How The He** Was There No Fire Sale At The Trade Deadline?

[Spurtacular]

We're talking about trading players, and I was pointing out the basic cause of the problem (which you and others were ignoring.)

If the Spurs agreed to pay, say, $6 M of the cost of trading LMA, that would effectively add $6 M to the cost of his replacement.

Same with the others, like DDR and Gay. It's a terrible financial bind.

Well part of your problem is the belief that I was saying a DDR or LMA trade was ever so easy. My point was that nobody was getting sold.

[JeffDuncan]

...
If I was the Spurs and could have gotten a 2nd for Marco or Carrol I would have done it. ...

The problem is in finding a trade partner to do that. It sounds easy: give us a 2nd, and we'll give you Marco.

However, does the other team have an open roster spot? If they don't, they can't do that, just as a simple trade. The rules limit the number of players on a roster, as we know.

As far as I know, most teams carry full rosters, most of the time. A team interested in Marco, at what looks like a bargain price, would have to open a roster spot, probably.

They could waive a player they're not using. But if he clears waivers (doesn't get picked up) they'll still have to pay him. Then the cost of acquiring Marco becomes Marco's salary + the other player's salary + the 2nd. That doesn't look so good.

Then, can the Spurs find a team that's far enough under the salary cap so they can just toss Marco's contract on the pile? Nope. Last I checked, only one team in the NBA was under the cap at all. The Hawks were under by about 4 M I think, and everybody else over. A team that wanted to add Marco's salary to what they already have, would have to do some salary cap finagling, probably.

Roster limits. Salary cap limits. No trade these days is just a simple swap.

That is, unless teams swap players who are very close in salary. Then it becomes easy enough. Scanning the list of NBA players, it looks like there might be half a dozen players around the league, who are close enough in salary to Marco, and on expiring contracts, to do an easy swap. Not sure any of them is worth more than Beli, to the Spurs, or is really available.

[JeffDuncan]

Well part of your problem is the belief that I was saying a DDR or LMA trade was ever so easy. My point was that nobody was getting sold.

Fortunately, it isn't my problem. It's the Spurs' problem, and they're welcome to it.

[talkspurs]

The problem is in finding a trade partner to do that. It sounds easy: give us a 2nd, and we'll give you Marco.

However, does the other team have an open roster spot? If they don't, they can't do that, just as a simple trade. The rules limit the number of players on a roster, as we know.

As far as I know, most teams carry full rosters, most of the time. A team interested in Marco, at what looks like a bargain price, would have to open a roster spot, probably.

They could waive a player they're not using. But if he clears waivers (doesn't get picked up) they'll still have to pay him. Then the cost of acquiring Marco becomes Marco's salary + the other player's salary + the 2nd. That doesn't look so good.

Then, can the Spurs find a team that's far enough under the salary cap so they can just toss Marco's contract on the pile? Nope. Last I checked, only one team in the NBA was under the cap at all. The Hawks were under by about 4 M I think, and everybody else over. A team that wanted to add Marco's salary to what they already have, would have to do some salary cap finagling, probably.

Roster limits. Salary cap limits. No trade these days is just a simple swap.

That is, unless teams swap players who are very close in salary. Then it becomes easy enough. Scanning the list of NBA players, it looks like there might be half a dozen players around the league, who are close enough in salary to Marco, and on expiring contracts, to do an easy swap. Not sure any of them is worth more than Beli, to the Spurs, or is really available.

I was having us take back a player for a year at equal salary. The more thing to do would be get a 2nd to hold over seas in case they would pan out. I also know marco is an expiring so would not want to go more then a yr. I think this would be hard to do. Carrol on the other hand would be able to trade for a player that has this year or this year and next year and still come out ahead. Depending on what we can negotiate for a buyout would depend how we would come out in savings.

[Spurtacular]

Fortunately, it isn't my problem. It's the Spurs' problem, and they're welcome to it.

I can understand that teams mostly didn't want our trash; but I don't think PATFO was really looking to trade all the same. Two or three players should've been shipped for whatever bag of balls another team was willing to give.

[cd021]

I actually thought he could be it must be a seperate trade. Maybe I am thinking if someone gets traded in the off season then at the trade deadline. Now coming to think of it, did this make is harder to trade Caroll because technically he was traded for?

