RJ's Contract Details

[ChumpDumper]

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.It's possible, though I think there are too many unknowns past this coming season to say for sure.

[ElNono]

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.

I think they feel RJ can be what they thought he would be when they signed him up. And maybe he will be. As a fan, I really really hope he is. As I told Kori a while back, my mind tells me it's not going to happen, but my heart really wants him to do well for us.

In the meantime, they also are making themselves some room for next season in case TP is extended.

[ElNono]

It's possible, though I think there are too many unknowns past this coming season to say for sure.

The CBA discussions are going to be something to watch. I still don't know how owners are going to save face after this season's cap increases.

[quentin_compson]

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.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is a point we shouldn't underestimate. Holt pretty much went out of his way to get RJ. It didn't work out so well, so I think the chances of him doing that again (getting a better player with a bad contract) were pretty slim to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

The CBA discussions are going to be something to watch. I still don't know how owners are going to save face after this season's cap increases.There is the added benefit of the Spurs' getting under the luxury tax so they can take a kind of moral high ground in the CBA negotiations.

[DPG21920]

Well, how's that working out for you?

Pretty good, actually. How's life?

[DPG21920]

There is the added benefit of the Spurs' getting under the luxury tax so they can take a kind of moral high ground in the CBA negotiations.

They just dumped 40M to RJ. They are a part of the bad contracts that were given out.

[DPG21920]

Also, if the Spurs were trying to just save money, does paying your 5th big 16M make sense?

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty good, actually.Really? You have changed the Spurs' minds about spending?


They just dumped 40M to RJ. They are a part of the bad contracts that were given out.So Manu's deal was worse according to your criteria.

From a luxury tax standpoint. RJ's is a great deal.

[ElNono]

There is the added benefit of the Spurs' getting under the luxury tax so they can take a kind of moral high ground in the CBA negotiations.

Holt will be representing all owners, not just the Spurs. Plenty of black eyes league-wide in this offseason, starting with the cap numbers, to pretend that teams are struggling. But we'll see how that goes in due time.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, if the Spurs were trying to just save money, does paying your 5th big 16M make sense?Why pay any player any money?

If he made $16 million this year and/or put the Spurs into the luxury tax, you might have a point.

[ChumpDumper]

Holt will be representing all owners, not just the Spurs.Exactly.

[ElNono]

So Manu's deal was worse according to your criteria.

What do you think his criteria is?

[DPG21920]

Really? You have changed the Spurs' minds about spending?

No, do you expect to change the way the Spurs think with your posts on the team?


So Manu's deal was worse according to your criteria.

From a luxury tax standpoint. RJ's is a great deal.

Manu's contract was seen as a bad one? Because many see RJ's as a bad one.

[DPG21920]

Why pay any player any money?

If he made $16 million this year and/or put the Spurs into the luxury tax, you might have a point.

So paying any player money is equal to paying your 5th big 16M?

[ChumpDumper]

What do you think his criteria is?Money spent on players.


No, do you expect to change the way the Spurs think with your posts on the team?Never. That's why I don't really get upset about what they do.


Manu's contract was seen as a bad one? Because many see RJ's as a bad one.Why do they see it that way?

Because they think they overpaid for a player?

Given Manu's injury history, the same could be said of his deal.

From a business standpoint, however, Manu's deal was a no-brainer.

Considering it got the Spurs comfortably under the tax threshold to sign other players, RJ's deal is quite a good business deal.

[ElNono]

Money spent on players.

I'm pretty sure that's not his criteria. That's probably why you are confused.

[ChumpDumper]

So paying any player money is equal to paying your 5th big 16M?1) Is he the 5th big? Is that official?

2) If all you want to do is "just save money" as you said, why spend more than the bare minimum?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm pretty sure that's not his criteria. That's probably why you are confused.What are his criteria?

[ElNono]

What are his criteria?

Did you ask him what his criteria was before assuming what it was?

Maybe you should ask him now so there's no confusion.

[ChumpDumper]

Did you ask him what his criteria was before assuming what it was?I explained my reasoning pretty clearly.

If he has a problem with it, he will almost certainly tell me.

[ohmwrecker]

This thread has gone off the rails. I'm pretty sure that everything relevant or insightful has already been said . . . like ten pages ago.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you should ask him now so there's no confusion.I'm pretty sure he can say if he personally has an issue with this.

[ChumpDumper]

This thread has gone off the rails. I'm pretty sure that everything relevant or insightful has already been said . . . like ten pages ago.Thanks for your contribution!

[ElNono]

I explained my reasoning pretty clearly.


I'm not asking about your reasoning, I'm asking you if you asked him what his criteria was. Did you?

[Mel_13]

This thread is mostly:

GNMrrwo1m_A

Yet I find it oddly compelling.

More please.

:corn:

[ElNono]

Also, is it official we won't be paying the luxury tax this season?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not asking about your reasoning, I'm asking you if you asked him what his criteria was. Did you?As he was simply stating years and dollar amounts, what else could his criteria be?

[ohmwrecker]

Thanks for your contribution!

Hey, no problem, but seriously just take a step back and read this shit. Soak it in.

[benefactor]

This thread is mostly:

GNMrrwo1m_A

Yet I find it oddly compelling.

More please.

:corn:
You are surprised that a conversation with CD would result in anything less?

[ElNono]

As he was simply stating years and dollar amounts, what else could his criteria be?

Market value perhaps? Trading value?

I'm pretty sure there's more to player value than luxury tax implications.

Now, I don't pretend to know what criteria he was using.

You can ask him, he's right here.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, is it official we won't be paying the luxury tax this season?Nothing is official until the end of the season. I also don't know if there is still a cliff provision built into the tax since the threshold is known beforehand.

Given the salaries and the threshold amounts that are known, it's pretty clear to me that the Spurs are trying to at least minimize their tax exposure if not reap the rewards of the tax dispersal. Feel free to counter this assertion.

[ElNono]

This thread is mostly:

GNMrrwo1m_A

Yet I find it oddly compelling.

More please.

:corn:

I'll be bailing out soon, I gotta eat dinner. Sorry Mel! :lol

Maybe I'll chug along later if I'm bored like right now.

[ElNono]

Nothing is official until the end of the season. I also don't know if there is still a cliff provision built into the tax since the threshold is known beforehand.

Given the salaries and the threshold amounts that are known, it's pretty clear to me that the Spurs are trying to at least minimize their tax exposure if not reap the rewards of the tax dispersal. Feel free to counter this assertion.

I agree that they're trying to minimize their tax exposure, if not this season, at least long term, and stated as much. We definitely agree on that.

