Team Chemistry

[dbestpro]

While there has been a lot of discussion about the front court another issue is the backcourt and in particular the logjam at SG. We have 4 SGs who are all ver capable (Manu, Anderson, Neal, Hill).

The problem is they all deserve minutes and often find themselves out of position at the point or SF. As much as I like these guys someone needs to go to make room for a true backup SF and PG. (Anderson and Neal are too small for the SF, Hill does not pass well enough for the PG, Manu has too many turnovers to play PG routinely).

So, if you have to get rid of two of the 4 SGs to bring back a true SF and PG who would you ditch?

[shorttotry]

Easy answer.... You ditch Anderson and Hill

[elemento]

Manu is out of this easily. We will not get much for him due to his age and Manu is better than any SG in the league not named Wade and Kobe. I want him to retire as a Spur.

We still do not know what Anderson can offer. He started this season really well, but got hurt. Coming from an injury and showing nothing in his rookie year would not help his value in a trade.

Neal and Hill have good value in the league. Neal's value in probably high now (1st rookie team, solid season in limited minutes regular/post-season, mental toughness) . Still, his ceiling is pretty much what he showed this season with minor improvements. I don't care about trading Hill to be honest.

Basically, if I had to choose 2 I would go with Hill and Neal (even though I would hate to let Neal go)

[ElNono]

It doesn't matter how much Hill sucks running the point. Pop thinks he's a serviceable backup PG and that is all that matters, so he'll keep that spot.

The reality is that outside of Manu, all the other three are on very cheap deals right now. So there's no reason to trade them unless you're using one of them to dump some of the questionable long term contracts we have (RJ, Bonner).

[Mel_13]

While there has been a lot of discussion about the front court another issue is the backcourt and in particular the logjam at SG. We have 4 SGs who are all ver capable (Manu, Anderson, Neal, Hill).

The problem is they all deserve minutes and often find themselves out of position at the point or SF. As much as I like these guys someone needs to go to make room for a true backup SF and PG. (Anderson and Neal are too small for the SF, Hill does not pass well enough for the PG, Manu has too many turnovers to play PG routinely).

So, if you have to get rid of two of the 4 SGs to bring back a true SF and PG who would you ditch?

If you were to move two of them, why would you want to bring back a SF or a PG? Positions of greatest need are PF and C.


It doesn't matter how much Hill sucks running the point. Pop thinks he's a serviceable backup PG and that is all that matters, so he'll keep that spot.

The reality is that outside of Manu, all the other three are on very cheap deals right now. So there's no reason to trade them unless you're using one of them to dump some of the questionable long term contracts we have (RJ, Bonner).

RJ's contract is an albatross (30.5M over 3 years). I'm not sure that packaging Hill, Neal, and Blair along with RJ would be enough to get rid of his contract. Even if you could, the team would likely be worse off after that deal. Bonner at 2yrs/7M is overpaid, but not by that much by NBA standards (see Kapono, Jason and Carroll, Matt). On a team that would use him in accordance with his skills and limitations, his contract isn't that bad.

That all being said, the best asset the Spurs have to improve the frontcourt is Dice's partially guaranteed contract. Sweeten that contract with Hill or Blair and you could get a 5-6M/yr big man with a 2-3 years left on his deal.

[TD 21]

If you were to move two of them, why would you want to bring back a SF or a PG? Positions of greatest need are PF and C.



RJ's contract is an albatross (30.5M over 3 years). I'm not sure that packaging Hill, Neal, and Blair along with RJ would be enough to get rid of his contract. Even if you could, the team would likely be worse off after that deal. Bonner at 2yrs/7M is overpaid, but not by that much by NBA standards (see Kapono, Jason and Carroll, Matt). On a team that would use him in accordance with his skills and limitations, his contract isn't that bad.

That all being said, the best asset the Spurs have to improve the frontcourt is Dice's partially guaranteed contract. Sweeten that contract with Hill or Blair and you could get a 5-6M/yr big man with a 2-3 years left on his deal.

All the bigs that they have the assets to acquire, who would be either upgrades, a better fit or both, than what they currently have, make $7-8 million. If they're serious about upgrading the front court, it's most likely going to take that.

