Hollinger's Offseason Winners - Spurs Included - (Insider)

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...winners-100726

San Antonio Spurs

http://a.espncdn.com/i/teamlogos/nba/lrg/sas.gif


I put the Spurs here because they got under the luxury tax while signing the best free-agent contract of the summer, Brazilian big man Tiago Splitter's three-year, $10 million deal. Splitter could start at center for a good chunk of the league's teams right now, but in a summer in which Brendan Haywood got $55 million, San Antonio got Splitter to cross the pond for relative chump change.


On the other hand, they got under the tax solely because Richard Jefferson opted out of a final year on his deal that would have paid him $15 million. This one raised eyebrows in front offices around the league, many of which suspected that there was a prearranged deal between the two parties.



This isn't an outlandish premise, given that:


• Jefferson told reporters in April that it might be worth it to opt out if he could get a four-year, $40 million deal (he said it right here on April 11).


• That's almost to the dollar the deal he received in July.


• Doing so got the Spurs out of the luxury tax and allowed them to sign Splitter at a discount.


• There didn't appear to be any kind of serious bid from another team to drive up Jefferson's price.



That said, we have no smoking gun that there was any kind of prearranged deal between the Spurs and Jefferson. We don't even have a smokeless gun. All we have is the circumstantial evidence above, as well as two other pieces of information:



1. The Spurs don't sign bad contracts.


2. This is the worst contract of the summer.



Seriously, four years and $39 million for Richard Jefferson? Did Isiah Thomas take over the franchise and not tell anybody? Wings who depend on athleticism have a rough time in their late 20s and early 30s; Jefferson just turned 30. He wasn't a $10 million per year player two years ago, and sure as heck isn't going to be one two years down the road.


Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing.



So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.

I guess I'm glad somebody in the media stopped deepthroating the FO for once

Bonner was the worst signing of the summer. Where is the outrage??

Quote:

---

So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.

---

:flag:

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no one tell him we re-signed the red choker...raptor arms has soo much upside its ridiculous!!! i mean he must if you let go of haislip/ratliff/mahinmi for the most unathletic big in the league. please dont give me the haislip sucked story, if he would have put haislip out there for more than 2minutes when were up by 20 or down by 20 we would have def seen him exceed matt " post season" bonner.

all haislip needed was a little time to get some type of chance then matt breaks his hand wohhoo haislip gets a some minutes!! hell no pop played richard jefferson at the 4 and dejuan blair (love the kid)all im saying is this time last year i was soo freaking excited until pop pulled his stubborn absurd lineups for reasons only tom cruise or his ex findog knows

" Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing"

This is really how we should look at his extension. Sure years 3 and 4 of his contract will be bad, but that's a price to take to at least try to stay relevant for now while not being over the tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonard Curse

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no one tell him we re-signed the red choker...raptor arms has soo much upside its ridiculous!!! i mean he must if you let go of haislip/ratliff/mahinmi for the most unathletic big in the league. please dont give me the haislip sucked story, if he would have put haislip out there for more than 2minutes when were up by 20 or down by 20 we would have def seen him exceed matt " post season" bonner.

all haislip needed was a little time to get some type of chance then matt breaks his hand wohhoo haislip gets a some minutes!! hell no pop played richard jefferson at the 4 and dejuan blair (love the kid)all im saying is this time last year i was soo freaking excited until pop pulled his stubborn absurd lineups for reasons only tom cruise or his ex findog knows

---

Haislip? Seriously?

Considering the luxury tax situation and how much they were going to spend on Jefferson (22-25 million figuring LT) I don't see how the hell anyone can call that the worst contract of the offseason. There were so many bad contracts that I think for anyone to even say that is complete bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ogait

" Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing"

This is really how we should look at his extension. Sure years 3 and 4 of his contract will be bad, but that's a price to take to at least try to stay relevant for now while not being over the cap.

---

the extension should be look like we Subtract $17 million from $39 not from 31$ million, and that give us 22$ million for 3 years extension - 7.3 million per season!

I thinks the worst contract is Joe Johnson for zillion of dollars. Or Haywood for half a zillion. Or giving Rudy Gay max extension without making quallifying offer and waiting to match other team`s offers.

I think Hollinger is basically spot on. He calls Jefferson's contract the worst of the offseason but does explain the Spurs' reasoning for doing what they did.

I like the Spurs moves. Realistically, what other options did they have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

the extension should be look like we Subtract $17 million from $39 not from 31$ million, and that give us 22$ million for 3 years extension - 7.3 million per season!

---

Nope, Hollinger wrote this corretly. With 9 mln RJ new contract counted in, Spurs are saving 17 mln $. So this money can be subtracted from salary from last 3 years of deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

the extension should be look like we Subtract $17 million from $39 not from 31$ million, and that give us 22$ million for 3 years extension - 7.3 million per season!

---

He assumes an extension would be made after this year as if he hasn't opted out of his contract. It can't be 39$ - 17$ because he will receive 31 $ millions for the finals 3 years of his current 4 years deal.

Jefferson's contract is not good, but "the worst"? Amir Johnson? Johan Petro? Darko? JJ?

That performance incentive deal is pretty interesting I wish it were a bit higher and the guaranteed money was a little lower.

Well, its been a known fact that players usually play a lot better after a year playing within the Spurs system. If by some miracle, Jefferson plays to what everyone expected from him last year, then I think its a good deal. I honestly didn't want Jefferson back but considering what was out there, this deal was the best the FO could do. So, I'll reserve any type of judgment until after the season begins and see where Jefferson's play stands.