I think we'll know by January more clearly what is going on.

[ChumpDumper]

Market value perhaps? Trading value?

I'm pretty sure there's more to player value than luxury tax implications.I'm pretty sure there are more to contracts than market value and trading value, as illustrated in my own post.


Now, I don't pretend to know what criteria he was using.

You can ask him, he's right here.Why do I need to ask him?

To clear up your confusion?

[DPG21920]

Chump is playing a silly semantics game, like a child.

He is arguing that Manu's contract could be seen on the same level as RJ's by most people. One contract is viewed as a good deal, and one is not by seemingly the consensus.

He then asks if I think my opinions change the Spurs FO way of thinking.

He asks me if Bonner being the 5th big is for sure, as if the Spurs not paying the LT is. He turns reasonable assumptions into petty arguments without realizing he does the same thing. It appears to me with having Duncan, Splitter and Dice (who got more minutes), that Bonner is at best a 4th big. Then when you factor in Blair's abilities, it is not a stretch to assume Bonner is the 5th big. Feel free to counter this assertion.

For example, I am not changing the Spurs minds with my posts, like he is not changing mine with his, yet he still replies to me.

Also, lol at saying if your goal is to save money, why spend more than the minimum. Are you just acting dense or is this real? Trying to play semantics and taking things to extremes is just meh.

[DPG21920]

Manu's contract was seen as a bad one? Because many see RJ's as a bad one.


As he was simply stating years and dollar amounts, what else could his criteria be?

[ElNono]

I'm pretty sure there are more to contracts than market value and trading value, as illustrated in my own post.

Exactly. There's multiple criteria. They all need to be taken into account before declaring that a deal makes business sense.


Why do I need to ask him?
To clear up your confusion?

You're the one arguing with him about money amount and years and assuming what his criteria was, not me.

I'm not confused at all, seeing I'm not arguing with him about what he posted.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump is playing a silly semantics game, like a child.

He is arguing that Manu's contract could be seen on the same level as RJ's by most people. One contract is viewed as a good deal, and one is not by seemingly the consensus.Most people come from a pure basketball point of view, which is understandable. From that perspective, it could be argued that both contracts are on the high side.


He then asks if I think my opinions change the Spurs FO way of thinking.You said you got upset.


He asks me if Bonner being the 5th big is for sure, as if the Spurs not paying the LT is. He turns reasonable assumptions into petty arguments without realizing he does the same thing.Bonner could well be the 5th big, but big men do get money in the NBA. I don't think his getting the 5th most number of minutes is by any means a certainty. One could make the argument he could be as high as 3rd, which is might change the perception of the salary dramatically.


For example, I am not changing the Spurs minds with my posts, like he is not changing mine with his, yet he still replies to me.I never expect to change anyone's mind here. No one ever does. I merely stated my case.


Also, lol at saying if your goal is to save money, why spend more than the minimum. Are you just acting dense or is this real? Trying to play semantics and taking things to extremes is just meh.It was your argument, not mine. I believe the Spurs are trying to win on a budget, that budget's amount being the luxury tax threshold. Simply saving money is not the goal as you tried to argue for me.

[ohmwrecker]

http://metadiary.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/suicide-bear.jpg

[ElNono]

Chump is playing a silly semantics game, like a child.

He is arguing that Manu's contract could be seen on the same level as RJ's by most people. One contract is viewed as a good deal, and one is not by seemingly the consensus.

He then asks if I think my opinions change the Spurs FO way of thinking.

He asks me if Bonner being the 5th big is for sure, as if the Spurs not paying the LT is. He turns reasonable assumptions into petty arguments without realizing he does the same thing. It appears to me with having Duncan, Splitter and Dice (who got more minutes), that Bonner is at best a 4th big. Then when you factor in Blair's abilities, it is not a stretch to assume Bonner is the 5th big. Feel free to counter this assertion.

For example, I am not changing the Spurs minds with my posts, like he is not changing mine with his, yet he still replies to me.

Also, lol at saying if your goal is to save money, why spend more than the minimum. Are you just acting dense or is this real? Trying to play semantics and taking things to extremes is just meh.

He's just trying to close down this thread, and I don't blame him... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly. There's multiple criteria. They all need to be taken into account before declaring that a deal makes business sense.The business itself also needs to be taken into account.


You're the one arguing with him about money amount and years and assuming what his criteria was, not me.He is free to add to that.


I'm not confused at all, seeing I'm not arguing with him about what he posted.I think you are confused about who is arguing at this point.

[ChumpDumper]

He's just trying to close down this thread, and I don't blame him... :lolNot really. It's a good talk if we get away from arguing about how we argue.

[ohmwrecker]

http://x818.com/nevverimages/suicide577.jpg

[ElNono]

The business itself also needs to be taken into account.

All the criteria mentioned before affect the business one way or the other. Do they not? Which implicitly mean that business is indeed taken into account.


He is free to add to that.

You're also free to ask him if you don't know.


I think you are confused about who is arguing at this point.

I'm not. I know for sure I'm not arguing with him about his points. :lol

[DPG21920]

Most people come from a pure basketball point of view, which is understandable. From that perspective, it could be argued that both contracts are on the high side.

That's not the point. You said that my criteria was just years/money. You inferred that (terribly). Most people see RJ's contract as bad and Manu's as good. Especially when you compare Manu's contract to what he likely would have received as a FA.


You said you got upset.

:lol I did not say I was flipping tables or screaming. I got upset in the context that I did not like the deal, not like it actually effected my day to day activities.


Bonner could well be the 5th big, but big men do get money in the NBA. I don't think his getting the 5th most number of minutes is by any means a certainty. One could make the argument he could be as high as 3rd, which is might change the perception of the salary dramatically.

So Bonner could be a 5th big? Then why make your argument against mine, when everything everyone says could be debated? I feel the odds of him being the 4th or 5th big or greater than him being the 3rd. If that is the case, why sign him to 16M if you are saving money?


I never expect to change anyone's mind here. No one ever does. I merely stated my case.

Same here. So why take it to the next level and ask if I was changing the Spurs minds? Just silly.


It was your argument, not mine. I believe the Spurs are trying to win on a budget, that budget's amount being the luxury tax threshold. Simply saving money is not the goal as you tried to argue for me.

That was not my argument. That was again inferred by you (again terribly). One could easily see that was not my argument based on the culmination of my posts. Again, you were just arguing to argue.

[ElNono]

Not really. It's a good talk if we get away from arguing about how we argue.

