Ludden: Tim Duncan re-signs (3 years, $30M), Patty Mills re-signs, De Colo signs

[gambit1990]

HOLY SHIT!!!! :wow:wow:lmao:(:depressed
what are you implying?


What do you guys expect him to say? Improving the big situation will have to be accomplished by a minimum salary signing or by trading players from the bottom half of the roster.

He's not going to say anything that hurts the potential value of those players or that negatively affects his potential bargaining position. He also said he wants Blair to be part of the Spurs going forward and we had credible reports that Blair was shopped before the draft.
i would expect for him to say we'd like to improve in that area. or at least that we'd try to.

[Mel_13]

i would expect for him to say we'd like to improve in that area. or at least that we'd try to.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the information we've been getting directly from the Spurs FO for all these years.

[Bruno]

Some news about Duncan new contract using the realgm trade tool.

Duncan new contract start at $9.63M. Depending on how his contract is structured (increasing, decreasing flat..), Duncan new contract is between $26.9M and $31.1M.

Thanks to Tim to have taken a very reasonable last deal. :tu

Green contract start at $3.5M. With the classical max raise, it confirms the $11.3M/3 years figure.

[Bruno]

Regarding Spurs salary situation for 2012-2013:

Ginobili: $14.1M
Parker: $12.5M
Jackson: $10.1M
Duncan: $9.6M
Diaw: $4.5M
Splitter: $3.9M
Bonner: $3.6M
Green: $3.5M
Lenoard: $1.8M
De Colo: $1.4M
Mills: $1.1M
Joseph: $1.1M
Blair: $1.1M
Neal: $0.9M

So a total of $69.2M for 14 players. Spurs should have no problem staying below the tax. The apron isn't a concern.

[racm]

That roster produced the equivalent of 62 wins in a regular season - and only costs half as much as the superteams. :downspin:

[Seventyniner]

You forgot De Colo. $1.4M for this year, right? Still, $69.2M is enough below the tax to sign someone like Denmon to a Neal or Blair type deal.

[racm]

I'm also not sure this is the roster going into training camp.

Duncan/Parker/Ginobili/Leonard/Diaw/Splitter/Jackson/Green are the locks.

[Bruno]

You forgot De Colo. $1.4M for this year, right? Still, $69.2M is enough below the tax to sign someone like Denmon to a Neal or Blair type deal.

Oops, thanks.

Yeah, it's enough to stay below the tax.

[Seventyniner]

I would add De Colo and Mills to the lock list because they were just signed. I don't think they can be traded until January 15.

In order, I would rank "most likely not to be a Spur by training camp" as Neal, Blair, Joseph, Bonner. Neal and Blair are the easiest to move, and having 7 guards under contract makes me think one of them would be the first to go.

If the Spurs sign a min. big like Kenyon Martin, Blair will probably get salary-dumped. Martin would actually push the Spurs slightly into the tax, and max the roster at 15, so the likelihood of a salary dump would go up. Unfortunately, trading Neal or Blair is more likely than amnesthizing (great word) Bonner.

[Drom John]

Add Byars.
Still good.

[Bruno]

Add Byars.
Still good.

I haven't added him on purpose. His contract is fully unguaranteed. Baring a Green-like miracle, he will be cut at the end of the training camp and will cost nothing to Spurs.

[Mel_13]

Some news about Duncan new contract using the realgm trade tool.

Duncan new contract start at $9.63M. Depending on how his contract is structured (increasing, decreasing flat..), Duncan new contract is between $26.9M and $31.1M.

Thanks to Tim to have took a very reasonable last deal. :tu

Green contract start at $3.5M. With the classical max raise, it confirmes the $11.3M/3 years figure.

So Bruno, the realgm numbers are reliable?


And yeah, there aren't many superstar, franchise players who would willingly accept the 4th highest salary on the roster.

[timvp]

Some news about Duncan new contract using the realgm trade tool.

Duncan new contract start at $9.63M. Depending on how his contract is structured (increasing, decreasing flat..), Duncan new contract is between $26.9M and $31.1M.

