no Splitter. But not signing RJ would have made it look like throwing in the towel right away from the beginning of this season. I'm not living in SA or anything, so there are a bunch of people who are closer to the situation than I am, but I think Holt and the FO want to show Duncan they are doing everything they can to line up the best possible team they can right now. So yeah, RJ being around for maybe four years more is bad, but it's in the line of going all-in as long as Tim is under contract (without getting too deep into Luxury Tax area, that is).

[ElNono]

I think that sums up the whole RJ situation pretty well.

Probably the Spurs wouldn't have been able to get a better SF than RJ to come here right now. Alright, you could always trade Tony and definitely get a good SF (and a couple of other things) for him, but who is going to play PG in the S5? Anyone saying Hill is clearly delusional in my opinion.

So if you want to make the impression you're trying to get a team as competitive as possible for the upcoming season, RJ was the best option available.
Yeah, barring a miracle, the Spurs won't beat the Lakers, Splitter or no Splitter. But not signing RJ would have made it look like throwing in the towel right away from the beginning of this season. I'm not living in SA or anything, so there are a bunch of people who are closer to the situation than I am, but I think Holt and the FO want to show Duncan they are doing everything they can to line up the best possible team they can right now. So yeah, RJ being around for maybe four years more is bad, but it's in the line of going all-in as long as Tim is under contract (without getting too deep into Luxury Tax area, that is).

Actually, I don't see the situation like that at all. RJ was playing for the Spurs this season pretty much no matter what.

[oligarchy]

So Jefferson for one year puts the spurs so far into the luxury tax that they don't even sign Splitter. That's a possibility.

True, but alot of what people are calculating for luxury tax savings were assuming that Splitter was coming over regardless. Still a valid possibility, but we don't know either way, nor what Holt was really "willing" to spend



And worse for now, which could make it worse for tony later.

True, spending that much the season before and getting no returns would definitely inhibit the extension, but to what degree? The savings next year could be 3 million or more, depending on the FA and the salary they command. That definitely doesn't make up for the other 12 million lost, but does it make it make it more or less likely though, that Tony re-signs based on the savings of this year? Does that mean they'll offer him max?



Is he that bad a fit?


For four years, I think so.

As I see it, RJ did do the Spurs a favor by opting out and the Spurs rewarded him with probably one more year than they really wanted to give him. They may have only kicked the can down the road when it comes to luxury tax payments, but having the time to figure something out has its own value.[/QUOTE]

I can see the case where he can inhibit their spending in the future. I don't believe it's all doom and gloom once Duncan leaves, so it could be a problem where his contract can be burdensome on the back-end, since they'll have a number of contracts to resign, etc. That extra 10-11 million in the those last two years could carry alot of weight.

What will be funny is if Jefferson comes out and hustles and plays great D and hits his open shots, doesn't stifle the offense, etc. That will make me laugh if he is stellar next year.

[DPG21920]

The question in my mind is: How much better are the Spurs impact wise (meaning regular season games, playoff run) with RJ vs without him and is that worth the 40M?

It's not just that for me though, although that is a big question. The other big part is what is the real goal? To save money or to "go all in"? If it is to go all in, there are, at least in theory, plenty of bad contracts like RJ's that could be had via trade that would have changed things up and had a chance of working out. The thing is we know RJ is not a good fit and that his upside is low, for now and 4 years down the road. If you are willing to do that (although I know getting under the LT was the driving factor), why not do a trade for a bad contract for someone with more upside?

[DPG21920]

Actually, I don't see the situation like that at all. RJ was playing for the Spurs this season pretty much no matter what.

Exactly. The mistake was having this deal in place instead of letting RJ just stay for 15M. If they let RJ stay without a pre arranged deal they still have the "best option" and he is expiring and off the books next year. Of course, they could potentially trade him as well.

If he decides to opt out anyways, then they get him for a seriously reduced value more than likely.

For people using the calculations on RJ's salary vs the luxury tax, my point is that money was a sunk cost. They should have just let it go, but obviously it is not my money and they want to make some money.

[ChumpDumper]

If he decides to opt out anyways, then they get him for a seriously reduced value more than likely.They needed RJ to opt out. The only way to assure that was to offer him years.


For people using the calculations on RJ's salary vs the luxury tax, my point is that money was a sunk cost. They should have just let it go, but obviously it is not my money and they want to make some money.It's not sunk if you don't have to sink it.

[quentin_compson]

Actually, I don't see the situation like that at all. RJ was playing for the Spurs this season pretty much no matter what.

But only if this prearranged deal stuff is true, isn't it? He could have opted out, not wanting to come back, and we might be talking about how much Bobby Simmons has left in the tank right now. Because RJ opting out doesn't give the Spurs the money to sign a great free agent SF either.
The best case scenario would have been RJ not opting out, of course. His expiring contract would have been a nice asset come trade deadline. But as soon as he opts out, I can see why the Spurs have been doing what they were doing.