I think Varejao is the guy they'll target, but only if they're able to rid themselves of Jefferson. Basically have Varejao take Jefferson's salary slot, then sign Battier to take McDyess'.

That leads me to this . . .

To Cavs: Blair, Casspi or Anderson, McDyess and/or the 29th pick

To Spurs: Varejao, (possibly) Casspi

To Kings: Jefferson

I say McDyess and/or the 29th pick depending on the timing. If it happened on draft night, then one or both could be in it (depending on Cavs' asking price). But if it happened post lockout, then McDyess' contract no longer applies, so it would have to be only the 29th pick. Post lockout because I could see the Kings not being interested at first. But once they inevitably struggle in free agency to attract anything more than role players/filler, I could see them being interested in this.

[Mel_13]

All the bigs that they have the assets to acquire, who would be either upgrades, a better fit or both, than what they currently have, make $7-8 million. If they're serious about upgrading the front court, it's most likely going to take that.

I think Varejao is the guy they'll target, but only if they're able to rid themselves of Jefferson. Basically have Varejao take Jefferson's salary slot, then sign Battier to take McDyess'.

That leads me to this . . .

To Cavs: Blair, Casspi or Anderson, McDyess and/or the 29th pick

To Spurs: Varejao, (possibly) Casspi

To Kings: Jefferson

I say McDyess and/or the 29th pick depending on the timing. If it happened on draft night, then one or both could be in it (depending on Cavs' asking price). But if it happened post lockout, then McDyess' contract no longer applies, so it would have to be only the 29th pick. Post lockout because I could see the Kings not being interested at first. But once they inevitably struggle in free agency to attract anything more than role players/filler, I could see them being interested in this.

No way that the Kings take RJ. Look at what they've done with their payroll.

If the Spurs aren't willing to bump payroll up a few million, then it will be impossible to improve in any significant way.

[TD 21]

No way that the Kings take RJ. Look at what they've done with their payroll.

Exactly. They have by far the most cap space in the league. They've promised to spend money, but they're not exactly a prime destination for free agents. What will inevitably happen is, they'll struggle to attract quality in free agency, unless they want to drastically overpay, like the Magic did with Lewis back in '07. After that, they'll be desperate. With their gaping hole at SF and boat load of money to spend, I could see them talking themselves into Jefferson. He'd give them a recognizable name to sell to their fans, on a contract that would be digestible for them and an upgrade at SF, as well as a mature veteran.

You're making the mistake of thinking about this logically, without recognizing that that's not how teams like the Kings operate. Look at the Bucks. One half decent season and they run out and overpay Gooden, Salmons and take on Maggette's bloated contract. Were those guys suddenly going to propel them to a championship? Of course not. But they're about the best they can do and it shows their fan base and players that they're willing to spend.

[Mel_13]

Exactly. They have by far the most cap space in the league. They've promised to spend money, but they're not exactly a prime destination for free agents. What will inevitably happen is, they'll struggle to attract quality in free agency, unless they want to drastically overpay, like the Magic did with Lewis back in '07. After that, they'll be desperate. With their gaping hole at SF and boat load of money to spend, I could see them talking themselves into Jefferson. He'd give them a recognizable name to sell to their fans, on a contract that would be digestible for them and an upgrade at SF, as well as a mature veteran.

You're making the mistake of thinking about this logically, without recognizing that that's not how teams like the Kings operate. Look at the Bucks. One half decent season and they run out and overpay Gooden, Salmons and take on Maggette's bloated contract. Were those guys suddenly going to propel them to a championship? Of course not. But they're about the best they can do and it shows their fan base and players that they're willing to spend.

We'll have to agree to disagree on several points.

1. I wouldn't agree that RJ is an upgrade over Casspi.

2. The Maloofs aren't looking to spend any money they don't have to these days.

3. Normally I would agree that a struggling team has to try to make a splash to keep the fans interested, but Sacto's current situation is, bizarrely, the exact opposite. Kohl is the Senator from Wisconsin and wants to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee. The Maloofs had one foot in Anaheim a few weeks ago. Sacramento has to suck up to the Kings, not the other way around. Anaheim will take the Kings with open arms even if they go 0-82. There's really no incentive for the Maloofs to spend money to improve the team in 2011-12.