Thanks to Tim to have took a very reasonable last deal. :tu

Wow. Duncan took such little money that Holt doesn't even have to pay tax this year -- much less be concerned about the hard cap. I wonder if the FO was told they couldn't be a tax team this year or that was a strategic move to avoid becoming a repeater. Either way, props to Duncan and great find by Bruno.

And yeah, Duncan agreeing to become the team's fourth highest paid player shows his ego-less nature even more. Add in interest rate and ignore the option year and Duncan actually took less money than David Robinson's final deal.

You'd think Duncan would want the real contract figures to hit the press but that just further shows he doesn't care what anybody thinks -- good or bad.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So if spurs are under the cap, as the numbers stand now, can we throw offers at amnestied players?

[Mel_13]

So if spurs are under the cap, as the numbers stand now, can we throw offers at amnestied players?

They're under the tax threshold, but they're way over the cap.

[Bruno]

So Bruno, the realgm numbers are reliable?


Yes, they are.

[Mel_13]

Yes, they are.

Thanks. Good to know since they update their lists more quickly than sham.

[timvp]

Yeah, historically RealGM has been the most accurate. They must have a direct connection to the NBA. Even ESPN Trade Machine is more often wrong.

[Spurtacus]

10 mil a year for a legend still playing at a great level is a steal.

[Mel_13]

The total value of the contracts for for TD, Green, Diaw, De Colo, and Mills is less than the value of the contract that the Nets gave Brook Lopez.

[bklynspursfan]

@SpearsNBAYahoo: Yahoo Sports' Johnny Ludden reports that Spurs forward Tim Duncan signed a three-year deal worth about $30 million

[Supergirl]

Looks like the official language of the Spurs will be French next year - seriously, great news all around - locking up Duncan, Diaw, Mills, and bringing Nando over.

Kawhi is on a rookie contract, which is good. I really hope we can retain Blair, because I don't think we'll get a better rebounder and C in return. There's just not much out there and I think our priority needs to be signing one more long, athletic G/F who can help guard other teams' big men on the perimeter...that was our real weakness last year.

[timvp]

@SpearsNBAYahoo: Yahoo Sports' Johnny Ludden reports that Spurs forward Tim Duncan signed a three-year deal worth about $30 million

Props to TD. So he basically took the same two-year, $20 million that David Robinson got ... plus a third year option.

[GB20]

@SpearsNBAYahoo: Yahoo Sports' Johnny Ludden reports that Spurs forward Tim Duncan signed a three-year deal worth about $30 million

wow!! Timmy really loves the spurs.

[bklynspursfan]

Props to TD. So he basically took the same two-year, $20 million that David Robinson got ... plus a third year option.

My thoughts as well. Now if he could go out the same way that would be freaking awesome....

[TD 21]

Just going off the averages of what each re-signed player reportedly received, adding that to what the previously signed players already received and hypothesizing that Mills got a bump up to about $1.5M, they're at about 65.7M for next season. No one can say for certain exactly where they're at, because we don't know the year one salaries for some of the re-signed players and we don't know the salary period for Mills. That number could be and probably is off, but it's also probably close to the real number.

So the question is: What would him taking $12M annually changed? Either way, they were going to be able to re-sign Green, Diaw, Mills and sign De Colo and either way, they were going to be well over the cap, but under the tax. It's not as if by him taking well below market value he'd pave the way for them to add a significant player. Next off season, depending on a variety of factors, they may well be able to, but they would have been had he got $12M annually anyway. And they probably won't land anyone significant even if they have the space to do so. So he just took less for the hell of it?

[slick'81]

Just going off the averages of what each re-signed player reportedly received, adding that to what the previously signed players already received and hypothesizing that Mills got a bump up to about $1.5M, they're at about 65.7M for next season. No one can say for certain exactly where they're at, because we don't know the year one salaries for some of the re-signed players and we don't know the salary period for Mills. That number could be and probably is off, but it's also probably close to the real number.