You're free not to argue about that. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

All the criteria mentioned before affect the business one way or the other. Do they not? Which implicitly mean that business is indeed taken into account.By the Spurs, or by SpursTalk posters?


You're also free to ask him if you don't know.But I don't need to.


I'm not. I know for sure I'm not arguing with him about his points. :lolBut you are arguing. I don't even think he is anymore.

[ElNono]

By the Spurs, or by SpursTalk posters?

By anybody with an opinion.
You don't think that all the criteria mentioned before affects the business one way or another?


But I don't need to.

Seeing that he called you out for inferring on what he thinks, maybe you should start to ask.


But you are arguing. I don't even think he is anymore.

Unless there's another DPG21920 posting right now, I'm pretty sure he indeed is. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

That's not the point. You said that my criteria was just years/money. You inferred that (terribly).Are there others when talking about CBA negotiations?


Most people see RJ's contract as bad and Manu's as good.Good for them. I already stated there are reasons for that.


Especially when you compare Manu's contract to what he likely would have received as a FA. What would he have likely received as a free agent?


:lol I did not say I was flipping tables or screaming. I got upset in the context that I did not like the deal, not like it actually effected my day to day activities.How could one know?


So Bonner could be a 5th big? Then why make your argument against mine, when everything everyone says could be debated? I feel the odds of him being the 4th or 5th big or greater than him being the 3rd. If that is the case, why sign him to 16M if you are saving money?So you are saying he isn't officially the 5th big.

OK.


Same here. So why take it to the next level and ask if I was changing the Spurs minds? Just silly.I agree this is all ultimately silly.


That was not my argument. That was again inferred by you (again terribly). One could easily see that was not my argument based on the culmination of my posts.No, it was your argument. You posted it. I don't know why you would take issue with it's being taken to its logical conclusion. You inferred (terribly) that I thought the Spurs only goal this season was to save money. Now you are upset that it was done to you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you.

The Spurs want to minimize their tax exposure and even get some distribution money if possible while fielding a competitive team. That is my argument.

[ChumpDumper]

By anybody with an opinion.
You don't think that all the criteria mentioned before affects the business one way or another?Sure, but it's a stretch to think "anyone with an opinion" takes all criteria into account.


Seeing that he called you out for inferring on what he thinks, maybe you should start to ask.Nah, if it's that important to him, he'll do it without prompting.


Unless there's another DPG21920 posting right now, I'm pretty sure he indeed is. :lolNot about basketball anymore. We're all arguing about the way we argue now.

[ElNono]

The Spurs want to minimize their tax exposure and even get some distribution money if possible while fielding a competitive team. That is my argument.

This is an opinion I agree with and I think is the one the Spurs are pursuing.

That said, they could have done the same thing by offering RJ a 3/30 deal, and seeing if he would accept that. I mean, it's not unfathomable.

[ChumpDumper]

This is an opinion I agree with and I think is the one the Spurs are pursuing.

That said, they could have done the same thing by offering RJ a 3/30 deal, and seeing if he would accept that. I mean, it's not unfathomable.It's possible, and it's possible that was offered and rejected. Seeing as the last year of the deal isn't fully guaranteed, it could effectively be that kind of a deal.

It seems RJ had a fair amount of leverage over the Spurs provided he agreed to opt out.

[MannyIsGod]

http://metadiary.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/suicide-bear.jpg


LOL Awesome picture.

[ElNono]

Sure, but it's a stretch to think "anyone with an opinion" takes all criteria into account.

Ok, so we established that all those criteria affect the business. Good.
Now, do you think NBA teams do their due diligence taking all criteria into account?

[ElNono]

It's possible, and it's possible that was offered and rejected. Seeing as the last year of the deal isn't fully guaranteed, it could effectively be that kind of a deal.

It seems RJ had a fair amount of leverage over the Spurs provided he agreed to opt out.

The last year of the deal is fully guaranteed.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, so we established that all those criteria affect the business. Good.
Now, do you think NBA teams do their due diligence taking all criteria into account?Sure, and I believe the RJ deal might have criteria that those who have an opinion about it may not have taken into account.

[ElNono]

Here's the breakdown of the deal, according to timvp:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4537877&postcount=856

[ChumpDumper]

The last year of the deal is fully guaranteed.Really?

Last I saw, the last year was partially guaranteed and had a player option.

Was that updated in this thread at some point?

[ChumpDumper]

Here's the breakdown of the deal, according to timvp:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4537877&postcount=856
6) Negotiations continue. Spurs offer player option but on the condition that part of the guaranteed salary is converted to performance incentive.That doesn't read like all the salary was guaranteed in the first place. I'll believe it if it was all guaranteed. Doesn't change things much.

[ElNono]

Sure, and I believe the RJ deal might have criteria that those who have an opinion about it may not have taken into account.

Such as? I believe the tax implication was thoroughly discussed in this thread many times. Discerning from his posts, that's certainly not what's DPG is upset about.

[DPG21920]

Are there others when talking about CBA negotiations?

Good for them. I already stated there are reasons for that.

What would he have likely received as a free agent?

How could one know?

So you are saying he isn't officially the 5th big.

OK.

I agree this is all ultimately silly.

No, it was your argument. You posted it. I don't know why you would take issue with it's being taken to its logical conclusion. You inferred (terribly) that I thought the Spurs only goal this season was to save money. Now you are upset that it was done to you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you.

The Spurs want to minimize their tax exposure and even get some distribution money if possible while fielding a competitive team. That is my argument.

I can play this game. So you are saying the Spurs have not officially not paid the luxury tax. Ok.

[ElNono]

That doesn't read like all the salary was guaranteed in the first place. I'll believe it if it was all guaranteed. Doesn't change things much.

It's a 4/$38.8m fully guaranteed contract. There's an extra $1.2m in incentives, so it can end up being 4/$40m after all is said and done.

[ChumpDumper]

Such as? I believe the tax implication was thoroughly discussed in this thread many times. Discerning from his posts, that's certainly not what's DPG is upset about.Really? I thought he said was upset about the Spurs' walking back from the "all in" mentality and the spending that results from such a mentality. The RJ deal is clearly a part of that.

[DPG21920]

That doesn't read like all the salary was guaranteed in the first place. I'll believe it if it was all guaranteed. Doesn't change things much.

So you are saying you are arguing about something and you don't know all the details. Ok.

[ChumpDumper]

It's a 4/$38.8m fully guaranteed contract. There's an extra $1.2m in incentives, so it can end up being 4/$40m after all is said and done.I'll take your word for it. The quoted post doesn't exactly say that, but I guess it's somewhere else.

