Ludden: Tim Duncan re-signs (3 years, $30M), Patty Mills re-signs, De Colo signs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

That was my original point all along, no goal posts were moved. The fact you failed to see it is your ignorance.

---

:lmao

No it wasn't.

Everyone that can read, and understands the rules, can see that.

Read the rules and try again:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. It's universally accepted that re-signing RJ was a mistake...one that the FO basically admitted to. You don't have to convince anyone that was a bad move. Of course Jack is overpaid, but he's much better than RJ and he's significantly cheaper. I would say they did a pretty good job of making lemonade out of such a disastrous situation.

---

Trading for RJ was the mistake. Resigning him compounded it. However if they hadn't resigned him they would have had a cap hole they couldn't have filled with anyone meaningful at SF. The SF market that year wasn't that great. Alot of ST posters were clamoring for Travis Outlaw and he ended up getting amnestied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therealtruth

Trading for RJ was the mistake. Resigning him compounded it. However if they hadn't resigned him they would have had a cap hole they couldn't have filled with anyone meaningful at SF. The SF market that year wasn't that great. Alot of ST posters were clamoring for Travis Outlaw and he ended up getting amnestied.

---

This is the worst argument ever for re-signing RJ.

"We don't have anyone else...so lets sign this bag of shit to a huge contract."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

I think Ginobili will play as long as he feels good physically, still enjoys playing and still feels the Spurs have a shot at contending. In other words, barring some debilitating injury next season, I think he'll re-sign for 2 years/$16-18M (2nd year player option), then retire at the same time as Duncan.

---

Not so sure how good Manu actually feels much of the time.

Imo RJ and the Spurs had a deal. He would opt-out of the $15m option, saving the Spurs another $15m on luxury tax and the Spurs were to re-sign him 4 seasons for $39m.

Option A was to let RJ pick the option, cost: $30m for only one season.
Option B was to make a deal: $39 for 4 seasons, which was then shortened by a season at the cost of a first round pick.

At the time of the deal, RJ was a "sunk cost", the mistake was to take his contract from the Bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

This is the worst argument ever for re-signing RJ.

"We don't have anyone else...so lets sign this bag of shit to a huge contract."

---

:tu

That's the kind of front office move you expect for the Knicks or Orlando or teams like that, and the kind of front office move the Spurs don't make. It's really simple: they completely overrated Jefferson, and they've paid a huge price for that mistake.

Fortunately, the amazing thing is not that they made a mistake like that, but that they make so few of them that the ones they make really stand out.

Mark Deeks ‏@MarkDeeksNBA
Patrick Mills re-signed for the value of his qualifying offer ($1,085,120), with a $1,133,950 player option year for 2013-14.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tesseractive

:tu

That's the kind of front office move you expect for the Knicks or Orlando or teams like that, and the kind of front office move the Spurs don't make. It's really simple: they completely overrated Jefferson, and they've paid a huge price for that mistake.

Fortunately, the amazing thing is not that they made a mistake like that, but that they make so few of them that the ones they make really stand out.

---

Finley likely would have been the starting small forward if they don't resign RJ.

Think of it this way - would the Spurs have had a chance to get Kawhi if they simply let RJ walk?

The fact that the Spurs 1. Recognized Jefferson was NOT the answer to fill the void at the 3, though a bit too late, 2. Got lucky when Leonard fell all the way to 15, 3. Were also lucky Indiana was willing to trade him because they needed a PG and were set at the wing, having just drafted Paul George, and 4. Were lucky they had a young PG who was also an Indiana native is almost Memorial Day Miracle levels of fortune.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

This is the worst argument ever for re-signing RJ.

"We don't have anyone else...so lets sign this bag of shit to a huge contract."

---

Tbh, being one of the puzzled fans at the time when we thought Xmas came early only to see it snatched away by the bizarre new contract with RJ, I asked Jeff McDonald on Twitter why we re-signed RJ and he gave this answer, i.e., sparse SF market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunkman

Imo RJ and the Spurs had a deal. He would opt-out of the $15m option, saving the Spurs another $15m on luxury tax and the Spurs were to re-sign him 4 seasons for $39m.

Option A was to let RJ pick the option, cost: $30m for only one season.
Option B was to make a deal: $39 for 4 seasons, which was then shortened by a season at the cost of a first round pick.

At the time of the deal, RJ was a "sunk cost", the mistake was to take his contract from the Bucks.

---

This seems most likely reason, but I don't know about your numbers. I don't think we would've been $15M over the tax line.

Whatever. :sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackSilver

I don't think we would've been $15M over the tax line.

---

They wouldn't have been, but 15M savings in tax+salary is a reasonable estimate. That assumes everything else remained the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racm

Think of it this way - would the Spurs have had a chance to get Kawhi if they simply let RJ walk?

---

The two things have absolutely no relation whatsoever. And the Spurs would never have let RJ walk, he represented a HUGE expiring contract and would absolutely have been traded. Ask Bruno to lay out the type of players the Spurs could have gotten for that kind of expiring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The two things have absolutely no relation whatsoever. And the Spurs would never have let RJ walk, he represented a HUGE expiring contract and would absolutely have been traded. Ask Bruno to lay out the type of players the Spurs could have gotten for that kind of expiring.

---

I honestly wouldn't mind knowing what kind of players we could have got for RJ's contract.

Did anyone see the news that the Spurs pulled a Kahn and signed Duncan to an invalid contract? Long story short - Tims last year of his new contract cant be cheaper than the previous year due to a certain rule. It appears he will have to get an add ~350K in order for it to work.

Discovered by Shamsports

^ that's a weird story. Not sure how it will end.

At the end , it's not a big deal. Link to the story:
http://blog.shamsports.com/2012/07/t...-be-about.html

Duncan contracts details are now fully known:

Quote:

---

9,638,554 in 2012/13, $10,361,446 in 2013/14, and an even $10 million in 2014/15. The final year is a player option year

---

Rug ------->Sweep?

Duncan has always been a fucking crook.

sorry if this was already covered:

Does the 'Over 36' rule apply to Duncan, and possibly send the Spurs over the tax already? Or is that just for contracts that are 4 and 5 years long?

Quote:

---

The five recent signings give the Spurs 14 players with guaranteed contracts for next season, at a total of $69.13 million. That is safely beneath the projected luxury-tax threshold, unchanged from last season’s $70.307 million.

---

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...es-tax-relief/

Best team under the Luxury tax? The FO has done a great job of keeping the team together for a 'reasonable' amount of money.

OKC is also under the luxury tax. Probably Boston too, but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racm

OKC is also under the luxury tax. Probably Boston too, but I'm not sure.

---

Boston will be over, but not by much. Like the Spurs, they used the non-taxpayer MLE and are working under a hard cap of 74.3 million dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblackfan

Best team under the Luxury tax? The FO has done a great job of keeping the team together for a 'reasonable' amount of money.

---

The Spurs actually played the luxury tax the last time they won in '07.