When it's go time and Tre can't make a jumper, I doubt Wemby will be happy.
Is he a free agent?
I understand trying to set a value, but in a league where the average team payroll is north of $130 mil, it seems odd to me to call $8mil reasonable but $10mil ridiculous. That difference is relatively minuscule in context. I'd give him a descending contract that rewards him most in the first year (where $$ isn't much of an issue for the Spurs). This not only sets money free in the future, but makes him an appealing piece in a potential trade. By the end of the contract, the MLE might be approaching $15mil, so his deal would still look like a bargain in, say, a trade in 2026.
And if that's the case, that's just me being wrong and misinterpreting what they meant. I would certainly apologize for that. I don't think the greater debate is affected by that. The point isn't about whether Jones was one of the better PGs or even that he started last year and thus should get paid now for what he did then. I think a lot of people have cleaved to that notion that Jones is a backup. He's only a backup if he's actually backing up someone. If they're signing him expecting him to start, he would be justified in asking for a starter's salary. If they're signing him to be a backup, he wouldn't be justified (in my mind) to ask for that. Too many people are caught up in how good he was when the bigger factors for me concern what the team is going to do with the position now. If they don't upgrade from Jones, they don't have the same leverage some folks think.
But yes, this entire side spiral Ariel and I are having could be mainly because I wrongly interpreted something they said. That would be completely my bad and I could understand why me calling that interpretation dishonest would seem inappropriate. Do I care about whether I have a "habit" of it? No. But yeah, I would look pretty foolish.
Technichally not, but you probably can get him for a 2nd rounder.
If not, just pick anyone, that wouldn't demand a 4/40 contract, from this bunch: https://hoopshype.com/lists/2023-nba...-point-guards/
Last edited by DAF86; 06-27-2023 at 11:58 AM.
That's not how it works, though. Tre might start next season but I doubt the Spurs see him as the long term solution on that starting position. Therefore, signing him for starter money on a long contract would be a mistake.
Tre's manager will ask for that because that's his job, the Spurs' obligation is to tell him "fine then, go check the market and see which team gives you starter's money".
Or they can sign him to a short-term deal at low-end starter money, so they aren't committed but Tre also gets compensated. For the Spurs, saving money on Jones, especially next year, shouldn't be a priority. Hamstringing the team for years would be something they'd want to avoid unless they're in love with him. But if they think they need him now the it doesn't matter whether he makes $8 Million or $18 Million. The team is going to have to figure out how to spend that money this summer anyway. If the Spurs' Plan A is to have an engaged Tre starting for them next season, they shouldn't play games about it. There's just no upside to doing that. Paying more APY to reduce the years might be the better play.
Or they could sign a real PG and then pick between Jones and Graham for who to keep as the backup.
Would you sign Micic for 4/40? Would he translate?
The Spurs should try getting the Wizards to deal Delon Wright or Monte Morris, now that they have got three PGs (Tyus Jones to go with them, besides a combo guard in Jordan Poole). Morris would be better on offense while Wright is better on defense. Either could start and can offer more than Jones in terms of shooting. Morris would most likely be retained by the Wiz as he is younger but Wright should be available easily. A SRP/ couple of SRPs and Khem Birch should be enough to pry him out.
Having Wright/Morris, Jones and Wesley (who, I think needs one more year of seasoning in the G-League before he is good enough) should complete the PG requirements for this season.
There's a middle ground between re-signing Tre expecting him to be a starter and re-signing him expecting him to be a backup. The Spurs might prefer Tre to be the backup but he might go out and a secure a deal before the Spurs can work out a trade or free agent signing for a starting PG.
Vade retro Satanas!
Yep. If the Spurs intend to use their cap space through other ways of improving the team, it would benefit them to have an agreement with Jones good enough to prevent him from seeking other teams. Sure, if he leaves they might have the room exception to replace him. But that's not guaranteed. As I mentioned, I don't know that the Spurs and Jones will be fighting about this like some seem to want them to. They'll probably be honest about what each side expects from the other and figure out a deal. If the Spurs have other pans on the stove they have to balance, that's only added excitement for us. If they're just running it back, there probably won't be a lot Jones-related suspense.
Well, sure, but that isn't the point of discussion here. I think nobody is against signing Tre to a short deal. Is the 4/40 contract talk that everybody seems to have a problem with.
I wouldn't, but he wouldn't ask for that. That's the point: before signing Tre to that kind of deal i would rather sign, literally, anybody else.
But, just to play along, yeah, all contract talks equal, think I would rather take a chance on Micic over Tre. At least Micic has the advantage of the unknown, instead of Tre's really limited, reallly visible, ceiling.
But $10 Million a year isn't a starter salary anymore. So if you're good with a $30M/2 deal with maybe the second year partially guaranteed, then you're right that it's the the point of the discussion. But if you think Tre is going to be pushed into signing for $8 Million a year, then you're definitely picking a side in the discussion, whether that deal is for two years for five.
I think the question is what is he worth to us in light of the other plans the FO has in place? I wouldn't be surprised if we sign him at starters money and I wouldn't be surprised if we let him go and went with other PG's we could acquire on shorter contracts. I dont think it's as simple as "he's worth 8M or he's worth 15M", it's a broader equation that has data we aren't privy too.
Great summation. Agreed.
This will probably be relatively straightforward because he can't possibly be foolish enough to risk squandering the opportunity they're probably going to continue to hand him in the interim.
He's also helped by the fact that they don't appear ready to make significant moves, yet with the projected cap at roughly $136M, them being $38.5M under it and needing to get to $122.4M/add $24.9M before the start of the regular season.
Wembanyama is projected to earn $12.1M, taking the number down to $12.8M.
Can't remember if minimum's count towards the cap, but if so, sign Mamukelashvili and convert Champagnie, leaving about $10.5M.
Last edited by TD 21; 06-27-2023 at 11:15 PM.
What I feel is that the market for Tre isn't there, so the Spurs won't be forced to overpay for him, so they shouldn't.
And, in case I'm wrong, and there's a team willing to pay big bucks for Tre, I have no problem with letting him walk, since he's a dime a dozen backup PG.
Theres no market bc hes restricted and teams know the spurs want to match. If the spurs sign another PG the interest in tre will grow. I guarantee most teams know about TJ
I agree with all this except the last part. I think Tre is well above average for a backup, but overmatched as a starter unless he makes significant improvements this summer.
Unknown to who? This guy is almost 30 with more tape than Tre.
Look, as much as a like Tre, he never won the starting position. He was given it by default. There was no compe ion, so I don't believe he should be getting starters salary just yet. He still has to prove he's a starter IMO. I'd be happy to give it to him, but he's gotta prove he's a legit starter first. If he doesn't want to do that and wants starter's salary first, I'd really consider letting him walk. Would he have started on any other team in the NBA last season? I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Well that’s the thing: do you think $10MM is “starting PG” money? I’m not sure it is, especially not in years 3 or 4 of the deal when the cap has increased.
Regardless, if you’re investing in Tre it should be assumed that, long-term, he’s likely just a reliable “floor general” for the bench unit and you still need an answer at starting PG. I would hope that we’re not considering just rolling with Tre for the next 2-3 years with no intention of bringing in any other PG talent whether it be through the draft, FA, or trades.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote