Reigning Black: Richard Jefferson: In Focus

[MaNu4Tres]

Richard Jefferson: In Focus
Reigning Black

A lot can change in a year.

A lot.

Relationships, jobs, finances -- for better or worse -- and even your outlook on some of the most significant and insignificant things in life, change is inherent all around us. What's here today is gone tomorrow; absence often makes the heart grow fonder.

Often -- exceptions abound.

When Richard Jefferson exercised an opt-out to forgo a $15.2 million salary in his final year, relief and good fortune seemed to rule the day. The Spurs were viewed as being "let off the hook," no longer an albatross or hindrance weighing them down or holding them back. The Spurs had been given a mulligan, a second chance. This time it was with Jefferson's departure -- last year it was upon arrival.

Needless to say, roughly three weeks after Jefferson decided to opt out, the celebration of R.J.'s resigning was muted, if even existent. Jefferson has his fans, and the team signing his checks are among them, but to some it signified a death knell of sorts. An end to championship aspiration. The Spurs -- as we've come to know them -- were done; Riverwalk parades reserved for a distant memory.

Things are generally never as or bad or good as they may seem, so in order to move forward and digest all that really happened -- and why what happened did happen -- it's best to look at the facts as we know them. Paint the picture, step away from the canvas, then critique the work.

Continue Reading >>> (http://reigningblack.blogspot.com/)

[silverblackfan]

Nice article and well thought out. You can hate on RJ all you want, but he is a quality player who should better this year. Especially now that the system is not so foreign.

[DPG21920]

So the Spurs passed on Carter because he has a longer contract only to get the other guy whom now has a longer contract?

Also, I don't think anyone has a problem with the initial trade. There were a few people who were skeptical of the "fit", but it was overwhelmingly the right decision back then without the benefit of hindsight.

They took a gamble (which was calculated) and it did not pay off, because as the article stated, they probably could have done better had they waited and RJ did not really have much of an impact. But it was still the right move with the right idea in mind; to win basketball games.

It is the extension that is going to be critiqued & criticized. This, unlike the initial trade was not about winning basketball games. It was about saving money. This is still a business and I understand if they know they won't win a title as is, to make a smart business related decision.

This gamble caused them to quite easily out bid themselves for RJ (although RJ might not of opted out had they not given him that 40M number). This is the one they missed on.

I also see no legitimate reason to say this "re-structuring" of RJ's contract made the difference in getting the players the Spurs did. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest the Spurs would not have signed Tiago had they remained over the tax.

[Waps1980]

So the Spurs passed on Carter because he has a longer contract only to get the other guy whom now has a longer contract?

Also, I don't think anyone has a problem with the initial trade. There were a few people who were skeptical of the "fit", but it was overwhelming the right decision back then without the benefit of hindsight.

They took a gamble (which was calculated) and it did not pay off, because as the article stated, they probably could have done better had they waited and RJ did not really have much of an impact. But it was still the right move with the right idea in mind; to win basketball games.

It is the extension that is going to be critiqued & criticized.

The also needed to give up Hill to get Carter

[DPG21920]

I am not saying I would rather have Carter (although he is better). I was just refuting the point that it was simply the contract seeing how the Spurs have RJ for another 4 years guaranteed.

[lefty]

Jefferson + reigning black + relationships


All in the same article





I like where this is going.

[Nathan89]

So the Spurs passed on Carter because he has a longer contract only to get the other guy whom now has a longer contract?

Also, I don't think anyone has a problem with the initial trade. There were a few people who were skeptical of the "fit", but it was overwhelmingly the right decision back then without the benefit of hindsight.

They took a gamble (which was calculated) and it did not pay off, because as the article stated, they probably could have done better had they waited and RJ did not really have much of an impact. But it was still the right move with the right idea in mind; to win basketball games.

It is the extension that is going to be critiqued & criticized. This, unlike the initial trade was not about winning basketball games. It was about saving money. This is still a business and I understand if they know they won't win a title as is, to make a smart business related decision.

This gamble caused them to quite easily out bid themselves for RJ (although RJ might not of opted out had they not given him that 40M number). This is the one they missed on.

I also see no legitimate reason to say this "re-structuring" of RJ's contract made the difference in getting the players the Spurs did. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest the Spurs would not have signed Tiago had they remained over the tax.

This.

As a fan I don't give a damn about how much money the owner saves, I care about maximize the talent on the floor. The long-term gift to Rj was certainly not trying to maximize the talent of this team in the future. If Holt was worried about the decline in fans before Rj, then just wait till year three of the Rj contract.

I thought the article was good.

[Blackjack]

I am not saying I would rather have Carter (although he is better). I was just refuting the point that it was simply the contract seeing how the Spurs have RJ for another 4 years guaranteed.

Actually:


For all intents and purposes, the decision came down to Jefferson or Carter. They went with Jefferson: shorter contract and -- more importantly -- it wouldn't cost them of Hill.

As bad as the re-signing looked initially, for its length and total with Jefferson's apparent market value, the extension really doesn't bother me much if at all anymore. Could it potentially screw them up a bit after Tim's gone? Possibly. But I highly doubt it, and they certainly weren't going to be able to field a team with enough talent had RJ walked this year.

RJ is anything but an ideal fit for the Spurs but there's at least a glimmer of hope that he could be good enough to be a net positive when all is said and done -- it's better to have and ill-fitted talent with some upside than a nice fit that will guarantee you nothing more than a spinning of the wheels.

As for the contract, the Spurs would've been roughly $7M over the tax next year had RJ not opted out and had the Spurs fielded the same team, which they would've as that was the understanding when acquiring RJ. Holt knew he'd be spending for at least the remainder of Tim's window.

What the Spurs did with RJ's contract makes a lot more sense when you look at the realities around them and try to view it from the eyes of an owner. He's the guy you want comfortable with the move, as it affects the product on the floor for years to come.

The Spurs saved between $16-17M next year with RJ at 8.4M instead of 15.2M -- 6.8M on the contract, 6M+ in LT and ~3.3 in redistribution. So the final 3 years of RJ's contract only costs Holt an additional 14M, not nearly as painful a pill to swallow.

