timvp
12-06-2011, 07:36 PM
On Friday, the frenzy of NBA free agency begins. Strap on your safety belts, things will be insane. Teams will have about two weeks to put together their rosters and get ready for the 2011-12 season.
And really, the abbreviated offseason is just part of the reason for the forthcoming insanity, as astutely pointed out by Mel_13 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494464&postcount=18). The fact that as many as half the franchises in the NBA have the ability to drop far enough below the salary cap to spend more than the mid-level exception means we can expect numerous bidding wars to emerge. Other considerations: there are a number of American players locked into foreign contracts, which limits the supply of competent players and will thus increase demand; few international players are available to make the jump this season, which will also increase demand; the new CBA calls for teams to spend at least 85% of the salary cap -- a 13.5% increase over the previous CBA; and with more cost-certainty going forward due to stipulations in the new CBA, owners don't have much of an excuse to avoid using their available MLE.
The San Antonio Spurs won't be immune to the craziness. In fact, the Spurs will be diving headfirst into the fray due to the two notable pending decisions. First, San Antonio must decide what to do with Antonio McDyess. Once that's decided, the front office will then need to decide whether to use the amnesty clause on Richard Jefferson and his bloated contract.
Regarding McDyess, three options exist regarding his partially unguaranteed contract: waive him, trade him or welcome him back. If the Spurs decide to waive McDyess, they will only have to pay him $2.64 million, saving $2.58 million. If he's welcomed back, the Spurs would be on the hook for the entire $5.22 million.
Trading him appears also to be an option, although the plausibility of trading McDyess to a team interested in saving money due to his unguaranteeed status is sketchy. McDyess' contract states that the unguaranteed money can only be wiped away if he is waived on the first day of free agency, which means the Spurs would have to trade him and the receiving team would have to waive him this coming Friday. Is there really a team out there willing to attempt to beat the clock on Day 1 of free agency just to save $2.58 million? It's possible, though unlikely -- unless it's part of a bigger trade the Spurs and another team have lined up as the opening bell to free agency rings.
After last season, I thought waiving McDyess would be a no-brainer. He talked about retirement and his play during the postseason wasn't exactly inspiring. However, if you look at the situation logically, the best outcome for the Spurs is actually for McDyess to come back. Even if McDyess is replaced by a player making the league minimum, waiving him only saves approximately $1.79 million. Is McDyess worth $1.79 million? Yes, absolutely.
With the condensed schedule that will feature at least one back-to-back-to-back, the Spurs need more than four halfway capable bigmen. It would be beyond foolish to ask a 35-year-old Tim Duncan to man the paint with a certain Brazilian who the coaching staff struggles to trust, a Whataburger fiend who is shorter than most shooting guards and a traitor to Canada who plays like a shooting guard dipped in molasses. McDyess wouldn't be a savior by any means but for $1.79 million he's a much better option than a minimum-salaried bigman project.
So, to summarize, the plan with McDyess should be to either trade him if another team values the potential savings -- or beg him back. Waiving him should be the last option.
And that brings us to the last man to the pile (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/12/03/reason-popovich-deserves-amnesty/), Richard Jefferson. Following a disappointing debut season with the Spurs, the team inexplicably decided to reward him with a $40 million contract. It didn't make sense then and sure doesn't make any sense now, but I digress . . .
The amnesty provision in the new CBA could help partially remedy the situation. By amnesty-ing Jefferson, the $30 million due to him over the next three years will vanish from the salary cap numbers. And while the Spurs will still owe him money, it may not be the entire $30 million because teams under the salary cap can place an eBay-type bid on his services. The money Peter Holt would owe to Jefferson would be the difference between the $30 million and the total of the winning bid.
(As an example, if Team X places a $3 million bid on Jefferson, they would be assuming $9 million [$3 million per season multiplied by three seasons] -- which would leave Holt owing $21 million.)
So, should the Spurs use the amnesty provision on Jefferson? It's debatable.
If the front office decides not to use it now, they'd have legitimate reasons. First of all, the amnesty card can be held in their back pocket and used in upcoming seasons in an emergency. Say Matt Bonner loses another step athletically and simple can't hang at all, wouldn't it be nice to have an out? Or, less likely, perhaps something happens to Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili. Or, in the likeliest scenario, the Spurs could wait out this season and then use the amnesty provision on Jefferson next summer when they have a better idea of the state of his play and the future of the team.
