Did the Spurs squander an opportunity to trade Stephen Jackson?

[HarlemHeat37]

- Huge expiring contract
- Manu has been inconsistent and injury prone
- The bench has struggled
- The offense hasn't produced at the same level as last year
- Jackson is one of the worst players in the NBA

There are reasons for conservatism, I suppose:

- The Spurs did not want to take additional salary for future years
- The Richard Jefferson debacle killing the chances of another big Spurs trade
- Banking on Jackson turning it on in the 2nd half of the season

Did the Spurs make a mistake by not making a trade for Jackson's deal, or did their decision make more sense?..

[Chinook]

I don't think you can really judge that until we see what they do with the cap space this off-season.

I wanted to trade him, though. I think his deal could've gotten back a really good player.

[Johnny RIngo]

Yes, but the fact that Jackson is a toxic personality probably made it difficult to trade him. Also, the Lakers are probably the only team in the league that can take a pile of shit on an expiring(Kwame Brown) and trade him for an all-star player. It says a lot about how rigged that trade was when we can't even trade a 10 million expiring contract for a semi-useful player.

[Mugen]

All the trade rumors with Jack at the deadline involved Tiago. Not sure who the Spurs could have realistically brought in for those two but I don't think it would have given them a better chance to ring tbh.

[DPG21920]

Many teams missed out. This new landscape seemingly had owners very nervous. You basically couldn't give talented players away if they had any sort of long term big contract outside of a few teams that had more than enough cap space to do a deal.

[Johnny RIngo]

- Manu has been inconsistent and injury prone
- The bench has struggled
- Jackson is one of the worst players in the NBA

These three things go hand in hand. The bench has struggled because of how inconsistent Manu has been and because Jackson has been overall a terrible player. Tiago being inserted into the starting lineup made an already weak backup unit even weaker too.

[DPG21920]

All the trade rumors with Jack at the deadline involved Tiago. Not sure who the Spurs could have realistically brought in for those two but I don't think it would have given them a better chance to ring tbh.

I don't believe that for one second. With how things are going, cap space is at a premium and offering up Jax for a longer contract that opens up cap space or lessens tax burdens would have been easy and it definitely wouldn't cost Tiago.

[Uriel]

Jack's huge expiring contract might have been the problem. The only big name available in that price range was either injured (Varejao) or highly toxic (Smith). The guy the Spurs did end up trying to acquire (J.J. Redick) was too cheap.

[Brunodf]

Package him with Bonner/Blair/Neal

[spurraider21]

His big expiring contract is super valuable to us this offseason

[Sean Cagney]

I was so happy when he came back and he hit some shots in the playoffs and it felt like old times! I got flashes of 03 again :(. He has been bad this year though, he is really bad out there with his shot and thats what we will need him for in the playoffs. He appears to be nearly done, sucks because I wanted him to retire here too and have a few more seasons in him.

[Chinook]

His big expiring contract is super valuable to us this offseason

Not as valuable as it would have been. His contract could have brought back an $11 Million player this season. The Spurs probably won't have that much cap room in the off-season.

[DesignatedT]

Probably could have traded him but I doubt there was any offers the Spurs really liked. The Spurs know what Jack brings to the team even if he isn't playing great basketball. His attitude rubs off on this team and he is a great locker room presence. You don't necessarily want to get rid of those types of players. Plus, we all know he will hit the big shot if given the opportunity.

[spurraider21]

Not as valuable as it would have been. His contract could have brought back an $11 Million player this season. The Spurs probably won't have that much cap room in the off-season.
Were gna need that 10 mil to keep splitter tbh

[Chinook]

Were gna need that 10 mil to keep splitter tbh

Nope. The Spurs would have had that money anyway. They don't need cap space for Splitter, since they have his Bird Rights. As far as actual cash goes, there was plenty of room between the cap and tax for Splitter's deal.

[DesignatedT]

His contract could have brought back an $11 Million player this season.

Like who? All the rumors surrounding anyone worth a shit all wanted Splitter, De Colo, picks all thrown into a deal. Who knows what the Spurs could have gotten for just Jack and some scrubs. I don't think the Spurs were willing to part with Tiago.