[Bruno]

1) Hill is a fine backup PG. He is too short to be a full time SG.

2) Manu is going older and will log less and less minutes, even more that he will play this summer. He can also play some SF.

3) I'm not convinced that Neal can be more than a bench role player.

4) Anderson is a question mark after his surgery and he was a good SF before it.

There is no problem, there is no logjam.
[/thread]

[TD 21]

We'll have to agree to disagree on several points.

1. I wouldn't agree that RJ is an upgrade over Casspi.

2. The Maloofs aren't looking to spend any money they don't have to these days.

3. Normally I would agree that a struggling team has to try to make a splash to keep the fans interested, but Sacto's current situation is, bizarrely, the exact opposite. Kohl is the Senator from Wisconsin and wants to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee. The Maloofs had one foot in Anaheim a few weeks ago. Sacramento has to suck up to the Kings, not the other way around. Anaheim will take the Kings with open arms even if they go 0-82. There's really no incentive for the Maloofs to spend money to improve the team in 2011-12.

Casspi fell out of favor at the end of the season, was no longer in the rotation and supposedly wants out. Jefferson is an upgrade over their current SF combination, Garcia/Greene.

The Maloofs claim they're going to spend money. They've already claimed they want to re-sign Dalembert. Maybe it's just PR. But until I see reason not to, I'll take them at their word.

Whether it's to drum up fan interest or not, they'll get desperate. I'm not guaranteeing they'd do this, but I wouldn't rule it out.

[Mel_13]

Casspi fell out of favor at the end of the season, was no longer in the rotation and supposedly wants out. Jefferson is an upgrade over their current SF combination, Garcia/Greene.

The Maloofs claim they're going to spend money. They've already claimed they want to re-sign Dalembert. Maybe it's just PR. But until I see reason not to, I'll take them at their word.

Whether it's to drum up fan interest or not, they'll get desperate. I'm not guaranteeing they'd do this, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Can't rule anything in or out, but I don't see much chance of them taking on 30M over three years for whatever upgrade, if any, RJ represents over Greene, Garcia, or Casspi.

Time will tell.

As to your first post, I would agree that Varejao is the sort of target that makes sense. Dice/Blair, Dice/Blair/Hill, Dice/Blair/Neal all work in a deal for Sideshow Bob. That trade will, as you alluded to, bump up payroll by several million dollars next year. If the Spurs aren't willing to do that, adding a legit NBA big will be next to impossible. They'll be left with minimum guys like the Collins twins or some guy playing in Europe that will play for 1-2M.

[Interrohater]

One thing that we neglect to mention is the Spurs (if they are indeed attempting to trade RJ) will point to his relative youth combined with experience and his last year with the Bucks. The Spurs will probably just admit to whatever team that he just didn't fit into our system so it would be inaccurate to judge his worth on the last two seasons here in SA. I think that he still has some value to teams that want a fun n' gun style that RJ would fit into better.

[TD 21]

Can't rule anything in or out, but I don't see much chance of them taking on 30M over three years for whatever upgrade, if any, RJ represents over Greene, Garcia, or Casspi.

Time will tell.

As to your first post, I would agree that Varejao is the sort of target that makes sense. Dice/Blair, Dice/Blair/Hill, Dice/Blair/Neal all work in a deal for Sideshow Bob. That trade will, as you alluded to, bump up payroll by several million dollars next year. If the Spurs aren't willing to do that, adding a legit NBA big will be next to impossible. They'll be left with minimum guys like the Collins twins or some guy playing in Europe that will play for 1-2M.

No, you can rule plenty out. Unless you qualify things such as James for Green as plausible. This proposed trade is plausible.

Jefferson is still a clear upgrade over Garcia/Greene and unlike them, he's a prototypical SF. Whether he's enough of an upgrade to justify the difference in their salaries compared to his, I'd agree he's not. But again, that would be looking at it logically, which is not always the smartest thing to do when talking about a team like the Kings.