From the money perspective it's not bad. But i'm sure the FO was praying that some other team could match the offer. Then the FO would work to get a S&T. That would be the best cenario. And that's what the FO really wanted.

He doesn't fit and Pop and RC Buford know it. It's not a matter of time to get into the system, it's a matter of playing style.

Let's just hope RJ puts some effort in his defense and can shoot at least decently from the arc.

I assume that RJ's contract doesn't have a no-trade clause in it, so the Spurs might do even better with his contract in the years to come if things change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonard Curse

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no one tell him we re-signed the red choker...raptor arms has soo much upside its ridiculous!!! i mean he must if you let go of haislip/ratliff/mahinmi for the most unathletic big in the league. please dont give me the haislip sucked story, if he would have put haislip out there for more than 2minutes when were up by 20 or down by 20 we would have def seen him exceed matt " post season" bonner.

all haislip needed was a little time to get some type of chance then matt breaks his hand wohhoo haislip gets a some minutes!! hell no pop played richard jefferson at the 4 and dejuan blair (love the kid)all im saying is this time last year i was soo freaking excited until pop pulled his stubborn absurd lineups for reasons only tom cruise or his ex findog knows

---

Haislip?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...w363QAE-Y2Poc=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deibero

Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing.



So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.

---

As much as I can't stand Hollinger, this is probably the best argument for the contract I have heard.

That said, I would have rather let him walk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

As much as I can't stand Hollinger, this is probably the best argument for the contract I have heard.

That said, I would have rather let him walk.

---

Maybe that wasn't an option if it was all pre arranged between them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ogait

Maybe that wasn't an option if it was all pre arranged between them.

---

What would've held them back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

That said, I would have rather let him walk.

---

What other 12 ppg small forward would you have chosen in our price range? I sure hope RJ has a better upcoming season than last, but he showed signs of beginning to "get it" about 2/3 of the way into last season. Given the limited pool of small forwards and the inflated prices they were getting, RJ is still the best fit.

Anyways, when does training camp starts? :hungry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Bottomtooth

What would've held them back?

---

Jefferson doesn't opt out in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ogait

Jefferson doesn't opt out in the first place?

---

I thought you meant it wasn't an option to continue on with the arrangements. I was asking what would stop them from getting rid of the plans after he opted out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Bottomtooth

I thought you meant it wasn't an option to continue on with the arrangements. I was asking what would stop them from getting rid of the plans after he opted out.

---

Probably the complete absence of correctly priced small forward free agents.

After letting the contract details for Jefferson's contract settle in more I feel better. Its not that bad considering all the other contracts that were being handed out to guys like Haywood, J Johnson, and Gay. Its Bonner's contract that bothers me more than Jefferson's. Bonner has been a Spur longer than Jefferson and come playoff time his huevos shrevel up. To me that doesn't get rewarded with a raise. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ogait

He assumes an extension would be made after this year as if he hasn't opted out of his contract. It can't be 39$ - 17$ because he will receive 31 $ millions for the finals 3 years of his current 4 years deal.

---

he should first count the difference between the old salary for this year(17 million) and the new salary for this year(8 million) and than subtract it from the 31 million extension, so it still being 22 million 3 years extension!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Bottomtooth

I thought you meant it wasn't an option to continue on with the arrangements. I was asking what would stop them from getting rid of the plans after he opted out.

---

you mean:
RJ: hey guys i can opt out this year if you give me a different contract for more years.
SA: sure. Opt out and let's talk.
RJ:Ok i opte'd out.
SA. Haha we're not gonna sign you sucker.

I guess that could happen :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

he should first count the difference between the old salary for this year(17 million) and the new salary for this year(8 million) and than subtract it from the 31 million extension, so it still being 22 million 3 years extension!

---

His old salary for this year wasn't 17 million, it was almost 15 million but that value doesn't matter now. Those 17 million refer to the saving the spurs make this year due to the fact fact that he opted out of his contract and signed a new one with a lesser value in his first year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

As much as I can't stand Hollinger, this is probably the best argument for the contract I have heard.

---

On July 21

(with the assumption of a 32/4 contract instead of 39/4 but the reasoning is the same)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

I think a lot of people don't realize how bad the situation was for the Spurs before RJ opted out. He was owned $15.2m plus the luxury tax, which would probably have been around $7m. I'm sure he told the Spurs "give me the $22m I would have cost you last year but spread over 2 years, then $5m per year for 2 more years for a total of $32m over 4 years".

I don't understand why people would prefer RJ for 1 year for $22m rather than RJ for 4 years for $32m total, with a nice trade chip at the end. Wiht that kind of contract the Spurs basically get RJ for 3.5m/y for 3 years...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

Bonner was the worst signing of the summer. Where is the outrage??

---

Agreed! The worthless one should've been sent packing instead we sign this loser! WTF!:bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Anyways, when does training camp starts? :hungry:

---

Seriously, I'm excited again. Even though I was soured on NBALPBB last season I'm going to find it hard to not pick it up again this season. I have to watch this team now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

On July 21

(with the assumption of a 32/4 contract instead of 39/4 but the reasoning is the same)

---

What do you want? A pat on the ass? Chalk it up to ADD.

Other teams don't care about what kind of math you can do when factoring in RJ's contract. It was a terrible contract, especially when you look at the Spurs situation (which will cause more arguments), and all of this is opinion.

