I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-20-2009
exstatic

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Jackson wasn't asking for much; he just wanted 5 years and Pop only wanted to give 3.

5 Years $25M, versus 3 years $9M. A bit of a difference.

If you perform for the Spurs over time, you pay goes up over time, but they will not break the bank on the first FA contract. They'll leave accruing those kind of awful contracts to the Knicks.

I'm glad they chose Manu, for what it's worth, and yes, that ultimately was the choice.
03-20-2009
exstatic

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Jackson is the greatest clutch shooter this team has ever had...

Excuse me? I never arrive here if Stephen Jackson is re-signed.
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblog...ngin/horry.jpg
03-20-2009
Booharv

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by timvp

Uh, have you been following along in the last six years? Parker's rep has been forever tainted by that game. And he's still crucified to this day about it. Parker is connected to that game more than any player in Spurs history is connected to any game.

The number one reason Parker will never gain superstar status among Spurs fan is the lone game. He could play in five more All-Star games and Spurs fans will still connect him to Game 6 against the Nets.

No doubt he was horrible in that game but it's pretty amazing to me that the storyline from that series isn't how a first ballot Hall of Fame point guard at his absolute peak of performance couldn't handle a 20-year-old second year player ... to the point that the Nets were forced to put Kittles on him.

Going into that series, a lot of people were not only saying Kidd should have been the MVP but that he was actually better than Duncan. Parker basically outplayed him in the first three games but the only thing that will be remember is Parker sucked in Game 6.

I can't think of a scenario in which TP's rep ever fully recovers. Duncan's rep was hurt after his Game 5 performance against the Pistons but after the Spurs won the championship, the criticism he got for that game disappeared.

The closest rep destroyer in Spurs history is probably David Robinson losing to the Warriors in his second season. That loss hung over his head for a long time but it's mostly gone now ... but it took two championships to recover.

Hakeem sodomizing D-Rob in '95 was much, much worse than the Warriors series. Most casual NBA fans have never heard of the Warriors series, but a ton remember what Hakeem did to Shaq, Ewing, and Robinson in 94 and 95. Save me the refereeing, double versus single b.s. arguments by the way. I watched every game of that series and Robinson got owned by Hakeem.
03-20-2009
vander

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by exstatic

Ginobili had only been under contract for 2 years, and therefor had no Bird rights. We had to use cap room to re-sign him, cap room that we wouldn't have had if Jack were signed to a large deal like he wanted. Are you following any of this?

there were plenty of ways we could have kept Manu in 04 even with SJAX on the payroll, the easiest way would have been the early bird exemption, you knew about the early bird exemption right? :lol
03-20-2009
baseline bum

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by exstatic

Excuse me? I never arrive here if Stephen Jackson is re-signed.
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblog...ngin/horry.jpg

Or maybe you do and Rasho doesn't.
03-20-2009
baseline bum

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by vander

there were plenty of ways we could have kept Manu in 04 even with SJAX on the payroll, the easiest way would have been the early bird exemption, you knew about the early bird exemption right? :lol

Early Bird would only have allowed the team to sign Manu up to the MLE. I don't think it's crazy to think Manu would pull a Bowen and resign at a discount for one year until he was Full Bird though.
03-20-2009
vander

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Early Bird would only have allowed the team to sign Manu up to the MLE.

no the MLE would have allowed the Spurs to sign manu up to the MLE
early bird is 150% of MLE

edit: or rather, 175% of average NBA salary, which was 4.9 mill in 04-05
03-20-2009
baseline bum

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by vander

no the MLE would have allowed the Spurs to sign manu up to the MLE
early bird is 150% of MLE

That's not the way I remember it with Gilbert Arenas in Golden State.
03-20-2009
vander

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseline bum

That's not the way I remember it with Gilbert Arenas in Golden State.

Arenas started at 8.5 in 03, much more then the MLE
03-20-2009
baseline bum

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by vander

no the MLE would have allowed the Spurs to sign manu up to the MLE
early bird is 150% of MLE

edit: or rather, 175% of average NBA salary, which was 4.9 mill in 04-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by NBA CBA

http://www.nbpa.com/downloads/CBA.pdf

(3) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two
Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year) and, subject to Article II, Section 7, may provide in
the first Season up to the greater of: (i) 175% of the Regular Salary for the final Season covered by his prior
Contract, plus 175% of any Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, called for in the final Season
covered by the player’s prior Contract, or (ii) 108% of the Average Player Salary for the prior Season (or if the
prior Season’s Average Player Salary has not been determined, 108% of the Estimated Average Player Salary for
the prior Season). Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section
5(c)(2) above.

