Article: Estimating Tre Jones' Next Contract

Originally Posted by Uriel

Why not just sign Dejounte Murray next summer?

â​ he’s got good defense, a good shot, knows the system, and good with social media. No Brainer.

Originally Posted by Ariel

Tyus signed his contract less than a year ago and he had Ja Morant ahead of him, whereas Tre was fighting for minutes with rookie Blake Wesley and a bunch of guys out of position. Those are not small details.

At the start of the year I would say that he was on his way to losing his starting job by the end of the year to Primo

In their first 4 games Tre did average 29 minutes compared to Primo's 23 but they were equal in assists. And Primo was shooting like garbage and not being aggressive looking for a shot. It's easy for me to imagine that if Primo had behaved and turned his shooting around he would have become the starter.

Spurs going to dust off patty old contract and give it to tre

We can only find solace in the fact that its not bryn forbes

Originally Posted by CGD

^ I’m not so sure. He would be a nice get for a contender with the MLE to use looking for back up pg. For example, he would perfect on the Suns or Nuggets.

Nah, non superstar/star small guards are the new immobile non superstar/star big, in that they're being played off the floor in the playoffs. Non shooters continue to be too, so he's a double whammy.

Originally Posted by RC_Drunkford

that's way too much. Monte Morris earns 9.8 million. 25-30/2 would be Tyus Jones money and Tyus is way better than Tre

Can't compare contracts signed under a different salary cap. When Morris and Tyus are up next off season, they'll leapfrog him again.

I am fine with 12 mil for 3 years. I believe you can build a top tier bench around his skills. He is more dynamic than Monte or Tyus. It is better than paying traditional sixth men 25 million, you save 13 million with the same output.

Tre is an undersized PG worth 6-8 million per year at most & that's about it. He was serviceable on a bad team last year. 10-11 per year is ridiculous. Nothing special.

If you can’t get him at a low to reasonable price, release him and pick another, anyone else pls.

Justified or not, the Spurs might end up paying Tre for more than just his contributions on the court. If Tre is the guy who keeps Wemby happy (or if it helps develop Wemby’s character) because of his leadership skills in the locker room, then it’s worth it IMO. Tre has been praised for his community service work and almost won an award for it last season.

In the end, that’s how every dollar will be spent from this point forward— keeping Wemby happy + molding him into a good person (Wemby being a good person = doesn’t break loyalty to the Spurs in the future).

oh please no more "he's a nice guy" contracts. We've had enough of those. How about paying players for their on court skills?

I really like Tre are a person, but I'm not willing to pay him big money just yet. He has to prove he can be a good player on a good (playoff bound) team before I'd give him anywhere near or over 10M+ per season.

Originally Posted by RC_Drunkford

oh please no more "he's a nice guy" contracts. We've had enough of those. How about paying players for their on court skills?

If being a nice guy keeps Wemby, yes. If signing a nice guy for the sake of just signing a nice guy, then no. Did you read the part where I said that this might help keep Wemby? For the record, I don’t think the Spurs will overpay Tre. Their actions for the past couple years have been to reach and maintain maximum flexibility. They might find a balance here between paying him more than what the average fan desires and just about right (between market price and enough cap flexibility). Hugely overpaying Tre would be out of the norm from what we’ve come to expect of the Spurs lately, so I think folks are getting too worried for no reason, IMO.

Btw, how would people react if Wemby asked the Spurs to sign one of his homies? This would be no different, except that it’s on the Spurs’ terms instead of Wemby’s tbh. And that’s taking away a lot of credit from Tre… he’s not a total bum.

Wembanyama is on a 4-year contract. I don’t think he will ask to be traded if the Spurs don’t bring back Tre Jones…

Originally Posted by RC_Drunkford

Wembanyama is on a 4-year contract. I don’t think he will ask to be traded if the Spurs don’t bring back Tre Jones…

The clock starts now vs the last year of that 4-year contract where Wemby is probably already ghosting you because Tre’s leadership skillz weren’t there to be a big brother to Wemby tbh

Originally Posted by RC_Drunkford

oh please no more "he's a nice guy" contracts. We've had enough of those. How about paying players for their on court skills?

Who?

Originally Posted by Dejounte

The clock starts now vs the last year of that 4-year contract where Wemby is probably already ghosting you because Tre’s leadership skillz weren’t there to be a big brother to Wemby tbh

yeah right

Originally Posted by rankingtear

Who?

you forgot the 50 Mills and Bryn Forbes era?