Whether you want to officially crown it the worst deal or not is irrelevant. It is a terrible deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

What do you want? A pat on the ass? Chalk it up to ADD.

---

I guess I will have to be happy with the fact that I apparently annoyed you. Better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mal

I thinks the worst contract is Joe Johnson for zillion of dollars. Or Haywood for half a zillion. Or giving Rudy Gay max extension without making quallifying offer and waiting to match other team`s offers.

---

^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

Rudy Gay is a lot better than RJ. He has upside and it is safe to assume, with the contracts given out that Gay would have gotten a similar offer. Joe Johnson is an elite player and while overpaid, he would have gotten a similar offer from another team less the extra year. Haywood does not have the same effect on the Mavs as RJ does the Spurs because their owner will spend a ton of money.

No one wanted RJ, he is declining and he did nothing to help the team that signed him achieve their goals. He has a long term contract that goes up in price as he ages.

All things considering, that's marvellously pessimistic.

I'm sure the went down like this:

Sometime in April
RC/Pop: Look RJ, if you were to opt out of your final year, you could save the Spurs $17M next year and allow us to go get Splitter and maybe somebody else to help.
Rj: What do I get out of that - why would I walk away from $15M when I won't command close to that in FA?
RC/Pop: We will take care of you - how does 4/$40 sound to you?
Rj: That sounds pretty good.
*Handshake*

Sometime around July 7th Pop and RC are sitting around having some wine.
RC: Popdammit, nobody wants RJ and he is a terrible fit with our team.
Pop: No shit, what are we going to do - he probably wouldn't command more than the MLE from anybody else.
RC: Well, we did have the handshake deal in place....it would be pretty shitty of us to hang him out to dry after he helped us out.
Pop: That's true - we don't want to become the Carlos Boozer of NBA franchises. Also there aren't any other good SFs out there anyway. Let's pray that all the work I've put in with him this summer will pay off.
RC: Good points. At least we can still laugh at that faggot ass Mark Cuban for giving Haywood $55M. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbendbruisebrother

What other 12 ppg small forward would you have chosen in our price range? I sure hope RJ has a better upcoming season than last, but he showed signs of beginning to "get it" about 2/3 of the way into last season. Given the limited pool of small forwards and the inflated prices they were getting, RJ is still the best fit.

---

That not really the point. The point is you don't pay 40 million to a player that you hope will play better. You pay to players that you are pretty sure will.

IMO the Spurs are not marginally worse signing someone like Bobby Simmons and giving Gee/Hairston the rest of the minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

That not really the point. The point is you don't pay 40 million to a player that you hope will play better. You pay to players that you are pretty sure will.

IMO the Spurs are not marginally worse signing someone like Bobby Simmons and giving Gee/Hairston the rest of the minutes.

---

I'm sorry, but that's laughable. Simmons is crap.

No one will be laughing this time next year.

I'm sick of all the idiots on here drilling RJ for not putting up big numbers.
He is our 4th option and his numbers were that of a 4th option.
When he was the 3rd or maybe once the 2nd option he put up big games, even put a few together when TP was out.
Not many players as a 4th option to TD, TP and Manu would have put much better numbers up, plus TP being score first doesn't help.
Plus going from 1st/2nd option most his career it was never going to be an easy transition going to 4th, that and having a massive contract over his head with every NBA supporter giving it to him.
I think things will fall into place and he will play a much bigger role in our drive for 5 this coming season.

Its not his offense people are complaining about a hug amount, we're mostly ok with it. It would be nice if there was a better jump shot so that space was kinder, and being crisper with better passing would be nice, but the real problem is lack-luster defense, moments of head in assness resulting in missed rebounds and defensive switches and the occasional turn over. Some of this is probably bound to be better with the second year in system but the real problem seemed to be unless he was being fed the ball on offense more than he could reasonably expect, his brain had a serious tendency to shut down and he merely went into some sort of basketball auto-pilot where he became the closest observer in at the nba game.

I hear your point
Maybe that we have a new big that appears to be able to play RJ will spend less time playing power forward a role that I’d suggest had an impact on his rebounding. It did look as though when pop took him away from that PF role after all star break and his rebounding and general defence did improve, though not all the time but there were a lot more solid games but still plenty of improvement to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

Bonner was the worst signing of the summer. Where is the outrage??

---

It is here on SpursTalk :sleep :flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

No one will be laughing this time next year.

---

About what?

That R.J was the most realistic and best option Spurs could have signed this off-season?

Or the fact that with or without R.J, Spurs wouldn't be able to afford a significant free agent the next 2 years anyway? Without R.J, Spurs would have around 6-8 million in cap space next year and that figure declines the following year (w/out Parker) and Spurs would have no MLE or LLE to work with. With R.J the next 2 years, Spurs have the MLE and LLE to spend (with or without Parker re-signed). What a big difference right?

So as of right now, Spurs only have one 11 million dollar contract on the books in 4 years and it is expiring. Oh no, our future is sooo fucked. :rolleyes

Again...him potentially being the best option is not the point. The point is he is not a championship piece and the Spurs gave him a contract like he is one. The Spurs are no more in contention with RJ than they are without. He doesn't matter that much...period.

TMac and Bobby Simmons are both still out there. The Spurs could sign either one them and play the youngsters the rest of the minutes and would not be marginally worse.

