Spurs Fully Guarantee Aldridge’s 2020-21 Salary [Archive]

MultiTroll

10-23-2019, 04:25 PM

:clap:toast
Having already locked down Patty, now all we need is DD to keep Pops Big 3 going!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61GnU9zELMI
Crazy sports writer acts like having a hand signal or something could have been used.

phxspurfan

10-23-2019, 04:27 PM

Championship!

TD 21

10-23-2019, 04:36 PM

A no brainer. He fits in any scenario and even if he declines some, he should still be worth it, so in the event he wants out in a year (which is probably connected to what happens to DeRozan), they can maximize return.

look_at_g_shred

10-23-2019, 04:38 PM

Such an easy contract to move if needed

Allan Rowe vs Wade

10-23-2019, 04:40 PM

stay hungry lamarcus

Dex

10-23-2019, 04:45 PM

Bad move for Lamarcus. Should negotiate a longer but cheaper at his age.

Somehwere in the 17 range

Negative ghost rider. Does not fit the 2021 plan.

RC_Drunkford

10-23-2019, 05:02 PM

Good. A player of his caliber is a bargain for 24 million

Seventyniner

10-23-2019, 05:06 PM

Makes perfect sense. The Spurs were never going to be major players in 2020 free agency, they appear to be lining everything up for 2021 instead.

Now a DDR extension would shoot that theory down hard, but it hasn't happened yet.

timtonymanu

10-23-2019, 05:09 PM

:tu

BatManu20

10-23-2019, 05:11 PM

Good. A player of his caliber is a bargain for 24 million

:tu

BillMc

10-23-2019, 05:13 PM

Good. A player of his caliber is a bargain for 24 million

This

RC_Drunkford

10-23-2019, 05:25 PM

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 05:29 PM

Good. A player of his caliber is a bargain for 24 million
yep. i think his decline will certainly be noticeable by next year, but the timing is pretty good tbh

Genovaswitness

10-23-2019, 05:47 PM

not upset by it. he's a good transition piece. now if only we could get rid of fuckhead (demar)

RC_Drunkford

10-23-2019, 05:49 PM

yep. i think his decline will certainly be noticeable by next year, but the timing is pretty good tbh

probably but even if he gives you 17/8 on a nightly basis it's still a good value contract. I also think Pop will start resting him soon to keep him fresh like he did with Duncan

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 05:58 PM

Unless LMA was making waves behind the scenes, I don’t see the benefit for SA here. What if he gets badly injured late in the season? You could do that after the season if he plays well too.

I get the loyalty thing but kind of odd IMO

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 06:30 PM

Uriel

10-23-2019, 06:44 PM

Why do it now though? The partial guarantee could've made his contract a useful trade chip at the deadline.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 06:45 PM

LMA at that price makes more sense than any garbage free agent next summer.
doesn't address DPG's point that they could just as easily guarantee his contract after the season

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 06:48 PM

doesn't address DPG's point that they could just as easily guarantee his contract after the seasonWhy wait? Dude just played 81 games last season.

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 06:52 PM

LMA at that price makes more sense than any garbage free agent next summer.

Yeah, but it was a team decision, not his, right? So he could have been had at that same price with a decision made much later no?

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 06:52 PM

Why wait? Dude just played 81 games last season.

Why do it now? What is the tangible benefit for SA?

SpurSpike

10-23-2019, 06:53 PM

The move to make the last year only partially guaranteed was to give the Spurs flexibility. Now the Spurs must have a better picture on how long they want to keep LMA so they have offered the full guarantee, its still a good price if he fits in your current plans.

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 06:56 PM

Im not saying I don’t want LMA, or that it’s a bad decision. Just saying I don’t see the benefit of doing this now - if he gets seriously injured now you just really hurt yourself.

Even if that is a small chance, it’s still odd to do something like this now if you don’t have to. It’s the point of having that option. Obviously SA feels good about it and it does not bother me. I am just asking in earnest why now?

SpurSpike

10-23-2019, 06:59 PM

Hmm, maybe to get on his good side? Perhaps they are going to try to keep him for super cheap once his contract is up? Who knows...