Still doesn't change much.

[DPG21920]

Really? I thought he said was upset about the Spurs' walking back from the "all in" mentality and the spending that results from such a mentality. The RJ deal is clearly a part of that.

If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are saying you are arguing about something and you don't know all the details. Ok.I'm saying that your quote didn't support your contention and I had already read that quote and therefore had as much information as you claim to have. OK.

[ElNono]

Really? I thought he said was upset about the Spurs' walking back from the "all in" mentality and the spending that results from such a mentality. The RJ deal is clearly a part of that.

I believe he also stated he didn't like the 4/$40m contract, and you claimed that under his criteria Manu's contract was also bad.

[DPG21920]

I'll take your word for it. The quoted post doesn't exactly say that, but I guess it's somewhere else.

Still doesn't change much.

I am going to infer from your post that it indeed changes something. So how can one quantify how much is "much"?

[ChumpDumper]

I believe he also stated he didn't like the 4/$40m contract, and you claimed that under his criteria Manu's contract was also bad.I sure did.

I suppose you want to argue more about how I argue.

Fine.

I don't think he considered everything that the Spurs did.

I don't think many do.

[ElNono]

Still doesn't change much.

Sure it does if you think saving money, trade value and market value are valid criteria.

[DPG21920]

I'm saying that your quote didn't support your contention and I had already read that quote and therefore had as much information as you claim to have. OK.

Nope. You did not have as much as me, because when arguing about a players contract, I know the details. Ok.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure it does if you think saving money, trade value and market value are valid criteria.Not really. That remains to be seen. I already said it might just be kicking the can down the road, but it might not. The time gained to act has its own value and was one of the criteria considered in the decision. I already said this.


Nope. You did not have as much as me, because when arguing about a players contract, I know the details. Ok.But I had already read that post long ago and it didn't support your claim. If you have some other post that actually supports it, fine. It still doesn't change much.

[DPG21920]

So not only do you argue when you don't have the facts, you fail to observe every point in the argument.

[DPG21920]

So, can you please summarize what you are trying to say Chump. I honestly have lost track.

[ChumpDumper]

So not only do you argue when you don't have the facts, you fail to observe every point in the argument.But we were talking about the same post.

If you have another post that says the fourth deal is fully guaranteed, by all means post it. You just proved you had the same information as I did.

[ElNono]

Not really. That remains to be seen. I already said it might just be kicking the can down the road, but it might not.

So how do you know it doesn't change much if it remains to be seen?

[Chieflion]

Except for the game blogs, I wonder which thread has gone up to this many pages before. It is incredible, tbh.

Of course ElNono and DPG combined for 260 posts, which is about 10 to 11 pages. Chill, guys.

[ChumpDumper]

So how do you know it doesn't change much if it remains to be seen?Three or four years does not change much because Tim and Manu's deals will be gone.

If you are going to argue they will be there and as large or larger than before, go ahead. I don't think they will be.

[ElNono]

Except for the game blogs, I wonder which thread has gone up to this many pages before. It is incredible, tbh.

Of course ElNono and DPG combined for 260 posts, which is about 10 to 11 pages. Chill, guys.

Thanks for extending it. We just can't wait for the games. :lol

[DPG21920]

Wii Ballin. But Chump, can you please summarize your take the RJ situation.

[ElNono]

Three or four years does not change much because Tim and Manu's deals will be gone.

If you are going to argue they will be there and as large or larger than before, go ahead. I don't think they will be.

I'm of the opinion that if RJ ends up repeating seasons like the last one, then you want to get rid of him as soon as possible, regardless of available cap space (or whatever the rules are at the time).
In that sense, the earliest you can have him as a tradeable asset the better.

[ChumpDumper]

Wii Ballin. But Chump, can you please summarize your take the RJ situation.I already did. It was pretty clearly stated.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm of the opinion that if RJ ends up repeating seasons like the last one, then you want to get rid of him as soon as possible, regardless of available cap space (or whatever the rules are at the time).
In that sense, the earliest you can have him as a tradeable asset the better.Sure, but if they had that agreement in place before he opted out (who knows when), they had to stick to it or never be trusted by any player or agent in any negotiation ever again.

RJ's leverage was not opting out. After that, it was all a matter of trust.

[Chieflion]

Sure, but if they had that agreement in place before he opted out (who knows when), they had to stick to it or never be trusted by any player or agent in any negotiation ever again.

I see Chump knows about the political side of the argument. :toast

[Blackjack]

Chump's what 'argue' meant.

[DPG21920]

We all know the political side of the argument. Hence my handcuffed comments.

[DPG21920]

I already did. It was pretty clearly stated.

Can you link me to the summary post?

[Chieflion]

We all know the political side of the argument. Hence my handcuffed comments.

So you are just arguing for the sake of rehashing your opinions? It sure looks like it from this thread.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you link me to the summary post?Did you miss this?
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.

[ElNono]

Sure, but if they had that agreement in place before he opted out (who knows when), they had to stick to it or never be trusted by any player or agent in any negotiation ever again.

RJ's leverage was not opting out. After that, it was all a matter of trust.

Right, and my opinion is that what was offered as part of that agreement was more than it should have.

[ChumpDumper]

Right, and my opinion is that what was offered as part of that agreement was more than it should have.Great.

[DPG21920]

So you are just arguing for the sake of rehashing your opinions? It sure looks like it from this thread.

Nope, the arguments were brought in a different direction. Are you in here to rehash about me rehashing?

[DPG21920]

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.

So what is your basketball take, since this is basketball.

[Chieflion]

Nope, the arguments were brought in a different direction. Are you in here to rehash about me rehashing?

How was it different? Summarize your opinion, thanks. Basically, all you said was that 4 years and 38.8 million was too much, which I agree with but it was based on maximizing RJ's wants and the Spurs trying to reduce luxury tax hit.

On the basketball court, Bobby Simmons? I can't comment on that seriously. Has that guy even got a contract offer yet?

[Blackjack]

Right, and my opinion is that what was offered as part of that agreement was more than it should have.

I'm not a fan of RJ and not ecstatic about him being here for another 4 years but I can't fault the Spurs too much for the number they offered. I think they were pretty well aware RJ was the best they could do because of the cap and short window in which they have to win (not to mention counting on an expiring contract to net you the right piece midseason to put you over the top has to be in the same percentage of landing Bosh this summer). I don't think that contract probably looked all that outlandish with the knowledge of all the people that were going to miss out on free agents and how the Spurs would more than likely be left without a legitimate player to replace RJ with.

