Simmons, Patty, Lee, Dedmon, it's like musical chairs who we'll be able to keep. (Assuming the later two opt out, and Pau opts in).
Printable View
Simmons, Patty, Lee, Dedmon, it's like musical chairs who we'll be able to keep. (Assuming the later two opt out, and Pau opts in).
Danny's better and was more proven. If Simmons were a mult-year starter with a long track record of playoff performances, then they'd be the same. As of now, Jon is still being evaluated for what he could be, and he's getting too old for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht
Why do people assume the Nets will pay when the already have Kilpatrick and LeVert under contract on cheap deals, tbh? Simmons certainly hasn't proven that he's clearly better than either guy..
It'sQuote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht
all about how old he will be when his deal is done. He's going to be 28 years old at the start of his,next season. He's not that young that he can gamble with a one year deal hoping for a huge payoff after that, by which time he will be 29 and if he was just ok in that one season, the next season he's not getting a bigger deal.... that's why his age is important. Some younger guys, around 23-24 years old can gamble on themselves bc they will still have several seasons ahead b4 their prime and at some point provided they continue to improve, they will get the big paycheck. I think Simmons needs to go for it right now personally is all. He doesn't have years to wait for that big paycheck.
i agree that at his age this could be his one and only opportunity to cash in with a really nice NBA contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by SAGirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
You're right. Simmons isn't nearly the player Danny was when he got that contract. But then again, $10M isn't what it was back then either. If the cap had been as big when Danny got that deal, he might have gotten paid double the $10M per that he got.
I'm telling you guys, this second bump in the cap is going to leave some heads spinning. Some guys, like David Lee, didn't get overpaid. But a lot did. And it's going to happen again. The only question is who.
The cap isnt expected to be as high as some thought it would be next year. The cap is said to be around 102 million, roughly 8 million higher than it is now. It wont change much next summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
And the worst overpays were wings. Maybe the market is burned out with overpaying wings and it backfires. The market is unpredictable that way. Simms has warts that depress his value like his 3 pt shooting slump. The wings that got overpaid could should the 3 well and defend. I do think there's a chance Spurs decide to do something different with their bench if they don't think he can be "that guy", leaving a reduced budget for his spot (assuming Spurs go after a proven scorer for their bench). In that case Simms might be like Cojo, Baynes, and Boban. A good role player the Spurs would have liked to have kept but going after other FA in the market edged them out. No mater what he's getting a nice contract likely. If he's pedestrian in the playoffs, then offers like Manu4tres mentioned would come into place and if he feels he's getting undersold only then would he do the 1 and 1...Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
BillMC above had a good point. Though we find it hard to believe Spurs role players who made it into the rotation have gotten nice role player priced deals (Cojo, Baynes, Boban recently... there are other prior like Neal).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres
I'm hearing that it will be at least $104M. I know what they're printing, but they have the ability to shift revenues from year to year, to a degree. They made a mess last year, and people who were lucky enough to have contracts come up at the right time are getting compensated out of proportion to other players. They know that if they chop it off too abruptly, they have a problem with the bulk of the players in the league.
What I'm hearing (and it's worth what you paid for it) is that they said $102M to leave themselves some room to negotiate, because they know they're going to have to.
Either way, the cap is up basically 50% from two years ago. A few big names are going to get huge deals. But some other guys are going to get more than they should. That's what I think, at least.
depending on how bad he plays in the playoffs. If he plays like shit in the playoffs, he'll get no less than $10-13 million per year
I think Simmons is far more replaceable than Mills is. Simmons is basically an above average athlete that can attack the rim and defend a bit but can't really shoot outside of 18 feet. Murray looks like he could do that starting next season (and hopefully be a better 3pt shooter than Simmons too). Mills is an elite 3pt shooter, both spotting up and shooting off the dribble. I think he's a better fit with or without Manu next year on the bench. Spurs don't have a lot of high volume 3pt shooters (we lag behind the rest of the NBA in attempts per game by significant number), if he we to return the spurs could have 4 in the rotationQuote:
Originally Posted by SpursforSix
Murrays effectiveness and overall ceiling is significantly higher playing the PG on BOTH ends. Defending the PG and playing the PG offensively ( having smaller guards defending him).
I'm not sure why people prefer to pay Mills 50 million to limit Murray's growth and effectiveness by forcing Murray into the SG role. Him defending SG's and having SG's defend him diminishes his value and effectiveness because he no longer has an edge with his size and length. So pay 50 million to diminish Murray's value.... sounds smart.