I think it's been pretty well established with the regulars here over the last year or so that I wasn't a fan of RJ's acquisition or some beacon of optimism with the prospect of him panning out the way we all hope. But I've come to terms with him being a Spur. Really, I don't think there's all that much of a choice. The Spurs need him to pan out and I think the Spurs knew that the day they acquired him -- time isn't and wasn't on their side, nor were the right piece or pieces available to them for that short time.

It is what it is. And whether what "it" is is good enough ... well, it hardly ever is -- we just some fortunate, spoiled, high-expectation sonbitches.

[Blackjack]

As an aside, I think my burnout's starting to thaw. That might be the first legit post I've had in a month.

Baby steps . . .

[SenorSpur]

After downing the Mavs in six games, the Spurs met their match in the Western Conference semi-finals. Phoenix was clicking on all cylinders and presented a matchup the Spurs simply couldn't match-up with. The Spurs lacked 3-point shooting, bench production and the necessary defensive mobility on the perimeter. No longer was Bowen available to pester and disrupt Nash and the Suns' offense; no longer was Duncan able control the paint on both ends. The Spurs' season would abruptly come to an end with a sweep (0-4). An uneven ending to a frustratingly uneven year.


The RJ situation notwithstanding, this is the part of the article that rings loud and clear for me. These issues were present before the RJ signing, they're STILL present today and likely will be when this upcoming season is over.

The troubling fact is these issues first began to appear during in the '08 playoff series matchup versus the Fakers. The cracks in the foundation have only gotten progressively worse since then. While there have been 3 young, suitable, building block pieces added in consecutive drafts since then (Hill, Blair, Anderson), there have been no specific moves made, that could help stave off the overall rapid decline. I'm not even sure it's possible.

The addition of Splitter will surely help Duncan, but to assume an aging Duncan and the rookie Splitter will allow the Spurs to, once again, control the paint is quite a reach. Furthermore, the Spurs perimeter defense WILL continue to suffer because of the lack of even one adequate, on-the-ball, perimeter defender.

As stated in the article, the Spurs had very little wiggle room this past summer. If they had the benefit of foresight, perhaps a different player could've been brought in. However, the fact remains that the lingering issues, that have plagued this team as it's gotten older, are still just that - lingering issues.

I totally agree with the "all-in", "go for it", strategy designed to take advantage of Duncan's final couple of seasons. Ownership and FO are to be commended for it. I only wish there had been different options available, at their disposal. And perhaps the plan would've been better served had it been launched in the summer of '08, as opposed to the summer of '09? Who knows?

[TDMVPDPOY]

i trade his ass for jax right about now

[howbouthemspurs]

Carter is more selfish than Jefferson.. I the RJ will be a lot better this upcoming season

[Bruno]

What the Spurs did with RJ's contract makes a lot more sense when you look at the realities around them and try to view it from the eyes of an owner. He's the guy you want comfortable with the move, as it affects the product on the floor for years to come.

The Spurs saved between $16-17M next year with RJ at 8.4M instead of 15.2M -- 6.8M on the contract, 6M+ in LT and ~3.3 in redistribution. So the final 3 years of RJ's contract only costs Holt an additional 14M, not nearly as painful a pill to swallow.


To me, that's a flawed logic.

The money saved this year in luxury tax will be spend next year in luxury tax. In 2011-2012, Spurs payroll will be really high if Parker is re-signed. Even if there will have a new CBA, chances are high that the luxury tax system still exist and Spurs pay tons of them.

While the RJ new contract could theoretically cost only $14M more than his previous one to Holt, it likely will cost way more than that. Spurs have signed him to that big contract because they think he will help them.

Bottom line is that Spurs have spend $50M for Jefferson and Bonner and when I look at Spurs payroll and see that they will pay $17.7M in 2013-2014 for 33 years old Jefferson and Bonner, these moves look awful. Spurs have throw crazy money to questionable players and it could end up as a nightmare in 2 or 3 years.

[objective]

Will the Spurs be able to afford to keep Parker with paying RJ and Bonner like this long term?

And even if they are, will they then be able to re-sign George Hill? Hill is already a better performer than either RJ or Bonner and they won't be able to keep him at 800k.

[DPG21920]

To me, that's a flawed logic.

The money saved this year in luxury tax will be spend next year in luxury tax. In 2011-2012, Spurs payroll will be really high if Parker is re-signed. Even if there will have a new CBA, chances are high that the luxury tax system still exist and Spurs pay tons of them.

While the RJ new contract could theoretically cost only $14M more than his previous one to Holt, it likely will cost way more than that. Spurs have signed him to that big contract because they think he will help them.

Bottom line is that Spurs have spend $50M for Jefferson and Bonner and when I look at Spurs payroll and see that they will pay $17.7M in 2013-2014 for 33 years old Jefferson and Bonner, these moves look awful. Spurs have throw crazy money to questionable players and it could end up as a nightmare in 2 or 3 years.

This is the point I have been making. The Spurs have robbed Peter to pay Paul this year. There very well could be financial ramifications in the next few years. They also took these risks with only the hope of marginal returns. Sometimes, like the article says, a move or moves are the right ones even if they don't work out. Such as the RJ trade.

This extension does not fit into that. Plenty of people disagree w it.

[benefactor]

Bottom line is that Spurs have spend $50M for Jefferson and Bonner and when I look at Spurs payroll and see that they will pay $17.7M in 2013-2014 for 33 years old Jefferson and Bonner, these moves look awful.
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd54/Kylepotvin95/kick.gif

[benefactor]

"But they will be great expiring deals!"

:rolleyes

[Gooshie]

To me, that's a flawed logic.

The money saved this year in luxury tax will be spend next year in luxury tax. In 2011-2012, Spurs payroll will be really high if Parker is re-signed. Even if there will have a new CBA, chances are high that the luxury tax system still exist and Spurs pay tons of them.