So the question is: What would him taking $12M annually changed? Either way, they were going to be able to re-sign Green, Diaw, Mills and sign De Colo and either way, they were going to be well over the cap, but under the tax. It's not as if by him taking well below market value he'd pave the way for them to add a significant player. Next off season, depending on a variety of factors, they may well be able to, but they would have been had he got $12M annually anyway. And they probably won't land anyone significant even if they have the space to do so. So he just took less for the hell of it?


somehow dont think timmy cares baout an extra mil or 2

[Mel_13]

Just going off the averages of what each re-signed player reportedly received, adding that to what the previously signed players already received and hypothesizing that Mills got a bump up to about $1.5M, they're at about 65.7M for next season. No one can say for certain exactly where they're at, because we don't know the year one salaries for some of the re-signed players and we don't know the salary period for Mills. That number could be and probably is off, but it's also probably close to the real number.

So the question is: What would him taking $12M annually changed? Either way, they were going to be able to re-sign Green, Diaw, Mills and sign De Colo and either way, they were going to be well over the cap, but under the tax. It's not as if by him taking well below market value he'd pave the way for them to add a significant player. Next off season, depending on a variety of factors, they may well be able to, but they would have been had he got $12M annually anyway. And they probably won't land anyone significant even if they have the space to do so. So he just took less for the hell of it?


Regarding Spurs salary situation for 2012-2013:

Ginobili: $14.1M
Parker: $12.5M
Jackson: $10.1M
Duncan: $9.6M
Diaw: $4.5M
Splitter: $3.9M
Bonner: $3.6M
Green: $3.5M
Lenoard: $1.8M
De Colo: $1.4M
Mills: $1.1M
Joseph: $1.1M
Blair: $1.1M
Neal: $0.9M

So a total of $69.2M for 14 players. Spurs should have no problem staying below the tax. The apron isn't a concern.

[TD 21]

Not sure where he got the year one salaries from the recently signed players from, but suffice it to say I'll take his word for it.

Well, that explains it. Him taking roughly $10M instead of $12M does keep them just below the tax. But he gave up 11M over 2 years on his last extension, for what? Jefferson. And now he's helping to keep them under the tax, for what? Were they really going to let anyone go because of that? I doubt it. Not when we all knew the range they were going to be in for each individual. So he's essentially doing Holt a favor for nothing. It's still perplexing, just in a different way.

[dunkman]

Not sure where he got the year one salaries from the recently signed players from, but suffice it to say I'll take his word for it.

Well, that explains it. Him taking roughly $10M instead of $12M does keep them just below the tax. But he gave up 11M over 2 years on his last extension, for what? Jefferson. And now he's helping to keep them under the tax, for what? Were they really going to let anyone go because of that? I doubt it. Not when we all knew the range they were going to be in for each individual and not when they could always waive Byars and go with 13. So he's essentially doing Holt a favor for nothing. It's still perplexing, just in a different way.

The FO did well the off-season, they could have left Diaw or Green walk. There are still chances for a good run or two.

[Mel_13]

Not sure where he got the year one salaries from the recently signed players from, but suffice it to say I'll take his word for it.

Trade checker function on realgm.com. Apparently their numbers are from league sources and reliable.

[racm]

The Lakers had a healthy Bynum and Kobe playing pretty well when they added Gasol at the deadline. 57-25 record and a Finals berth.

The next year with the chemistry improved they had a 65-17 record and won it all.

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

So Tim makes less than Captain Jack. I love Jack and I'm thrilled he's back on the team, but that should shut him up if he starts yammering for a contract extension.

Pop: "Dude, you're making more than Tim Duncan. I don't see what you're complaining about."

[Ice009]

Not sure where he got the year one salaries from the recently signed players from, but suffice it to say I'll take his word for it.

Well, that explains it. Him taking roughly $10M instead of $12M does keep them just below the tax. But he gave up 11M over 2 years on his last extension, for what? Jefferson. And now he's helping to keep them under the tax, for what? Were they really going to let anyone go because of that? I doubt it. Not when we all knew the range they were going to be in for each individual. So he's essentially doing Holt a favor for nothing. It's still perplexing, just in a different way.

I'm wondering the same thing TD21. Why would Tim take the pay cut again if it doesn't really help them get anyone else? I can only guess that it was to be able to resign the current players. Maybe the FO told him that if he took more they wouldn't be able to bring back Green, Diaw and all those guys?