Its pretty confusing; admittedly, I didn't know it until I looked into the CBA after you brought it up.

Ariza apparently could be traded along with another player but he can't be aggregated with other salary (you can't multiply his salary by 150% to acquire another player).

The returning salary has to be pretty similar for a trade involving Ariza to work.

After two months that restriction goes away. It wouldn't have affected a potiential Carroll trade.

[RC_Drunkford]

nobody got traded because the Spurs asked for too much which means they didn't want to move any of these players. They could've gotten a deal done for sure, but Spurs FO is delusional

[Harry Callahan]

Teams were probably baffled because they couldn't decide who they wanted more, Rudy or Belinelli.

The Spurs are in a horrible financial situation, as far as making any serious moves. The highest paid player on the team does not even attempt 3-point shots. For example.

The Kings hit 19 of 35 three-pointers against us. In beating the Clips, the Twolves went 26 of 44 from the arc. Teams notice things like that.

Then they look at DDR. Who shoots zilch for zilch from the arc. Do they want him? Not much. Would they pay $27.7 million for him? Har har har.

DDR can do some things, sure. He's a good player in some ways. He can get you 20 ppg the hard way, 2 at a time. What's that really worth, in ye olde modern NBA? Wild guess...$15M. Can the Spurs afford to take a $12M loss on that contract? Nope. All they can do is let it run out. So, no trade.

Same with Rudy Gay. The Spurs are overpaying him by too much. The team can't afford the hit to trade him.

Same with LMA. Sure, he could be traded, but at what price? There's the rub.

Fans talk about the players, but it's really about the money. The Spurs, these last few years with Pop, have been grossly overpaying players. Now it's come around to bite them. They can't afford trades. The financial losses are too heavy.

It's all turned into a big Pau Gasol situation. The Spurs moved Gasol by agreeing to pay part of his salary themselves. Of which $5M is still on the books this year.

Sure, the Spurs could have a "fire sale" and move most of their players - by agreeing to pay, oh, maybe $50 million worth of salary to players who aren't here any more. Good grief.

"Fire sales" are called fire sales for a reason. Your ROA (Return On Assets) sucks in a fire sale.

[JeffDuncan]

"Fire sales" are called fire sales for a reason. Your ROA (Return On Assets) sucks in a fire sale.

The price for NBA players is legally set by their contracts. If you try to pay DDR only $10 million on his contract that calls for 27.7, he will tell you 1. Kiss my ass, and 2. See you in court. And he will win.

Why is everybody so dense about the players having to be paid? That is not optional.

Do people really not understand that having to pay DDR $27.7 million might have something to do with whether another team wants him?

[DPG21920]

The price for NBA players is legally set by their contracts. If you try to pay DDR only $10 million on his contract that calls for 27.7, he will tell you 1. Kiss my ass, and 2. See you in court. And he will win.

Why is everybody so dense about the players having to be paid? That is not optional.

Do people really not understand that having to pay DDR $27.7 million might have something to do with whether another team wants him?

Please. For the love of God. Stop.

[JeffDuncan]

Please. For the love of God. Stop.

Kiss my ass.

Guy, the Spurs cannot afford to take onto their own books $40 or $50 million for players who are not even here any more.

To trade players, they have to find teams who are willing to pay for those contracts. Which is hard to do, because the Spurs have badly overpriced their players, in many cases.

Is this too complicated for you? Does the simple fact that the players have to be paid boggle your little birdbrain mind?

[DPG21920]

Kiss my ass.

Guy, the Spurs cannot afford to take onto their own books $40 or $50 million for players who are not even here any more.

To trade players, they have to find teams who are willing to pay for those contracts. Which is hard to do, because the Spurs have badly overpriced their players, in many cases.

Is this too complicated for you? Does the simple fact that the players have to be paid boggle your little birdbrain mind?

I am begging you. Please. I can’t take it any more.

[Budkin]

I am begging you. Please. I can’t take it any more.

[JeffDuncan]

I am begging you. Please. I can’t take it any more.

Then why are you persisting, dumbass? Go pester somebody else, fool.

The reason the Spurs didn't have a "fire sale" is because the player contracts don't allow it. The players have to be paid their contract prices. They can't be let go at a discount. Are we clear on that?

[DPG21920]

Then why are you persisting, dumbass? Go pester somebody else, fool.