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:01 PM

Why wait? Dude just played 81 games last season.
off chance he suffers a debilitating injury. why not protect yourself against that, unless there is some tangible benefit to doing so now... i would understand if it was an option that they had to exercise today, in which case it would be a no-brainer... but that's not the case

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 07:02 PM

Hmm, maybe to get on his good side? Perhaps they are going to try to keep him for super cheap once his contract is up? Who knows...

That’s what it seems like to me. Maybe there was some rumbling behind the scenes with LMA? Wouldn’t be the first time. But also with the Kawhi stuff maybe there is even more of an emphasis of a public show of “loyalty”?

timvp

10-23-2019, 07:05 PM

I agree that it's a little bit of an odd decision since the Spurs weren't incentivized to make the decision now. But, given Aldridge's personality, it makes some sense. I wrote more here: https://www.spurstalk.com/why-san-antonio-spurs-fully-guarantee-lamarcus-aldridge-contract/

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:08 PM

off chance he suffers a debilitating injury. why not protect yourself against that, unless there is some tangible benefit to doing so now... i would understand if it was an option that they had to exercise today, in which case it would be a no-brainer... but that's not the caseHe just played 81 games the year before. If he's out for the next season you get the injured player exception and insurance pays the salary. There's no potential cap room available until the following season. It just solidifies the plan that's already plain to see.

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 07:10 PM

He just played 81 games the year before. If he's out for the next season you get the injured player exception. There's no potential cap room available until the following season.

That’s not true at all. If Derozan is traded or declines his options, then with LMA at only 7M and DeRozan gone there would be SIGNIFICANT cap space next season. And the insurance paying his salary doesn’t make up for the lost potential cap space either.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:11 PM

That’s not true at all. If Derozan is traded or declines his options, then with LMA at only 7M and DeRozan gone there would be SIGNIFICANT cap space next season. And the insurance paying his salary doesn’t make up for the lost potential cap space either.And that's not the plan. Looks like they want to keep both players. Sorry.

SpursDynasty85

10-23-2019, 07:14 PM

Why do it now? What is the tangible benefit for SA?

It's a steal and some team might want to trade for him and use him next year.

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 07:14 PM

And that's not the plan. Looks like they want to keep both players. Sorry.

:lol turning this into some “gotcha”. You are annoying as f*ck

They extended DeRozan? So how is that highlighting their plan to keep DeRozan by him not being extended and having a player option? Please explain in detail that plan.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:15 PM

He just played 81 games the year before.
i didnt say he's breaking down. a freak injury can happen at any time.

If he's out for the next season you get the injured player exception and insurance pays the salary.
oh then every team with a partially guaranteed player should just turn those into full guarantees... the injured player exception will not save them as much space as just not guaranteeing his salary. insurance paying it does nothing to help the cap. i dont think this order came down from ownership as a financial decision. i could be wrong

There's no potential cap room available until the following season. It just solidifies the plan that's already plain to see.
nothing stopped them from solidifying it at the end of the season, provided there isn't some unfortunate injury.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:16 PM

:lol turning this into some “gotcha”. You are annoying as f*ck

They extended DeRozan? So how is that highlighting their plan to keep DeRozan by him not being extended and having a player option? Please explain in detail that plan.There's no gotcha. They were trying to work a deal with Derozan. They obviously plan to keep both players. Sorry.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:17 PM

i didnt say he's breaking down. a freak injury can happen at any time.

oh then every team with a partially guaranteed player should just turn those into full guarantees... the injured player exception will not save them as much space as just not guaranteeing his salary. insurance paying it does nothing to help the cap. i dont think this order came down from ownership as a financial decision. i could be wrong

nothing stopped them from solidifying it at the end of the season, provided there isn't some unfortunate injury.And they don't think that's going to happen. Pretty simple.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:20 PM

And they don't think that's going to happen. Pretty simple.
which would be a perfectly valid explanation on its own if they were on the clock to exercise some option by today

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:24 PM

which would be a perfectly valid explanation on its own if they were on the clock to exercise some option by todayThey don't think that will happen later either.

I know the counter to that argument is "But maybe!" OK. I get it.