While the RJ new contract could theoretically cost only $14M more than his previous one to Holt, it likely will cost way more than that. Spurs have signed him to that big contract because they think he will help them.

Bottom line is that Spurs have spend $50M for Jefferson and Bonner and when I look at Spurs payroll and see that they will pay $17.7M in 2013-2014 for 33 years old Jefferson and Bonner, these moves look awful. Spurs have throw crazy money to questionable players and it could end up as a nightmare in 2 or 3 years.

There is a chance (albeit a slight chance) that Tim opts out of his contract after this year and signs for less, so that the Spurs can re-sign Tony and stay under the luxury tax. I may be dreaming here, but he has taken less money before, so you never know.

[Bruno]

This is the point I have been making. The Spurs have robbed Peter to pay Paul this year. There very well could be financial ramifications in the next few years. They also took these risks with only the hope of marginal returns. Sometimes, like the article says, a move or moves are the right ones even if they don't work out. Such as the RJ trade.

This extension does not fit into that. Plenty of people disagree w it.

Yep, it will be mentally dishonest for me to bash the RJ trade with hindsight while I was thrilled by it a year ago.

Regarding Spurs signing RJ this summer, there are 2 distinct scenarios:
Scenario 1: RJ opt out on his own and Spurs offered him a new contract in July.
Scenario 2: There was a pre-arranged deal in June between Spurs and RJ.

These 2 scenarios raise totally different questions:

In scenario 1, the question is: could Spurs have done better in the FA market than signing RJ for $39M?
The answer is obvious, hell yes. For example, they could have offered the rest of their MLE and promising a starting spot to Matt Barnes. I'm quite confident he woudl have accepted it. RJ is better than Barnes but nowhere near justifying all his additional cost.
If RJ has opted out on his own, the RJ re-signing sucks. I don't get at all why Spurs did that. It's as crazy as the Bonner re-signing.

In Scenario 2, the question is: What is better RJ with $15M/1 year or RJ with $39M/4 years?
It's really hard to see all the exact financial implications with the new CBA, Spurs' maybe rebuilding their team, Parker and Duncan future...
Even if it's hard to see whole picture, it seems obvious for me that RJ for $15M/1 year was the better solution.

[Bruno]

There is a chance (albeit a slight chance) that Tim opts out of his contract after this year and signs for less, so that the Spurs can re-sign Tony and stay under the luxury tax. I may be dreaming here, but he has taken less money before, so you never know.

It would take gigantic nuts for Pop to ask Tim Duncan: "Hey, Timmie, could you take a pay-cut for the second time in your career because we have spend $50M on Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner? "

And if Duncan did it, he will be the first man to be a first-ballot Hall Of Famers and to be sanctified by the Pope.

[Gooshie]

It would take gigantic nuts for Pop to ask Tim Duncan: "Hey, Timmie, could you take a pay-cut for the second time in your career because we have spend $50M on Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner? "

And if Duncan did it, he will be the first man to be a first-ballot Hall Of Famers and to be sanctified by the Pope.

Hahaha, true that. Maybe they could work out something like Dice's final year of his contract: Timmy opts out, signs a two year extension, with the first year at a lower salary and the second year partially guaranteed. The partial guarantee would equal the amount of $$ he'd be giving up in his first year, or even a little bit more.

It would be a weird way for Tim to retire (in this scenario, I think he would have to be "cut" in the 2nd year of the contract), but if that's what it takes to re-sign Tony, then why not? Plus, everyone will know that he took less money for the good of the team again, so the fact the Spurs had to technically "cut" him wouldn't look so bad.

[dbestpro]

Most interesting point to me in the article:

"For essentially the same price, the Spurs have added Jefferson, McDyess, Blair, Splitter and Anderson -- along with Neal, Temple and Gee -- to the talent base of '09. And with the "refinancing" of Jefferson, the Spurs will only be spending $14-15 million dollars more on Jefferson's final 3 years (and $14-15 million over 3 years for Jefferson seems much more palatable). "

[Bruno]

Hahaha, true that. Maybe they could work out something like Dice's final year of his contract: Timmy opts out, signs a two year extension, with the first year at a lower salary and the second year partially guaranteed. The partial guarantee would equal the amount of $$ he'd be giving up in his first year, or even a little bit more.


It could be a good idea and Spurs plan but it won't be easy to be bellow the tax in both 2012 and 2013 if Duncan doesn't sacrifice money. Spurs will be in a tight financial situation in both years.

I'm also not sure the league would also accept these restructuring. Even if nothing forbid it in the CBA, it's against the spirit of the CBA.

[temujin]

Bottom line is $50 millions for Jefferson and Bonner, two ageing role players who can't play any serious defense, and can't exploit the opportunities of playing with Manu and Parker on offense.
Expensive tools with a solid history of failing under pressure in PO games.

There are two scenarios here.

1) We totally ignore personal facts about the life of R. Jefferson, which prevented him to perform at a level remotely close to half the cost of his -present- salary. The FO knows these "problems" have been "solved" and this guy can still play a role in a winning enterprise over the next 4 years. We ignore the long term benefits of eating sandwiches at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

2) The FO gets older, and likes to age with their fellow players alongside. No younger, cheaper strangers admitted.

I am bending toward the second explanation.

[Blackjack]

To me, that's a flawed logic.

The money saved this year in luxury tax will be spend next year in luxury tax. In 2011-2012, Spurs payroll will be really high if Parker is re-signed. Even if there will have a new CBA, chances are high that the luxury tax system still exist and Spurs pay tons of them.

I think we both agree the Spurs never do anything without a plan/gameplan and though it's impossible to know exactly what it is, I feel it's been made pretty well known that it starts with them fielding a team talented enough to compete for a championship in Tim's final years.

So while I understand how you can come to your conclusion, based solely on the dollars, I think that's where we differ: the Spurs had already said goodbye to the money they'll save next year, imo, and you feel it's money they've found that they won't use or would be foolish to use.



While the RJ new contract could theoretically cost only $14M more than his previous one to Holt, it likely will cost way more than that. Spurs have signed him to that big contract because they think he will help them.