The reason the Spurs didn't have a "fire sale" is because the player contracts don't allow it. The players have to be paid their contract prices. They can't be let go at a discount. Are we clear on that?

No more. I beg of you sir. No. More.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I am begging you. Please. I can’t take it any more.

Still happy about the trades discussions?

[DPG21920]

Still happy about the trades discussions?

touché

[duncan2k5]

nobody got traded because the Spurs asked for too much which means they didn't want to move any of these players. They could've gotten a deal done for sure, but Spurs FO is delusional

This

[duncan2k5]

Then why are you persisting, dumbass? Go pester somebody else, fool.

The reason the Spurs didn't have a "fire sale" is because the player contracts don't allow it. The players have to be paid their contract prices. They can't be let go at a discount. Are we clear on that?

Wow...u can't he this slow ..Spurs are that incompetent that they can't trade EITHER LMA or DDR? No wonder we are here... Ppl keep making excuses for incompetence

[JeffDuncan]

Wow...u can't he this slow ..Spurs are that incompetent that they can't trade EITHER LMA or DDR? No wonder we are here... Ppl keep making excuses for incompetence

The Spurs' incompetence is exactly what I'm talking about, dimwit. Financial incompetence.

The Spurs signed a contract agreeing to pay a "shooting guard" $27.7 million, when he doesn't even attempt to shoot 3s. In this era of the NBA. Would you call that competent? I would not.

And who the are they going to find to take that contract, to pay a "shooting guard" $27.7 million, when he doesn't even attempt to shoot 3s, in this era of the NBA? Who?

Nobody, is the answer. And you're such a cluck you think I'm talking about competence.

I'm talking about an organization so financially brain-dead stupid they've stuck themselves with a bunch of contracts they can't get rid of - except by burdening the team with, what, maybe $40 or $50 million in losses.

"Competence." You really are a fool.

[SAGirl]

nobody got traded because the Spurs asked for too much which means they didn't want to move any of these players. They could've gotten a deal done for sure, but Spurs FO is delusional

This. The Spurs received interest in a few players but all reports were that they were asking for a lot back.

[sasaint]

This. The Spurs received interest in a few players but all reports were that they were asking for a lot back.

I strongly suspect there were two scenarios at play. I believe that there were inquiries initiated by other teams, and there were "feelers" put out by the Spurs. Any inquiries other teams initiated about Spurs players, were inquiries about guys the team didn't really want to trade - the young guys, probably Poodle in particular. On the other hand, I suspect if the Spurs made available Dumbmar, Gay and LMA their asking price was too steep. But I do not believe they actively "marketed" the Mediocre Three.

[offset formation]

This is what happens when you have two very opposed mindsets in the front office. I am confident in saying that its highly unlikely that the FO is lock step in what they should do.

You have Pop towering over everyone and basically Kobe-ing the Spurs. He wants to win now, blinded by that, despite it not probably being the best thing for the team long term.

Then you have a FO that is also hedging for the future.

But when you have a coach that allows for losing to set in, no defense and bad habits this is what you get. He’s coaching some people but not all. He’s not doing anything to stop the bleeding and as much as our guys are good guys, they know the truth. They know who doesn’t deserve minutes but is getting them. They see the constant breakdowns.

Not making even a minor trade to send a message was a big mistake.

Pop letting Demar get away with a lack of hustle is the cancer under the surface that's eating away at accountability. That's simply undeniable.

[Harry Callahan]

The price for NBA players is legally set by their contracts. If you try to pay DDR only $10 million on his contract that calls for 27.7, he will tell you 1. Kiss my ass, and 2. See you in court. And he will win.

Why is everybody so dense about the players having to be paid? That is not optional.

Do people really not understand that having to pay DDR $27.7 million might have something to do with whether another team wants him?

You completely miss my point. Whatever. Trading DDR at the trade deadline would be a double fire sale. They probably would have had to throw in a draft pick or get another bad contract back. That's why the asset was already devalued. I understand that. I have no idea where this $10MM stuff is coming from.

[Texas_Ranger]

dont worry guys, Lonnie Walker and Derrick white are turning into Tim Duncan and Tony Parker any minute now... Oh and Šamanič only needs 15 more years and he will be our Manu.... you just wait!!