DPG21920

10-23-2019, 07:28 PM

There's no gotcha. They were trying to work a deal with Derozan. They obviously plan to keep both players. Sorry.

Key word trying. So they didn’t do it. As in right now, with no guessing, DeRozan is in control of what happens. So with no guessing, and that in mind, it’s odd for SA to do this and there is some risk to this even if the risk is deemed to be minor.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:29 PM

They don't think that will happen later either.

I know the counter to that argument is "But maybe!" OK. I get it.
no, the argument is that if you can mitigate risk (however small) at no cost, it makes logical sense to do so.

do the spurs have anything to lose by guaranteeing his money now? yes. he can get hurt, or show a substantial drop in play late in the season. do the spurs have anything to lose by not guaranteeing his money now? no. if he plays well and remains durable, then they can go ahead and guarantee his money at that point.

as timvp suggests , they are approaching it as a showing of goodwill with the intention of maintaining a good relationship that may result in a further extension (if the numbers make sense and his play holds up). that's a more valid argument than taking an unnecessary risk for no reason just because they consider the risk to be small

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:29 PM

Key word trying. So they didn’t do it. As in right now, with no guessing, DeRozan is in control of what happens. So with no guessing, and that in mind, it’s odd for SA to do this and there is some risk to this even if the risk is deemed to be minor.Nah. They did it because the risk is minor and signals to everyone that they don't want to blow up the team anytime soon.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:30 PM

no, the argument is that if you can mitigate risk (however small) at no cost, it makes logical sense to do so.

as timvp suggests , they are approaching it as a showing of goodwill with the intention of maintaining a good relationship that may result in a further extension (if the numbers make sense and his play holds up). that's a more valid argument than taking an unnecessary risk for no reason just because they consider the risk to be small:lmao no one said it was for no reason.

sasaint

10-23-2019, 07:30 PM

Why do it now though? The partial guarantee could've made his contract a useful trade chip at the deadline.

LMA was never gonna get traded at this deadline.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:32 PM

:lmao no one said it was for no reason.
the reason for the guarantee was the basis of this entire conversation

why would they do this now?

you: because they dont think he will get hurt.

but why do it now when they could do it later? (aka, what other reason is there)

you: because they dont think he will get hurt

sasaint

10-23-2019, 07:32 PM

Why do it now? What is the tangible benefit for SA?

Reassures a player who might feel a little insecure...?

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:35 PM

the reason for the guarantee was the basis of this entire conversation

why would they do this now?

you: because they dont think he will get hurt.

but why do it now when they could do it later? (aka, what other reason is there)

you: because they dont think he will get hurt:lol I just listed the reason above the post you quoted. If you want to pretend I didn't, that's fine. I won't repeat myself.

sasaint

10-23-2019, 07:36 PM

Nah. They did it because the risk is minor and signals to everyone that they don't want to blow up the team anytime soon.

Yep. Just the signal they would want to send Dumbmar if they are in serious negotiations with him at this time.

Dverde

10-23-2019, 07:37 PM

I still think LMA is staying here or going back to Portland. I’d be shocked if he ever wears another jersey.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:39 PM

:lol I just listed the reason above the post you quoted. If you want to pretend I didn't, that's fine. I won't repeat myself.
oh so their reason was to signal to other people their plans. got it.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:39 PM

oh so their reason was to signal to other people their plans. got it.Sure. With your admitted minimal risk, why not?

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:43 PM

Sure. With your admitted minimal risk, why not?
whats the value of signaling their plans?

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 07:46 PM

whats the value of signaling their plans?Keeping the players they want to keep. They weren't signalling you.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 07:53 PM

Keeping the players they want to keep. They weren't signalling you.
elaborate... whats an example of how giving out this signal would help the spurs?