[Chinook]

Like who? All the rumors surrounding anyone worth a shit all wanted Splitter, De Colo, picks all thrown into a deal. Who knows what the Spurs could have gotten for just Jack and some scrubs. I don't think the Spurs were willing to part with Tiago.

I don't know off the top of my head. I did know when we were all discussing it in the Think Tank. I don't think Splitter needed to be involved at all, though.

I guess it may have been possible to get Mbah a Moute and a player like Dalembert from the Bucks (Magic really as part of that Redick trade). I brought up $11 because that was the maximum they could have taken back for Jack and stayed under the tax.

[100%duncan]

All the trade rumors with Jack at the deadline involved Tiago. Not sure who the Spurs could have realistically brought in for those two but I don't think it would have given them a better chance to ring tbh.

This.

[eDizzle20]

Teams that trade to get expiring contracts are usually teams that want to get rid of bad contracts or are in the process of rebuilding. The Spurs will no longer take on a big contract unleash it is a free agent signing. Richard Jefferson forever scarred the Spurs organization with that. Jax is a great locker room guy and he still has the ability to make big shots. In game 6 against OKC last year he was ferocious and played his heart out. The Spurs will need him come playoff time.

[spurraider21]

Nope. The Spurs would have had that money anyway. They don't need cap space for Splitter, since they have his Bird Rights. As far as actual cash goes, there was plenty of room between the cap and tax for Splitter's deal.
I'm aware of bird rights. But we're also not gna go above luxury tax levels, so saving money was big. Also most deals with jax for a good player also involved Tiago. Not worth it

[milkyway21]

now that Manu is injured we NEED SJax's experience w/ Pop's plays to win against our next opponents he knows the system.... IMO

[timtonymanu]

Package him with Bonner/Blair/Neal

Only thing is trade deadline is over, genius.

[DesignatedT]

Pop should try some Leonard at the 2, Jack at the 3 while Manu is out.

[Brunodf]

Only thing is trade deadline is over, genius.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5xhM0wB3N4o/TcchQQ3YxxI/AAAAAAAAACE/9mLHPMWCWnQ/s1600/sarcasm.jpg

[racm]

Pop should try some Leonard at the 2, Jack at the 3 while Manu is out.

Saw that kind of rotation the first two games of the season.

[Chinook]

I'm aware of bird rights. But we're also not gna go above luxury tax levels, so saving money was big. Also most deals with jax for a good player also involved Tiago. Not worth it

Saving money did nothing. With Ginobili, Blair and Neal expiring (and with Bonner pretty much expiring), the Spurs were going to be no where near the tax even if they had traded for a player making Jack's salary next season while re-signing Ginobili to a reasonable contract --they'd barely be going above the cap. As I said in my first post in this thread, not trading Jack will only be a good more teleologically speaking if the Spurs use the cap space they get this summer on a good player for whom they couldn't have worked out a trade this season.

And no one knows which players were really involved in any deals. So I don't know why people assume that teams were telling the Spurs Splitter was a necessary piece for them to deal. It's just idle speculation. There were players like Mbah a Moute that could have been had for Jack's deal. That would have been a tremendous defensive upgrade, and it may have been coupled with the Spurs getting a player like Dalembert back to make the numbers work. If you think that deal was unreasonable, consider that the Bucks had wanted to trade Luc in the Redick deal, but the Magic didn't want his contract. It's possible that a trade could have been worked out that sent Jack to the Magic, Redick to Milwaukee and Mbah a Moute to the Spurs. For this year and the future, that deal could have been big, and it wouldn't have involved Splitter or Leonard.

[Chinook]

Pop should try some Leonard at the 2, Jack at the 3 while Manu is out.

It'd probably be better than using Neal, but I'd rather Leonard stay at the three for all of his minutes. If Jack and Kawhi play together, I'd hope it'd be in small-ball only.