Put Murray at PG as soon as possible to expedite his development playing and defending the position he's going to play in the long run. He has an All-Star ceiling at the PG spot. At SG, he has a 6th man potential while being net negative to mediocre on D because he has to guard bigger players at SG. Under the Mills at PG/Murray at SG scenario, Spurs would then have two liabilities at the PG and SG spot on the defensive end. Whereas with the other scenario, where Murray would play and defend PGs, while Simmons - Hanga - SG FA/ Rookie plays and defends SGs. This scenario gives the Spurs an edge and net positives on the defensive end. Not sure why it's so hard for people to understand this. You move Murray to Simmons role and Murray doesn't have the same impact defending and being guarded by bigger players.
It's not just about Murray. If Mills is better than a two, they have to go with that. They intend to remain contenders past this year, so doing what's best for Murray isn't really in their best interest. Hell, it's possible the Spurs re-sign Patty AND get a vet SG and push Murray to the deep bench for another year. We just don't know.
It's not about Murray. You're right. But Murrays ceiling and overall effectiveness will be tied to the Spurs' success to a degree. I just think Spurs are better going Murray at back up PG and trusting the FO to do find the best opportunity to fill the SG role -- whether it be Simmons, Hanga, rookie, free agent or a vet like Korver or all of the above. Murray alone would fill in Mills' 10 ppg while providing much better defense. I think Murray will bring more than Mills next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Watching Murray this summer reminded me a lot of when I watched Parker in the team scrimmage his rookie year in training camp when he out shined Antonio Daniels in stints. Its the same feeling I felt watching Kawhi initially his rookie year. I saw the hints of greatness with All-Star ceiling. I can't explain it -- but I trust my thoughts on this after watching the game pretty closely for 20+ years. I have the same damn feelings about Murray. Yes, it's subjective to a degree and we don't know FOR SURE yet, but I'm telling you right now --the kid is special. He's going to be a star in this league and he's more ready than most people thought he would be just a few months in his rookie year.
Of course the Spurs will intend to remain contenders, they always do. And giving Murray a bigger role or the keys at the back up PG should align with their intentions if they see what I see with Murray. I'm not playing favorites or being delusional -- it's not like I'm an advocate of a meh player or prospect getting an expanded role. This is different.
I love Murray's ceiling, and I could see a scenario where the Spurs give DeJounte the ball next year with a potential for him getting the de-facto starting job. However, I do think that if Murray isn't beating out Simmons or getting the nod when Simmons or Manu was out that we should slow our role on the team's expectations for him. While they might do well to consider him a PG, if they wanted him to play a big role soon, it would make sense to get him rotational minutes wherever they could find them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres
Simply put Parker and Kawhi were rotational players their rookie years. Murray hasn't beat out Patty or Simmons for a backup slot yet.
There's different variables in place this year for Murray compared to Parker and Kawhi's rookie year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
When Parker was a rookie, Spurs had just let Avery go and Pop was never big on Antonio Daniels. Spurs had just lost their one play-maker on the perimeter with Derek Anderson going to Portland. Parker was forced into the starting role due to high demand -- Pop really had no choice but to throw Parker in the fire. Murray doesn't have that situation in front of him with Parker and Mills ahead of him. Spurs don't have that desperate need right now -- this year. As for Kawhi, he came in when Spurs desperately needed his size at the wing in the rotation. Jefferson was the only true SF on the roster and he had been a disappointment for the most part. Both Parker and Kawhi came into desperate situations for their position, it's not the same with Murray.
Also, Simmons has played the back up SF this year -- not SG. It's clear the Spurs haven't had Murray as a SF or a wing this year. All of his minutes (sans maybe 5) have been at the point guard.
I don't want to get to into positional semantics, but Pop could easily have Manu play the three. It's not like Simmons is Kyle's size. While I don't necessarily want Murray checking James when Kawhi is on the bench, I also don't see how he wasn't getting minutes when Dallas was trotting out three PGs or when NO was scrub city on their perimeter.
So you're ignoring the different situations with Parker and Kawhi compared to Murray? Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
And Simmons has had a solid year, he's earned a role, has size and ability to defend the best wing scorers off the opposing benches ( you're not taking defense into account). If Simmons had a down year then I'd understand you questioning why Murray hasn't been given an opportunity but that's not the case. Plus, that's not Murray's position. Spurs clearly have him at PG.
I wasn't aware that this was a UIL CX round where I had to worry about arguments flowing through or else I lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres
I'm not asking why Murray isn't starting in any event. I'm wondering how strongly Pop can feel about DJM if he can't even beat out Simmons or Anderson for PT.