Uriel

10-23-2019, 07:53 PM

LMA was never gonna get traded at this deadline.
I know, but at least doing it later would've kept that option on the table.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 08:07 PM

elaborate... whats an example of how giving out this signal would help the spurs?It lets the other players and their agents know that ST Armchair GM Operation Blow It Up As Soon As Possible isn't actually the plan. Players looking to sign for more years in a stable Spurs situation might actually like that.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:12 PM

It lets the other players and their agents know that ST Armchair GM Operation Blow It Up As Soon As Possible isn't actually the plan. Players looking to sign for more years in a stable Spurs situation might actually like that.
nice, we can re-sign patty and marco now.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 08:13 PM

nice, we can re-sign patty and marco now.Are those the only players you can think of who might be re-signing? Seems pretty disingenuous tbh.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:19 PM

Are those the only players you can think of who might be re-signing? Seems pretty disingenuous tbh.
i haven't heard anything of the spurs being in discussions to extend any current players beyond derozan. murray has already re-upped. white/walker are still cost controlled. i mean you're looking at bryn/poodle, but they could easily wait until later in the season to guarantee LMA's salary if that's the only reason. and that's assuming those guys' decisions to re-up are influenced by LMA's contract now being guaranteed

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 08:20 PM

i haven't heard anything of the spurs being in discussions to extend any current players beyond derozan. murray has already re-upped. white/walker are still cost controlled. i mean you're looking at bryn/poodle, but they could easily wait until later in the season to guarantee LMA's salary if that's the only reason. and that's assuming those guys' decisions to re-up are influenced by LMA's contract now being guaranteedOh, so there ARE other players all the sudden.:tu

ZeusWillJudge

10-23-2019, 08:21 PM

LMA at that price makes more sense than any garbage free agent next summer.

That's a fact. Looking at the recent contracts, LMA for $24M is a bargain. Next year's FA class is weak, so he would be a hot commodity. So much so that I hope the decision was the result of talks between LMA and the team. They have a right to lock him up, but it prevents him from getting that last big contract next season. So I hope it was done in a way that says they team really wants him around.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:21 PM

Oh, so there ARE other players all the sudden.:tu
if they are talking to their agents, and they say they will re-sign if they have assurances that LMA is going to be around, then yes that would be a reason. but there hasn't been any reporting (spurs beat writers are notoriously terrible) of extension talks with those guys. and doing it now still provides no tangible benefit compared to... doing it next month, or 3 months from now, etc. the farther along you do it, the more risk you are mitigating. unless those guys are going to extend imminently, it serves no purpose (on that front) to guarantee him now

ZeusWillJudge

10-23-2019, 08:23 PM

LOL. Thread devolution at its finest.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 08:26 PM

if they are talking to their agents, and they say they will re-sign if they have assurances that LMA is going to be around, then yes that would be a reason. but there hasn't been any reporting (spurs beat writers are notoriously terrible) of extension talks with those guys. and doing it now still provides no tangible benefit compared to... doing it next month, or 3 months from now, etc. the farther along you do it, the more risk you are mitigating. unless those guys are going to extend imminently, it serves no purpose (on that front) to guarantee him nowYou already said the risk was minimal. Waiting for the risk to be even minimaler makes minimal sense. Might as well just tie it in with DJ's signing now.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:29 PM

You already said the risk was minimal. Waiting for the risk to be even minimaler makes minimal sense. Might as well just tie it in with DJ's signing now.
it's still good sense to reduce a risk when there's no cost associated with it. why put the cart before the horse, even if you anticipate that the horse will catch up?

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 08:32 PM

it's still good sense to reduce a risk when there's no cost associated with it. why put the cart before the horse, even if you anticipate that the horse will catch up?Again, the other available horses are garbage. Those other horses are shitty nags. Why keep shitty options open if they're shitty?

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:35 PM

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 08:36 PM

risk of injury or some rapid decline during the season. the above makes sense if they were exercising an option. they wouldn't lose anything on that front by waiting a few monthsAnd they don't think that's going to happen. Easy choice when any other option is going to be shitty anyway.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:38 PM

And they don't think that's going to happen.
and yet no tangible cost in waiting it out

Easy choice when any other option is going to be shitty anyway.
the choice might be a 24 million dollar aldridge that cant play who is fully guaranteed

ZeusWillJudge

10-23-2019, 08:41 PM

Again, the other available horses are garbage. Those other horses are shitty nags. Why keep shitty options open if they're shitty?

risk of injury or some rapid decline during the season. the above makes sense if they were exercising an option. they wouldn't lose anything on that front by waiting a few months. the only thing they'd lose that you've brought up is signaling, which unless one of their key guys gets extended midseason, didnt accomplish anything

Why are you arguing this so hard? You've got a chance to sign an important player for well less than the current market price, and you want to wait and see, just in case he gets injured? Damn. If teams thought that way, why would they ever sign a multi-year contract. Every player in the league is one missed step from a torn ACL. These teams would just be paralyzed.

