Can a veteran choose to go play at Austin, knowing (well hoping) that he gets called up to the Big Club?
Like lets say a player knows Wemby is going to blow up and the Spurs future looks great.
He's willing to go to Austin for X amount of time, hoping sooner or later a spot comes open.
Even if it's the following year(s) When Wemby will be that much better.
Cam Payne. Instead of saying No i won't go to Austin, I'll get traded to ____. Payne decides to swallow his pride and go to Austing.
Pops Pet Trey Jones twists an ankle badly. Lets hope this does not happen.
But, theoretically now Payne is balling with Wemby in the playoffs.
A twisted ankle doesn't open up a roster spot. A blown out knee requiring surgery and a missed season doesn't open up a roster spot. There is no injured reserve list in the NBA. As long as you're being paid, and not under the stretch waiver provision, you occupy a roster spot.
OKC is in a similar spot as the Spurs -- too many players. I think they have the full 21. They could be compe ion in a consolidation trade. I do think some of them are cheaper than ours, so might cut some outright. I also think they have more 'junk' at the bottom of their extended roster than we do.
Exactly this
Player who can play with 1 year left >>> Player who's dead $$$ and has 2 years left.
The most important thing going forward is salary management.
It's also a BAD THING to ship useable players to Chicago 2 years before our pick options start. Let them ing rot and have our pick position improve.
Spurs don't really need to do another trade. Cutting players like Birch, Payne, Osman or Bullock would be fine to reach the 15 players limit.
With Mcdermott, Graham, Birch, Payne, Osman and Bullock, Spurs have $56.5M in expiring/almost expiring contracts. Even if they cut some of these players, Spurs will still have enough money to match salaries in a potential trade next season.
nobody said we should just trade a couple of players for ball. the appeal of the trade would be getting additional picks.
of course. salary management for this year would be the same. for next year we'd eat lonzo's cap hit minus the DPE. thats the real consideration here. otherwise we are going to waive 20 mil in salary this year anyway. no difference is its just some guys we waive or its us holding ball. matters for 2024, but thats what the draft pick is meant to compensateThe most important thing going forward is salary management.
the 2025 pick is a worthwhile consideration from the bulls that i hadnt considered, though bear in mind it is protected. making them deal with ball's cap hit in 2024 could help.It's also a BAD THING to ship useable players to Chicago 2 years before our pick options start. Let them ing rot and have our pick position improve.
but in the proposed trade we'd get an additional pick. its not for nothing.
"need" is a strong word. of course we dont need to. but waiving players who could have appeal as matching/expiring contracts at the deadline is leaving meat on the bone.
you could argue that its not enough to be concerned about, and are likely right. but if the opportunity presents itself, they should be active in those discussions
One can wonder if having as much expiring contract as possible is necessarily a good thing. The more expiring you have the more other teams will ask you to take additional players in a trade.
For example, with $40M in expirings a team can take Lillard but with $55M in expirings, Portland will also ask the other team to take Nurkic. Saying that, you can also say that having $40M in expirings is bad because a third team can come with $55M in expirings and get Lillard because they can also take Nurkic.
Given all the first round picks Spurs have in the future, I much rather see them giving an extra first round pick than taking a bad contract.
I think a deal would have to be pretty substantial deal to veer from the current trajectory. The actual money the Spurs are set to pay is approximately floor + Primo since other teams are paying the rest. I guess if a home run deal for a long term contributor/real star comes along before camp, that could be done but the Spurs might be more finicky about what they take back than most would like. I can't squint hard enough to see most of the stuff I see bandied about here happening.
if miami sends out herro/robinson/jacquez in a lillard trade, you cant squint hard enough to see them wanting to sell off Lowry for spare parts?
the lonzo scenario is one i see to be much less likely, that one is more theorycrafting than anything.
Not sure the Spurs would want Lowry. I mean I guess if they get a favorable pick situation out of it it could work. Not even sure the Spurs keep him the whole season in that case.
I've thought Lowry to Spurs would be likely if not for the fact Miami is doubtful to have enough assets left to make it worth SAS's time. Same with regard to Nurkic, whom would be more prohibitive than Lowry. There will not be enough assets to deal to entice Spurs to take him on, even if Miami finds a taker for Herro.
(This assumes Portland holds the line at 4 FRPs and Jamie.)
Well sure, they don't have to do a trade but a trade is preferable if you can get an asset back and not be on the hook for the salary. They won't waive anyone until they have to and should be looking for alternatives until then.
dont see the spurs being the team to take on Nurkic at all. he's not the type of player i think the spurs would be coveting, and his contract runs through 25-26
lowry is possible because he's a vet PG who can shoot, is a more steady hand than either of Graham or Payne, and by all accounts is a good culture/leader type. and he's expiring anyway. id rather have him than, say, Graham + Bullock + Osman. bullock and osman are already cut candidates just to trim the roster down to 15, so we're not really losing anything out of that anyway. basically have to ask yourself if you'd rather have Lowry or Graham for the season. not even sure you need trade comp to justify it for SAS.
aside from lowry himself, would still leave the spurs with McDermott, Payne, Collins (and Birch, though im expecting him to be waived) as expiring deals to work with at the deadline, though personally id like to see zollins extended
I think you flip Lowry at the deadline to a contender, and make Miami eat and pay for Birch, and that's your payoff.
I don’t mind taking on a bad contract that’s 2 years honestly if they asset is worth it. This year clearly doesn’t matter contract wise for FA etc…so it’s really about next off season where that is an issue.
However, in that scenario, said player would now be an expiring to another team where SA could pay to move them and still net a win/virtually consolidate picks that way.
Example: Take on player with 2 year bad deal and get a first round pick. Following off season, pay 2-3 2nds to trade player into someone else’s cap space if needed. Functional trade: 2-3 2nds for a first round pick.
Yeah, Miami doesn't even have enough assets to pay for Dame, and Portland sure isn't going to give us anything. We don't have to be entwined in the trade, but rather peripheral. Miami makes their deal with Portland for Dame, and then they include us to backfill their roster. There's really no interchange between us and Portland, and there doesn't have to be, as long as we send out assets and receive assets.
Spurs waive Payne
very slim chance they were going to keep both graham and payne, but guess they felt a trade wasnt gonna happen.
End of an erra.
I wonder if the Spurs were trying to include him in a trade and just couldn't get a deal done.
Thus ends the Spurs' attempts at Cam Payne finance reform.
Yeah I would guess they were trying to flip him and others. Don't think there's anything there. Teams are done making moves right now.
Basically guarantees Wesley's spot. The Spurs likely want to sign some Toros deals and need want the open spots to process through.
Blake Wesley's spot was never in danger.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