Trying to prop the window open by re-signing RJ to a big deal hoping he gets it right is reeks of desperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

Again...him potentially being the best option is not the point. The point is he is not a championship piece and the Spurs gave him a contract like he is one. The Spurs are no more in contention with RJ than they are without. He doesn't matter that much...period.

TMac and Bobby Simmons are both still out there. The Spurs could sign either one them and play the youngsters the rest of the minutes and would not be marginally worse.

---

I think you are underrating Jefferson or just overrating Bobby fucking Simmons. I know you don't like the deal but let us not exaggerate Simmons' basketball abilities or Hairston or Gee's, because there is no way it is a marginal talent difference.

Whatever. I'm sorry that 40 million dollars has suddenly made RJ look like LeBron in the eyes of many of you. He sucks and will continue to suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

Whatever. I'm sorry that 40 million dollars has suddenly made RJ look like LeBron in the eyes of many of you. He sucks and will continue to suck.

---

:lol

Not really

Maybe you are just too good at over-exaggerating. From "R.J looks like LeBron to many of you", to " Bobby Simmons= R.J".


Some of us are just aware that he was the best available option. And we are satisfied and feel fortunate Spurs did everything they could do (realistically) to bring in the best possible pieces (at center; at the 5th big; at SF). At the same time, most of us don't like the contract when you look at just the contract, but when you factor in the cap and financial situation the Spurs have in place from here on out, his salary per year and contract isn't nearly as bad as it is at first glance because it doesn't hurt the rebuilding process or the future when you actually break things down.

And some of us are aware that the Spurs are not much worse without him...something you will come to realize 6-8 months from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

And some of us are aware that the Spurs are not much worse without him...something you will come to realize 6-8 months from now.

---

No one will come to realize or prove anything, as the alternatives - Simmons, TMac, Hairston and Gee ( when waived ) - will not start for any other playoff team to prove your point, as they're all simply much worse than RJ at this moment in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

And some of us are aware that the Spurs are not much worse without him...something you will come to realize 6-8 months from now.

---

:lol

Not really because we won't have your Bobby Simmons scenario to compare.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Why didn't Jerry Buss and Mitch Kupchick go after Ime Udoka instead of Ron Artest last year for 1/5th the price? *According to you, statistically with the opportunities available they would have been marginally similar too*

Or why didn't they just let Odom go at 8 mil per season at 10 ppg and sign Tim Thomas for 2 million instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

:lol

Not really because we won't have your Bobby Simmons scenario to compare.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Why didn't Jerry Buss and Mitch Kupchick go after Ime Udoka instead of Ron Artest last year for 1/5th the price? *According to you, statistically with the opportunities available they would have been marginally similar too*

Or why didn't they just let Odom go at 8 mil per season at 10 ppg and sign Tim Thomas for 2 million instead?

---

:rolleyes

This is getting stupid. We'll see who's right soon enough.

Just to be clear here...I will gladly eat crow if by some act of God RJ starts to be a good fit for this team. I just don't see it happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

:rolleyes

This is getting stupid.

---

Probably because comparing Richard Jefferson and Bobby Simmons wasn't stupid enough...

Stupidity is paying a player 40 million in hopes that he will start to fit when he doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

Stupidity is paying a player 40 million in hopes that he will start to fit when he doesn't.

---

As I said in another thread, you failed Finance 101. This is the best the Spurs could do given the situation. The Spurs FO operates in the real world, you operate in a fantasy world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

:lol

Not really because we won't have your Bobby Simmons scenario to compare.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Why didn't Jerry Buss and Mitch Kupchick go after Ime Udoka instead of Ron Artest last year for 1/5th the price? *According to you, statistically with the opportunities available they would have been marginally similar too*

Or why didn't they just let Odom go at 8 mil per season at 10 ppg and sign Tim Thomas for 2 million instead?

---

Umm maybe because those moves strongly increased their chances at a title? When making moves with a title in mind, the only time it makes sense to spend the money is if you can reasonably conclude the moves give you a legit shot at a title. The Lakers knew that and they were correct.

We know RJ does nothing to realistically help the Spurs win a title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

We know RJ does nothing to realistically help the Spurs win a title.

---

For some reason this has become very difficult to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

As I said in another thread, you failed Finance 101. This is the best the Spurs could do given the situation. The Spurs FO operates in the real world, you operate in a fantasy world.

---

No...I operate in a world where you pay for a player that actually works for your team, no one you hope will work.

The bad tail end of this deal are lottery pick years.
This deal was a last best chance to win with Duncan deal.
Win-lose, but with fingers crossed that the win is bigger than the loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

We know RJ does nothing to realistically help the Spurs win a title.

---

The Spurs lose in the first round last year without RJ.

Simple fact.

You guys are really getting out of control with your hyperbole on RJ just to try to make it seem like he's incredibly horrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Umm maybe because those moves strongly increased their chances at a title? When making moves with a title in mind, the only time it makes sense to spend the money is if you can reasonably conclude the moves give you a legit shot at a title. The Lakers knew that and they were correct.

We know RJ does nothing to realistically help the Spurs win a title.

---

So do you mean that, if you're not going to win a title, you shouldn't spend money.

Well, but if we're going to reach WCF with RJ and quit in first round with Simmons, I'll buy RJ. Winning title doesn't mean everything, you can be a solid team if you're unable to win it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

No...I operate in a world where you pay for a player that actually works for your team, no one you hope will work.