[DPG21920]

They needed RJ to opt out. The only way to assure that was to offer him years.

Why? To save money?


It's not sunk if you don't have to sink it.

Huh? They were either going to pay the LT or pay it to RJ over 4 years. They were paying the money regardless.

[will_spurs]

You are calculating a tax penalty and salary they did NOT have to pay. He opted out on July 1st. I'm not sure if you saw that. They didn't owe him a salary. They could've signed MannyIsGod for a min contract and saved 8 million.

You're such a moron reading your stuff makes my eyes bleed.

RJ OPTED OUT BECAUSE HE HAD A PREARRANGED DEAL WITH THE SPURS.

[MannyIsGod]

Why? To save money?



Huh? They were either going to pay the LT or pay it to RJ over 4 years. They were paying the money regardless.

I dont' know if I'd say they needed him to opt out but RJ opting out did make Splitter coming over much easier.

[ElNono]

But only if this prearranged deal stuff is true, isn't it? He could have opted out, not wanting to come back, and we might be talking about how much Bobby Simmons has left in the tank right now. Because RJ opting out doesn't give the Spurs the money to sign a great free agent SF either.
The best case scenario would have been RJ not opting out, of course. His expiring contract would have been a nice asset come trade deadline. But as soon as he opts out, I can see why the Spurs have been doing what they were doing.

It has to be true. I mean, you can try to convince me otherwise, but there's no way he's that dumb to drop $16m guaranteed without that deal being in place. It also explains why he did basically get no interest from any other team. Who else is going to offer him that kind of money?
And if you tell me he did opt out without that offer in place, then I have to take offense with the FO for offering him that kind of money when all the other potential suitors for RJ only had MLE money left. Basically, the Spurs could have simply offered $6m per season, and that would have been the best offer RJ could receive, plus the Spurs had bird rights. So, I'm pretty sure he had this offer in his backpocket before opting out.

[DPG21920]

I dont' know if I'd say they needed him to opt out but RJ opting out did make Splitter coming over much easier.

I absolutely refuse to believe that the Spurs would pass on a player like Splitter for the cost they got him at because he more than anyone helps them now and in the future.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? To save money?Yes.


Huh? They were either going to pay the LT or pay it to RJ over 4 years. They were paying the money regardless.Were they going to pay double for every other player signed this season as well?

If they end up paying the same amount of luxury tax later, you could say it was sunk -- but that isn't readily apparent.

As I said, they probably only signed him for one more year than they really wanted.

[ElNono]

I dont' know if I'd say they needed him to opt out but RJ opting out did make Splitter coming over much cheaper.

fify :lol

[DPG21920]

Yes.

Were they going to pay double for every other player signed this season as well?

If they end up paying the same amount of luxury tax later, you could say it was sunk -- but that isn't readily apparent.

As I said, they probably only signed him for one more year than they really wanted.

So their goal is not to go all in, but to save money?

[quentin_compson]

The question in my mind is: How much better are the Spurs impact wise (meaning regular season games, playoff run) with RJ vs without him and is that worth the 40M?

My guess is that, even if he improves this season, RJ's impact won't be that huge (good or bad).


It's not just that for me though, although that is a big question. The other big part is what is the real goal? To save money or to "go all in"? If it is to go all in, there are, at least in theory, plenty of bad contracts like RJ's that could be had via trade that would have changed things up and had a chance of working out. The thing is we know RJ is not a good fit and that his upside is low, for now and 4 years down the road. If you are willing to do that (although I know getting under the LT was the driving factor), why not do a trade for a bad contract for someone with more upside?

The thing is, this team will be toast the minute Duncan retires. By then (assuming it's the Maya year), RJ will be a bad contract for one more year, and after that, he will be an asset again. By then, Spurs will be rebuilding no matter what, and RJ's contract won't really hurt this process that much.
I see your point with going all in and take someone with a bad contract and more upside than RJ, but if you assume that the Spurs don't want deep luxury tax contracts again, I still think resigning RJ is an alright move.
I can see your points thinking otherwise, though.

[ChumpDumper]

I absolutely refuse to believe that the Spurs would pass on a player like Splitter for the cost they got him at because he more than anyone helps them now and in the future.They passed on Scola.

Financial concerns have to be taken into consideration.

[MannyIsGod]

i absolutely refuse to believe that the spurs would pass on a player like splitter for the cost they got him at because he more than anyone helps them now and in the future.

scola thread.

[ChumpDumper]

So their goal is not to go all in, but to save money?Which team have you been watching all these years?

[DPG21920]

That was different. The buyout was smaller for Tiago IIRC. Not to mention, the Spurs had a bad contract to unload along with Scola.

It seems unlikely they would make a mistake like this twice. Is it possible? Sure.

[DPG21920]

Which team have you been watching all these years?

The one that says they were going all in essentially.

[Obstructed_View]

You're such a moron reading your stuff makes my eyes bleed.