Don't like, but I can't hate them for doing it, either. Rock and and hard place ... kinda is what it is -- a big ol' MEH . . .

[ChumpDumper]

So what is your basketball take, since this is basketball.Why should I pretend professional basketball isn't a business?

[Chieflion]

I'm not a fan of RJ and not ecstatic about him being here for another 4 years but I can't fault the Spurs too much for the number they offered. I think they were pretty well aware RJ was the best they could do because of the cap and short window in which they have to win (not to mention counting on an expiring contract to net you the right piece midseason to put you over the top has to be in the same percentage of landing Bosh this summer). I don't think that contract probably looked all that outlandish with the knowledge of all the people that were going to miss out on free agents and how the Spurs would more than likely be left without a legitimate player to replace RJ with.

Don't like, but I can't hate them for doing it, either. Rock and and hard place ... kinda is what it is -- a big ol' MEH . . .
You wanted a battle between the underrated. You got it now. :lol

[DPG21920]

How was it different? Summarize your opinion, thanks. Basically, all you said was that 4 years and 38.8 million was too much, which I agree with but it was based on maximizing RJ's wants and the Spurs trying to reduce luxury tax hit.

On the basketball court, Bobby Simmons? I can't comment on that seriously. Has that guy even got a contract offer yet?

Because this is the first time the talks turned more into the Spurs saving money along with more details on how it impacts their future.

LOL at acting like I just said "that is too much money!" and did not explain my thinking.

Why do you care that we are discussing RJ, in an RJ thread, on SpursTalk?

Again, please tell me what you think the difference is in having RJ vs not having RJ from a regular season win perspective and a playoff wins perspective.

[DPG21920]

Why should I pretend professional basketball isn't a business?

You shouldn't. You stated your business opinion. I am now looking for your basketball opinion because this is basketball. No venom.

[DPG21920]

I'm not a fan of RJ and not ecstatic about him being here for another 4 years but I can't fault the Spurs too much for the number they offered. I think they were pretty well aware RJ was the best they could do because of the cap and short window in which they have to win (not to mention counting on an expiring contract to net you the right piece midseason to put you over the top has to be in the same percentage of landing Bosh this summer). I don't think that contract probably looked all that outlandish with the knowledge of all the people that were going to miss out on free agents and how the Spurs would more than likely be left without a legitimate player to replace RJ with.

Don't like, but I can't hate them for doing it, either. Rock and and hard place ... kinda is what it is -- a big ol' MEH . . .

So then you agree the Spurs true mistake was agreeing to the deal in order to get him to opt out. They miscalculated the market for RJ, robbed Peter to pay Paul and are now only marginally better?

As Chump said, it was a good business decision, but was it a great one? With the benefit of hindsight and the apparent cold market for RJ, it appears they indeed outbid themselves.

[ChumpDumper]

You shouldn't. You stated your business opinion. I am now looking for your basketball opinion because this is basketball. No venom.He could get better.

Or not.

[benefactor]

He could get better.

Or not.
I'll go with not.

[DPG21920]

He could get better.

Or not.

What would you say is more important, the business side or the basketball side? What do you think the Spurs basketball goal is and what are they doing to achieve it?

[Blackjack]

You wanted a battle between the underrated. You got it now. :lol



Duder .... Chief

http://www.film.org.pl/images2/celebrity_deathmatch/mills.jpg

Let's Get It On!!!

[ChumpDumper]

What would you say is more important, the business side or the basketball side? What do you think the Spurs basketball goal is and what are they doing to achieve it?I already said what I thought their goal was.

No, I won't link it.

You just proved you haven't read my posts.

Twice.

That's enough.

[DPG21920]

I already said what I thought their goal was.

No, I won't link it.

You just proved you haven't read my posts.

Twice.

That's enough.

No. I have proven that when arguing with someone that does not know the facts or your arguments that it is annoying. :toast

[Chieflion]

Because this is the first time the talks turned more into the Spurs saving money along with more details on how it impacts their future.

LOL at acting like I just said "that is too much money!" and did not explain my thinking.

Why do you care that we are discussing RJ, in an RJ thread, on SpursTalk?

Again, please tell me what you think the difference is in having RJ vs not having RJ from a regular season win perspective and a playoff wins perspective.

Does that hypothetical situation even exist? The Spurs traded for Jefferson using Bowen, Oberto and Thomas, 2 of which didn't play a lot or at all in 2009 (Bowen and Oberto). The Spurs replaced Thomas with McDyess. This is definitely an upgrade.

In the 2010 season, Parker was in and out of the lineup, even when he was in, he was giving us negative impact out there because of the nagging injuries. Richard Jefferson had an offensive rating of 110 and a defensive rating of 106 in the regular season, which is a positive. Taking Tony as an example, I love the guy but his play in 2010 didn't help people think he was a positive out there, his offensive rating was a 106 and his defensive rating was a 108 (which sucks). In the playoffs, most of the players did not have positive ratings, even Timmy. So, I wouldn't comment on that.

In the regular season, the Spurs also improved offensively. Your thinking is flawed. Bobby Simmons and Richard Jefferson is a marginal difference on the basketball court, please explain in a logical way, because according to you, it is better to not give a hoot about whether the Spurs re-sign Jefferson or sign Simmons because it doesn't serve the purpose of trying to win a championship or not.

I asked you about your opinion and your ideas to help improve the team, you said to try something different? So what is that something different? The Spurs had limited options to try to do anything that was different from last season. They got Splitter to come, got a good shooter out of the draft. What more does DPG want?

[DPG21920]

You wanted a battle between the underrated. You got it now. :lol

You are better poster. Hands down.

[ChumpDumper]

No. I have proven that when arguing with someone that does not know the facts or your arguments that it is annoying. :toastIf you are talking about the details of RJ's deal we were referring to the exact same post, and that post proved neither of our assumptions.

Your reposting of that proved it. :toast

Thanks for proving you don't know the details of the deal either. :toast

[Chieflion]

You are better poster. Hands down.

No, I am not. This ain't the Lakers vs the Grizzlies. I am not going to rip you off on this. It has got to be fair. I don't do collusion. Are you being sarcastic?

[ElNono]

I'm not a fan of RJ and not ecstatic about him being here for another 4 years but I can't fault the Spurs too much for the number they offered. I think they were pretty well aware RJ was the best they could do because of the cap and short window in which they have to win (not to mention counting on an expiring contract to net you the right piece midseason to put you over the top has to be in the same percentage of landing Bosh this summer). I don't think that contract probably looked all that outlandish with the knowledge of all the people that were going to miss out on free agents and how the Spurs would more than likely be left without a legitimate player to replace RJ with.