Secondly, as previously mentioned, this free agency period is anything but a buyer's market. Finding a replacement for Jefferson sounds easy in theory. But if I'm reading the market correctly, any marginally talented swingman is going to be overpaid. It doesn't sound very appetizing to use the amnesty on Jefferson only to be forced to give a player like Caron Butler a maximum MLE contract.
Third of all, there's a chance that Jefferson redeems himself enough to become a tradeable commodity. It's not overly likely but this front office has a history of being able to make unwanted contracts disappear and trading Jefferson in a reasonable deal is obviously a much better scenario than eating the entirety of the contract.
Another reason not to use the amnesty this offseason is simple: winning. Any swingman who does more than catch-and-shoot is going to have growing pains when put next to the Big Three. It's simply unavoidable. With a short training camp, only two exhibition games and barely any practice time during the season, that first year funk could be next to impossible to shake before the postseason. Limiting roster turnover is a good idea for every team in the league in this post-nuclear winter environment.
And finally, I'm not sure if Holt's heart could handle figuring out that the Spurs would have paid Jefferson $54 million to play two seasons of basketball. Fifty-four million dollars -- and that's not even adding in luxury tax payments the Spurs made or will have to make thanks to the contract. Personally, I view Jefferson's contract as a sunk cost but, then again, I'm not the one who has to cut the check.
The reasons why amnesty-ing Jefferson makes sense are also numerous. Firstly, it will save money. Potentially a lot of money. Let's compare the two most likely scenarios. The Spurs will spend approximately $65 million this season if they waive McDyess, don't use the amnesty provision on Jefferson and sign a player to the mini-MLE allotted to tax-paying teams. On the other hand, the Spurs could waive McDyess, amnesty Jefferson and sign a player to a regular MLE contract and pay out only $63 million for the season. Add in the luxury tax rebate (approximately $1 million) for being under the threshold and the potential of another team claiming Jefferson on waivers for around $3 million and the season's bill could drop to around $59 million. A $6 million total savings is a big deal for a small market club.
A second reason to send Jefferson packing is the increased MLE. Tax teams only get a $3 million MLE with a three-year max length, while non-tax teams get a $5 million MLE with a four-year max length. That doesn't sound like a whole lot but it's the difference between offering a free agent a total of $9.4 million and a total of $21.4 million
The high number of teams that can get under the cap is a third reason to use the amnesty card now. In future offseasons, there are no guarantees that this many teams will have money to spend. Plus, with a handful of teams being forced to spend more than they usually would in order to reach the 85% salary cap minimum, this could be a unique situation that may never be available again. If a team is ever going to bid more than $3 million on Jefferson, it'd be this offseason.
A final main reason to cut bait now is to continue down the road blazed by the George Hill for Kawhi Leonard trade. That swap was a clear sign that the front office has at least one eye on rebuilding (read my previous thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187270) for more on this topic). It has become obvious that Jefferson isn't a part of the future, so amnesty-ing him now can allow the rebuilding process to take another step forward. Replacing his spot in the rotation with a young player -- possibly a free agent signing or even Leonard himself -- could help the present squad while simultaneously building for the future.
What do I think the Spurs are going to do with Jefferson? Honestly, I have no idea. On one hand, the Spurs reportedly led the push to have the amnesty provision be available for the entire length of the CBA, suggesting their preference to hold onto it. Conversely, the Spurs have been linked in the free agency rumor mill to virtually every small forward -- some of which will surely demand the larger of the two MLEs.
What do I want to happen? I want the Spurs to use the amnesty provision on Jefferson now. I believe that it's the right move for today and tomorrow. It will allow the Spurs to go after either a young swingman prospect or a veteran stopgap in free agency. I also favor using the amnesty card now because it will erase the cloud that would hang over the team; watching Jefferson press to prove he's worth his contract is not something I look forward to witnessing.
But most importantly, I'm afraid of the alternative. If the front office doesn't use the amnesty on Jefferson, their first move will be to pick up the phone and offer Jefferson to a team with cap space while adding multiple draft picks, DeJuan Blair and/or Gary Neal to sweeten the pot. It's the recipe they've used in the past and is surely their Plan B. The last time the Spurs were desperate to dump a salary it belonged to Jackie Butler and was 1/12th as large as Jefferson's current deal ... but that didn't stop San Antonio from using Luis Scola as the pot-sweetener.