RJ OPTED OUT BECAUSE HE HAD A PREARRANGED DEAL WITH THE SPURS.

Link?

[ElNono]

TBH, if you're saying you're going all to try to maximize whatever is left (if any) of the Duncan's window, then you go all in, and that taking the tax hit. They did it last season with RJ's horrible contract. The gamble didn't pan out, but if you're still all-in, then taking the tax hit shouldn't be more of a concern than it was last season.

[ChumpDumper]

That was different. The buyout was smaller for Tiago IIRC.Was it that summer? Houston seemed to pay it off pretty easily with a Tiago-like contract.


Not to mention, the Spurs had a bad contract to unload along with Scola.A bad contract that, with a Scola deal, would have resulted in the Spurs' being over the luxury tax threshold.


It seems unlikely they would make a mistake like this twice. Is it possible? Sure.Not if they can avoid it.

With the Jefferson deal, they avoided it.

[ElNono]

The Scola situation is obviously different because at the time they were coming from winning a championship and they felt they could compete with anybody. Last season things changed. Pop said they felt they didn't have enough talent anymore, and that's why they went all in to try to maximize the chances of winning while Duncan was still around.

[ChumpDumper]

TBH, if you're saying you're going all to try to maximize whatever is left (if any) of the Duncan's window, then you go all in, and that taking the tax hit. They did it last season with RJ's horrible contract. The gamble didn't pan out, but if you're still all-in, then taking the tax hit shouldn't be more of a concern than it was last season.It's easy to go all in with other people's money.

[DPG21920]

Well if the Spurs said we are going all in during Duncan's last years during the Scola trade, then yes, it is comparable.

[ChumpDumper]

The Scola situation is obviously different because at the time they were coming from winning a championship and they felt they could compete with anybody. Last season things changed. Pop said they felt they didn't have enough talent anymore, and that's why they went all in to try to maximize the chances of winning while Duncan was still around.The Spurs team is a business.

That never changed.

[ElNono]

It's easy to go all in with other people's money.

I'm pretty sure it was Holt's money last season too.

I mean, I really have no problem if they changed their mind from last season to this season, and now they decided that the gamble is not worth it.

[ChumpDumper]

Well if the Spurs said we are going all in during Duncan's last years during the Scola trade, then yes, it is comparable.Sorry you believed that so literally.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm pretty sure it was Holt's money last season too.

I mean, I really have no problem if they changed their mind from last season to this season, and now they decided that the gamble is not worth it.Surprise.

They did.

[DPG21920]

Sorry you believed that so literally.

It's hard not to when they do a big trade and pay luxury tax.

[ElNono]

Surprise.

They did.

It's really no surprise. It's merely disappointing. I personally think Duncan deserves better.

[ChumpDumper]

It's hard not to when they do a big trade and pay luxury tax.Judging from their recent moves, do you believe this is still their strategy?

[DPG21920]

Even if they changed their minds, RJ's contract still sucks.

[ChumpDumper]

It's really no surprise. It's merely disappointing. I personally think Duncan deserves better.They can trade him to the Lakers.

[DPG21920]

Judging from their recent moves, do you believe this is still their strategy?

No and that is partially why I am upset and what I have argued.

[ChumpDumper]

Even if they changed their minds, RJ's contract still sucks.So are you saying they changed their minds?

[quentin_compson]

It has to be true. I mean, you can try to convince me otherwise, but there's no way he's that dumb to drop $16m guaranteed without that deal being in place. It also explains why he did basically get no interest from any other team. Who else is going to offer him that kind of money?
And if you tell me he did opt out without that offer in place, then I have to take offense with the FO for offering him that kind of money when all the other potential suitors for RJ only had MLE money left. Basically, the Spurs could have simply offered $6m per season, and that would have been the best offer RJ could receive, plus the Spurs had bird rights. So, I'm pretty sure he had this offer in his backpocket before opting out.

Yeah, I'm not really denying it looks that way. But for your initial point, this off season has been crazy both ways (players getting overpaid big time, but then also players taking less money than they could have been getting). So I still think that RJ could very well have been thinking he will get more than his money's worth by opting out in the first place.

Basically, I suspect that you and a lot of other people here are right in it being a strange kind of contract RJ has been getting (still, financially, it isn't that bad for the Spurs considering luxury tax savings and stuff).
Probably I'm still not able to put together that they would be able to bring over Splitter for this kind of money and at the same time throw money at RJ.
I know that my point with trying to milk Duncan's window and keeping him "happy" (would he even complain? I honestly don't know) even if it means overpaying RJ in advance (prearranged deal) only to have at least a starting caliber SF is a purely psychological one.

[ElNono]

And I still think they'll be offering TP a max deal and most likely be paying lux tax next season if Tony accepts. I think this deal is actually so the tax impact is less next season if Tony accepts.

[ChumpDumper]

No and that is partially why I am upset and what I have argued.Well, how's that working out for you?

[ElNono]

They can trade him to the Lakers.

:lol