Would you trade Tim's or Manu's contracts after they retire?

Title pretty much says it all. Say the two silverbacks hang it up after this season. They have player options totaling about $8 Million. They will probably opt into those deals, as it was possibly understood that they were signing one-year deals with the salaries split over two. So the Spurs are likely planning on waiving them, eating all that money in 2016-2017 and setting up for a free-agent run in 2017's off-season.

Or...

Or they could look to trade one or both of those deals with incentive for a player or two. They could take back about $12 Million in a direct trade or even $15 Million if they combine it with their cap space. That probably won't be enough to get the best players, but there are guys like Robin Lopez or Splitter or Henson who could be targets.

Would the sentimental value be too much to pull the trigger?

Really hope they both return next season. Probably opt out and sign new 1+1 year deals. Perfect scenario would be if they win the championship and, having done the bulk of their roster building last summer, watch everyone else throw stupid money at anyone who can walk and chew gum.

That said, if they want to retire, there wouldn't be any sentiment about trading their contracts as they wouldn't play for the other team anyway, just like Bruce. The rebuilding they'd need if both retire would be huge.

I would but the front office never would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

Really hope they both return next season. Probably opt out and sign new 1+1 year deals. Perfect scenario would be if they win the championship and, having done the bulk of their roster building last summer, watch everyone else throw stupid money at anyone who can walk and chew gum.

That said, if they want to retire, there wouldn't be any sentiment about trading their contracts as they wouldn't play for the other team anyway, just like Bruce. The rebuilding they'd need if both retire would be huge.

---

:tu

/threat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

Really hope they both return next season. Probably opt out and sign new 1+1 year deals. Perfect scenario would be if they win the championship and, having done the bulk of their roster building last summer, watch everyone else throw stupid money at anyone who can walk and chew gum.

That said, if they want to retire, there wouldn't be any sentiment about trading their contracts as they wouldn't play for the other team anyway, just like Bruce. The rebuilding they'd need if both retire would be huge.

---

Honestly, they better no opt out for 1-plus-1s again. The Spurs can afford to pay them whatever they want next year, and they'll have the Bird rights to do it. But they absolutely can't pay for them to not play in 2017, and that's what you get with 1+1s. I'd love to have them back in 2017 if they want to re-up, but I'd be very against spreading out a stretch provision that far.

If you trade those contracts, the other team has a lever to force them to play or not pay them. Any understanding they had with the Spurs would only be for an opt in and waive. Once they're traded, they would be expected to play or not be paid. No other team would simply waive and pay them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mudyez

:tu

/threat

---

Thread?

yeah, sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Honestly, they better no opt out for 1-plus-1s again. The Spurs can afford to pay them whatever they want next year, and they'll have the Bird rights to do it. But they absolutely can't pay for them to not play in 2017, and that's what you get with 1+1s. I'd love to have them back in 2017 if they want to re-up, but I'd be very against spreading out a stretch provision that far.

---

You're right, assuming they have to re-sign and pay both Tim and Manu, but also Boban, perhaps West too / MLE type player, they might get close to the tax even with the increasing cap, but unlikely to go over it if the current projections are correct.

Tbh this should be Tims final season imo. I don't think his body can handle another season.

There could be a scenario where one or both want to coach and they get traded as a goodwill gesture from the teams that want to offer them scout/ development positions. Long shot though. Everything points to those guys wanting to leave the game for awhile.

Have retired players gone against a teams cap before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Have retired players gone against a teams cap before?

---

all the time. the spurs had to renounce a bunch of cap holds for guys like glenn robinson, horry, and several other players to make room for LMA.

teams hold on to players' rights when they are over the cap, to stay over, and be eligible to use the MLE when they need it.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1398917

Yahhhhhhhh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Have retired players gone against a teams cap before?

---

They do if you actually pay them the money. McDyess counted in 2011-2012 for his guaranteed portion, for example. Usually teams and retirees agree to a buyout, because it's a gray area in the CBA, and no one really wants to get it clarified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Have retired players gone against a teams cap before?