Originally Posted by RC_Drunkford

yeah right



you forgot the 50 Mills and Bryn Forbes era?

I meant who should they sign?

I think people are being a little harsh here. No, I don’t view Tre as the long-term answer at PG but spending ~5-7% of your cap space to lock down an above average backup PG really isn’t a bad deal. He’s also only 23 and going into his 3rd “real” NBA season - it’s not crazy to imagine a scenario where he continues to improve and is a better player in 2023/2024 than he was this past year.

Not saying we NEED to bring him back or anything, but if he’s willing to take $8-10MM then that’s a solid deal IMO and I wouldn’t be opposed.

Originally Posted by sfernald

If you can’t get him at a low to reasonable price, release him and pick another, anyone else pls.

Who?

Originally Posted by poopbox

Spurs going to dust off patty old contract and give it to tre

We can only find solace in the fact that its not bryn forbes

Who should they sign?

Originally Posted by Chinook

It's dishonest to portray Tre as fighting for minutes with Wesley. It just is. It doesn't matter if me saying that offends you. I didn't say you were a bad person or disingenuous poster. But your comment was a dishonest way of phrasing a situation in an attempt to dismiss my argument for why Tre can ask for more money than Tyus got. Memphis wasn't going to give Tyus a big deal to back up their superstar. The Spurs may have a hard time trying to convince their starting PG to take backup money if they don't intend to start anyone over him.

Players aren't starters or backups in a vacuum, being a starter is conditioned upon a certain set of cir stances over a period of time. In Tre's case, the UNDISPUTABLE FACTS are:
1) He wasn't a starter until every proven quality point guard was traded (Dejounte Murray, Derrick White)
2) He got the starting job on a team where the possible alternatives to his role were rookies (Wesley) or players whose contribution was deemed detrimental by their teams (Graham) and we took on in a salary dump for compensation, or were situationally playing out of position (e.g.: Sochan).
3) His starting job happened to be in one of the worst teams in the league (tied for 2nd worst) that was trying to lose purposefully.
Starting isn't the end all be all, as Killian Hayes and Tyus Jones exemplify at opposite sides of the spectrum, and that context is exactly what I mean by saying that "Tre was fighting for minutes with Blake Wesley". Who if not him (and later Graham) and a bunch of players out of position were playing PG? How is pointing that out "dishonest" (i.e., purposefully deceiving) when it's a factual description of those cir stances?

Originally Posted by Chinook

You're riding with the idea if the Spurs should compare Tre to other guards in terms of skills and just sign Tre to whatever value matches that. But that's not how it works. Tre's representation is going to try to get him as much as they can, and the Spurs will have to balance out giving him enough money with the risk of losing him, or at least alienating him if they use their RoFR to suppress offers that might at least give him a chance to go to a better situation. I think they should take that chance, but I suspect they'll pay him low-end starter money on a shorter deal. That's not $10 Million a year or less in today's NBA. If they get him for less then I'll be wrong, but I won't be sad.

I'm not riding with anything, I'm using the most elemental of notions of how markets work. Factoring into his salary will be:
1) What other teams will be willing to offer, which is dependant on what role he'd play elsewhere and not just situationally on the 22-23 Spurs (i.e., "starter")
2) how far would the Spurs will be willing to go, which is dependant on:
a) what role the Spurs envision for him not just last year but FOR THE FUTURE (just because he was a starter last year doesn't mean they see him long term in that role)
b) what it would cost to find a subs ute similar (at a lower price) or better (at a similar price)
c) what other opportunities do you forego by commiting to him long term (free agency, etc.)
d) what would be his value for the rest of the league, because things change and it wouldn't be smart to lock yourself up long term into a contract that no one else is willing to take off your hands (i.e., untradeable) should you have to move him.
e) how that precedent works in future negotiations with your own players, because Tre's pricetag is sure to influece the guys that follow.
All in all "starter money" is too simplistic an approach, it may give you a broad estimate but whenever you project you can't take any scenario for granted and "assume" he's going to be something which he has not proven whatsoever. That's probably the reason behind every disastrous deal made that hamper franchises.