[Dunc n Dave]

There's a chance some guys might get amnestied this off season that we could get with the cap space that Jack's contract creates. Guys like Pau Gasol and Carlos Boozer might get amnestied to avoid the super luxury taxes coming next year. Both guys could be viable "Plan B" guys in the even that Splitter signs an outrageous offer with another team that the Spurs aren't willing to match.

[TheGoldStandard]

Jack will resign here and play out his last 2 seasons or so with the spurs. He's matured some, he's a good mentor to the young guys to help generate toughness and he'll be clutch in the playoffs from time to time. The Spurs have loyalty too.

[ElNono]

Who was available at the wing for that price range? We really don't have another backup for Kawhi, so we would've definitely needed to use some of that money for another wing.

[thekingrobert]

Unfortunately I think injuries have hampered SJax consistency

[Hoops Czar]

The Spurs never had any intention of trading S-jax and most trade rumors involving him were a fabrication of the media. Knowing how this front office works, it wouldn't surprise if the Spurs resigned him cheap and then went back overseas to find another backup wing because the Spurs are foreign to American born players and Buford won't want to risk a pretty penny signing one. Then the Spurs will supplant the rustic noob behind S-jax and develop him for the next two or three years.

[Hoops Czar]

And If I were the Spurs, I'd go after JJ Hickson and If Tiago is going to cost too much, let him go. Hickson is better and younger and he'll be a huge asset in the rebounding department and on the low block.

[mute]

He's still a good defender and has the size and quickness to match up with a Durant or Lebron or mobile bigman. We just need to incorporate Baynes more because we are gonna get killed one of these playoff games due to lack of size and we can't run Duncan to the ground. Neal and Manu need to get going ASAP.

[baseline bum]

I don't think the Spurs wanted an $11 million player in return, which would have been essentially waving the white flag on re-signing Splitter this summer. Besides, Jackson will be nice to bring back on a minimum contract next season (doubt he could get much more) to be a physical defender off the bench.

[Darius McCrary]

No.

[chapnis]

No way, no one wanted him anyway

[Mal]

You think that Spurs had good deal, not involving Tiago and/or Leonard, and simply didnt pool the trigger ?

[boutons_deux]

Unfortunately I think injuries have hampered SJax consistency

His reputation and fans' expectations from the 2003 Championship (when rep was "he helps teams on both ends of the floor") far exceeds his contributions.

[SenorSpur]

I'm also glad the Spurs didn't trade Jackson. However, they have a bit of dilemma this offseason. With Manu oft-injured most of the time and playing like crap the rest of the time, the Spurs bench will be weaker if the elect not to bring back Jack. Personally, I hope they resign Jack to a cheap 2-yr deal. Perhaps they even look at bringing over Adam Hanga to bolster the wing position off the bench. However, it's more likely that this doesn't happen until Manu retires.

As for the Splitter situation, it took him a while, but he has integrated himself into the Spurs scheme in a wonderful way and while he fits the Spurs pick-n-roll offense beautifully, he's shown penchant for being somewhat passive around the rim - especially against more athletic bigs. If he does elect to leave, I like the idea someone suggested earlier in the thread of going after J.J. Hickson. He's young, athletic, is a rebounding phenom and he attacks the rim on both ends of the court. He plays with the type of aggression and ferocity that the Spurs really need. Personally, if I"m being greedy, I'd like to see the Spurs to resign Splitter and sign Hickson as a free agent too this offseason, while in the process ridding the roster of both Blair and Bonner and whatever else required to make it happen. That's probably unlikely, but I can dream for a moment.

[pjjrfan]

Well I for one am glad he is still on the team.

[Kidd K]

Yeah they did. I think they could've brought back something halfway decent in return. I'm not a Jack hater, but being a realist, he clearly has not produced. He is the worst player on the team who's not considered a scrub imo.

I can understand why they didn't trade him though; Manu's health is questionable, Kawhi had knee tendonitis, Neal was banged up (and still plays terrible defense), and even Danny Green had a hamstring injury at one point this year. Luckily, Green seems to be a durable guy and recovered fast, plus Kawhi has taken the next step to being a very reliable player. . .but that all seemed to become apparent after the trade deadline.