They absolutely believe he can help them. But more importantly, they don't believe there's anyone out there they could get their hands on that could help them more for the next 1-2 years compete for a championship.

What people have to consider is this: The Spurs needed a player that could supplant at least 1 and possibly 2-3 of the Big 3 in the pecking order; the perfect fit of a player (someone who possessed more talent than a role player but the perfect skills for the role); or they could possibly get by with an All-Star talent who might take some time to adapt and become that "Spur," corporate knowledge and all.

I believe they felt, or maybe just hoped (you can't underestimate the desperation of a closing window and seeing Duncan struggling to finish a season while Ginobili watched his team get eliminated from the bench in '09), that RJ could fall into the latter: an All-Star talent that could potentially adapt with time. And while I was against the trade when it happened, hindsight's given me the perspective to feel they did the right thing. They gave themselves a shot, and as unlikely as I (and maybe even they), felt it was, they made a promise to Tim. It was the best they could do to honor it, imo.



Bottom line is that Spurs have spend $50M for Jefferson and Bonner and when I look at Spurs payroll and see that they will pay $17.7M in 2013-2014 for 33 years old Jefferson and Bonner, these moves look awful. Spurs have throw crazy money to questionable players and it could end up as a nightmare in 2 or 3 years.

It could, but that's the risk they were willing to take. The championship window could already be closed, but they're going to make sure it is and not concede that it is.

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Holt knew that after the '09 season; and he and the Spurs know championship windows don't open all that often, if ever, when you own a team in San Antonio. They'll take their lumps in the wallet for a few years if need be, but I'm pretty sure it won't be the nightmare you believe it could be.

They've got a plan. Holt and the boys know what they can and can't stomach.

[temujin]

Oh, and of course with Duncan at 34-and-turning-35-by-the-PO anyone thinking about a 5th championship is not in touch with the crude physicality of degrading cartilages of ageing knees.

[Blackjack]

Scenario 2: There was a pre-arranged deal in June between Spurs and RJ.

I'm not sure if it was prearranged, as in RJ was in on it, but I believe it was preordained the Spurs were going to offer him the deal: acquiring him was a commitment to a 2-year window and changing course midstream would guarantee a failure, imo (at least, that's what I believe they felt).

They weren't going to find a player talented enough that fit well enough to come in and make them a contender again in his first year with the team. It's just not realistic -- it always takes time for new arrivals and we saw how dumbing down a playbook and a team lacking continuity and corporate knowledge fairs.

With RJ they've got the talent and hopefully built a decent enough base of continuity and corporate knowledge. That's the best they could do, is what I believe they felt -- and it's hard to argue after seeing how the market played out (player-wise).



In scenario 1, the question is: could Spurs have done better in the FA market than signing RJ for $39M?

The answer is obvious, hell yes. For example, they could have offered the rest of their MLE and promising a starting spot to Matt Barnes. I'm quite confident he woudl have accepted it. RJ is better than Barnes but nowhere near justifying all his additional cost.
If RJ has opted out on his own, the RJ re-signing sucks. I don't get at all why Spurs did that. It's as crazy as the Bonner re-signing.

This is quite simple, imo. Barnes equals a better fit, but guarantees a spinning of the wheels. There's simply no chance he puts them into the championship conversation if he fulfills his potential.

That's why even if Jefferson isn't demonstrably better than Barnes in this system he's still better (and Jefferson is clearly a better, more talented player). There's at least the potential that RJ could come through and bring enough to the table to put the Spurs back into contention if all goes well on the health front for the team. And that potential to do that is why he's worth the money to them.

Again, it's been about a 2-year window since the summer of '09. It's all about trying to squeeze out one final championship.

[Blackjack]

Oh, and of course with Duncan at 34-and-turning-35-by-the-PO anyone thinking about a 5th championship is not in touch with the crude physicality of degrading cartilages of ageing knees.

So would you rather they just trade Tim to a contender and start the rebuild in earnest?

[ElNono]

yep, it will be mentally dishonest for me to bash the rj trade with hindsight while i was thrilled by it a year ago.

Regarding spurs signing rj this summer, there are 2 distinct scenarios:
Scenario 1: Rj opt out on his own and spurs offered him a new contract in july.
Scenario 2: There was a pre-arranged deal in june between spurs and rj.

These 2 scenarios raise totally different questions:

In scenario 1, the question is: Could spurs have done better in the fa market than signing rj for $39m?
The answer is obvious, hell yes. For example, they could have offered the rest of their mle and promising a starting spot to matt barnes. I'm quite confident he woudl have accepted it. Rj is better than barnes but nowhere near justifying all his additional cost.
If rj has opted out on his own, the rj re-signing sucks. I don't get at all why spurs did that. It's as crazy as the bonner re-signing.

In scenario 2, the question is: What is better rj with $15m/1 year or rj with $39m/4 years?
It's really hard to see all the exact financial implications with the new cba, spurs' maybe rebuilding their team, parker and duncan future...
Even if it's hard to see whole picture, it seems obvious for me that rj for $15m/1 year was the better solution.

+1000

[ElNono]

I'm not sure if it was prearranged, as in RJ was in on it, but I believe it was preordained the Spurs were going to offer him the deal: acquiring him was a commitment to a 2-year window and changing course midstream would guarantee a failure, imo (at least, that's what I believe they felt).

They weren't going to find a player talented enough that fit well enough to come in and make them a contender again in his first year with the team. It's just not realistic -- it always takes time for new arrivals and we saw how dumbing down a playbook and a team lacking continuity and corporate knowledge fairs.

With RJ they've got the talent and hopefully built a decent enough base of continuity and corporate knowledge. That's the best they could do, is what I believe they felt -- and it's hard to argue after seeing how the market played out (player-wise).




This is quite simple, imo. Barnes equals a better fit, but guarantees a spinning of the wheels. There's simply no chance he puts them into the championship conversation if he fulfills his potential.