The Lakers had a healthy Bynum and Kobe playing pretty well when they added Gasol at the deadline. 57-25 record and a Finals berth.

The next year with the chemistry improved they had a 65-17 record and won it all.

I'm pretty sure Bynum was out, which is the reason they made the Gasol trade (That and the fact it was a complete rip off of a trade).

[timvp]

Well, that explains it. Him taking roughly $10M instead of $12M does keep them just below the tax. But he gave up 11M over 2 years on his last extension, for what? Jefferson. And now he's helping to keep them under the tax, for what? Were they really going to let anyone go because of that? I doubt it. Not when we all knew the range they were going to be in for each individual. So he's essentially doing Holt a favor for nothing. It's still perplexing, just in a different way.

Very good point. Duncan is a better man than me. Giving Holt a ~$20 million discount over his career is pretty damn generous considering Holt's CBA crusade in 1999 cost Duncan at least $100 million in lifetime earnings -- if not much more. On top of that, Duncan's presence has at least doubled the value of the franchise.

In a business sense, there's no way Duncan should have settled for three years and $30M. But as a Spurs fan, I'm appreciative. At the very least it gives Holt less excuse to be cheap in the next few seasons since he won't have to worry about the repeater's penalty.

[Gagnrath]

Very good point. Duncan is a better man than me. Giving Holt a ~$20 million discount over his career is pretty damn generous considering Holt's CBA crusade in 1999 cost Duncan at least $100 million in lifetime earnings -- if not much more. On top of that, Duncan's presence has at least doubled the value of the franchise.

In a business sense, there's no way Duncan should have settled for three years and $30M. But as a Spurs fan, I'm appreciative. At the very least it gives Holt less excuse to be cheap in the next few seasons since he won't have to worry about the repeater's penalty.

The other thing is you can be fairly sure Duncan is going to get a fairly well compensated front office position of good will for life. Considering his major expenditures are out of the way, and he doesn't live super extravagantly that means he pretty much leaves the majority of his cash from his playing days as his legacy to family, charity, and island.

[TD 21]

Very good point. Duncan is a better man than me. Giving Holt a ~$20 million discount over his career is pretty damn generous considering Holt's CBA crusade in 1999 cost Duncan at least $100 million in lifetime earnings -- if not much more. On top of that, Duncan's presence has at least doubled the value of the franchise.

In a business sense, there's no way Duncan should have settled for three years and $30M. But as a Spurs fan, I'm appreciative. At the very least it gives Holt less excuse to be cheap in the next few seasons since he won't have to worry about the repeater's penalty.

And me . . . and I think damn near everyone one. Honestly, I can't remember a professional athlete giving up money for no real reason. And that's not not me calling them greedy or selfish. I don't think anyone in their position would. He's either tighter with Holt than we realize or he's just flat out doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I guess.

The other thing this does is it sets the bar for Ginobili; he now can't get more than $9M annually.

Ice, like I said, the majority of us knew the range each individual player was going to make within'. It wasn't like Splitter a few years back, where the range was pretty wide. And even if they had to go over what they preferred for one or two, they could have always just traded Neal for a draft pick (they'll probably do this anyway) and went with 13. If that still put them slightly into the tax, well, are we to believe they were really going to lose one of these guys (all of whom, other than De Colo, figure to be in the rotation) over pennies? When they've made a commitment to Duncan to continue to attempt to contend until he retires? I don't buy it. He did them a favor for no apparent reason.

[Mel_13]

He did them a favor for no apparent reason.

I said it somewhere, maybe in this thread, that it's truly remarkable for a franchise player like Duncan to willingly accept being the 4th highest paid player on the roster. (I wonder if he would have have done so if RJ still had Jackson's place on the roster.)

The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that sees himself as a true partner and not an employee, primarily due to his relationship with Pop. I'm sure that I can't think of any comparable situation in American sports.

[dunkman]

True to be said, Holt paid luxury tax during various seasons. The last time when they added RJ and Dice. This time the Spurs kept Diaw, Green, added DeColo, I guess they will add another player.