---

Uh no, you work in a world where you sign a player who hasn't played a single minute on the Spurs or players who essentially are rookies and hope that they will work only because of your Bobby Simmons, Hairston and Gee scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

No...I operate in a world where you pay for a player that actually works for your team, no one you hope will work.

---

Apparently you operate in a world where RJ opts out regardless of the prearranged 4/40 offer from the Spurs. The money on the tail end of the deal should concern only Holt, but the deal doeasn't financially restrict the Spurs from assembling the best (realistically) possible team until Duncan retires.

This deal had to have been arranged in February or so. The Spurs had enough dignity to honor it, even when they could have lowballed him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The Spurs lose in the first round last year without RJ.

Simple fact.

---

Link? Also, so what? The Spurs goal is a title. Not a first round win and second round sweep. It is title or bust and that is the only fact.

Quote:

---

You guys are really getting out of control with your hyperbole on RJ just to try to make it seem like he's incredibly horrible.

---

No one is saying RJ is horrible. What we are saying is that he is a horrible fit for the Spurs. What we are also saying is that if the Spurs goal is to truly win a title, then signing a declining player to a LTD when you know he does not fit and does nothing to realistically help you win a title is a losing proposition. This has nothing to do with RJ himself. It has to do with the situation. RJ just happens to be the guy.

If you are looking at things in a bubble, RJ is superior basketball player compared to any other FA the Spurs could have obtained. No oneis disputing that. But when you stop looking at an overall talent and start looking at impact and fit that gap between RJ and whomever else shrinks. That does not mean the Spurs would be an overall better team without RJ, but that is what we are arguing. We are arguing that even though the Spurs are marginally better with RJ that they know it is no where near enough to win a title. That is their only goal. So with that in mind we are saying the contract is a terrible one.

I don't know what else the Spurs could have done to help themselves achieve their goal, but I do know giving that kind of money to someone who is aging, that does not fit & to whom you have the luxury of seeing concrete evidence of this is bad.

Like I said, it makes sense for LA to overpay Artest & Odom because you could reasonably conclude it strongly increased their chances for a title. RJ, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuncaboylu

So do you mean that, if you're not going to win a title, you shouldn't spend money.

Well, but if we're going to reach WCF with RJ and quit in first round with Simmons, I'll buy RJ. Winning title doesn't mean everything, you can be a solid team if you're unable to win it.

---

Logicfail. You can spend the money and make the moves if you are doing so with good logic. Some teams don't have the realistic goal of winning a title. Spurs do.

Sometimes you make a move and it does not work. You have to be ok with that. What is not ok is making the same mistake twice knowing you don't have a legit shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Link? Also, so what? The Spurs goal is a title. Not a first round win and second round sweep. It is title or bust and that is the only fact.

---

Link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Link? Also, so what? The Spurs goal is a title. Not a first round win and second round sweep. It is title or bust and that is the only fact.



No one is saying RJ is horrible. What we are saying is that he is a horrible fit for the Spurs. What we are also saying is that if the Spurs goal is to truly win a title, then signing a declining player to a LTD when you know he does not fit and does nothing to realistically help you win a title is a losing proposition. This has nothing to do with RJ himself. It has to do with the situation. RJ just happens to be the guy.

If you are looking at things in a bubble, RJ is superior basketball player compared to any other FA the Spurs could have obtained. No oneis disputing that. But when you stop looking at an overall talent and start looking at impact and fit that gap between RJ and whomever else shrinks. That does not mean the Spurs would be an overall better team without RJ, but that is what we are arguing. We are arguing that even though the Spurs are marginally better with RJ that they know it is no where near enough to win a title. That is their only goal. So with that in mind we are saying the contract is a terrible one.

I don't know what else the Spurs could have done to help themselves achieve their goal, but I do know giving that kind of money to someone who is aging, that does not fit & to whom you have the luxury of seeing concrete evidence of this is bad.

Like I said, it makes sense for LA to overpay Artest & Odom because you could reasonably conclude it strongly increased their chances for a title. RJ, not so much.

---

As I said before: Winning title may be the first aim of Spurs, but should w do nothing if we're not going to win the championship? Can't "Reaching to WCF" be the goal of Spurs? If we're not win the championship, should we tank the season? That has no logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

No one is saying RJ is horrible. What we are saying is that he is a horrible fit for the Spurs.

---

If RJ continues to be a bad fit next year, it is either because Pop is too stupid to realize it, or too stubborn to change the system to fit his players. Do you think either of these are true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Logicfail. You can spend the money and make the moves if you are doing so with good logic. Some teams don't have the realistic goal of winning a title. Spurs do.

Sometimes you make a move and it does not work. You have to be ok with that. What is not ok is making the same mistake twice knowing you don't have a legit shot.

---

But you don't have any solution offer. Spurs don't have a chance to win title this year, so what should they do? Don't resign with RJ and bring Simmons? For what? Tank this season and to get a free-agent next summer? We don't have any cap space next year, with or without RJ. We don2t have cap space in even 2012 summer. So why do we sign with Simmons instead of RJ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

If RJ continues to be a bad fit next year, it is either because Pop is too stupid to realize it, or too stubborn to change the system to fit his players. Do you think either of these are true?

---

So now it's gonna be Pop's fault the Spurs re-signed a player that doesn't fit. Got it.

ST is already coming up with excuses for the failure to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

If RJ continues to be a bad fit next year, it is either because Pop is too stupid to realize it, or too stubborn to change the system to fit his players. Do you think either of these are true?