---

Brain blip... it was Aaron McKie I was trying to remember. He was an (unpaid) assistant coach, when the Lakers used him to balance a trade. I think he made close to $700K for doing nothing.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...uld-get-traded

If it's legal and everyone agree's why not? It wouldn't be a real trade, it would be another Duncan doing something amazing for his franchise deal before he retires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Title pretty much says it all. Say the two silverbacks hang it up after this season. They have player options totaling about $8 Million. They will probably opt into those deals, as it was possibly understood that they were signing one-year deals with the salaries split over two. So the Spurs are likely planning on waiving them, eating all that money in 2016-2017 and setting up for a free-agent run in 2017's off-season.

Or...

Or they could look to trade one or both of those deals with incentive for a player or two. They could take back about $12 Million in a direct trade or even $15 Million if they combine it with their cap space. That probably won't be enough to get the best players, but there are guys like Robin Lopez or Splitter or Henson who could be targets.

Would the sentimental value be too much to pull the trigger?

---

I am not sure about sentimental value per se if they are retiring.

You know more about these things than I do. If they can be forced to play by the recipient of those contracts, I don't think you would ever want to put them in that situation.

I think that if they are retiring, they are more likely to just retire. I doubt either guy is the kind of player that will just collect a check and not play and the hastle to their families and themselves at this stage is not even worth it.

I think they either come back (doubtful for Timmy IMO bc of his knee) or retire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

I am not sure about sentimental value per se if they are retiring.

You know more about these things than I do. If they can be forced to play by the recipient of those contracts, I don't think you would ever want to put them in that situation.

I think that if they are retiring, they are more likely to just retire. I doubt either guy is the kind of player that will just collect a check and not play and the hastle to their families and themselves at this stage is not even worth it.

I think they either come back (doubtful for Timmy IMO bc of his knee) or retire.

---

Couple of things. First, the 1+1 deals imply that the two guys are at least considering retiring and pocketing the money. The only benefit of having a player option is so a player can extend his contract against his team's wishes. This is usually in the case of injury. If the Greybreads weren't planning on getting paid not to play, they'd've just signed straight one-year deals. Now you may be wondering why they didn't just sign a two-year deal if they planned on taking the 2016-2017 money even if they retire. But that's actually further proof of their plan. They want the option over a straight two-year deal SPECIFICALLY so they could opt out for a bigger deal if they want to continue their careers. And that's perfectly fine for the Spurs, as they will have Bird rights for both guys and will most likely not have any cap space anyway. If the Spurs NEED the space, maybe they could work with Tim and Manu to get some of that money back, but they don't seem likely to get out of those contracts for free in any event -- and I think they don't intend to.

Second is that even if Tim and Manu intend on retiring without taking any salary, they may opt in and agree to forego their guarantee just to give the Spurs a chance to use the cap space or trade exceptions on a piece for the next era. In fact, it makes them even more attractive if they go that route. They become dust chips. This isn't the best market to trade dust-chip guys in (too much cap space), but maybe the Spurs can make something work. Like Duncan, Manu, Diaw, money to cover Diaw's buyout and a couple of first-rounders for Horford. It would take some luck to get that to make a max contract to offer him, but no question in my mind that Atlanta would take that offer if Al decides to leave them.

Thanks for clarifying some of it.

I suppose the issue is that as long as they are not forced to play out a contract if they don't intend to, then it would not matter. However, it seems as though if their contracts get traded and they are in a condition where they can play the other team might force them to or waive them? not pay them? I am not sure what happens there. They can reach a buyout with the new team?

More than any sentimental reason, I think that the reason not to trade the contracts is to guarantee they are made whole since they took the discount this season.

If there was a way to make it work that would be beneficial for all involved and I think they won't object it, but the agent is going to want to make sure they get paid.

My statement concerning the hassle is obviously the hassle it would represent for them to have to deal with another organization about whether they play, not play, buyout or not.