That's why even if Jefferson isn't demonstrably better than Barnes in this system he's still better (and Jefferson is clearly a better, more talented player). There's at least the potential that RJ could come through and bring enough to the table to put the Spurs back into contention if all goes well on the health front for the team. And that potential to do that is why he's worth the money to them.

Again, it's been about a 2-year window since the summer of '09. It's all about trying to squeeze out one final championship.

Sorry Black, but if you think RJ and Bonner put us any closer to championship contention than last season, you need to pass me what you're smoking.

I'm not saying Barnes would either, but because there was no 'better' talent (debatable, I guess nobody knew Ariza was on the block) this offseason, it doesn't mean you need to automatically hand out bad contracts to players you know. It simply takes away financial flexibility for the next offseason, where there might have been a piece available.

I mean, Richard was coming back this season no matter what. So the question is wether the Spurs should be paying $15m/1 or $40m/4... as Bruno explained, even if they are dodging the tax bullet now, they'll most likely are not going to in the next couple of seasons.

[nkdlunch]

the only thing RJ has in focus is TP's tight ass

[DPG21920]

So if it's a two year window why not just pay RJ 15m for this season? Instead you give more money to a marginal, aging player.

[Blackjack]

Sorry Black, but if you think RJ and Bonner put us any closer to championship contention than last season, you need to pass me what you're smoking.

I'm not saying Barnes would either, but because there was no 'better' talent (debatable, I guess nobody knew Ariza was on the block) this offseason, it doesn't mean you need to automatically hand out bad contracts to players you know. It simply takes away financial flexibility for the next offseason, where there might have been a piece available.

I mean, Richard was coming back this season no matter what. So the question is wether the Spurs should be paying $15m/1 or $40m/4... as Bruno explained, even if they are dodging the tax bullet now, they'll most likely are not going to in the next couple of seasons.

They made a promise to Tim and the team they fielded is the best possible team they could under the circumstance.

I think what people are confusing is the expectation we've grown to have as an elite franchise and the realistic expectations we should have at this point.

The Spurs are between a rock and a hard place. And even if I don't think the team's on a trajectory to win a championship with RJ (and Bonner, but he's really irrelevant to me), I do think that there's the slightest possibility that it could happen with this group.

Basically, I believe the Spurs have given themselves the best shot possible under the circumstance. And, as a fan, I'd much rather have that slightest little shred of hope than know my team just flat-out doesn't have the talent to get it done -- they've got enough talent to contend, even if it's not the right kind.

It's Dumb and Dumber:


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr6ew5jZ-ubpJS5bDF9poOisgYbTzQELAggmqeI6dCJl9Eueg&t=1&usg=__ZzYkWcuJZtZ4L2kAxiC0jMEvK6o=

So you're saying there's a chance!?!

[DPG21920]

Would they not have the same chances w RJ on a one year 15m deal?

[DPG21920]

I also disagree that a better fit (Barnes w 3pt shooting and defense) would not give the spurs a better chance at winning. A better fit for this system could very easy be a net gain over RJ's upside and one is more easily attainable (having a known skill set that fits vs hoping for upside).

Even if one is a better player than the other.

[Blackjack]

Would they not have the same chances w RJ on a one year 15m deal?

They obviously believe RJ can help them and is "Spurs" material. But the restructuring allowed them to maneuver the contract/books the way they felt they needed to to execute the business model moving forward.

You've gotta pay the piper, no doubt, but they've been all-in with RJ since the day they acquired him, imo. This allows them to decide on when and where that payment's made.


I also disagree that a better fit (Barnes w 3pt shooting and defense) would not give the spurs a better chance at winning. A better fit for this system could very easy be a net gain over RJ's upside and one is more easily attainable (having a known skill set that fits vs hoping for upside).

Even if one is a better player than the other.

Even if you're right that the Spurs could be a better team with Barnes instead of RJ (and there's a legitimate possibility you are), that team wouldn't be winning a championship. They just wouldn't have enough talent.

RJ could have them being a worse team than what they would've have been had they replaced him with Barnes, but he could also be a piece to the puzzle on a true contender.

There's at least the possibility of championship upside with RJ. Barnes ... not so much.

[DPG21920]

I see no upside enough from RJ that makes them a true contender and 40m for a pipe dream is crazy to me. Let's hope it pays off.

[Blackjack]

It just beats the alternative, in my view: throwing in the towel.

When Tim's done, for all intents and purposes, so is championship aspiration. And if Holt's willing to go all in on a less-than-stellar hand, God bless him.

We all want and hope that it somehow miraculously pays off -- after the '06 Heat won the championship I told myself I'll never say never again.

[DPG21920]

That Heat team wasn't facing a stacked Lakers or current Heat. I think this move w RJ is throwing in the towel. This is about a one year tax reprieve. If the spurs were serious about going all in, they should have done something more drastic (take on a bad contract like Iggy or something)

Getting swept and bringing back a bad fit long term w some rookies is a slap in the face to Tim if your goal is to win a title. They made this move being 99% sure there was no title hope. That 1% is not nearly enough to say they did this to win IMO.

[ElNono]

They made a promise to Tim and the team they fielded is the best possible team they could under the circumstance.

If that team happened to include Richard Jefferson, which is what I think you're implying, then what's the point of the 4/40 deal? He was coming back regardless. It was for 1/15 and the possibility of jettisoning him next season if he laid another turd, or basically betting Tim's last two seasons on what RJ and Matt can provide.


I think what people are confusing is the expectation we've grown to have as an elite franchise and the realistic expectations we should have at this point.

Hey, I've toned down my expectations considerably. You won't hear 'championship contender' from me.


The Spurs are between a rock and a hard place. And even if I don't think the team's on a trajectory to win a championship with RJ (and Bonner, but he's really irrelevant to me), I do think that there's the slightest possibility that it could happen with this group.

Never say never, but if you ask me to be realistic a paragraph above, then I'll be realistic. As far as Bonner, he' is not really irrelevant when he's eating up $3+ millions of your cap space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That's basically 2x LLE and enough money to hire guys like Raja Bell or Matt Barnes this past offseason.