Don't like, but I can't hate them for doing it, either. Rock and and hard place ... kinda is what it is -- a big ol' MEH . . .

I don't hate them. Just like you, I don't like it.
Not gonna stop me from cheering for them.

[DPG21920]

Does that hypothetical situation even exist? The Spurs traded for Jefferson using Bowen, Oberto and Thomas, 2 of which didn't play a lot or at all in 2009 (Bowen and Oberto). The Spurs replaced Thomas with McDyess. This is definitely an upgrade.

In the 2010 season, Parker was in and out of the lineup, even when he was in, he was giving us negative impact out there because of the nagging injuries. Richard Jefferson had an offensive rating of 110 and a defensive rating of 106 in the regular season, which is a positive. Taking Tony as an example, I love the guy but his play in 2010 didn't help people think he was a positive out there, his offensive rating was a 106 and his defensive rating was a 108 (which sucks). In the playoffs, most of the players did not have positive ratings, even Timmy. So, I wouldn't comment on that.

In the regular season, the Spurs also improved offensively. Your thinking is flawed. Bobby Simmons and Richard Jefferson is a marginal difference on the basketball court, please explain in a logical way, because according to you, it is better to not give a hoot about whether the Spurs re-sign Jefferson or sign Simmons because it doesn't serve the purpose of trying to win a championship or not.

I asked you about your opinion and your ideas to help improve the team, you said to try something different? So what is that something different? The Spurs had limited options to try to do anything that was different from last season. They got Splitter to come, got a good shooter out of the draft. What more does DPG want?

I am looking at impact. I don't think that Jefferson's stats would be hard to replicate and I think if you got someone, anyone who is a clear cut good defender, then the net benefits would be positive or at least would bridge some of the talent gap. Enough to make Jefferson not worth the 40M commitment.

Again, your idea to help improve the team that got swept, that most think want to win a title is to bring back the same team plus some NBA rookies?

[Blackjack]

So then you agree the Spurs true mistake was agreeing to the deal in order to get him to opt out. They miscalculated the market for RJ, robbed Peter to pay Paul and are now only marginally better?

As Chump said, it was a good business decision, but was it a great one? With the benefit of hindsight and the apparent cold market for RJ, it appears they indeed outbid themselves.

Obviously they overpaid. There was no market. I've been one of the most critical people of the RJ trade from the beginning and you're not gonna find me jockin' or defending the dude or the Spurs' decision to bring him aboard.

But that's pretty much beside the point at this juncture. What's done is done and the minute they threw in with RJ by trading for him, this was inevitably going to happen -- the Spurs were going to be stuck in the position of making it work with him. It really was an all-in from the basketball end.

In the end, I believe they decided to be marginally better with a little more flexibility than marginally worse with only the use of their exceptions and a shit market to choose from.

[ChumpDumper]

I am looking at impact. I don't think that Jefferson's stats would be hard to replicateBy whom?

[DPG21920]

If you are talking about the details of RJ's deal we were referring to the exact same post, and that post proved neither of our assumptions.

Your reposting of that proved it. :toast

Thanks for proving you don't know the details of the deal either. :toast

What does RJ"s contract have to do with the other part? You making assumptions and not knowing my argument? :hat

[benefactor]

I don't hate them. Just like you, I don't like it.
Not gonna stop me from cheering from them.
:tu:toast

[ChumpDumper]

What does RJ"s contract have to do with the other part?What other part? This thread is about RJ's contract.

Do you need a link to that? :hat

[DPG21920]

By whom?

By committee. By whomever they would have signed had they not signed RJ (assuming he opts out with no pre arranged deal).

Like you said, most people only look at the basketball side. Well in this case, people only look at the offensive side. I think if you just get better defenders, that is at least equal from an impact standpoint.

[Chieflion]

I am looking at impact. I don't think that Jefferson's stats would be hard to replicate and I think if you got someone, anyone who is a clear cut good defender, then the net benefits would be positive or at least would bridge some of the talent gap. Enough to make Jefferson not worth the 40M commitment.

Again, your idea to help improve the team that got swept, that most think want to win a title is to bring back the same team plus some NBA rookies?

So who is that mythical player you are talking about? Because I don't think that player exists, at least not in my realm in the free agency market.

I didn't say Jefferson was worth the 40 million commitment, he clearly isn't in terms of basketball play. But the Spurs honored him with that contract as an agreement. The expiring in 2014 should help down the line.

I said the Spurs tried their best to improve the team with their limited assets. They can't help it if they couldn't trade for Carmelo Anthony or unrealistic stuff like that. I don't think it would lead to a championship but let us not delude ourselves into thinking the Spurs are not trying to be as good as a team they want to be. Clearly, the goal is to make the best team possible as far as financially, and realistic as it is.

[ChumpDumper]

By committee. By whomever they would have signed had they not signed RJ (assuming he opts out with no pre arranged deal).That's quite an assumption. Why would he opt out with no prearranged deal?

Please explain.


Like you said, most people only look at the basketball side. Well in this case, people only look at the offensive side. I think if you just get better defenders, that is at least equal from an impact standpoint.Which better defender?

What number does Committee wear?

[Trill Clinton]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b85/cool_dude100/popcorn.gif

[DPG21920]

That's quite an assumption. Why would he opt out with no prearranged deal?

Please explain.

For the same reasons the Spurs over paid. He might have over estimated his market value? That is why it is called an assumption, but that is not the focal point of the argument. The point is, if RJ was gone, regardless of the reason, could the impact be replaced enough to make RJ's 40M a true losing proposition


Which better defender?

What number does Committee wear?

Malik is a better defender. Barnes. If the Spurs were able to actively pursue some people via FA, who knows whom they could have obtained. Are you saying there are no better defenders via FA?

[ChumpDumper]

For the same reasons the Spurs over paid. He might have over estimated his market value? That is why it is called an assumption, but that is not the focal point of the argument. The point is, if RJ was gone, regardless of the reason, could the impact be replaced enough to make RJ's 40M a true losing propositionIt's a pretty unlikely assumption. The only reason RJ opted out was because he already knew he had a deal in place.


Malik is a better defender. Barnes. If the Spurs were able to actively pursue some people via FA, who knows whom they could have obtained. Are you saying there are no better defenders via FA?Oh, so now you want to establish an alternate reality timeline.

Too late, TJastal already traded RJ for Tyrus Thomas and John Salmons last season.