---

It is all good. Apparently, the Spurs not playing as well as they did in 2009 as nothing to do with Tony Parker not playing up to standards like 2009, or Ginobili stinking it up for half a season. It had everything to do with a new addition like Jefferson. We will place all the fault on him replacing Bowen, Oberto and Thomas, 2 of which who did not even play regular minutes anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuncaboylu

As I said before: Winning title may be the first aim of Spurs, but should w do nothing if we're not going to win the championship? Can't "Reaching to WCF" be the goal of Spurs? If we're not win the championship, should we tank the season? That has no logic.

---

What? Where did I say that. I said IMO losing RJ does not change the Spurs all that much. That is one side of it.

The other side is to do something else: a trade, a gamble on a FA...something diff than RJ because we know that does not work. If the spurs did something different and struck out, ok. We have to live with that. But doing something we already know does not work makes little sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

Link?

---

You want a link to the articles stating this, bc I will post them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

You want a link to the articles stating this, bc I will post them.

---

Please do. I've never seen Pop, RC or Holt saying that it's title or bust or anything similar.I've seen them saying things like : we've tried to assemble the best possible team that'd give us a chance to contend ( which is what they've done this summer ) but nothing remotely close to title or bust.

I may be wrong, so yea, pls post these articles when you find the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuncaboylu

But you don't have any solution offer. Spurs don't have a chance to win title this year, so what should they do? Don't resign with RJ and bring Simmons? For what? Tank this season and to get a free-agent next summer? We don't have any cap space next year, with or without RJ. We don2t have cap space in even 2012 summer. So why do we sign with Simmons instead of RJ?

---

How is not re signing RJ, whom has only a marginal impact equal to tanking? There are always trades available as well.

So is it better to take a step closer to winning a championship, sure it is a marginal step (Jefferson, even though he has a longer contract), or take a step back, (don't sign him and sign Bobby Simmons instead) when it is obvious the Spurs wouldn't have cap space for 2012 or 2013 anyway?

The Spurs have tried to come up with something that could help them win a title, obviously they couldn't get it done because they are at a crossroads. We had a good run and now playoff fodder. As little of a step that is, the Spurs have been trying. It is easy to fault them for signing Jefferson to a long term contract, but the experiment only happened for a year, where there were 20+ different starting line-ups.

It's not about cap space, although RJ effects flexibility. It is about paying money, a lot of money, to a guy that does not move you toward a title. He *might keep you from going backwards, but he does not move you closer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

How is not re signing RJ, whom has only a marginal impact equal to tanking? There are always trades available as well.

---

There are always trades available as you aid. And they're available at the moment too. Did resigning RJ avoid our trade chance? Could we do better trades if we would get Simmons instead of RJ?

The Spurs other additions and a healthy TP should make them better than last year though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuncaboylu

There are always trades available as you aid. And they're available at the moment too. Did resigning RJ avoid our trade chance? Could we do better trades if we would get Simmons instead of RJ?

---

Having RJ's contract likely hinders trading.

Well I guess since Lebron James, Chris Bosh, and Duane Wade, wouldn't sign with the Spurs to guarantee a title, signing RJ was the next best thing.
:flag:

I see yalls point of view. I am not saying your opinons are invalid. They are very logical I just disagree. Spurs should be a better team next year and I hope things come together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Having RJ's contract likely hinders trading.

---

Why? We are not going to trade neither RJ nor Simmons. That's why we can trade the other guys while RJ is still in the team. Moreover we can get a player in trade who makes RJ a better player. (We can get Paul in exchange of Parker for example, RJ can perform better)

Why a significant talent boosting trade is highly unlikely, even without Jefferson.

The Spurs are over the salary cap or they don't have a TPE, so they cannot absorb players without giving back close to equal salary.

The Spurs have big contracts such as Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili. We are not trading Duncan, and for a rebuilding team, they wouldn't take an old Manu, same goes for Duncan because they would not fit their plans to get a player of Chris Paul caliber (I said caliber, not Paul, he was an example).

Our most valuable trade chip is Tony Parker, who is an expiring contract. As far as that goes, teams are afraid Parker would not sign an extension and jump ship next off-season. No team will offer valuable assets for him.

Young talent. The Spurs have George Hill, DeJuan Blair and James Anderson. I doubt they will trade Splitter. Unless packaged with bigger contracts, the Spurs would not be able to get significant talent back for them. And we only have Duncan, Manu and Parker. It is really hard to trade them for equal or over value.

Assuming we didn't re-sign Matt Bonner, the Spurs have the option of a S&T of Bonner and Mason, but who the hell would do a S&T for those fellas?

Another valuable trading chip is Antonio McDyess who has a partially guaranteed contract after 2011, so his value is highest then. Why trade him now?

Un-guaranteed contracts are Temple, Hairston, Gee. Again, like Anderson, Hill and Blair, none will be able to be packaged with a big contract to get a significant top 8 NBA player to get the Spurs back in the mix.

Draft rights: Bunch of players like De Colo, Ryan Richards. These guys won't fetch significant talent either.

Draft picks: Late 1st round picks, they are not valuable at all.

Conclusion: Sure it is good the Spurs have good players on their team, but none of them are really viable, or players who can be dealed for way better significant players. They have quite little to work with in terms of current players for trades. The Spurs would essentially have to gut the whole roster just to get a big piece to the puzzle, which clearly is not the Spurs' style nor is it plausible.

Ya, I think that is all from me for now. I will get back to this some other time.

