Loyalty contracts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

That didn't affect our cap. Nice try.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2016/...a-ton-of-money

>Ginobili will be slightly overpaid next season, but who cares, it was a 1-year deal and they used his "Bird" rights to go over the cap to re-sign him. They could've given him a 1-year max and it wouldn't make a tangible difference.

---

Yup. Amazed people don't understand this yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

That didn't affect our cap. Nice try.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2016/...a-ton-of-money

>Ginobili will be slightly overpaid next season, but who cares, it was a 1-year deal and they used his "Bird" rights to go over the cap to re-sign him. They could've given him a 1-year max and it wouldn't make a tangible difference.

---

:tu Exactly! Agreed 100%!

Re-signing Manu didn't really effect any thing other than not being able to re-sign Boban. And even that was going to happen before Pop talked him into doing what's best for him. And Boban wouldn't have been a difference maker this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

So is Kawhi taking a paycut or not? Answer the question you argentine imbecile..

---

Of course not, he took the max at the first chance he´s got, Manu and Tony didn´t take the max untill their very last big contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dre_7

:tu Exactly! Agreed 100%!

Re-signing Manu didn't really effect any thing other than not being able to re-sign Boban. And even that was going to happen before Pop talked him into doing what's best for him. And Boban wouldn't have been a difference maker this year.

---

Its pretty crazy Detroit paid so much for him. I was a big fan of his, but hes only averaging 2pts a game, probably due to playing time. Maybe they think he has a bright future, still alot to pay a bench player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Almost none of that matters. You can certainly argue that Manu was underpaid in his career. It's a lot harder to argue that he took pay-cuts. He signed a six-year deal after his rookie contract was up. He followed that up with a max extension, then took a market-level deal, then he took a big discount, then he took a huge overpay.

It's not too dissimilar from Steph Curry's contracts so far. He is MASSIVELY underpaid right now, but he didn't take less. He signed a deal that made sense at the time and just massively out-performed it. Just like with Manu, Curry isn't going to give the Warriors a discount this time around.

Manu's earnings have more to do with timing than anything else.

---

Chinook you know very well and pop and rc also said this in past interviews that during his first FA he took less than his market value over that 6 year contract to stay here.
Even if the Denver offer was not there he could easily have taken a shorter contract (3-4 years) here or anywhere else and cash in younger and for a longer term than his 3 year max contract.
He was not a restricted free agent during that span, and could have dictated the terms to stay here or anywhere else if he wanted. Anyone would have agreed for a 2 year contract worth 12 million and then hit free agency again in 2006.
By any means i say Manu was massively underpaid, just that he didn´t take the advantage of the tools he had to come up with better more profitable contracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurs9

Its pretty crazy Detroit paid so much for him. I was a big fan of his, but hes only averaging 2pts a game, probably due to playing time. Maybe they think he has a bright future, still alot to pay a bench player.

---

I don't get it. They paid him all that money and only play him 5 minutes a game. WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dre_7

I don't get it. They paid him all that money and only play him 5 minutes a game. WTF?

---

Maybe they thought the Spurs would match and they could go for Gasol. Or maybe they are just dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

That didn't affect our cap. Nice try.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2016/...a-ton-of-money

>Ginobili will be slightly overpaid next season, but who cares, it was a 1-year deal and they used his "Bird" rights to go over the cap to re-sign him. They could've given him a 1-year max and it wouldn't make a tangible difference.

---

Well, he was talking about 2013 Manu, not 2016 Manu. Both made $14 Million. PtR was wrong about how it affected his cap, but obviously, in 2013, the Spurs had no cap for it to affect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaji157

Of course not, he took the max at the first chance he´s got, Manu and Tony didn´t take the max untill their very last big contract.

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaji157

Chinook you know very well and pop and rc also said this in past interviews that during his first FA he took less than his market value over that 6 year contract to stay here.

---

I personally don't give a shit what PATFO say in interviews. Anyway, not Manu players go the Lebron route to taking short-term deals to maximize their potential earnings. Manu took a long-term deal at possibly slightly generous salaries for the same reason why Curry did. He valued the long-term security most. That's not a selfless decision.

Quote:

---

By any means i say Manu was massively underpaid, just that he didn´t take the advantage of the tools he had to come up with better more profitable contracts.

