Reply With Quote
I agree with most here that we aren't cutting Wesley. If he's not on the roster, it'll be because he's included in a consolidation trade, but even that, I'd say, is unlikely..
Sammich wasn’t even cut until after his second season, and because of a at ude, not because of his mid skill set. If he gets two seasons, I think Blake will, too, at a minimum.
I agree with most here that we aren't cutting Wesley. If he's not on the roster, it'll be because he's included in a consolidation trade, but even that, I'd say, is unlikely..
Spurs Homer did and I've seen other members suggest it as well.
Here you go. Now if you want me to dig up another example we'll need to place a wager on it. There have been a few members suggest that we waive Branham.
I’ve had spurs homer on ignore for a few years now
my bad
Why? In your scenario that Lakers match we still have money to to do those moves while facking the Lakers future with all the taxes they pay
We weren't the only team with cap room at the beginning of the FA period, and ing with the Lakers may have cost us one or more of those deals, maybe the Dallas swap, as we twist in the wind waiting for the inevitable match on July 6th.
at that time we were the only team with cap space for Bullock, and even if not, Spurs could ask those team to wait one day to see if Lakers match...
I'd rather not assume that the Lakers would call our bluff. The FO very specifically went into the offseason with the belief that they wanted to maintain financial flexibility and not make costly mistakes that would tie up our cap for years to come. Although I like Reaves he's far from a proven player with only one decent season and one great playoff run under his belt. He was good but not great with all those Laker injuries and it wasn't until the postseason that he punched above into another level.
We would be stupid to risk tying up 100+ million dollars hoping that he can be better than last season with less talent around him.
Figuring out what we have around Wemby and continuing to make pragmatic moves for at least his rookie season is just smart GMing. Blowing our wad on a guy who averaged 13ppg takes some faith when there's no good reason to take the risk. We probably have the most flexibility of any team in the league right now. We're doing the right thing in preserving that for the right move.
we could offer Reaves a Paul Reed like contract with 1 year guaranteed with 2 years becoming guaranteed if his team making the second round
There would have been no motivation for him to sign that. The 4 year 52 million was already on the table from LA.
ing with teams just to with teams is childish with no returnable value for the effort unless its a good faith offer.
We did the right thing.
Completely different situations. Samanic was one of a handful of young players on the roster. The team could afford to keep him. Wesley is in a roster crunch. A lot of the solutions people keep offering as easy fixes don't cut it. The Spurs will have to cut into the meat this year, and they will continue to have to do so for likely a few more years. The Spurs should be trying to reward the guys who perform well and putting the best team around Wembanyama, not trying to cling to prospects. If it's close, yes I think they go with Wesley. But if he's clearly not one of the 15-best players on the team, it would be a disservice to keep him. They cut Livio during the first camp despite having much less young talent and needing someone at his position. They cut Anderson after his first year when it was clear they couldn't wait for him to get healthy. Yes, those guys had their own special cir stances. But Wesley has his own too. I don't see any way he doesn't have to compete for his job. I see a tons of ways he can win that spot, but he should have to win it.
Spurs obviously did that trade for the second round pick but I wonder if they will now try to trade Devonte' Graham for an expiring.
Graham 2024-2025 contract is only $2.85M guaranteed so it isn't a big deal but it looks like Brian Wright is trying to optimize everything.
I keep saying the trade hiding in plain sight is for Lonzo Ball + a CHI FRP.
Dump 3 of our expirings there (including Graham) and eat ~18M next year.
Likely the Spurs get the disabled player exception too.
No, it's no childish, it's a legitimate basketball decision, and it's not just to hurt a rival team, signing Reaves to something 80m 4y is a fantastic value that you wouldn't get close to using the cap space you wish to save for next year weak free agence class
Could CHI trade Ball if they using the disabled player exception?
I don't see why the Bulls do this and the Spurs seem pretty clear they don't want to take on salary beyond this next season.
Whether that’s a “value” is yet to be seen. He still needs to take a jump this season to reach that value. 80 million is much more digestible than 100 million +. I think there’s a good chance they match 80 million.
Not sure, but there were rumblings of waiving and stretching him so I’m sure they’re exploring options for him. I’m suspect anymore those would impact their use of that exception going forward.
They get off 20M next year? They’re gonna be paying a lot of money to the ty trio of DDR, Vuc, and Levine.
Re Spurs I hear that, but when the next year’s free agency class is trash the whole point of expirings then is that by the next trade deadline you leverage those contracts to take back tier salaries with money into the following year for assets (see Graham; Berch). I see this as a trade deadline type of deal, but given the roster crunch it could be a “two birds one stone” type of thing.
You okay with them matching and making them pay more and putting them in tougher tax situation...
Spurs messed up this situation, admit it
I suggested he might be in another thread, but I think the only way that happens is if he requests it or the Spurs think it would help Wes get to another team. Otherwise, as others have said, there’s plenty of time.
get off ball's money a year early and get a couple of actually playable players for a year. presumably with vucevic, drozan, lavine, etc, they are still looking to win games
as it stands the earliest pick they can trade is 2029 though
No I’m not okay with that. There’s no evidence or proof that it would even hurt them in the long run. They could up using that large contract to attract a bigger player. Then you helped them rather than hurt them. What you’re suggesting is just childish stupidity.
I prefer we operate above water and in good faith. ing over the compe ion that deliberately isn’t a win and doesn’t do anything to further our franchise. I understand that ethics are nothing compared to winning but I don’t see any real tangible value for egregiously attempting to teams over.
I’ve always found greater success in concentrating on myself and my own business rather than put effort into ing someone else over.
Thinking it's better having Reaves at bigger contract rather than cheap contract make no sense, stop being front office homer
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