But yes, I definitely thought they should have utilized Jackson's contract to pull back something to help us get over the top, even if it wasn't for another wing. Hopefully it won't be a mistake that we'll pay for later. If Manu can play properly, and Jackson produces for even a few games where it matters, then it won't have been a real loss. :)

[John B]

He's still a good defender and has the size and quickness to match up with a Durant or Lebron or mobile bigman. We just need to incorporate Baynes more because we are gonna get killed one of these playoff games due to lack of size and we can't run Duncan to the ground. Neal and Manu need to get going ASAP.
I don't know about the quickness, but he has the size. And at his age we call it leadership instead of towel waiver. He gives us the tenacity and nastiness that we need in the playoffs, hopefully along with Baynes, to push, shove, intimidate people and so we don't look like choir boys that athletic teams are just itching to dunk on. I think he'll sign reasonably cheap with us for next two years.

[Obstructed_View]

If the Spurs could have gotten Paul Pierce for Jack, I'd have been for it. Otherwise, I'll take my chances that Jack will step up in the playoffs and contribute.

[Obstructed_View]

His reputation and fans' expectations from the 2003 Championship (when rep was "he helps teams on both ends of the floor") far exceeds his contributions.

Except that he was the only player that didn't look scared against OKC last year. On both ends of the floor.

[ChumpDumper]

His big expiring contract is super valuable to us this offseasonThis.


Nope. The Spurs would have had that money anyway. They don't need cap space for Splitter, since they have his Bird Rights. As far as actual cash goes, there was plenty of room between the cap and tax for Splitter's deal.Bad math.

[DAF86]

Who was available at the wing for that price range? We really don't have another backup for Kawhi, so we would've definitely needed to use some of that money for another wing.

Get Josh Smith and play Manu and Neal as wings off the bench.

[rascal]

His reputation and fans' expectations from the 2003 Championship (when rep was "he helps teams on both ends of the floor") far exceeds his contributions.

I said this when the Spurs got Jackson. That he was not going to make a big difference anymore at his age.

[rascal]

If the Spurs could have gotten Paul Pierce for Jack, I'd have been for it. Otherwise, I'll take my chances that Jack will step up in the playoffs and contribute.

Don't count on Jackson, Manu or Splitter in the playoffs.

[rascal]

I'm also glad the Spurs didn't trade Jackson. However, they have a bit of dilemma this offseason. With Manu oft-injured most of the time and playing like crap the rest of the time, the Spurs bench will be weaker if the elect not to bring back Jack. Personally, I hope they resign Jack to a cheap 2-yr deal. Perhaps they even look at bringing over Adam Hanga to bolster the wing position off the bench. However, it's more likely that this doesn't happen until Manu retires.

As for the Splitter situation, it took him a while, but he has integrated himself into the Spurs scheme in a wonderful way and while he fits the Spurs pick-n-roll offense beautifully, he's shown penchant for being somewhat passive around the rim - especially against more athletic bigs. If he does elect to leave, I like the idea someone suggested earlier in the thread of going after J.J. Hickson. He's young, athletic, is a rebounding phenom and he attacks the rim on both ends of the court. He plays with the type of aggression and ferocity that the Spurs really need. Personally, if I"m being greedy, I'd like to see the Spurs to resign Splitter and sign Hickson as a free agent too this offseason, while in the process ridding the roster of both Blair and Bonner and whatever else required to make it happen. That's probably unlikely, but I can dream for a moment.

Forgot about Hickson. The Spurs never go after these type of young players.

[spurraider21]

Jax is still playing good defense tbh, but his offense has been a disaster. That said, Kawhi has been getting big minutes (roughly 35/game) the last couple of weeks. Possibly being a blind fan here, but I'm still going to have faith in Jax to be important in the playoffs with his defense, particularly against Durant and some stretch 4's, like if we play the Mavs round 1. I also trust him to hit timely shots, like he did in last seasons playoffs after being a lousy shooter for us in the regular season games he participated in. Last season for us he shot 30% from range and hit 60% in the playoffs

[Chinook]

This.