Basically, I believe the Spurs have given themselves the best shot possible under the circumstance. And, as a fan, I'd much rather have that slightest little shred of hope than know my team just flat-out doesn't have the talent to get it done -- they've got enough talent to contend, even if it's not the right kind.

But RJ was coming back for 1/15... so, if the Spurs thought having RJ was the 'best shot possible' for this upcoming season then they didn't need to sign him up at 4/40... That's the part of your diatribe that I don't understand.

[ElNono]

BTW Black, I see you addressed my last post in answers to DPG... I still don't agree, but feel free to skip over my last post... :tu

[ElNono]

That Heat team wasn't facing a stacked Lakers or current Heat. I think this move w RJ is throwing in the towel. This is about a one year tax reprieve. If the spurs were serious about going all in, they should have done something more drastic (take on a bad contract like Iggy or something)

Getting swept and bringing back a bad fit long term w some rookies is a slap in the face to Tim if your goal is to win a title. They made this move being 99% sure there was no title hope. That 1% is not nearly enough to say they did this to win IMO.

This.

To me, bringing RJ back long term is basically throwing the towel for Tim's two remaining seasons. On the other hand, having him just for this season would have given the Spurs an opportunity to work something out with his expiring at season's end and maybe actually have a chance next season.

[Blackjack]

That Heat team wasn't facing a stacked Lakers or current Heat. I think this move w RJ is throwing in the towel. This is about a one year tax reprieve. If the spurs were serious about going all in, they should have done something more drastic (take on a bad contract like Iggy or something)

Getting swept and bringing back a bad fit long term w some rookies is a slap in the face to Tim if your goal is to win a title. They made this move being 99% sure there was no title hope. That 1% is not nearly enough to say they did this to win IMO.

See, that's where I've come to differ. I was a HUGE proponent of AI last year and he'd definitely be the player I picked on a one-for-one for this team (all things being equal, never having played with the Spurs) but neither of them is a good fit.

AI would be a bad fit in the same way Artest was for the Lakers (offensively) but the team wouldn't have been as successful because he wouldn't be surrounded with the same overwhelming talent. So as much as I like AI, him coming to this team and adapting in one year to be the piece that put them over the top just doesn't seem likely. Plus, there's that whole issue of having something the other team wants and that being something you're willing to give up, so it's more fan fantasy than realistic.

Would I rather have AI? Absolutely. But can I fault the Spurs for thinking that using RJ as an expiring to bring on a player like AI with the contract he's on to compete for a championship this upcoming year is crazy? Nah, I really can't.


If that team happened to include Richard Jefferson, which is what I think you're implying, then what's the point of the 4/40 deal? He was coming back regardless. It was for 1/15 and the possibility of jettisoning him next season if he laid another turd, or basically betting Tim's last two seasons on what RJ and Matt can provide.

Because it's what they had to offer to get him to opt out. I believe they've got a business model they've come up with, where and when the payments will be made, and that they're simply too far down the road with RJ to abandon ship. He's what they believe to be their best option available to them, considering the talent and familiarity they now have with him on the team. They just couldn't start from scratch with another player that wasn't a superstar.


Never say never, but if you ask me to be realistic a paragraph above, then I'll be realistic. As far as Bonner, he' is not really irrelevant when he's eating up $3+ millions of your cap space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That's basically 2x LLE and enough money to hire guys like Raja Bell or Matt Barnes this past offseason.

He's their player and his salary has no bearing on the upcoming year's team other than in Holt's wallet.

I wasn't ecstatic or jumping for joy when I heard Bonner signed either, but I suppose I'm just not all that hung up on what the team will look like after Tim's gone. The Spurs front office kept the books straight for years and benefited greatly in the pocketbook while putting out an unbelievably successful team in the process. It's why they made the move for RJ and committed to spending the type of money they're now on the books for. So my only concern is that they field the best team possible, both as it pertains to talent and continuity. I believe the Spurs have done the best they could since acquiring RJ and that they know what they're doing financially -- I have a hard time believing Holt and Co. are going to let the team fall off the map once Tim's gone. They'll be respectable and their books won't be a mess. That, I do still have faith in.


But RJ was coming back for 1/15... so, if the Spurs thought having RJ was the 'best shot possible' for this upcoming season then they didn't need to sign him up at 4/40... That's the part of your diatribe that I don't understand.

Diatribe? Wow, I stop posting for a month or two and my man be gettin all hostile. :lol

The Spurs had to get him to opt out. That's why. And because they did, they were able to sign Splitter and re-sign both RJ and Bonner for less than the 15.2M. And because he opted out the Spurs will only be paying an additional $13,492,000 - $14,492,000 on the final 3 years of RJ's contract because of the savings. A fact that will surely allow Holt to put together a better team when Tim's gone.

And it's not simply RJ would've only been on the books for 1-year and 15.2. Had RJ come back, it would've cost them 15.2M in salary, roughly 7M in tax and roughly 3.3M in redistribution. That's about a 25M swing.

I just honestly believe the Spurs know what they're doing financially and with their gameplan and I can't find too much fault with the thought process.

I can't be pissed at the team they have, as I can't realistically see them becoming a contender with what's to be had, and I have a hard time believing they're not fully aware of the expenditures and how it will affect the product on the floor once Tim's gone -- this organization's fully aware of how much of a front-running town SA can be and how discretionary funds are harder to come by once the product takes a hit.

I may have questioned plenty of personnel and in-game decisions but I've never been one to believe these guys don't know what they're doing when it comes to the business end. Dem guys know what dey doin'.

[Blackjack]

BTW Black, I see you addressed my last post in answers to DPG... I still don't agree, but feel free to skip over my last post... :tu

Too late. :lol

[ElNono]

Because it's what they had to offer to get him to opt out. I believe they've got a business model they've come up with, where and when the payments will be made, and that they're simply too far down the road with RJ to abandon ship. He's what they believe to be their best option available to them, considering the talent and familiarity they now have with him on the team. They just couldn't start from scratch with another player that wasn't a superstar.