In a perfect world, holding onto the amnesty provision could prove savvy. But personally, I don't think the risk of the unknown is worth ignoring the immediate benefits of a clean break.
And really, the abbreviated offseason is just part of the reason for the forthcoming insanity, as astutely pointed out by Mel_13 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5494464&postcount=18). The fact that as many as half the franchises in the NBA have the ability to drop far enough below the salary cap to spend more than the mid-level exception means we can expect numerous bidding wars to emerge. Other considerations: there are a number of American players locked into foreign contracts, which limits the supply of competent players and will thus increase demand; few international players are available to make the jump this season, which will also increase demand; the new CBA calls for teams to spend at least 85% of the salary cap -- a 13.5% increase over the previous CBA; and with more cost-certainty going forward due to stipulations in the new CBA, owners don't have much of an excuse to avoid using their available MLE.
The San Antonio Spurs won't be immune to the craziness. In fact, the Spurs will be diving headfirst into the fray due to the two notable pending decisions. First, San Antonio must decide what to do with Antonio McDyess. Once that's decided, the front office will then need to decide whether to use the amnesty clause on Richard Jefferson and his bloated contract.
Regarding McDyess, three options exist regarding his partially unguaranteed contract: waive him, trade him or welcome him back. If the Spurs decide to waive McDyess, they will only have to pay him $2.64 million, saving $2.58 million. If he's welcomed back, the Spurs would be on the hook for the entire $5.22 million.
Trading him appears also to be an option, although the plausibility of trading McDyess to a team interested in saving money due to his unguaranteeed status is sketchy. McDyess' contract states that the unguaranteed money can only be wiped away if he is waived on the first day of free agency, which means the Spurs would have to trade him and the receiving team would have to waive him this coming Friday. Is there really a team out there willing to attempt to beat the clock on Day 1 of free agency just to save $2.58 million? It's possible, though unlikely -- unless it's part of a bigger trade the Spurs and another team have lined up as the opening bell to free agency rings.
After last season, I thought waiving McDyess would be a no-brainer. He talked about retirement and his play during the postseason wasn't exactly inspiring. However, if you look at the situation logically, the best outcome for the Spurs is actually for McDyess to come back. Even if McDyess is replaced by a player making the league minimum, waiving him only saves approximately $1.79 million. Is McDyess worth $1.79 million? Yes, absolutely.
With the condensed schedule that will feature at least one back-to-back-to-back, the Spurs need more than four halfway capable bigmen. It would be beyond foolish to ask a 35-year-old Tim Duncan to man the paint with a certain Brazilian who the coaching staff struggles to trust, a Whataburger fiend who is shorter than most shooting guards and a traitor to Canada who plays like a shooting guard dipped in molasses. McDyess wouldn't be a savior by any means but for $1.79 million he's a much better option than a minimum-salaried bigman project.
So, to summarize, the plan with McDyess should be to either trade him if another team values the potential savings -- or beg him back. Waiving him should be the last option.
And that brings us to the last man to the pile (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/12/03/reason-popovich-deserves-amnesty/), Richard Jefferson. Following a disappointing debut season with the Spurs, the team inexplicably decided to reward him with a $40 million contract. It didn't make sense then and sure doesn't make any sense now, but I digress . . .
The amnesty provision in the new CBA could help partially remedy the situation. By amnesty-ing Jefferson, the $30 million due to him over the next three years will vanish from the salary cap numbers. And while the Spurs will still owe him money, it may not be the entire $30 million because teams under the salary cap can place an eBay-type bid on his services. The money Peter Holt would owe to Jefferson would be the difference between the $30 million and the total of the winning bid.
(As an example, if Team X places a $3 million bid on Jefferson, they would be assuming $9 million [$3 million per season multiplied by three seasons] -- which would leave Holt owing $21 million.)
So, should the Spurs use the amnesty provision on Jefferson? It's debatable.
If the front office decides not to use it now, they'd have legitimate reasons. First of all, the amnesty card can be held in their back pocket and used in upcoming seasons in an emergency. Say Matt Bonner loses another step athletically and simple can't hang at all, wouldn't it be nice to have an out? Or, less likely, perhaps something happens to Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili. Or, in the likeliest scenario, the Spurs could wait out this season and then use the amnesty provision on Jefferson next summer when they have a better idea of the state of his play and the future of the team.