Bad math.

Not really. The difference between the cap and tax is $14 Million (EDIT: actually it's about $12.3 Million). Splitter would at most count for $9 Million more than his cap hold (that would supposed a crazy-high cap, and thus a crazy-high max salary). That leaves $5(3.3) Million dollars under the tax if the Spurs spend to the the cap and then give Splitter his contract.

You probably just don't know that cap that well.

[Bruno]

It's impossible to answer at that question for at least 3 reasons:
1) We don't know what trades Spurs could have done with Jack at the trade deadline.
2) We don't know how Jack will play in the playoffs.
3) We don't know what Spurs will do with their cap space this summer.

There will have answers to 2) and 3) in a few months so we will have a better idea if Spurs made the right choice by keeping Jack.

And regardless of what the right business move was, I'm damn GLAD Spurs kept Jack given what he and his wife were going through. Trading Jack in these circumstances would have been somewhat of a jackass move.

[Chinook]

Just to clarify, the had the Spurs had traded Jack for a player making his exact amount next season, then they would still have been able to max out Splitter. They would be able to off Splitter anywhere from $12-14 Million a year next season if the cap stayed flat, Ginobili were re-signed to a reasonable deal ($6-8 Million a year) and they cut Bonner. The max for Splitter would be about $13 Million, so the room is there. I understand that that'd leave very little space left, but since the cap will increase by a least a couple of million, the Spurs would have gotten their wiggle room back.

[DAF86]

I said this when the Spurs got Jackson. That he was not going to make a big difference anymore at his age.

And you were wrong, last season Jackson made as big a difference a bench guy could make.

[Biggems]

Yes, but the fact that Jackson is a toxic personality probably made it difficult to trade him. Also, the Lakers are probably the only team in the league that can take a pile of shit on an expiring(Kwame Brown) and trade him for an all-star player. It says a lot about how rigged that trade was when we can't even trade a 10 million expiring contract for a semi-useful player.

toxic personality?

[CGD]

we'd have to know what the opportunities were obviously. The Jefferson and Smith deals woul have likely required the spurs to give up splitter or Leonard. No starters really. I'd prefer keeping the cap-space for the summer.

[exstatic]

And If I were the Spurs, I'd go after JJ Hickson and If Tiago is going to cost too much, let him go. Hickson is better and younger and he'll be a huge asset in the rebounding department and on the low block.

Hickson is horrible on defense. That's not an exaggeration, at all.

[exstatic]

Yeah they did. I think they could've brought back something halfway decent in return. I'm not a Jack hater, but being a realist, he clearly has not produced. He is the worst player on the team who's not considered a scrub imo.

I can understand why they didn't trade him though; Manu's health is questionable, Kawhi had knee tendonitis, Neal was banged up (and still plays terrible defense), and even Danny Green had a hamstring injury at one point this year. Luckily, Green seems to be a durable guy and recovered fast, plus Kawhi has taken the next step to being a very reliable player. . .but that all seemed to become apparent after the trade deadline.

But yes, I definitely thought they should have utilized Jackson's contract to pull back something to help us get over the top, even if it wasn't for another wing. Hopefully it won't be a mistake that we'll pay for later. If Manu can play properly, and Jackson produces for even a few games where it matters, then it won't have been a real loss. :)

Spurs will never again pay $10M a year for "halfway decent" on multiple years. RJ was the last of that.

Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers. Their spending habits might be more to your liking.

[ElNono]

Get Josh Smith and play Manu and Neal as wings off the bench.

We need bodies to play physical at the likes of Durant, and hopefully James... neither of those two really fit that criteria.


And you were wrong, last season Jackson made as big a difference a bench guy could make.

co-sign

[Chinook]

Spurs will never again pay $10M a year for "halfway decent" on multiple years. RJ was the last of that.

True, and good for them if they never do. But I think people are making some false assumptions here. Just because Jack's contract is $10 Million doesn't mean the Spurs would have had to trade him for one player making that much. They could have traded in for a $4 Million player on a long-term deal and a $6 Million player on with an expiring contract.