So the rule going forward is that if a guy might possibly have a chance to improve your team (but only if nobody else at the same position pans out and if he worked hard to improve his game in areas that he's never been very good) that you go ahead and sign him up for several years. Got it. Maybe the Spurs had a handshake agreement two years ago with Matt Bonner to thank him for starting all those games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chieflion

Why a significant talent boosting trade is highly unlikely, even without Jefferson.

The Spurs are over the salary cap or they don't have a TPE, so they cannot absorb players without giving back close to equal salary.

The Spurs have big contracts such as Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili. We are not trading Duncan, and for a rebuilding team, they wouldn't take an old Manu, same goes for Duncan because they would not fit their plans to get a player of Chris Paul caliber (I said caliber, not Paul, he was an example).

Our most valuable trade chip is Tony Parker, who is an expiring contract. As far as that goes, teams are afraid Parker would not sign an extension and jump ship next off-season. No team will offer valuable assets for him.

Young talent. The Spurs have George Hill, DeJuan Blair and James Anderson. I doubt they will trade Splitter. Unless packaged with bigger contracts, the Spurs would not be able to get significant talent back for them. And we only have Duncan, Manu and Parker. It is really hard to trade them for equal or over value.

Assuming we didn't re-sign Matt Bonner, the Spurs have the option of a S&T of Bonner and Mason, but who the hell would do a S&T for those fellas?

Another valuable trading chip is Antonio McDyess who has a partially guaranteed contract after 2011, so his value is highest then. Why trade him now?

Un-guaranteed contracts are Temple, Hairston, Gee. Again, like Anderson, Hill and Blair, none will be able to be packaged with a big contract to get a significant top 8 NBA player to get the Spurs back in the mix.

Draft rights: Bunch of players like De Colo, Ryan Richards. These guys won't fetch significant talent either.

Draft picks: Late 1st round picks, they are not valuable at all.

Conclusion: Sure it is good the Spurs have good players on their team, but none of them are really viable, or players who can be dealed for way better significant players. They have quite little to work with in terms of current players for trades. The Spurs would essentially have to gut the whole roster just to get a big piece to the puzzle, which clearly is not the Spurs' style nor is it plausible.

Ya, I think that is all from me for now. I will get back to this some other time.

---

Right. So, if there are no realistic and viable options, why resign the player who was the worst fit on the team for 4 more years; 2 years past when they even have a fighting chance and would have significant cap, etc.? Some magic 2nd year voodoo where he should learn to play a half-court game and play defense, and his athleticism won't decline? Why extend him anything more than 2 years, if you are going to give him a contract?

If you resigned Dick to 2 years, I think people wouldn't be nearly as upset, but to extend him for 4 more years, which, for someone who relies on athleticism, is stupid. To also guarantee those 4 years is ridiculous as well.

I could be reading too much into what the so called "haters" are trying to say, but I think they are saying if Dick only wants a 4-year contract, you take your loss and sign someone willing to take what the Spurs are offering this year and sign someone next year. I don't think letting Jefferson walk is going to make or break a championship next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

So now it's gonna be Pop's fault the Spurs re-signed a player that doesn't fit. Got it.

ST is already coming up with excuses for the failure to come.

---

No, I'm saying that Pop is smart and flexible enough to change the system to accommodate RJ, meaning that RJ will no longer be a bad fit. What would you have against RJ if he actually fits the system?

I think alot of people are forgetting why jefferson was so bad last year. It had nothing to do with him being done, or too old, or not athletic enough and everything to do with him just not trying. Thats why all of us hated him, he gave no effort. 12ppg from your 4th (and now possibly 5th behind Splitter) option is fine, in fact its great. If RJ can just commit to the idea of winning and get his head in the game he could easily turn this season around. If he averages 11ppg 4-5rpg and 1spg while finding a role in our offensive sets and becoming even a decent defender- than he was worth the money. I certainly don't think any of that is out of the question... He may never get it, he may just show no interest for the next 4 years like he did last season but given what else is available the Spurs had to take a chance on it working out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino2882

I think Hollinger is basically spot on. He calls Jefferson's contract the worst of the offseason but does explain the Spurs' reasoning for doing what they did.

I like the Spurs moves. Realistically, what other options did they have?

---

Not re-signing Bonner

Could someone post to the 6 offseason losers by Hollinger?

Link here: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...dlosers-100727

Thanks a lot

Except for the bonner bs I consider spurs have done the best offseason possible.

Priorities were:
1- use wisely the first round pick by picking a good shooter - check
2- sign splitter - check
3- find the best available fit for the SF spot - check
4- extend matt bonner - check... oh wait :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oligarchy

Right. So, if there are no realistic and viable options, why resign the player who was the worst fit on the team for 4 more years; 2 years past when they even have a fighting chance and would have significant cap, etc.? Some magic 2nd year voodoo where he should learn to play a half-court game and play defense, and his athleticism won't decline? Why extend him anything more than 2 years, if you are going to give him a contract?

If you resigned Dick to 2 years, I think people wouldn't be nearly as upset, but to extend him for 4 more years, which, for someone who relies on athleticism, is stupid. To also guarantee those 4 years is ridiculous as well.

I could be reading too much into what the so called "haters" are trying to say, but I think they are saying if Dick only wants a 4-year contract, you take your loss and sign someone willing to take what the Spurs are offering this year and sign someone next year. I don't think letting Jefferson walk is going to make or break a championship next year.