Can't see the Spurs trading either Hill or Neal in a Varejao deal. They don't have to significantly increase payroll if they're able to simultaneously dump Jefferson. I see that as more doable than many, but I'd agree that it's not probable. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up standing pat on the trade front and sign a minimum type, like one of the Collins twins.

[Mel_13]

No, you can rule plenty out. Unless you qualify things such as James for Green as plausible. This proposed trade is plausible.

Jefferson is still a clear upgrade over Garcia/Greene and unlike them, he's a prototypical SF. Whether he's enough of an upgrade to justify the difference in their salaries compared to his, I'd agree he's not. But again, that would be looking at it logically, which is not always the smartest thing to do when talking about a team like the Kings.

Can't see the Spurs trading either Hill or Neal in a Varejao deal. They don't have to significantly increase payroll if they're able to simultaneously dump Jefferson. I see that as more doable than many, but I'd agree that it's not probable. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up standing pat on the trade front and sign a minimum type, like one of the Collins twins.

On the first part, you have to know that I was referring to the type of trades discussed in this thread.

On the second part, I agree.

As to RJ's current value and the possibilities of moving him, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[TD 21]

On the first part, you have to know that I was referring to the type of trades discussed in this thread.

On the second part, I agree.

As to RJ's current value and the possibilities of moving him, we'll have to agree to disagree.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he has good trade value. I just don't think it's as bad or nonexistent as many make it out to be. There's been plenty of contracts as bad and worse than his traded in the past ten years. I think him being traded is more unlikely than likely, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happens.

[Mel_13]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he has good trade value. I just don't think it's as bad or nonexistent as many make it out to be. There's been plenty of contracts as bad and worse than his traded in the past ten years. I think him being traded is more unlikely than likely, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happens.

Understood.

You suggested an RJ trade which improves the team. It's possible that he could be moved, but my position is that they'll have to put a lot of ornaments on that tree to get someone to take it.

Just my 2 cents. If the FO can figure out a way to move RJ while improving the team, I'll be both shocked and pleased.

[elemento]

Unrealistic trade.

You don't get a 30m contract back giving a young prospect in his rookie contract for a minor improvement. I am not sure if he is an improvement at all.

We could trade RJ, but not is this scenario. I'm sure we would get a bad contract back or we would have to give one of our young assets with Dick Jefferson to get rid of him.

[ElNono]

RJ's contract is an albatross (30.5M over 3 years). I'm not sure that packaging Hill, Neal, and Blair along with RJ would be enough to get rid of his contract. Even if you could, the team would likely be worse off after that deal. Bonner at 2yrs/7M is overpaid, but not by that much by NBA standards (see Kapono, Jason and Carroll, Matt). On a team that would use him in accordance with his skills and limitations, his contract isn't that bad.

They're both bad fits for this team going forward, and their stock are as low as they're going to be. Kapono is at least a 50% 3pt shooter in the playoffs, and is not a 'big/stretch-4'. tbh, I would take him over Bonner every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Mel_13]

They're both bad fits for this team going forward, and their stock are as low as they're going to be. Kapono is at least a 50% 3pt shooter in the playoffs, and is not a 'big/stretch-4'. tbh, I would take him over Bonner every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Not sure where you're going.

I said that RJ's contract is much, much worse than Bonner's. It is.

[ElNono]

Not sure where you're going.

I said that RJ's contract is much, much worse than Bonner's. It is.

And I agree... What I disagree about is that Bonner's contract isn't that bad (ie: that it has some decent trade value). You would still need to sweeten it to move it. He's simply not worth that money for what he brings to the table, besides being a bad fit for us.

[ElNono]

BTW, Mel... 3rd offseason talking about the same shit :lol

[Mel_13]

And I agree... What I disagree about is that Bonner's contract isn't that bad (ie: that it has some decent trade value). You would still need to sweeten it to move it. He's simply not worth that money for what he brings to the table, besides being a bad fit for us.

My point was that Bonner's contract is much worse than RJ's and not that bad when compared to some truly horrific NBA contracts. I didn't say that he had some decent trade value (I agree that he has negative value, just a much, much smaller negative value than RJ) or that he's worth his contract or that he's a good fit for us. Just that it would much easier, and much less expensive in terms of assets included in a trade, to rid the team of Bonner than to rid the team of RJ.