The way I see it we're down the wrong road with a bad fit. Ultimately, if you do want to honor the window that a Duncan/Manu in decline can offer you for the next two seasons, going deeper into the wrong road and expecting to end in a championship makes zero sense.

If we're truly prioritizing Duncan's last two seasons, then the business model would need to take a second seat to that. I believe that's what happened last season. And ultimately if we're keeping Tony, the business model would indicate that the option was to take the tax hit this season or the next two.

To be frank, I'm more skeptic. I lean more towards their thinking being that they truly believe other teams are too stacked and we simply have no chance to win a ship. They took a gamble with RJ and it didn't pay off, and it kind of tied their hands. So you go to plan B: Put out a 'playoff team' product out there, milk the fans for whatever is left of the Duncan era and avoid the luxury tax hit at least for one year.


He's their player and his salary has no bearing on the upcoming year's team other than in Holt's wallet.

I wasn't ecstatic or jumping for joy when I heard Bonner signed either, but I suppose I'm just not all that hung up on what the team will look like after Tim's gone. The Spurs front office kept the books straight for years and benefited greatly in the pocketbook while putting out an unbelievably successful team in the process. It's why they made the move for RJ and committed to spending the type of money they're now on the books for. So my only concern is that they field the best team possible, both as it pertains to talent and continuity. I believe the Spurs have done the best they could since acquiring RJ and that they know what they're doing financially -- I have a hard time believing Holt and Co. are going to let the team fall off the map once Tim's gone. They'll be respectable and their books won't be a mess. That, I do still have faith in.

Well, he wasn't signed for just one season. He was signed for four, so he definitely will have some bearing, especially if we re-sign Tony. Again, are we prioritizing Holt's wallet (aka the business plan) or Tim's window? Because Matty is a great kid but he ain't taking this team any closer to a LOB.


Diatribe? Wow, I stop posting for a month or two and my man be gettin all hostile. :lol

Sorry, I actually used the wrong word. I was aiming for 'long-winded/prolonged'. More like discourse. :lol



The Spurs had to get him to opt out. That's why. And because they did, they were able to sign Splitter and re-sign both RJ and Bonner for less than the 15.2M. And because he opted out the Spurs will only be paying an additional $13,492,000 - $14,492,000 on the final 3 years of RJ's contract because of the savings. A fact that will surely allow Holt to put together a better team when Tim's gone.

I personally didn't think for a moment that hiring Splitter was subject to RJ's restructuring his contract. The window for getting him was now, otherwise he would have simply extended in Europe after an incredible season and for him to come on a rebuilding team after TD retired would have been fairly unattractive.

Furthermore, the projected savings on RJ's are subject to wether we re-sign Tony or not. As Bruno already explained earlier in the thread, we will be paying lux tax the next two seasons and those two contracts will add considerably to that.


And it's not simply RJ would've only been on the books for 1-year and 15.2. Had RJ come back, it would've cost them 15.2M in salary, roughly 7M in tax and roughly 3.3M in redistribution. That's about a 25M swing.

It is what it is. We'll be taking the millions hit down the road regardless. The way I see it, the question is: business plan or championship window?


I just honestly believe the Spurs know what they're doing financially and with their gameplan and I can't find too much fault with the thought process.

I'm mostly concerned about the gameplan, and I hope you're right. There's nothing that would please me more as a fan than to be wrong right now.


I can't be pissed at the team they have, as I can't realistically see them becoming a contender with what's to be had, and I have a hard time believing they're not fully aware of the expenditures and how it will affect the product on the floor once Tim's gone -- this organization's fully aware of how much of a front-running town SA can be and how discretionary funds are harder to come by once the product takes a hit.

I may have questioned plenty of personnel and in-game decisions but I've never been one to believe these guys don't know what they're doing when it comes to the business end. Dem guys know what dey doin'.

I don't necessarily disagree that they know what they're doing financially. I just don't agree that it aligns with a gameplan that attempts to extend Duncan's window for a ring.

[Seventyniner]

This.

To me, bringing RJ back long term is basically throwing the towel for Tim's two remaining seasons. On the other hand, having him just for this season would have given the Spurs an opportunity to work something out with his expiring at season's end and maybe actually have a chance next season.

Really? The Spurs are giving up? What possible motivation would they have to do that?

This organization obviously knows how to put a winner on the floor. Have they suddenly forgotten how? Or is it just maaaaybe possible that they know what's best for the team better than you do?

[DPG21920]

AI was just an example, that was not the important part. The important part was if they are serious about winning they needed to do something different. Also, if they are willing to pay RJ 40/4 I don't see why they would hesitate to bring on someone younger with considerably more upside (not saying Iggy exactly)

[ElNono]

Really? The Spurs are giving up? What possible motivation would they have to do that?

This organization obviously knows how to put a winner on the floor. Have they suddenly forgotten how? Or is it just maaaaybe possible that they know what's best for the team better than you do?

It's not just what the Spurs do. Remember Pop saying when the team pulled the trigger on the RJ trade that they felt that they didn't have enough talent to compete?

I don't know how Miami is going to look, but right now the bar is set by the Lakers, and it's a pretty high bar.

People seem to forget that we just had our asses handed to us in a sweep in the second round. With the big 3. And RJ.

So maybe they took a gamble with RJ and it didn't pay off. That doesn't mean that they didn't try to put a winner out on the floor. It just means that the gamble didn't pay off.

[Blackjack]

Sorry, I actually used the wrong word. I was aiming for 'long-winded/prolonged'. More like discourse. :lol

Yup, that's an indication that the 'Jack may be back. From Omnipotent to long-wind-ed-ness, I might be on my way to being worth a damn. :hat


Rather than play into my long-wind-ed-ness and predilection for monotony (I'm boning up for Scrabble Wednesday), have a look-see at this (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=jy-spurs080809). It's a great reminder and refresher on the dawn of the RJ era. [Sorry, that even made me laugh. "on the dawn of the RJ era"? More like Don ... am I right? Right? Anyone. ... No? :depressed)


Bottom line, I wasn't for the initial RJ trade. I was never a proponent of his and I don't expect it to turn out as well as we all hoped. But I think most would agree that the logic was sound for the acquisition initially, so it's now down to what would've been better for the Spurs this upcoming year: the team they have now with a locked up RJ; the team they would've had with both he and Parker on expirings; or the team they would've had if RJ had went elsewhere, leaving the Spurs to fill the small forward role with a LLE-type.