Secondly, as previously mentioned, this free agency period is anything but a buyer's market. Finding a replacement for Jefferson sounds easy in theory. But if I'm reading the market correctly, any marginally talented swingman is going to be overpaid. It doesn't sound very appetizing to use the amnesty on Jefferson only to be forced to give a player like Caron Butler a maximum MLE contract.
Third of all, there's a chance that Jefferson redeems himself enough to become a tradeable commodity. It's not overly likely but this front office has a history of being able to make unwanted contracts disappear and trading Jefferson in a reasonable deal is obviously a much better scenario than eating the entirety of the contract.
Another reason not to use the amnesty this offseason is simple: winning. Any swingman who does more than catch-and-shoot is going to have growing pains when put next to the Big Three. It's simply unavoidable. With a short training camp, only two exhibition games and barely any practice time during the season, that first year funk could be next to impossible to shake before the postseason. Limiting roster turnover is a good idea for every team in the league in this post-nuclear winter environment.
And finally, I'm not sure if Holt's heart could handle figuring out that the Spurs would have paid Jefferson $54 million to play two seasons of basketball. Fifty-four million dollars -- and that's not even adding in luxury tax payments the Spurs made or will have to make thanks to the contract. Personally, I view Jefferson's contract as a sunk cost but, then again, I'm not the one who has to cut the check.
The reasons why amnesty-ing Jefferson makes sense are also numerous. Firstly, it will save money. Potentially a lot of money. Let's compare the two most likely scenarios. The Spurs will spend approximately $65 million this season if they waive McDyess, don't use the amnesty provision on Jefferson and sign a player to the mini-MLE allotted to tax-paying teams. On the other hand, the Spurs could waive McDyess, amnesty Jefferson and sign a player to a regular MLE contract and pay out only $63 million for the season. Add in the luxury tax rebate (approximately $1 million) for being under the threshold and the potential of another team claiming Jefferson on waivers for around $3 million and the season's bill could drop to around $59 million. A $6 million total savings is a big deal for a small market club.
A second reason to send Jefferson packing is the increased MLE. Tax teams only get a $3 million MLE with a three-year max length, while non-tax teams get a $5 million MLE with a four-year max length. That doesn't sound like a whole lot but it's the difference between offering a free agent a total of $9.4 million and a total of $21.4 million
The high number of teams that can get under the cap is a third reason to use the amnesty card now. In future offseasons, there are no guarantees that this many teams will have money to spend. Plus, with a handful of teams being forced to spend more than they usually would in order to reach the 85% salary cap minimum, this could be a unique situation that may never be available again. If a team is ever going to bid more than $3 million on Jefferson, it'd be this offseason.
A final main reason to cut bait now is to continue down the road blazed by the George Hill for Kawhi Leonard trade. That swap was a clear sign that the front office has at least one eye on rebuilding (read my previous thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187270) for more on this topic). It has become obvious that Jefferson isn't a part of the future, so amnesty-ing him now can allow the rebuilding process to take another step forward. Replacing his spot in the rotation with a young player -- possibly a free agent signing or even Leonard himself -- could help the present squad while simultaneously building for the future.
What do I think the Spurs are going to do with Jefferson? Honestly, I have no idea. On one hand, the Spurs reportedly led the push to have the amnesty provision be available for the entire length of the CBA, suggesting their preference to hold onto it. Conversely, the Spurs have been linked in the free agency rumor mill to virtually every small forward -- some of which will surely demand the larger of the two MLEs.
What do I want to happen? I want the Spurs to use the amnesty provision on Jefferson now. I believe that it's the right move for today and tomorrow. It will allow the Spurs to go after either a young swingman prospect or a veteran stopgap in free agency. I also favor using the amnesty card now because it will erase the cloud that would hang over the team; watching Jefferson press to prove he's worth his contract is not something I look forward to witnessing.
But most importantly, I'm afraid of the alternative. If the front office doesn't use the amnesty on Jefferson, their first move will be to pick up the phone and offer Jefferson to a team with cap space while adding multiple draft picks, DeJuan Blair and/or Gary Neal to sweeten the pot. It's the recipe they've used in the past and is surely their Plan B. The last time the Spurs were desperate to dump a salary it belonged to Jackie Butler and was 1/12th as large as Jefferson's current deal ... but that didn't stop San Antonio from using Luis Scola as the pot-sweetener.
In a perfect world, holding onto the amnesty provision could prove savvy. But personally, I don't think the risk of the unknown is worth ignoring the immediate benefits of a clean break.