KG was earning too much in Minny and they couldn't pass the first round. LeBron made discounts as the best NBA player.

[dunkman]

And me . . . and I think damn near everyone one. Honestly, I can't remember a professional athlete giving up money for no real reason. And that's not not me calling them greedy or selfish. I don't think anyone in their position would. He's either tighter with Holt than we realize or he's just flat out doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I guess.

The other thing this does is it sets the bar for Ginobili; he now can't get more than $9M annually.

Ice, like I said, the majority of us knew the range each individual player was going to make within'. It wasn't like Splitter a few years back, where the range was pretty wide. And even if they had to go over what they preferred for one or two, they could have always just traded Neal for a draft pick (they'll probably do this anyway) and went with 13. If that still put them slightly into the tax, well, are we to believe they were really going to lose one of these guys (all of whom, other than De Colo, figure to be in the rotation) over pennies? When they've made a commitment to Duncan to continue to attempt to contend until he retires? I don't buy it. He did them a favor for no apparent reason.

Manu was underpaid during his prime, but he got a better deal in the second contract. Tbh, with all the unfortunate injuries, Manu should get something around the MLE. He's still a great player, however misses a lot of games every season.

[TMTTRIO]

The other thing this does is it sets the bar for Ginobili; he now can't get more than $9M annually.
At this point I could possibly see Manu retiring after this season if the Spurs don't get to the top again. He's won everything he could possibly win so what's really left for him to compete for? Besides he has kids now who want and need his time.

[DesignatedT]

Manu will play as long as he's feeling good imo. If he has a substantial injury that ruins this season then maybe I could see that but if he's feeling well then I see him playing another year or 2 with Tim.

[spurraider21]

can i ask how you deduce player salaries from realgm's salary ratio thing? what is the ratio relative to?

[rascal]

So Tim makes less than Captain Jack. I love Jack and I'm thrilled he's back on the team, but that should shut him up if he starts yammering for a contract extension.

Pop: "Dude, you're making more than Tim Duncan. I don't see what you're complaining about."

They are paying Jackson too much. He is getting paid like he is an all star. That money would have been better utilize on a big.

[rascal]

Manu will play as long as he's feeling good imo. If he has a substantial injury that ruins this season then maybe I could see that but if he's feeling well then I see him playing another year or 2 with Tim.

3 more years with the same core team with no significant upgrades. It is going to get ugly in the final years.

[rascal]

I said it somewhere, maybe in this thread, that it's truly remarkable for a franchise player like Duncan to willingly accept being the 4th highest paid player on the roster. (I wonder if he would have have done so if RJ still had Jackson's place on the roster.)

The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that sees himself as a true partner and not an employee, primarily due to his relationship with Pop. I'm sure that I can't think of any comparable situation in American sports.

How much money does someone need? At this point having a chance to put together a team capable of winning is more important to Duncan.

[Mhak]

How much money does someone need? At this point having a chance to put together a team capable of winning is more important to Duncan.

No such thing as a lot of money!

[therealtruth]

They are paying Jackson too much. He is getting paid like he is an all star. That money would have been better utilize on a big.

Let's see how the FO plays their cards this season. As good as Jackson has been for the team if his expiring contract can work some magic you have to use it.

[Mel_13]

3 more years with the same core team with no significant upgrades. It is going to get ugly in the final years.

You've said as much for years. Perhaps one day you'll be right



How much money does someone need? At this point having a chance to put together a team capable of winning is more important to Duncan.

Not the point of this discussion, but then you already knew that.

[temujin]

How much money does someone need? At this point having a chance to put together a team capable of winning is more important to Duncan.

I doubt career earnings at 190 M instead of 180 makes a difference.
Expecially since 20 M will make you, your children, grandchildren and most likely you grand-grand-children rich for the entire life.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

They are paying Jackson too much. He is getting paid like he is an all star. That money would have been better utilize on a big.

Except you can't just take money like that and use it on a big. He'd have to be traded, and his rep is shit around the league now. It's pretty widely accepted that only Pop can manage Stephen Jackson, so, we're back to the choice of last March: Jack or RJ.