[Chieflion]

Malik is a better defender. Barnes. If the Spurs were able to actively pursue some people via FA, who knows whom they could have obtained. Are you saying there are no better defenders via FA?

Malik is also quite foul prone too. Does his impact on the defensive end outweigh his inability to do anything on the offensive end at the NBA level? I don't think so.

If Barnes had wanted to join the Spurs, he would have done so. He didn't. He went to the Lakers even though there were some war of twitter. Realistically, an agreement between the Spurs and the FA has to go both ways.

[Blackjack]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b85/cool_dude100/popcorn.gif

Seen only in GIF format, one could be made to believe that Mr. Jackson is watching something of the questionable, and maybe even illegal, variety.

A young one.



























HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! :elephant

[DPG21920]

So who is that mythical player you are talking about? Because I don't think that player exists, at least not in my realm in the free agency market.

A guy like Barnes who took an amount of money the Spurs had to offer. You can argue he might not want to play for the Spurs or they don't want him, but he is an example.

No one knows whom the Spurs could have obtained if they were focused on other FA's seriously and not committed to RJ.


I didn't say Jefferson was worth the 40 million commitment, he clearly isn't in terms of basketball play. But the Spurs honored him with that contract as an agreement. The expiring in 2014 should help down the line.

The Spurs made a mistake in doing so and they overpaid. His expiring contract for this year would have been very appealing, or as appealing. It is my opinion that expiring contracts are overvalued and the team usually has to take back a bad contract (like how the Spurs acquired RJ), and we don't know if the Spurs would be willing to do so when they are rebuilding.


I said the Spurs tried their best to improve the team with their limited assets. They can't help it if they couldn't trade for Carmelo Anthony or unrealistic stuff like that. I don't think it would lead to a championship but let us not delude ourselves into thinking the Spurs are not trying to be as good as a team they want to be. Clearly, the goal is to make the best team possible as far as financially, and realistic as it is.

They did not try to really improve the team that much, they tried to save money more it appears. Getting swept and bringing in the same players plus a handful of NBA rookies is not exactly "going for it". No one said they had to trade for Melo or Lebron. That still does not make RJ at 40M a good option.

I think the Spurs right now are a little more concerned with money than winning a title.

I also think that the Spurs could have done something different, like try to trade for a player making similar money to RJ's new contract (starting at 8M) that has more upside. It is hard to say whom, but there have been reports of guys like Iggy for example that would be available because of their contracts.

[DPG21920]

Malik is also quite foul prone too. Does his impact on the defensive end outweigh his inability to do anything on the offensive end at the NBA level? I don't think so.

He can get to the line pretty well and shoots at a decent clip in the D-League.


If Barnes had wanted to join the Spurs, he would have done so. He didn't. He went to the Lakers even though there were some war of twitter. Realistically, an agreement between the Spurs and the FA has to go both ways.

How would Barnes have joined? Spurs, with RJ pre arranged, were not likely offering. Not to mention, no RJ looks a lot more appealing in terms of playing time.

[Trill Clinton]

Seen only in GIF format, one could be made to believe that Mr. Jackson is watching something of the questionable, and maybe even illegal, variety.

A young one.



























HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! :elephant


nooo, its from Thriller remember? He was watching the wolfman...michael james jackson would NEVER be involved with young boys.:rolleyes

[DPG21920]

It's a pretty unlikely assumption. The only reason RJ opted out was because he already knew he had a deal in place.

So why did the Spurs assume RJ would get so much? Or are you saying the Spurs so badly had to have RJ opt out to save money, that they were ready to offer an amount they knew full well would not even be closed to being matched via FA from another team?


Oh, so now you want to establish an alternate reality timeline.

Too late, TJastal already traded RJ for Tyrus Thomas and John Salmons last season.

You asked me whom they could have gotten. You asked me about the alternate reality.

[ElNono]

I didn't say Jefferson was worth the 40 million commitment, he clearly isn't in terms of basketball play. But the Spurs honored him with that contract as an agreement. The expiring in 2014 should help down the line.

So you also think the Spurs overpaid by offering such agreement before opting out.

The 2014 expiring will only help if he doesn't opt out first.

[Blackjack]

nooo, its from Thriller remember? He was watching the wolfman...michael james jackson would NEVER be involved with young boys.:rolleyes

Why does a young variety have to be about boys? It could have just as easily been a bunch of underage cocks fighting.

[Trill Clinton]

Why does a young variety have to be about boys? It could have just as easily been a bunch of underage cocks fighting.

:lol

[ElNono]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b85/cool_dude100/popcorn.gif

<<<---- currently eating:

http://www.asianfoodgrocer.com/img/prods/food/noodle/ramen/15005922-nissan-cup-o-noodle-chkn.jpg

[DPG21920]

I am done.................until tomorrow. Unless someone mentions RJ's name again tonight.

[oligarchy]

Rj

[Chieflion]

So you also think the Spurs overpaid by offering such agreement before opting out.

The 2014 expiring will only help if he doesn't opt out first.

He will be 33/34 years old by then, I hope he isn't that delusional. Cheers to hoping.



And to DPG




RICHARD JEFFERSON!

[ElNono]

He will be 33/34 years old by then, I hope he isn't that delusional. Cheers to hoping.

It's not him being delusional that I'm afraid of.

It's not like we never handed out 2 year deals with the second year being a player option to 35 year old veterans. :bang

[Blackjack]

<<<---- currently eating:

http://www.asianfoodgrocer.com/img/prods/food/noodle/ramen/15005922-nissan-cup-o-noodle-chkn.jpg

Good stuff. Never thought to sneak it into a movie theater and eat it with my hands, but I'd be willing to try. You have some kind of heat shield in the jacket; and maybe webbed fingers?

[Chieflion]

It's not him being delusional that I'm afraid of.

It's not like we never handed out 2 year deals with the second year being a player option to 35 year old veterans. :bang

We were contenders then. We won't be in 2014. Different scenario should bring forth different results.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pzuufqtyQHM/S703TkbBLNI/AAAAAAAABOY/8E8MB7jjJ7M/s1600/michael-finley-spurs.jpg

One ring, appreciate. :hat

[Chieflion]

Good stuff. Never thought to sneak it into a movie theater and eat it with my hands, but I'd be willing to try. You have some kind of heat shield in the jacket; and maybe webbed fingers?

Eat it uncooked.

http://www.bananablue.com.au/images/product/051325116143_1.jpg

No heat shield needed.

[ElNono]

Good stuff. Never thought to sneak it into a movie theater and eat it with my hands, but I'd be willing to try. You have some kind of heat shield in the jacket; and maybe webbed fingers?