---

He was underpaid, just like Parker was. And he held the team's feet to the fire in 2010 and in 2016 to make up for it. But did he give up money to be a Spur? Not really. I doubt if you asked him about that when he signed the deals that he would have felt that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dre_7

:tu

---

Manu took the max in 2010-2013.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Manu took the max in 2010-2013.

---

That´s what i meant

:cry He's only made 130 million in his career in salary alone :cry

Kind of pathetic we're talking about these idols as if they made some kind of *sacrifice*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiTroll

:cry He's only made 130 million in his career in salary alone :cry

Kind of pathetic we're talking about these idols as if they made some kind of *sacrifice*

---

Agreed

Manu and Gasol should've taken less. No doubt about it. Obviously you can't blame them, but they hamstrung the team for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaji157

That´s what i meant

---

I think this year counts as Manu's last big contract. 2010 Manu was still more than worth his deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Manu took the max in 2010-2013.

---

I thought we were talking about now? Manu taking his only Max contract in 2010 has no consequence on this year's salary. He constantly took less through out his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiTroll

:cry He's only made 130 million in his career in salary alone :cry

Kind of pathetic we're talking about these idols as if they made some kind of *sacrifice*

---

It is relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dre_7

I thought we were talking about now? Manu taking his only Max contract in 2010 has no consequence on this year's salary. He constantly took less through out his career.

---

No, he didn't. When you sign a six-year deal that guaranteed on both sides, you don't keep getting credit for sacrificing just because you out-perform the back end of the deal. There was nothing Manu could do about it after he signed the deal. He's only really taken less once, and that was last year. That was the only time where it was obvious he could have gotten a lot more money and decided to take whatever the Spurs could give. Now there are Denver rumors, but those are pretty unsubstantiated. Not even as strong as the Philly rumors this year.

Anyway, you were agreeing with a post that said Manu only took the max at the end of his career. That's not true. He took it the first chance it was a realistic option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Anyway, you were agreeing with a post that said Manu only took the max at the end of his career. That's not true. He took it the first chance it was a realistic option.

---

I was agreeing with the statement that Manu has taken less for most of his career. And yes he could have taken more elsewhere. Denver was willing to pony up for him in like 2004 or 2005 or something, but he took less to remain in San Antonio.

Why anyone here gives two shits about the salary is beyond me. Do you get dividends from profits? If not, just worry about the games. You're getting wins and some room to shit talk teams that aren't. That's all that matters, because in June it's going to be GS and Cleveland and we know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dre_7

I was agreeing with the statement that Manu has taken less for most of his career. And yes he could have taken more elsewhere. Denver was willing to pony up for him in like 2004 or 2005 or something, but he took less to remain in San Antonio.

---

There was a rumor that he could have made more. But that was unsubstantiated. Besides that an last year, he's taken at least as much as he could have realistically got. And literally, the statement you agreed with said Manu didn't take the max the first chance he could get. That just isn't true. He wasn't a max-level player until well into his second contract, and his third reflected that. It's like saying Curry sacrificed for the Warriors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

The only contract I have a problem with is Gasol's, tbh..such a useless move..

---

You call it a useless move now but, not when he was signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Gasol is an upgrade over Duncan, no doubt, he isn't much worse on D and is definitely better on offense...

---

"Nice, decent move, but bittersweet with Tim's retirement(which was probably a selling point for Gasol).." - Can't quote you because the post was deleted :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post8653634

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaji157

Of course not, he took the max at the first chance he´s got, Manu and Tony didn´t take the max untill their very last big contract.

---

Wrong. Tony and Manu took the most money they can from the organization in every one of their contracts. Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoops Czar

You call it a useless move now but, not when he was signed.




"Nice, decent move, but bittersweet with Tim's retirement(which was probably a selling point for Gasol).." - Can't quote you because the post was deleted :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post8653634

---

I didn't have a problem with the Gasol signing at the time, but I changed my mind on it being a "good" signing the same week, which is why I deleted it(always delete my posts that don't represent my feelings anymore)..

The same week:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Ew..Gasol, Noah, Mike Conley..these names are disgusting..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Gasol would be alright, nothing special, tbh..

Better than standing part, I suppose..

---

Gasol is definitely better than last year's Duncan in a vacuum, tbh..problem is the lack of chemistry with Gasol and the over-prioritizing of the frontcourt..