Originally Posted by Chinook

In general, I tend to make it clear when I'm talking about a person or a person's point. I don't have an issue with you and think you're a fine poster. I do not apologize for criticizing your comparison. I do apologize that it came off as a personal attack. That was not my intention. I should've put more nuance into it, but I'm on my phone and didn't want to type that out.

An apology wasn't necessary but I am bringing to your attention that you seem to have an attachment to the term:


It's an interesting choice for a fellow that doesn't usually strike me as careless with his words of choice, and if you don't want others to get a certain impression from your repeated use of it, you might want to try a different approach next time.

Originally Posted by Dejounte

Btw, how would people react if Wemby asked the Spurs to sign one of his homies? This would be no different, except that it’s on the Spurs’ terms instead of Wemby’s tbh. And that’s taking away a lot of credit from Tre… he’s not a total bum.

I think re-signing Tre is not undesirable at all, the point is he's not the PG you want to build around, so making a huge commitment to a deal that will be hard to move later on isn't a smart investment. If he comes at a reasonable deal (IMO ideally no more than 10M per year, if above that then not more than 2 years with possibly a team option 3rd so that it doesn't hurt '25 free agency) then great, otherwise the risks (him regressing and his contract becoming a negative) are not worth it when you can get competent replacement without too much trouble.

Originally Posted by Dejounte

The clock starts now vs the last year of that 4-year contract where Wemby is probably already ghosting you because Tre’s leadership skillz weren’t there to be a big brother to Wemby tbh

There's plenty of that in the Spurs roster, coaching staff and entourage. Wemby is more likely to be ghosting you if he perceives you're not setting him up to succeed, that should be the main concern.

Originally Posted by Dejounte

If being a nice guy keeps Wemby, yes. If signing a nice guy for the sake of just signing a nice guy, then no. Did you read the part where I said that this might help keep Wemby? For the record, I don’t think the Spurs will overpay Tre. Their actions for the past couple years have been to reach and maintain maximum flexibility. They might find a balance here between paying him more than what the average fan desires and just about right (between market price and enough cap flexibility). Hugely overpaying Tre would be out of the norm from what we’ve come to expect of the Spurs lately, so I think folks are getting too worried for no reason, IMO.

Thats the key component though. Bc nobody is saying we shouldn’t re-sign him. We all want him back. He’s a very solid back up. But this notion that he’s worth 14 million (the high end on Timvp range) is ridiculous. Also why do a 4 year deal? Who exactly are we competing with? I think a 2 year deal would be more appropriate. If he wants 10 million a season then fine but for 2 years and not 4. Otherwise let him test the market. We could always match. Nobody is going to pay him a 4 year 40 million deal besides us so why would that be a reasonable contract?

Timvp worrying about an Austin Reaves situation is a little far fetched seeing as we aren’t a prime time team. We don’t get the national media coverage the Lakers do and if we do then it will literally only be Wemby getting it, and we aren’t making a deep postseason run. It took all these things for Austin Reaves to potentially make his big contract. If he played well on the Pelicans then nobody would give a damn and his contract would be much smaller. That being said, Reaves is better than Tre.

Originally Posted by Ariel

Players aren't starters or backups in a vacuum, being a starter is conditioned upon a certain set of cir stances over a period of time. In Tre's case, the UNDISPUTABLE FACTS are:
1) He wasn't a starter until every proven quality point guard was traded (Dejounte Murray, Derrick White)
2) He got the starting job on a team where the possible alternatives to his role were rookies (Wesley) or players whose contribution was deemed detrimental by their teams (Graham) and we took on in a salary dump for compensation, or were situationally playing out of position (e.g.: Sochan).
3) His starting job happened to be in one of the worst teams in the league (tied for 2nd worst) that was trying to lose purposefully.
Starting isn't the end all be all, as Killian Hayes and Tyus Jones exemplify at opposite sides of the spectrum, and that context is exactly what I mean by saying that "Tre was fighting for minutes with Blake Wesley". Who if not him (and later Graham) and a bunch of players out of position were playing PG? How is pointing that out "dishonest" (i.e., purposefully deceiving) when it's a factual description of those cir stances?