...
...
...
(q) “Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent” means a Veteran Free Agent who, prior to becoming a Veteran
Free Agent, played under one or more Player Contracts covering some or all of each of the two preceding
Seasons, and who: (i) either exclusively played with his Prior Team during such two Seasons, or, if he played for
more than one Team during such period, changed Teams only (x) by means of assignment, or (y) by signing with
his Prior Team during the first of the two Seasons; or (ii) became a Veteran Free Agent on July 1, 1998 and
played with his Prior Team for some or all of each of the preceding two Seasons, and who did not change Teams
during such two Seasons by signing with his Prior Team as a Veteran Free Agent.

So it's the maximum of 108% of the MLE and 175% of his previous year's salary. If it was 175% of a $4.9 million MLE, then the Warriors could have given Arenas more than the $8.3 million you said he signed in Washington for.
03-21-2009
vander

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseline bum

So it's the maximum of 108% of the MLE and 175% of his previous year's salary. If it was 175% of a $4.9 million MLE, then the Warriors could have given Arenas more than the $8.3 million you said he signed in Washington for.

hmm, 4.9 x 1.75 = 8.575 and the 4.9 is a rounded figure, probably rounded up, so my way works out nicely

edit: also, 4.9 might not be the right number, that was for the 04-05 season, 03-04 was probably less
03-21-2009
baseline bum

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by vander

hmm, 4.9 x 1.75 = 8.575 and the 4.9 is a rounded figure, probably rounded up, so my way works out nicely

http://www.nbpa.com/downloads/CBA.pdf

(3) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year) and, subject to Article II, Section 7, may provide in the first Season up to the greater of: (i) 175% of the Regular Salary for the final Season covered by his prior Contract, plus 175% of any Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, called for in the final Season covered by the player’s prior Contract, or (ii) 108% of the Average Player Salary for the prior Season (or if the prior Season’s Average Player Salary has not been determined, 108% of the Estimated Average Player Salary for the prior Season). Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section 5(c)(2) above.

Here's the definition of Regular Salary, straight from the CBA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nba cba

(rr) “Regular Salary” means a player’s Salary, less any component thereof that is a signing bonus (or deemed a signing bonus in accordance with Article VII) and any component thereof that is Incentive Compensation.
03-21-2009
vander

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseline bum

http://www.nbpa.com/downloads/CBA.pdf

(3) If the player is an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, the new Player Contract must cover at least two Seasons (not including a Season covered by an Option Year) and, subject to Article II, Section 7, may provide in the first Season up to the greater of: (i) 175% of the Regular Salary for the final Season covered by his prior Contract, plus 175% of any Likely Bonuses and Unlikely Bonuses, respectively, called for in the final Season covered by the player’s prior Contract, or (ii) 108% of the Average Player Salary for the prior Season (or if the prior Season’s Average Player Salary has not been determined, 108% of the Estimated Average Player Salary for the prior Season). Annual increases and decreases in Salary and Unlikely Bonuses shall be governed by Section 5(c)(2) above.

Here's the definition of Regular Salary, straight from the CBA:

hmm, well I read 175% in many other places, could be that the 05 deal changed to 108% and the old CBA was 175%

whether it was 108 or 175 in 04, it still would have been plenty easy to keep manu with SJAX on the payroll
03-21-2009
VI_Massive

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

with jackson I think it was as much about years as dollars. The Spurs don't like to sign non big 3 guys to longer deals and jackson wanted that security.
03-21-2009
santymrc

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by vander

hmm, well I read 175% in many other places, could be that the 05 deal changed to 108% and the old CBA was 175%

whether it was 108 or 175 in 04, it still would have been plenty easy to keep manu with SJAX on the payroll

I usually dont post anything and just read. I remember a lot of talk that clearly explained that sjax couldnt be signed if we wanted to keep manu.

Vander, you have compared MJ with SJAX in this post and posted nonsenses all over, time for a break for you, go take a walk.
03-21-2009
baseline bum

Re: I watched the 2003 finals game 6 last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by santymrc

I usually dont post anything and just read. I remember a lot of talk that clearly explained that sjax couldnt be signed if we wanted to keep manu.

Vander, you have compared MJ with SJAX in this post and posted nonsenses all over, time for a break for you, go take a walk.

The Spurs fucked up bigtime picking Rasho over Jackson, but they were itching to blow that money after being turned down by Kidd and O'Neal.

I can't understand the rationale that said you don't sign Stephen Jackson for 5 years but you go and blow twice as much on a known vagina.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page