I didn't want the Spurs to keep him last summer and I'd like to see him traded this summer. Somehow saying that his contract isn't as bad as RJ's gets interpreted as a defense of Bonner's role on the team. Geez..


BTW, Mel... 3rd offseason talking about the same shit :lol

They went two for three last summer:

Let RMJ walk: check
Let Bogans walk: check
Let Bonner walk: what was that Meat Loaf song?

[ElNono]

My point was that Bonner's contract is much worse than RJ's and not that bad when compared to some truly horrific NBA contracts. I didn't say that he had some decent trade value (I agree that he has negative value, just a much, much smaller negative value than RJ) or that he's worth his contract or that he's a good fit for us. Just that it would much easier, and much less expensive in terms of assets included in a trade, to rid the team of Bonner than to rid the team of RJ.

I didn't want the Spurs to keep him last summer and I'd like to see him traded this summer. Somehow saying that his contract isn't as bad as RJ's gets interpreted as a defense of Bonner's role on the team. Geez..

Didn't interpret it like that at all, tbh.


They went two for three last summer:

Let RMJ walk: check
Let Bogans walk: check
Let Bonner walk: what was that Meat Loaf song?

Actually, if you count RJ it was 2-4...

[Mel_13]

Didn't interpret it like that at all, tbh.

Ok




Actually, if you count RJ it was 2-4...

That's a whole other ball of wax.

To me, the decision on Bonner was the same as the decisions on RMJ and Bogans. Bad fits who didn't need to be retained. Contracts were up, so just let them leave. There was simply no good reason to keep him.

The RJ deal was, IMO, purely financial. Unless you believe that the two parties didn't have an arrangement prior to RJ opting out, the Spurs never had the option of letting him walk like the other three. The Spurs chose to refinance their obligations to RJ. It's not my money, so it's hard for me to be overly critical of their decision. Clearly, keeping RJ for three additional years was going to evolve into a bad basketball decision before the end of his contract.

The RJ problem goes back to 2009. While his acquisition was greeted with near unanimous praise here on ST, it was a very un-Spurslike transaction. They went for the big, expensive move and it didn't work. Then in 2010, they mitigated some of the financial damage of the 2009 trade. Now we very likely have to live with 3 more years of ever diminishing performances from this guy.

Given that history, it will be interesting to see what they do with an asset (Dice's contract) that is similar to the assets used to acquire RJ. Will they use it to increase talent and payroll or simply let it lapse?

[dbestpro]

1) Hill is a fine backup PG. He is too short to be a full time SG.

2) Manu is going older and will log less and less minutes, even more that he will play this summer. He can also play some SF.

3) I'm not convinced that Neal can be more than a bench role player.

4) Anderson is a question mark after his surgery and he was a good SF before it.

There is no problem, there is no logjam.
[/thread]

So Hill can only play some backup PG and is too short to start at SG, while Manu is too old to play major minutes, while Neal is a bench player and Anderson is a question mark, yet there is no problem. You assessment sounds like a logjam of scrubs.

[ElNono]

That's a whole other ball of wax.

The RJ deal was, IMO, purely financial. Unless you believe that the two parties didn't have an arrangement prior to RJ opting out, the Spurs never had the option of letting him walk like the other three. The Spurs chose to refinance their obligations to RJ. It's not my money, so it's hard for me to be overly critical of their decision. Clearly, keeping RJ for three additional years was going to evolve into a bad basketball decision before the end of his contract.

It was shortsighted. I agree that RJ's opted out once the Spurs hinted they were willing to 'refinance' on a longer deal. There's no way he walks out of that kind of money otherwise, especially after the season he had. With that in mind, the Spurs shouldn't have offered that refinancing and paid some lux tax, but had an expiring $15m very valuable trade chip. The price to pay in lux tax + extras would have been about $7m (IIRC). How much is costing the Spurs now keeping him around?

At the very least, if they just wanted to avoid the lux tax hit this season and refinance him, they could've done better than give him the contract they did (specifically the player option in the last season, which nowadays is a rarity).