You're adding in other points and then saying I called the whole string dishonest when I've said repeatedly my issue was with saying Jones was fighting for minutes with Wesley. He wasn't and isn't. Wesley may not leave Austin this year. Tre is the starter until they get someone better. There's no fight between them for minutes. I think you can argue there might be a push from Branham for minutes (though he wasn't very good in terms of impact stats) and that there SHOULD be more of a fight between him and Graham for minutes. But Jones was the pretty clear starter, especially once the Spurs didn't have to try to push Primo into getting star touches.

I'm not riding with anything, I'm using the most elemental of notions of how markets work. Factoring into his salary will be:
1) What other teams will be willing to offer, which is dependant on what role he'd play elsewhere and not just situationally on the 22-23 Spurs (i.e., "starter")
2) how far would the Spurs will be willing to go, which is dependant on:
a) what role the Spurs envision for him not just last year but FOR THE FUTURE (just because he was a starter last year doesn't mean they see him long term in that role)
b) what it would cost to find a subs ute similar (at a lower price) or better (at a similar price)
c) what other opportunities do you forego by commiting to him long term (free agency, etc.)
d) what would be his value for the rest of the league, because things change and it wouldn't be smart to lock yourself up long term into a contract that no one else is willing to take off your hands (i.e., untradeable) should you have to move him.
e) how that precedent works in future negotiations with your own players, because Tre's pricetag is sure to influece the guys that follow.
All in all "starter money" is too simplistic an approach, it may give you a broad estimate but whenever you project you can't take any scenario for granted and "assume" he's going to be something which he has not proven whatsoever. That's probably the reason behind every disastrous deal made that hamper franchises.

"Markets" work in multiple ways and rely on competing interests balancing, not one side coming up with a number they think is fair and the other just accepting it because of a stat or whatever. I don't disagree that those are factors the Spurs have to consider when making their initial offer and in deciding how far they can go up if Jones presses for more money. For Tre, he has his own things he will consider when his representation puts forth their deal. A real part of that is the risk of having to take the QO and/or getting hurt and ending up losing millions. But it's not all negative pressures for him. If Jones is expected to perform the duties of a starter, he should ask for starter money. I think in basically every other context people can understand that. Like in retail if they were going to hire someone to be the store manager but wanted to pay them what ASMs were getting at other stores, the incoming manager has every right to balk. And if the store tried to argue "Well you aren't any more competent than those ASMs, so we want to pay you for your worth, not for the job" I don't think that would go over well. Jones has every right to say, "If you think someone is going to do a better job than me, bring them in. If you don't, then pay me for the duties I'm supposed to perform and STFU." Does that mean he gets whatever he wants? No. But it's actual upward pressure for his salary, as is general inflation, team culture, whether the team has anyone else they're trying to bring it, etc. The team might have more leverage to push that salary down closer to what they want, but there's an opportunity cost to using that leverage.

An apology wasn't necessary but I am bringing to your attention that you seem to have an attachment to the term

1) When I ran a search I didn't actually find those results, but ST's search has always been finicky like that.

2) For what I can see, that's an average of 1/500 posts that contain that word. That's not even necessarily how many times I've called someone that. Like that second post (the one about LMA's touches) literally has "dishonest" in the post I'm quoting. That said, there are other words like "disingenuous" that I'm sure I've also said non-zero number of times. Some of those are in the exact way as the one you "called out" -- me criticizing a way a poster has framed a certain situation. As I said before, I believe there are situations where posters are being dishonest or otherwise intentionally unfair/ungenerous in their interpretation of a situation. That's not actually me saying they're sneaky people of low character. It's more an aspect of poster gamesmanship where two folks debating will try to define the "ground" of the debate in a way that is more favorable to them. Yes, I think it's intentional in the same way a defender might foul a bad FT shooter rather than giving up a bucket.

It's an interesting choice for a fellow that doesn't usually strike me as careless with his words of choice, and if you don't want others to get a certain impression from your repeated use of it, you might want to try a different approach next time.

I will call things dishonest again, maybe a take you have. I should take care to specify exactly what I'm calling dishonest and why. If I do that, I won't feel any particular regret if someone gets upset by it. They can disagree with it, and we can have that discussion. Or we can move on, and if they want to let that stick in their craw long after I've forgotten about it, then I can't stop them. As I said before, it wasn't my intention to offend you. You know what I mean now, and if you're still offended by it, then it is what it is.

Think his point was that Tre had an absurdly easy path to minutes given Wesley was among his main compe ion at the position, rather than suggesting there was actually a bona fide compe ion for the gig