[therealtruth]

Very good point. Duncan is a better man than me. Giving Holt a ~$20 million discount over his career is pretty damn generous considering Holt's CBA crusade in 1999 cost Duncan at least $100 million in lifetime earnings -- if not much more. On top of that, Duncan's presence has at least doubled the value of the franchise.

In a business sense, there's no way Duncan should have settled for three years and $30M. But as a Spurs fan, I'm appreciative. At the very least it gives Holt less excuse to be cheap in the next few seasons since he won't have to worry about the repeater's penalty.


I doubt career earnings at 190 M instead of 180 makes a difference.
Expecially since 20 M will make you, your children, grandchildren and most likely you grand-grand-children rich for the entire life.

If it doesn't make a difference you may as well get more. Holt's got alot more.

[temujin]

If it doesn't make a difference you may as well get more. Holt's got alot more.

What Holt has more than Duncan is the control of the franchise.
That's it.

Unless Duncun threw a considerable amount of money out of the window over the last 15 years, which I highly doubt, he should be in a position to actually BUY out Holt and control the whole stuff, if so he wishes.

[ChumpDumper]

What Holt has more than Duncan is the control of the franchise.
That's it.

Unless Duncun threw a considerable amount of money out of the window over the last 15 years, which I highly doubt, he should be in a position to actually BUY out Holt and control the whole stuff, if so he wishes.Some weird fan fantasies flying around lately.

[rascal]

Except you can't just take money like that and use it on a big. He'd have to be traded, and his rep is shit around the league now. It's pretty widely accepted that only Pop can manage Stephen Jackson, so, we're back to the choice of last March: Jack or RJ.

Jack or RJ

They threw too much money at RJ and now that money is tied up with over paying Jackson.

[bigfan]

Re Tim Im sure with all his "discounts" he has a job for life in the Spurs organization.

[Mel_13]

Jack or RJ

They threw too much money at RJ and now that money is tied up with over paying Jackson.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

After all these years of trying to be a critic of the FO, you remain clueless as to the rules that govern the game.

[TD 21]

At this point I could possibly see Manu retiring after this season if the Spurs don't get to the top again. He's won everything he could possibly win so what's really left for him to compete for? Besides he has kids now who want and need his time.

The same could be said for Duncan and lo and behold, he's coming back for at least 2 and maybe 3 years. I think Ginobili will play as long as he feels good physically, still enjoys playing and still feels the Spurs have a shot at contending. In other words, barring some debilitating injury next season, I think he'll re-sign for 2 years/$16-18M (2nd year player option), then retire at the same time as Duncan.

[Mel_13]

I think Ginobili will play as long as he feels good physically, still enjoys playing and still feels the Spurs have a shot at contending.

Yes.

[therealtruth]

Jack or RJ

They threw too much money at RJ and now that money is tied up with over paying Jackson.

I'd rather be overpaying for Jax than RJ.

[Obstructed_View]

Given his performance in the playoffs, Jack was a fucking bargain. It's pretty likely he's got more of those in his tank.

[sasffl]

The tax is around 7030. Spurs have passed the line. Maybe that's the reason Tim sign for a contract with less money. Furthermore, spurs have room to sign one or two players in minimum contract

[rascal]

Given his performance in the playoffs, Jack was a fucking bargain. It's pretty likely he's got more of those in his tank.

Not a bargain at all. Too much money tied up with him because of the RJ move.

[rascal]

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

After all these years of trying to be a critic of the FO, you remain clueless as to the rules that govern the game.

Too much money locked up with Jackson because they re-signed RJ on a bad contract, then dumped RJ for Jackson. after it all shakes out too much money going to Jackson now.

[007nites]

Do you guys think that Timmy will re-sign another two year contract once his 3 years are over. Possibly a vet minimum?

[benefactor]

Too much money locked up with Jackson because they re-signed RJ on a bad contract, then dumped RJ for Jackson. after it all shakes out too much money going to Jackson now.
I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. It's universally accepted that re-signing RJ was a mistake...one that the FO basically admitted to. You don't have to convince anyone that was a bad move. Of course Jack is overpaid, but he's much better than RJ and he's significantly cheaper. I would say they did a pretty good job of making lemonade out of such a disastrous situation.