That's why I pointed out the Mbah a Moute/Dalembert for Jack/Blair example. The Spurs would only be committing to paying Mbah a Moute $5 Million a year to back up Leonard. The Bucks apparently wanted to get rid of his deal, so they probably wouldn't have required any other asset. Of course, they might not have wanted to take back Jack, but that's another issue entirely. Even so, the Spurs may have been able to facilitate Redick deal using Jack. I can't say the Spurs dropped the ball without knowing if that deal were available. But that's the type of trade I wanted them to make (or Marion if Dallas wanted to give him up to the Spurs for some reason) instead of the mega-deals for Smith or Jefferson.

[Obstructed_View]

I said this when the Spurs got Jackson. That he was not going to make a big difference anymore at his age.
And you would be wrong. Jack was one of the best players on the team in the playoffs.


Don't count on Jackson, Manu or Splitter in the playoffs.
Splitter's never started a playoff game, so that's ridiculous right off the bat. Manu's been a critical factor in whether or not the Spurs had success in the playoffs, and Jack, again, does nothing but step up when he's needed.

[Hoops Czar]

Hickson is horrible on defense. That's not an exaggeration, at all.

So at age 24, I suppose his career is pretty much mapped out for him then, right? He's improved steadily over the last three years and there's no reason to think he couldn't continue to improve under the tutelage of the right coaching staff. He has the athletic ability to take his defense to the next level. Might I remind you that Bowen wasn't a great defender his first three seasons in the NBA. He didn't come into his own until his last season in Miami before joining San Antonio. I could write a book on the things Splitter couldn't do when he came into the league. Now he's at least adequate to above average in most categories.

Hickson is the type of player the Spurs have been longing for.... athletic, excellent rebounder, strong finisher and good low post scorer. I'm not expecting him to be MT. Mutumbo meets Yao Ming in the post, but think he can be a solid contributor on both ends of the court and I don't think he'll cost an arm and a leg to sign nor do I think it will impact the Splitter signing. I really don't have a clue what Splitter's market value will be in the offseason but, IMO, I would hesitate to offer up a contract that topples the $9-10M mark.

[Beaverfuzz]

Hickson is garbage. Ole defense comes to mind.

[ChumpDumper]

Bad math.

Not really. The difference between the cap and tax is $14 Million (EDIT: actually it's about $12.3 Million). Splitter would at most count for $9 Million more than his cap hold (that would supposed a crazy-high cap, and thus a crazy-high max salary). That leaves $5(3.3) Million dollars under the tax if the Spurs spend to the the cap and then give Splitter his contract.

You probably just don't know that cap that well.You probably just don't know who you left out of your bad math there.

[Chinook]

I didn't leave anyone out. My original post said the Spurs didn't have to worry about the cap with Splitter because they had his Bird rights. That means that if they have Jack under contract for another year (to simulate them having traded for an $11 Million player), they'd still have room to re-sign Splitter. If that player you're thinking of is Manu, then no, I didn't forget him. This was a subsequent post I made in this thread:


Just to clarify, if the Spurs had traded Jack for a player making his exact amount next season, then they would still have been able to max out Splitter. They would be able to off Splitter anywhere from $12-14 Million a year next season if the cap stayed flat, Ginobili were re-signed to a reasonable deal ($6-8 Million a year) and they cut Bonner. The max for Splitter would be about $13 Million, so the room is there. I understand that that'd leave very little space left, but since the cap will increase by a least a couple of million, the Spurs would have gotten their wiggle room back.

It's not about having bad math. The Spurs can re-sign Ginobili and Splitter and STILL have cap room next year, not even counting anything against the tax. Having traded Jack for another comparable deal would not have pushed the Spurs beyond the tax, because Manu's decrease and salary and Bonner being waived would give the Spurs anywhere between $8-10 Million to spend on top of Splitter's $3.9 Million this season. So the Spurs can even max out Splitter with out going over the tax.