Sometimes you just have to admit that you didn't think things all the way through and move on. Pavlov is exactly right. The other FA "opportunities" next year are pretty much shite. Lock up Aldridge and move on to other priorities.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 08:44 PM

Why are you arguing this so hard? You've got a chance to sign an important player for well less than the current market price, and you want to wait and see, just in case he gets injured? Damn. If teams thought that way, why would they ever sign a multi-year contract. Every player in the league is one missed step from a torn ACL. These teams would just be paralyzed.

Sometimes you just have to admit that you didn't think things all the way through and move on. Pavlov is exactly right. The other FA "opportunities" next year are pretty much shite. Lock up Aldridge and move on to other priorities.
the idea of signing a multi-year deal is to prevent the player from leaving in free agency after one year. that's not the issue here. sometimes you negotiate a team option, sometimes you negotiate a player option. sometimes you have a partial guarantee.

Aldridge is already under contract for next season. a partial guarantee for that last year was negotiated by the parties.

again, as timvp wrote in the article, it was likely a showing of good faith with the hope of fostering a continuing relationship with LMA. i can buy that as a reason.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 09:13 PM

and yet no tangible cost in waiting it outAnd no real cost in doing it.

the choice might be a 24 million dollar aldridge that cant play who is fully guaranteedWhat are the odds that happens?

Minimal, as you stated and don't want to repeat.

spurraider21

10-23-2019, 09:17 PM

And no real cost in doing it.

What are the odds that happens?

Minimal, as you stated and don't want to repeat.
i'd rather avoid a minimal risk than take on a minimal risk, generally.

Pavlov

10-23-2019, 09:20 PM

i'd rather avoid a minimal risk than take on a minimal risk, generally.Great. Good for you.

MoSpur02

10-23-2019, 09:27 PM

Again, Spurs' turnovers are the only thing keeping the Knicks in the game. I'm giving the Spurs a pass since it's the first game of the season.

offset formation

10-24-2019, 10:02 AM

Why do it now though? The partial guarantee could've made his contract a useful trade chip at the deadline.

Please explain why the Spurs should trade LA -- their leading scorer for most of the past 5 seasons?

Who also happens to be a very hard worker and solid D big?

Why?

CGD

10-24-2019, 10:08 AM

If/when they move him, it feels like they want to build some good will so the next team doesn’t just salary dump him. That way they can tell him, “don’t bitch, we just gave you a 16m send off” when they deliver the trade news.

If they end up keeping him, it’s still good value for two years.

MultiTroll

10-25-2019, 05:27 PM

Why do it now though? The partial guarantee could've made his contract a useful trade chip at the deadline.and gotten more effort out of him.

SpursDynasty85

10-25-2019, 05:55 PM

Who would trade for him only to release him? Wouldnt someone trading for him want him for the full year at the bargain rate of $24M?

CGD

10-25-2019, 06:06 PM

Sounds like they didn’t official guarantee him but rather moved up his “guarantee by” to January 2020 (per Hollinger). Wonder what that’s all about?

Slippy

10-25-2019, 06:19 PM

Again, Spurs' turnovers are the only thing keeping the Knicks in the game. I'm giving the Spurs a pass since it's the first game of the season.

20 TOs by 3 quarters is exceptional. Usually results in a loss but this was the knicks

spurraider21

12-17-2019, 03:50 PM

DPG21920

12-18-2019, 11:35 AM

You rang?

JeffDuncan

12-18-2019, 11:55 AM

Sounds like they didn’t official guarantee him but rather moved up his “guarantee by” to January 2020 (per Hollinger). Wonder what that’s all about?

Something for the accountant. They wanted to put LMA's guarantee date in the next calendar year.