[racm]

Jack relishing the role of modern Steve Smith/Horry, tbh

[Mel_13]

Too much money locked up with Jackson because they re-signed RJ on a bad contract, then dumped RJ for Jackson. after it all shakes out too much money going to Jackson now.

:lmao

So predictable.

rascal moves the goalposts after his original point is exposed as unsustainable.

It's difficult to understand why someone would choose to remain ignorant when the tools to overcome that ignorance are readily available. Learn the rules and try again:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

[rascal]

:lmao

So predictable.

rascal moves the goalposts after his original point is exposed as unsustainable.

It's difficult to understand why someone would choose to remain ignorant when the tools to overcome that ignorance are readily available. Learn the rules and try again:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

That was my original point all along, no goal posts were moved. The fact you failed to see it is your ignorance.

[Mel_13]

That was my original point all along, no goal posts were moved. The fact you failed to see it is your ignorance.

:lmao

No it wasn't.

Everyone that can read, and understands the rules, can see that.

Read the rules and try again:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

[therealtruth]

I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. It's universally accepted that re-signing RJ was a mistake...one that the FO basically admitted to. You don't have to convince anyone that was a bad move. Of course Jack is overpaid, but he's much better than RJ and he's significantly cheaper. I would say they did a pretty good job of making lemonade out of such a disastrous situation.

Trading for RJ was the mistake. Resigning him compounded it. However if they hadn't resigned him they would have had a cap hole they couldn't have filled with anyone meaningful at SF. The SF market that year wasn't that great. Alot of ST posters were clamoring for Travis Outlaw and he ended up getting amnestied.

[benefactor]

Trading for RJ was the mistake. Resigning him compounded it. However if they hadn't resigned him they would have had a cap hole they couldn't have filled with anyone meaningful at SF. The SF market that year wasn't that great. Alot of ST posters were clamoring for Travis Outlaw and he ended up getting amnestied.
This is the worst argument ever for re-signing RJ.

"We don't have anyone else...so lets sign this bag of shit to a huge contract."

[ploto]

I think Ginobili will play as long as he feels good physically, still enjoys playing and still feels the Spurs have a shot at contending. In other words, barring some debilitating injury next season, I think he'll re-sign for 2 years/$16-18M (2nd year player option), then retire at the same time as Duncan.

Not so sure how good Manu actually feels much of the time.

[dunkman]

Imo RJ and the Spurs had a deal. He would opt-out of the $15m option, saving the Spurs another $15m on luxury tax and the Spurs were to re-sign him 4 seasons for $39m.

Option A was to let RJ pick the option, cost: $30m for only one season.
Option B was to make a deal: $39 for 4 seasons, which was then shortened by a season at the cost of a first round pick.

At the time of the deal, RJ was a "sunk cost", the mistake was to take his contract from the Bucks.

[tesseractive]

This is the worst argument ever for re-signing RJ.

"We don't have anyone else...so lets sign this bag of shit to a huge contract."
:tu

That's the kind of front office move you expect for the Knicks or Orlando or teams like that, and the kind of front office move the Spurs don't make. It's really simple: they completely overrated Jefferson, and they've paid a huge price for that mistake.

Fortunately, the amazing thing is not that they made a mistake like that, but that they make so few of them that the ones they make really stand out.

[benefactor]

Mark Deeks ‏@MarkDeeksNBA
Patrick Mills re-signed for the value of his qualifying offer ($1,085,120), with a $1,133,950 player option year for 2013-14.

[therealtruth]

:tu

That's the kind of front office move you expect for the Knicks or Orlando or teams like that, and the kind of front office move the Spurs don't make. It's really simple: they completely overrated Jefferson, and they've paid a huge price for that mistake.

Fortunately, the amazing thing is not that they made a mistake like that, but that they make so few of them that the ones they make really stand out.

Finley likely would have been the starting small forward if they don't resign RJ.

[racm]

Think of it this way - would the Spurs have had a chance to get Kawhi if they simply let RJ walk?