I apologize for coming off jerkish in my first reply to you. That wasn't right. But the math isn't wrong here. If you don't believe me, look at Bruno's salary thread in the Think Tank. The room is there for another $11 Million player along with Splitter and Ginobili.

[Chinook]

Specifically, this is the Spurs' salary situation next year, according to Bruno:


How much cap space Spurs could had in the 2013 summer:
It's early to answer at that question but let's give it a try.
Let's make first some assumptions:
- The salary cap is $62M.
- Spurs use the amnesty rule on Bonner.
- Diaw and Mills decides to pick their option and stay.
- Spurs either use their first round pick on a draft and stash player or trade him away.

Spurs team salary in the 2013 summer:
Tony Parker: $12,500,000
Tim Duncan: $10,361,446
Boris Diaw: $4,702,500
Danny Green: $3,762,500
Nando De Colo: $1,463,000
Kawhi Leonard: $1,887,840
Patrick Mills: $1,133,950
Cory Joseph: $1,120,920
Aron Baynes: $788,872
Roster cap hold: $490,180
Roster cap hold: $490,180
Roster cap hold: $490,180

Total: $39,191,568

In this scenario and with a $62M salary cap, Spurs will have $22.8M in cap space next summer. Diaw opting out will create an additional $4.2M in cap space and mills opting out another $0.6M.

The Spurs will have about $35 Million between their committed salaries and the tax threshold. Subtract $11 Million for this Player X, and the Spurs would have $24 Million to re-sign Ginobili and Splitter. That's room for Splitter, Ginobili and an MLE player. Even if the cap doesn't go up, the Spurs would have $19 Million to split between the two of them. So yes, there would have been room between the cap and tax for Splitter's deal.

[Kidd K]

Spurs will never again pay $10M a year for "halfway decent" on multiple years. RJ was the last of that.

Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers. Their spending habits might be more to your liking.

*looks at my post again* Not seeing where I said the Spurs should bring back multi-year players that are halfway decent. Instead, I see where I said we could've gotten something decent for our trashy overpaid player, then went in to explain why I understood why they didn't trade him.

Also, wrong again, Stephen Jackson would be "the last of that", not RJ. They traded RJ for Jackson's multi-year deal. So yeah, "never again", except they did just last year for the guy we're talking about right now. :rolleyes

Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers, since you don't seem to be following the Spurs very closely.

[DAF86]

We need bodies to play physical at the likes of Durant, and hopefully James... neither of those two really fit that criteria.

Josh Smith does, tbh.

[exstatic]

*looks at my post again* Not seeing where I said the Spurs should bring back multi-year players that are halfway decent. Instead, I see where I said we could've gotten something decent for our trashy overpaid player, then went in to explain why I understood why they didn't trade him.

Also, wrong again, Stephen Jackson would be "the last of that", not RJ. They traded RJ for Jackson's multi-year deal. So yeah, "never again", except they did just last year for the guy we're talking about right now. :rolleyes

Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers, since you don't seem to be following the Spurs very closely.

Jack was a subtraction of a year off of another bad contract, so yes, no more bad contracts. To trade him, they'd have to take back another like sized contract. It would have to be for more than one year, because no one is trading a decent ending contract for Jack's ending contract. That's the rules and parameters for trading Jack at the deadline. You're not getting shit, or rather, you are.

[HarlemHeat37]

Smh, tbh..

[DesignatedT]

Nice.

[FkLA]

:depressed

[spurraider21]

Well, shit. if they had known he was having issues and being waived was a possibility, sure, he should have been dealt. If we had known about this issue before, I'm sure we all would have been on board with a trade. I was looking forward to seeing him ball in the playoffs

[TheGoldStandard]

Well, shit. if they had known he was having issues and being waived was a possibility, sure, he should have been dealt. If we had known about this issue before, I'm sure we all would have been on board with a trade. I was looking forward to seeing him ball in the playoffs

The Spurs should have known, they know if a player is disgruntled or has issues with money or playing time or whatever and of course how would they not know if he would be waived, you have to know how far you'll go with something. I think the Spurs dropped the ball.