Simmons and D is a topic best not gotten into. I have no problem with the idea that Jonathon is better than Murray and that Patty is better. I have a bigger issue accepting that Pop's going to let guys walk to give Murray the ball if those guys are better than him. Kawhi showed he was better than RJ before the trade. Murray is struggling to get minutes. While I don't think that's a sign of his long-term potential or even that it's right that he's not getting more time, it's something to consider when talking about how the team will handle him next year.Quote:
And Simmons has had a solid year, he's earned a role, has size and ability to defend the best wing scorers off the opposing benches ( you're not taking defense into account). If Simmons had a down year then I'd understand you questioning why Murray hasn't been given an opportunity but that's not the case.
The Spurs have run him next to Forbes. So they seem not to have qualms about him being the bigger guard in a lineup. The Mills-Forbes distinction hardly matters, especially considering how much better Patty is. If Murray/Forbes works for Pop, Murray/Mills should too, especially when Simmons was out. Pop has already played Parker/Mills before as well, so I doubt he kept Murray on the bench because he wanted him to be a PG only.Quote:
Plus, that's not Murray's position. Spurs clearly have him at PG.
I think that if Pop were really excited for what Murray could do next year, he'd be trying to get him as much experience as possible. It's not like DJM is in Austin. He can "play PG" offensively any time he's on the floor if Pop wants him to do it, and there's no downside to him getting experience defending bigger guys. No matter what, he's going to do that a lot due to nature of NBA defenses. He might start off possessions on Steph, but he could easily end them on Klay, KD or Green. If that's the case, a couple hundred minutes worth of experience spent at the wing would help him.
Bottom line: Murray not getting time has more to do with Parker and Mills in front of him on the depth chart at his position. It has nothing to do with how Pop thinks less of him. Anytime Pop has talked about the kid, he's talked very highly of him and has used terms such as " he's oozing with talent/potential" and his "potential is off the charts". He's even mentioned that this scenario is different than when Parker was a rookie because Parker had to be throwin in the fire so to speak.
I'm not going to tell you not to believe what you want or even that you're wrong on his prospects for next year, but in the NBA, the best players play, and Pop doesn't consider Murray one of the top 10 right now. I don't see Pop letting go of better players unless 1) Murray finds a way to show Pop a leap between now and July that would make him just a better player than Mills and Simmons or 2) The team is forced to let those guys go because they are making a big move with cap space.
I would love for 2) to be the case. Hell 1) would be nice. Any other scenario wouldn't sit well with me.
The best players don't play all the time. Pop is loyal to a fault and rookies typically have to be patient unless there's an urgent situation with a position like there was with Parker/Leonard. Splitter and Hill were the last two rookies who were more than ready but Pop went with Bonner/Blair instead of Splitter. And as Jacque Vaughn had regressed significantly by 2009 ( Hills rookie year), Hill played back up a lot of the year due to the strong need ( Vaughn was done) , but Pop still chose not to play Hill to begin the playoffs -- when it mattered most. He said something like, " Hill wasn't ready for the playoffs." and then once they went down 2-1 in the series Pop began to play him but it was too late. Splitter is a better example because there were four guys on the team who were already part of the front court rotation a year prior ( Duncan, McDyess, Bonner and Blair. Even though it was obvious Splitter was a top 10 player, he rode the bench and had to be patient because " it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the guys".Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
I'm not talking about "when it matters most" I'm talking about during the regular season, and Pop has few qualms about giving young player regular-season burn. That Murray isn't in the d-league anymore is interesting (and he made it sound like he's never going back, which is even more interesting), but that he can't even get fifth-guard minutes in the regular season is more than a little odd. Pop went with Simmons at PG over him last game, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres
Murray has taken advantage and surpassed expectations with the playing time he's received. Unfortunately, there's just not a lot of opportunity on this 37 and 11 team -- when the back court is loaded with proven players, who Pop likes and respects, all of which have returned from last season and seasons prior. There's Green, Manu, Simmons at SG and Parker and Mills at PG -- all ahead of him. That is why he hasn't been part of the everyday rotation. It has nothing to do with his lack of ability or lack of production -- as he's shown great ability and great production with the opportunities he's been given.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
The "positional semantics", as you call them, are being overblown in this case. Murray is clearly tall (about half an inch shorter than Simmons) and long enough (about two inches longer wingspan than Simmons) to primarily defend shooting guards and the way this league is now, they can easily cross match at times and have him guard the point guard, while they hide Mills on a non threatening wing. Opposing teams will also flip assignments as they see fit, so they'll be times Murray has a point guard on him too.
This isn't the 90s, when the slightest height/strength advantage lead to post ups. There's guys much smaller than Murray defending shooting guards. He obviously has to get stronger, but he has to do that anyway. For the most part, he should be fine and if the Spurs considered this such an issue, they wouldn't have converted Bertans into a full time power forward.
As long as it's within' reason, you play your best players and you don't let one go because of semantics and replace them with inferior players.