---

The Spurs and Jefferson seemed to have an agreement to reduce luxury tax hit. There was no way Jefferson would opt out of 15 million without getting some sort of long term financial security. I don't think the Spurs franchise would have backstabbed Jefferson and not re-sign him, so as to not anger his agent and Jefferson's connections. These agent-team relationship has to be protected for the sake of the team's future. I think a lot of people have forgotten about the political side of the NBA. I don't like the deal, but it has already been done. It was a 4 year deal. This is how it breaks down.

Tony Parker: Expires in 2011
Tim Duncan: ETO in 2011, or expires in 2012
Manu Ginobili: Expires in 2013
Richard Jefferson: Expires in 2014

I don't think it is a coincidence that all these 4 deals expire after one another. I don't know what trade the Spurs are planning to pull before the trade deadline, but they won't be going down that easily. The Spurs re-signed Jefferson because of the agreement and there were no other players better than Jefferson.

On the basketball court: RJ had a 110 offensive rating and a 106 defensive rating. One could argue that Tony Parker was more of a bad fit last season due to his extremely poor play on both sides of the court mainly due to injuries, but because he is part of the big 3, it is taboo to say this, with a 106 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating, which means the team gives up more points when he is on the court and scores less as well. But saying Jefferson's presence on the court doesn't help the team win is hilarious at its best.

Plus, I said that the experiment didn't work out for a lot of reasons that are outside of Jefferson, or the control of the Spurs like Ginobili sucking for the 1st half of the season, Parker being in and out of the lineup with his injuries, Duncan's decline in the 2nd half of the season, the 20+ different starting lineups. There wasn't any consistency at all.

In the FA market, posters act like we can sign whoever we want, which wasn't the case. The Spurs would have found a player then. They didn't. Jefferson was the best available fit and best SF talent available, as much as that sucked. Bobby Simmons isn't a talent, he doesn't even have a damn contract yet. People arguing about Simmons and Jefferson being a marginal difference, sorry, too hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chieflion

The Spurs and Jefferson seemed to have an agreement to reduce luxury tax hit. There was no way Jefferson would opt out of 15 million without getting some sort of long term financial security. I don't think the Spurs franchise would have backstabbed Jefferson and not re-sign him, so as to not anger his agent and Jefferson's connections. These agent-team relationship has to be protected for the sake of the team's future. I think a lot of people have forgotten about the political side of the NBA. I don't like the deal, but it has already been done. It was a 4 year deal. This is how it breaks down.

Tony Parker: Expires in 2011
Tim Duncan: ETO in 2011, or expires in 2012
Manu Ginobili: Expires in 2013
Richard Jefferson: Expires in 2014

I don't think it is a coincidence that all these 4 deals expire after one another. I don't know what trade the Spurs are planning to pull before the trade deadline, but they won't be going down that easily. The Spurs re-signed Jefferson because of the agreement and there were no other players better than Jefferson.

On the basketball court: RJ had a 110 offensive rating and a 106 defensive rating. One could argue that Tony Parker was more of a bad fit last season due to his extremely poor play on both sides of the court mainly due to injuries, but because he is part of the big 3, it is taboo to say this, with a 106 offensive rating and 108 defensive rating, which means the team gives up more points when he is on the court and scores less as well. But saying Jefferson's presence on the court doesn't help the team win is hilarious at its best.

Plus, I said that the experiment didn't work out for a lot of reasons that are outside of Jefferson, or the control of the Spurs like Ginobili sucking for the 1st half of the season, Parker being in and out of the lineup with his injuries, Duncan's decline in the 2nd half of the season, the 20+ different starting lineups. There wasn't any consistency at all.

In the FA market, posters act like we can sign whoever we want, which wasn't the case. The Spurs would have found a player then. They didn't. Jefferson was the best available fit and best SF talent available, as much as that sucked. Bobby Simmons isn't a talent, he doesn't even have a damn contract yet. People arguing about Simmons and Jefferson being a marginal difference, sorry, too hilarious.

---

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, it's not even about that. The things you find funny, I can find funny as well. To say Tony Parker doesn't work with the Spurs is pretty funny. He may have had a down year due to injuries, etc., but there are many basketball pundits who say Dick didn't work. It's not just a couple of posters on here who simply hate RJ. Was he a complete albatross? Certainly not, but I can't say he was a good fit.

Also, the argument that ______ (fill in the name free agent) would work, I would say is more, how much worse would the Spurs be with that person? Conversely, how much better will the Spurs be next year with Jefferson? It's a moot point at that juncture simply because he will be part of the team. It's now a matter of everyone hoping that he fits.

If he fits and plays well, then nobody will care what his contract looks like. If he sucks, you can believe people will complain about how shitty his contract is?

Again, that leads back to RJ's contract. So, if they had pre-arranged the deal with RJ, had they planned on doing this since they traded for him? E.g, did they discuss this with him when they traded for him? If not, they had planned on being luxury tax payers again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oligarchy

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, it's not even about that. The things you find funny, I can find funny as well. To say Tony Parker doesn't work with the Spurs is pretty funny. He may have had a down year due to injuries, etc., but there are many basketball pundits who say Dick didn't work. It's not just a couple of posters on here who simply hate RJ. Was he a complete albatross? Certainly not, but I can't say he was a good fit.

---

I think that was exactly my point, according to all the advanced statistics this season with the exception of PER, Jefferson had more of a positive impact than the injured Parker this season, also doesn't mean a healthy Parker is not better Richard Jefferson, which wasn't the point of this argument.