Weighing all of the possibilities and probabilities, whether they could do better than RJ this upcoming year, I can't say they did the wrong thing. Doesn't mean I like it or am happy about it, but I can't argue too much with the path they've taken this summer.

Them winning a championship may be the equivalent to hitting the Lotto, but they at least bought a ticket. That's all I can really ask for at this point. I've yet to hear another option they had that was better. Maybe financially long-term but not as it pertains to Tim and his window. And again, I trust that the Spurs have a sound gameplan and business model when it comes to life after Tim. Holt's fully aware that he's gotta have a quality product on the floor to draw in SA and realizing the savings now I'm sure was part of the plan. Save now, pay (possibly) later -- only Manu is currently on the books and the team's future salary may not be flirting with the tax as much if 1 or 2 of the Big 3 are gone.

Fail.

That was sooo long-wind-ed-ness. :depressed

[Waps1980]

Maybe they are getting ready for 2011-12 when Duncan to retires, TP heads to the Knicks.
Then pick up a pass first point guard put Manu on the floor and RJ will be back to 20ppg as he will be the second scoring option.

[ElNono]

Yup, that's an indication that the 'Jack may be back. From Omnipotent to long-wind-ed-ness, I might be on my way to being worth a damn. :hat


Rather than play into my long-wind-ed-ness and predilection for monotony (I'm boning up for Scrabble Wednesday), have a look-see at this (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=jy-spurs080809). It's a great reminder and refresher on the dawn of the RJ era. [Sorry, that even made me laugh. "on the dawn of the RJ era"? More like Don ... am I right? Right? Anyone. ... No? :depressed)


Bottom line, I wasn't for the initial RJ trade. I was never a proponent of his and I don't expect it to turn out as well as we all hoped. But I think most would agree that the logic was sound for the acquisition initially, so it's now down to what would've been better for the Spurs this upcoming year: the team they have now with a locked up RJ; the team they would've had with both he and Parker on expirings; or the team they would've had if RJ had went elsewhere, leaving the Spurs to fill the small forward role with a LLE-type.

Weighing all of the possibilities and probabilities, whether they could do better than RJ this upcoming year, I can't say they did the wrong thing. Doesn't mean I like it or am happy about it, but I can't argue too much with the path they've taken this summer.

Them winning a championship may be the equivalent to hitting the Lotto, but they at least bought a ticket. That's all I can really ask for at this point. I've yet to hear another option they had that was better. Maybe financially long-term but not as it pertains to Tim and his window. And again, I trust that the Spurs have a sound gameplan and business model when it comes to life after Tim. Holt's fully aware that he's gotta have a quality product on the floor to draw in SA and realizing the savings now I'm sure was part of the plan. Save now, pay (possibly) later -- only Manu is currently on the books and the team's future salary may not be flirting with the tax as much if 1 or 2 of the Big 3 are gone.

Fail.

That was sooo long-wind-ed-ness. :depressed

FWIW, I was for the RJ trade back then. After watching Finley creak around on the court and Mason pull a Casper, I thought RJ could give us an infusion of athleticism and experience, and while I couldn't tell you then if he would put us over the top, I thought it was a worthwhile gamble.
Ultimately, I think the gamble didn't pay off because he's just not the player this team needs for the role he's handed. And I think he's at a point in his career where he just won't be able to perform that role, because of both physical and mental shortcomings. Which really makes me quite intrigued to know what exactly is the reason, gameplan-wise, that the Spurs decided to retain his services for four more seasons.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

So if it's a two year window why not just pay RJ 15m for this season? Instead you give more money to a marginal, aging player.

Richard Jefferson is hardly a marginal, aging player. His career avg of 17+ points a game is probably better than 80 percent of the league. Also, he just turned 30 years old so he still has plenty of good years left in front of him. Vince Carter is 33 and still performs pretty well with Orlando.

The blame is not entirely on RJ for playing in an offense where his role is to plant himself outside the 3pt line and shoot jumpers. The Spurs traded for him because of his athleticism and his ability to get to the hoop. The several plays that were called for him...alley oops passes off a screen, his curl at the elbow off a screen and his baseline cut to the basket need to be expanded if you want to utlize his talents. he Spurs are a half court team because Duncan is a great half court player. If the Spurs became a full court press type team or uptempo type offense Duncans contribution would decline (also one of the reasons the Spurs struggle against those same style teams).

[Nathan89]

Richard Jefferson is hardly a marginal, aging player. His career avg of 17+ points a game is probably better than 80 percent of the league. Also, he just turned 30 years old so he still has plenty of good years left in front of him. Vince Carter is 33 and still performs pretty well with Orlando.

The blame is not entirely on RJ for playing in an offense where his role is to plant himself outside the 3pt line and shoot jumpers. The Spurs traded for him because of his athleticism and his ability to get to the hoop. The several plays that were called for him...alley oops passes off a screen, his curl at the elbow off a screen and his baseline cut to the basket need to be expanded if you want to utlize his talents. he Spurs are a half court team because Duncan is a great half court player. If the Spurs became a full court press type team or uptempo type offense Duncans contribution would decline (also one of the reasons the Spurs struggle against those same style teams).

Yeah, well he is ranked 16th as a sf in the league. That means we are paying close to ten million per year for a sf that is not even in the top 50% of starting sf. On top of that, there was at least 4 sf on that list ranked below him that are better than him. The guy can't shoot or play defense. The two main criteria for the spurs sf position. He can't create anything for himself. Pietrus can do all of those things and he is ranked below Rj. The athleticism that you mention is highly overrated. Rj is the definition of marginal.