Should we sign Tony for the max ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurSpurSpurs

Fact: A 2002 second-round draft pick of the Spurs, Scola has been playing for Spanish team Tau Ceramica, where he is generally regarded as one of the best players in Europe. The Spurs had hoped to sign him two years ago, but his buyout was too large, so they instead opted to bring over his friend and countryman, center Fabricio Oberto.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/M...age=1#storytop

---

Fact: Spurs could only pay as much as the Rockets paid on his buyout, which per the CBA was circa 500K. The rest needed to be covered by the player.

Scola thread!

As far as MAX players vs franchise players - yes there's a difference but the Spurs philosophy has pretty much always been that only franchise players are worth the MAX. This discipline has given them the financial flexibility to add role players within the salary budget they set for themselves.

Tony isn't stupid - he knows there will likely be a lockout and that salaries will drop; especially the Joe Johnson type deals. My bet is all his talk is posturing and if the Spurs offer him an extension after the first month or so of the season, he'll take it. But it will likely be his last big contract, so he's going to be pushing for as many years as possible. As long as the salary average for the deal is $15M or less I'm fine with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muser

People really love to overrate Hill..

---

yes they do, and they think that GH is a point guard too. Hell Garret Temple is already a better point guard than Hill. George hill is an undersized SG, when Tony went down it was Manu who was running the point.

I'd say wait until later this year, after we see what kind of player Splitter is. If splitter and Blair and the rest of the young guys (Hill, Anderson) are performing at a high level or at least show signs that the team can maintain at least a 40-win pace with a declining TD then I say sign TP to the max. Otherwise, it's a waste of money as the moment TD retires the Spurs will not be contenders and TP will be pining for a trade in no time.

In that scenario the Spurs would be like any other struggling team with one great player who wants to leave but has an albatross of a contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shifty

The question in the thread is:

Should we sign Tony for the max?

The answer is clear:

No. Doing so would make sure we won't win a title after Timmy retires.

---

You mean like NEVER? :shootme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

I'm not sure how it works, but it's logical that previous contracts signed would be pro-rated to the old salary cap. So if RJ's contract was equivalent to 10 % of the cap. It would only make-up 10 % of the new cap whatever that be. But really I don't know how these things work .

---

Sorry bro. That's not how it works. That's the reason he opted to leave $15M on the table and go after a new contract. He didn't want to take his chances trying to see what he would be able to make after the lockout. RJ is going to make his full $40 million over the next 4 years regardless of what happens with the new CBA.

Of course RJ's getting whatever he agreed to , the question is how are previous contracts treaded in terms of cap for as a new CBA. Say for example the new cap after the CBA is $ 30 M / annualy ( I know it's a redicoulous example) but it dosen't make sense to use the previous players salaries for for the cap on a new CBA. Example: Tim's salary ( $17 M) Manu's ( $ 13 M) plus RJ 's ($8 M). and say sorry SA your now over the cap by at $ 38 M ($ 8 million over the cap !)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bito Corleone

Sorry bro. That's not how it works. That's the reason he opted to leave $15M on the table and go after a new contract. He didn't want to take his chances trying to see what he would be able to make after the lockout. RJ is going to make his full $40 million over the next 4 years regardless of what happens with the new CBA.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Of course RJ's getting whatever he agreed to , the question is how are previous contracts treaded in terms of cap for as a new CBA. Say for example the new cap after the CBA is $ 30 M / annualy ( I know it's a redicoulous example) but it dosen't make sense to use the previous players salaries for for the cap on a new CBA. Example: Tim's salary ( $17 M) Manu's ( $ 13 M) plus RJ 's ($8 M). and say sorry SA your now over the cap by at $ 38 M ($ 8 million over the cap !)

---

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I'm not exactly sure how that works. Maybe Bruno could explain it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Of course RJ's getting whatever he agreed to , the question is how are previous contracts treaded in terms of cap for as a new CBA. Say for example the new cap after the CBA is $ 30 M / annualy ( I know it's a redicoulous example) but it dosen't make sense to use the previous players salaries for for the cap on a new CBA. Example: Tim's salary ( $17 M) Manu's ( $ 13 M) plus RJ 's ($8 M). and say sorry SA your now over the cap by at $ 38 M ($ 8 million over the cap !)

---

I don't think that player contracts/salaries would be reduced after the new CBA, whatever the salary cap numbers are.TBH, I wouldn't expect much changes there, more likely they'd shorten the guaranteed years of new contracts or something similar, but we'll see about that.

However, all of the already signed contracts would have to be honored for their length and I see no way around that unless suddenly Kim Jong-il takes over the NBA as a commissioner.All the new deals would have to be under the new regulation but there is likely to be an intermediate period, during which teams would not be punished for going over the cap due to contracts signed under the previous CBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

I don't think that player contracts/salaries would be reduced after the new CBA, whatever the salary cap numbers are.TBH, I wouldn't expect much changes there, more likely they'd shorten the guaranteed years of new contracts or something similar, but we'll see about that.

However, all of the already signed contracts would have to be honored for their length and I see no way around that unless suddenly Kim Jong-il takes over the NBA as a commissioner.All the new deals would have to be under the new regulation but there is likely to be an intermediate period, during which teams would not be punished for going over the cap due to contracts signed under the previous CBA.

---

They are not talking about that, players will get what they agreed on, but the question is about how their salaries would count in the team total salaries to compare to the new salary cap. If Timmy is getting 17M, he will get the 17M but when counted for the new cap his salary would only appear for 80% of it (just an example).

One thing I don't see anyone discussing is how much do we have in guaranteed contracts in the next few years. Maybe we have painted ourselves into a corner and paying Tony, the max or whatever he deserves, would get us very deep into luxury tax territory.

Ok, I just checked: We have 37.6M in guaranteed money without counting team/player options but for all practical purposes we need to include Timmy's 21.1M so that would take us close to 59M and for good measure lets add 5-10M for the options, signings and resigning to fill up the roster. Without Tony we would be at 65-70M, will Holt open up his wallet and take us to 85-90M?

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ries/spurs.jsp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bito Corleone

You do know that George Hill isn't actually a point guard, right?

---

in the TRIANGLE he could be ...
I think hill can play the position in the ron harper, Derek fisher mold.
In that offense the penetration and kick game is less of a focus ...

I doubt he can play SG on a regular basis ... in the playoffs for a contender.

Yes they should

Yes, agreed.