The fact that the Spurs 1. Recognized Jefferson was NOT the answer to fill the void at the 3, though a bit too late, 2. Got lucky when Leonard fell all the way to 15, 3. Were also lucky Indiana was willing to trade him because they needed a PG and were set at the wing, having just drafted Paul George, and 4. Were lucky they had a young PG who was also an Indiana native is almost Memorial Day Miracle levels of fortune.

[BlackSilver]

This is the worst argument ever for re-signing RJ.

"We don't have anyone else...so lets sign this bag of shit to a huge contract."

Tbh, being one of the puzzled fans at the time when we thought Xmas came early only to see it snatched away by the bizarre new contract with RJ, I asked Jeff McDonald on Twitter why we re-signed RJ and he gave this answer, i.e., sparse SF market.


Imo RJ and the Spurs had a deal. He would opt-out of the $15m option, saving the Spurs another $15m on luxury tax and the Spurs were to re-sign him 4 seasons for $39m.

Option A was to let RJ pick the option, cost: $30m for only one season.
Option B was to make a deal: $39 for 4 seasons, which was then shortened by a season at the cost of a first round pick.

At the time of the deal, RJ was a "sunk cost", the mistake was to take his contract from the Bucks.

This seems most likely reason, but I don't know about your numbers. I don't think we would've been $15M over the tax line.

Whatever. :sleep

[Mel_13]

I don't think we would've been $15M over the tax line.


They wouldn't have been, but 15M savings in tax+salary is a reasonable estimate. That assumes everything else remained the same.

[Obstructed_View]

Think of it this way - would the Spurs have had a chance to get Kawhi if they simply let RJ walk?

The two things have absolutely no relation whatsoever. And the Spurs would never have let RJ walk, he represented a HUGE expiring contract and would absolutely have been traded. Ask Bruno to lay out the type of players the Spurs could have gotten for that kind of expiring.

[Thomas82]

The two things have absolutely no relation whatsoever. And the Spurs would never have let RJ walk, he represented a HUGE expiring contract and would absolutely have been traded. Ask Bruno to lay out the type of players the Spurs could have gotten for that kind of expiring.

I honestly wouldn't mind knowing what kind of players we could have got for RJ's contract.

[DPG21920]

Did anyone see the news that the Spurs pulled a Kahn and signed Duncan to an invalid contract? Long story short - Tims last year of his new contract cant be cheaper than the previous year due to a certain rule. It appears he will have to get an add ~350K in order for it to work.

[DPG21920]

Discovered by Shamsports

[Bruno]

^ that's a weird story. Not sure how it will end.

At the end , it's not a big deal. Link to the story:
http://blog.shamsports.com/2012/07/tim-duncan-also-may-or-may-not-be-about.html

Duncan contracts details are now fully known:
9,638,554 in 2012/13, $10,361,446 in 2013/14, and an even $10 million in 2014/15. The final year is a player option year

[DPG21920]

Rug ------->Sweep?

[Stabula]

Duncan has always been a fucking crook.

[objective]

sorry if this was already covered:

Does the 'Over 36' rule apply to Duncan, and possibly send the Spurs over the tax already? Or is that just for contracts that are 4 and 5 years long?

[gambit1990]

The five recent signings give the Spurs 14 players with guaranteed contracts for next season, at a total of $69.13 million. That is safely beneath the projected luxury-tax threshold, unchanged from last season’s $70.307 million.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/07/25/duncans-salary-cut-provides-tax-relief/

[silverblackfan]

Best team under the Luxury tax? The FO has done a great job of keeping the team together for a 'reasonable' amount of money.

[racm]

OKC is also under the luxury tax. Probably Boston too, but I'm not sure.

[Mel_13]

OKC is also under the luxury tax. Probably Boston too, but I'm not sure.

Boston will be over, but not by much. Like the Spurs, they used the non-taxpayer MLE and are working under a hard cap of 74.3 million dollars.

[therealtruth]

Best team under the Luxury tax? The FO has done a great job of keeping the team together for a 'reasonable' amount of money.

The Spurs actually played the luxury tax the last time they won in '07.