I would never trade Tim, not even if it's just his contract. Some people want Tim to play another season? This year should be it for him, IMO. Don't want him to end up limping around like McHale in his late years and I also don't want his career PPG in the 17's like Garnett.

He'll be 40 come playoff time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht

I would never trade Tim, not even if it's just his contract. Some people want Tim to play another season? This year should be it for him, IMO. Don't want him to end up limping around like McHale in his late years and I also don't want his career PPG in the 17's like Garnett.

He'll be 40 come playoff time...

---

but imagine if we send him off with 6 ...:cry..

Tim should tell his teammates--preferably before the Warriors series-- that he is retiring at end of the season to motivated the shit out of them..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

but imagine if we send him off with 6 ...:cry..

Tim should tell his teammates--preferably before the Warriors series-- that he is retiring at end of the season to motivated the shit out of them..

---

Pull a Ray Lewis :tu

Didn't they trade Bowen's contract in the Richard Jefferson deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

If it's legal and everyone agree's why not? It wouldn't be a real trade, it would be another Duncan doing something amazing for his franchise deal before he retires.

---

x1

http://www.ohmagif.com/wp-content/up...er-tantrum.gif

........



No imho :depressed

Interesting question. I think the pr blow would be significant. There is a huge difference between Bowen and these guys. The only way it's maybe sellable to the fan base if it nets a big player in return (not Robin Lopez or Tiago).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Couple of things. First, the 1+1 deals imply that the two guys are at least considering retiring and pocketing the money. The only benefit of having a player option is so a player can extend his contract against his team's wishes. This is usually in the case of injury. If the Greybreads weren't planning on getting paid not to play, they'd've just signed straight one-year deals. Now you may be wondering why they didn't just sign a two-year deal if they planned on taking the 2016-2017 money even if they retire. But that's actually further proof of their plan. They want the option over a straight two-year deal SPECIFICALLY so they could opt out for a bigger deal if they want to continue their careers. And that's perfectly fine for the Spurs, as they will have Bird rights for both guys and will most likely not have any cap space anyway. If the Spurs NEED the space, maybe they could work with Tim and Manu to get some of that money back, but they don't seem likely to get out of those contracts for free in any event -- and I think they don't intend to.

Second is that even if Tim and Manu intend on retiring without taking any salary, they may opt in and agree to forego their guarantee just to give the Spurs a chance to use the cap space or trade exceptions on a piece for the next era. In fact, it makes them even more attractive if they go that route. They become dust chips. This isn't the best market to trade dust-chip guys in (too much cap space), but maybe the Spurs can make something work. Like Duncan, Manu, Diaw, money to cover Diaw's buyout and a couple of first-rounders for Horford. It would take some luck to get that to make a max contract to offer him, but no question in my mind that Atlanta would take that offer if Al decides to leave them.

---

I always appreciate the knowledge of the game you bring to the table, but even more your understanding of the league. I lack anything remotely resembling your in-depth understanding. I would guess that the only reason a team would be willing to trade for contracts knowing that the players tied to them were gonna retire would be if the Spurs were willing to accept an undesirable contract or expendable player in exchange. Only one of those two cases makes the acquisition of a "dust chip" desirable, it seems to me. Not so?

I remeber zach lowe asking commish something of that nature...

Tim and Manu coming back, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

Didn't they trade Bowen's contract in the Richard Jefferson deal?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Have retired players gone against a teams cap before?

---

I'm pretty sure Dyess did. He signed a three year with a partially guaranteed 3rd year. He retired and the Spurs still payed 1/3 of his final years salary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Tim and Manu coming back, tbh.

---

I agree, both have played well this season and the Spurs they have less on their shoulders. I would like to see this group back for another season, hopefully going for a repeat.

what do we get from that? i'm guessing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

I agree, both have played well this season and the Spurs they have less on their shoulders. I would like to see this group back for another season, hopefully going for a repeat.

---

People panicking cos of GS emergence, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

People panicking cos of GS emergence, tbh.

---

Not for me. I am more concerned about Timmy's knee and his age. Time will tell.