Obvious disclaimers are "It's not my money" and "I wasn't part of the negotiations". :lol

[ElNono]

I forgot to add... there's other team/financial implications going forward with RJ's contract, like the lack of flexibility the Spurs might have resigning Hill, as was explained in the relevant thread back then.

[Mel_13]

It was shortsighted. I agree that RJ's opted out once the Spurs hinted they were willing to 'refinance' on a longer deal. There's no way he walks out of that kind of money otherwise, especially after the season he had. With that in mind, the Spurs shouldn't have offered that refinancing and paid some lux tax, but had an expiring $15m very valuable trade chip. The price to pay in lux tax + extras would have been about $7m (IIRC). How much is costing the Spurs now keeping him around?

At the very least, if they just wanted to avoid the lux tax hit this season and refinance him, they could've done better than give him the contract they did (specifically the player option in the last season, which nowadays is a rarity).

Obvious disclaimers are "It's not my money" and "I wasn't part of the negotiations". :lol

From a basketball perspective, the mistake of 2009 was compounded with the mistake of 2010 and we'll have to live with consequences of those mistakes for the next three years.

From a financial perspective, it ain't my money. :lol

(fwiw, the total savings of the refinancing improved the bottom line by something on the order of 18-20 million dollars in reduced salary, reduced luxury tax and added luxury tax distribution. As to whether a better deal was possible, we'll never know. We do know, or think we know, that the Spurs found the refinancing terms acceptable before RJ opted out on June 30th. The deal he signed may very well have been his bottom line price for opting out. Remember that RJ gave an interview in April, 2010 where he said that he would consider opting out of the remaining 1 yr/15M for something on the order of 4 yrs/40M. The Spurs did the math and found that the numbers worked for them as well.)

[ElNono]

From a basketball perspective, the mistake of 2009 was compounded with the mistake of 2010 and we'll have to live with consequences of those mistakes for the next three years.

From a financial perspective, it ain't my money. :lol

(fwiw, the total savings of the refinancing improved the bottom line by something on the order of 18-20 million dollars in reduced salary, reduced luxury tax and added luxury tax distribution. As to whether a better deal was possible, we'll never know. We do know, or think we know, that the Spurs found the refinancing terms acceptable before RJ opted out on June 30th. The deal he signed may very well have been his bottom line price for opting out. Remember that RJ gave an interview in April, 2010 where he said that he would consider opting out of the remaining 1 yr/15M for something on the order of 4 yrs/40M. The Spurs did the math and found that the numbers worked for them as well.)

We'll see what the final tab will be for the Spurs over those 4 years... in lost revenue and the lack of flexibility they find themselves in. Or the potential to lose some promising assets in order to rid themselves of that contract.

[Mel_13]

I forgot to add... there's other team/financial implications going forward with RJ's contract, like the lack of flexibility the Spurs might have resigning Hill, as was explained in the relevant thread back then.

No doubt.

RJ's contract will certainly affect the team's financial flexibility over the next few years with the greatest impact coming this summer. Too many variables (TD and Manu retirements and the new CBA primary among them) to say very much about 2012 and 2013, but RJ's contract will occupy a percentage of the payroll disproportionate to his basketball contributions for as long as he remains a Spur.

[Mel_13]

We'll see what the final tab will be for the Spurs over those 4 years... in lost revenue and the lack of flexibility they find themselves in. Or the potential to lose some promising assets in order to rid themselves of that contract.

Yep. They took the certain savings in year one against the potential costs in years 2, 3, and 4.

[TD 21]

Unrealistic trade.

You don't get a 30m contract back giving a young prospect in his rookie contract for a minor improvement. I am not sure if he is an improvement at all.

We could trade RJ, but not is this scenario. I'm sure we would get a bad contract back or we would have to give one of our young assets with Dick Jefferson to get rid of him.

Realistic trade.

I forgot to mention that the potential (likely?) deal breaker is Garcia's contract.

Casspi fell out of the rotation down the stretch of the season, so when discussing their situation at SF, compare Jefferson to Garcia/Greene.

It might very well take the Spurs taking back a bad contract or adding one of their top young assets to get rid of Jefferson, but the notion that a team like the Kings wouldn't make a trade like this ignores recent history.