:lol

[Blackjack]

Eat it uncooked.

http://www.bananablue.com.au/images/product/051325116143_1.jpg

No heat shield needed.


Guinness . . . :tu

[anonoftheinternets]

By committee. .

you cant switch out a player for defense and offense. you also need consistency in a lineup. You cant say, i will play hariston (good defender off chance of becoming an NBA starter) for defense, and then replace his offense with someone else... it doesnt work that way.

And barnes, u know very well he has head case issues, and pop doesnt like him and barnes doesnt like us, there was a link here somewhere, where barnes did not pick the spurs as one of his destinations. :wakeup

[ElNono]

We were contenders then. We won't be in 2014. Different scenario should bring forth different results.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pzuufqtyQHM/S703TkbBLNI/AAAAAAAABOY/8E8MB7jjJ7M/s1600/michael-finley-spurs.jpg

One ring, appreciate. :hat

Finley thread! :lol

[Chieflion]

Finley thread! :lol

Nah. It is now a Mamee Monster Noodle Snack thread +

http://www.winstonspub.ca/_pictures/guinness.jpg

Ya, that's right. I wonder if I soak the noodles in them, how would it taste? But hey, never had a sip of beer in my entire life.

[anonoftheinternets]

not to mention end of games u need familiarity u need someone atleast of jeffersons talent to play as a starter in this league. And if you have played basketball off the ball u know u need the ball consistenty to perform. last year with the injuries to tony parker they did not have enough time to mesh. And despite all teh problems, pop always looks for playing above themselves regardless of situation and jefferson did this in the PO. You know how bonner has NEVER played well in teh PO? despite all teh issues and all teh criticism , RJ balled for that pivotal game agains the mavs, he proved that he can play despite all the criticism.

You need players like that who step up, even if not always conistent. Like steve kerr breaking out with all the three pointers, like Stephen jackson burying all those threes against dallas. players who can rise above themselves for a game and swing a series without having anything special done for them. He proved he is atleast not a choker, and we need a starter for the next 2 years atleast and Rj is at the very least a proven starter in this league. And developing D leaguers can wait two years. we are not going to be a contenter once duncan declines cmiopletely anyway.

[Chieflion]

Are we derailing this thread?


Never mind, let us proceed. :hat

[ElNono]

not to mention end of games u need familiarity u need someone atleast of jeffersons talent to play as a starter in this league. And if you have played basketball off the ball u know u need the ball consistenty to perform. last year with the injuries to tony parker they did not have enough time to mesh. And despite all teh problems, pop always looks for playing above themselves regardless of situation and jefferson did this in the PO. You know how bonner has NEVER played well in teh PO? despite all teh issues and all teh criticism , RJ balled for that pivotal game agains the mavs, he proved that he can play despite all the criticism.

You need players like that who step up, even if not always conistent. Like steve kerr breaking out with all the three pointers, like Stephen jackson burying all those threes against dallas. players who can rise above themselves for a game and swing a series without having anything special done for them. He proved he is atleast not a choker, and we need a starter for the next 2 years atleast and Rj is at the very least a proven starter in this league. And developing D leaguers can wait two years. we are not going to be a contenter once duncan declines cmiopletely anyway.

Are you talking about Richard Jefferson or Richardson, Jason? :lol

[Blackjack]

Guinness ain't for everyone, I've gotta be in the mood for it, and mixed with noodles probably ain't for everyone either (don't knock it until you try it -- although I'm not sure I was in the right condition to judge) but that's not what I meant or what it means.

Watch this.

3DPKf7y1F-Q

[ElNono]

I'm not really a fan of beer... I mostly drink soda but if it's alcohol my fave is definitely:

http://a3.vox.com/6a00cd971e81924cd500d09e80deb3be2b-500pi

[Blackjack]

I'm not really a fan of beer... I mostly drink soda but if it's alcohol my fave is definitely:

http://a3.vox.com/6a00cd971e81924cd500d09e80deb3be2b-500pi

My fave is probably, yes. As in, 'Do you like this beer or liquor? What's your preference?'

'Yes.'


Big reason why I hardly drink anymore. :downspin:

[ohmwrecker]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01511/shining1_1511390c.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Now that the trade deadline has come and gone and we've seen who was moved is there anyone that wishes we still had RJ's old contract to trade?

[benefactor]

Could've moved him for Melo.
:stirpot:

[Blackjack]

Though I was against the initial trade for RJ, I was in agreement with the Spurs' rationale for bringing him back. And given what we've seen from RJ to this point, how he's become the catch-and-shoot player he needed to become to succeed on this team, I think the Spurs are looking pretty good from the short-term competitive standpoint.

Hard to imagine the Spurs could have brought anyone in with his expiring that would have been able to fit this team better at this late stage of the game. Maybe a better player in talent or skillset, but doubtful they would have seen their talents come to fruition in time to bolster their championship chances this year - not anymore than an ingrained and confident RJ, anyway . . .

[coyotes_geek]

Now that the trade deadline has come and gone and we've seen who was moved is there anyone that wishes we still had RJ's old contract to trade?

Not really. Especially considering the hole at the SF position that trading away RJ would have created.

[Cane]

Now that the trade deadline has come and gone and we've seen who was moved is there anyone that wishes we still had RJ's old contract to trade?

I suppose benefactor does. We could've gotten Melo don't ya know. :lol :fight

[Mel_13]

Now that the trade deadline has come and gone and we've seen who was moved is there anyone that wishes we still had RJ's old contract to trade?

Are we assuming that an RJ on a 15M expiring contract plays as well as an RJ on a new 4 year deal? Are the Spurs still 47-10 in this scenario? If so, then there's no way the Spurs trade him at this point in such a successful season.

Now in an alternate reality where the RJ on an expiring contract plays like the 2009-10 RJ and the Spurs are 33-24 and scuffling for a playoff spot without even one round of HCA, then yes. RJ could have been the key piece in a trade with Charlotte for Wallace and Nazr.

Of course if Lincoln didn't go to the theater that night...

[benefactor]

RJ has been great. There would be no reason to move him. I guess the only drawback is that it gave the Spurs enough cap space to re-sign Bonner.

[Blackjack]

Of course if Lincoln didn't go to theater that night...

You can't just leave us hanging like that Obi! :downspin:

[Mel_13]

You can't just leave us hanging like that Obi! :downspin:

Didn't seem like the right thread to discuss a more enlightened version of Reconstruction...

[Blackjack]

:lol

[ohmwrecker]

This thread is fucking epic!