Reply With Quote
If he makes less than he does now with his looming extension I would be shocked. I think 3 years 30M sounds about right. if the go + or - by about 5M that would be ok.
if he gets 40 million for 3 years
he will hurt the spurs cap room
If he makes less than he does now with his looming extension I would be shocked. I think 3 years 30M sounds about right. if the go + or - by about 5M that would be ok.
I thought that was why we had cap room, to sign him. No other free agent is more important that we could realistically get if you want to maximize Tim's chances to win.
Just want to clarify my original point. If the Spurs are looking to get better in the next 1-5 years and potentially remain a contender once Duncan declines, they need to look at their options.
Of the available assets the Spurs, I think exploring trading the trading of Manu is the best one as Spurs will never get fair value for Duncan and Parker is only entering his prime. The rest of the Spurs roster is unlikely to bring back anything significant in trade.
The objective in trading Manu would be to get something close to his current level of performance with the potential to exceed his performance in the future . That is why I suggested that the Spurs explore the potential for taking advantage of the status with this years restricted free agents.
Manu for Deng, Iggy, Okafor, Gordon, or someone of that caliber makes sense if the we keep this objective in mind. Manu for a average player or two or draft picks do not make sense as it is unlikely to improve the Spurs now or in the future. Now there is no guarantee that any of the teams with talented RFA's are willing to listen to an offer for Manu, however, with Childress taking up a Euro offer, the Bulls, Bobcats, 76'ers are all likely to be a lot less certain of their positions with regards to the RFA's.
To recap:
1. Manu for Deng, Gordon, Okafor, Iggy, or similar players. YES
2. Manu for role players or picks. NO
3. Manu for 3 years extra after 2010 for $10m or more. NO
4. Manu to expire in 2010 is better than 2 or 3.
Because they make money, the can't make mistakes.
Keep them coming, ol' ducks . . .
Keep him hes one of the best!
Option 3 will be the one the spurs choose and it will sink their chances of getting a le because Manu will be on the sharp decline by then.
I said I hope your nuts, not that you are. I hold out hope that he will do a Tim, and take a less than full market value (in Tim's case, MAX) extension because he wants to win. I hope to see him transition to a close to MLE salary (the role envisioned for Brent Barry when 1st signed), because I don't think the Spurs can financially support something more than 1 Max level player (Duncan until @2012, I think), 2 semi-stars (currently Parker and Gino), and assorted role players (some of whom will undoubtedly be overpaid...every FO makes some errors). I don't think that in 2010 onwards a core of old Duncan, old Manu, and prime Parker will be enough to contend, unless we get extremely lucky with injuries and such. I don't want to move Ginobili, he's a born winner, and can be a huge difference maker when healthy, but I am uncertain of his ability to have that sort of an impact over a season (post 2010). I think we need the salary cap space to bring in another semi-star level player, or pay the one that develops from our draft picks...I think having to bring in an outside player (and pay the associated premium) is more likely.
you can never make a mistake can youBecause they make money, the can't make mistakes.
Keep them coming, ol' ducks . . .
Get rid of Manu?!?!
Ha, I don't think you should've used a pic of the first dude that got kicked into the well.Get rid of Manu?!?!
Okay, Rustyman, I understand that you're not advocating trading for the sake of trading, or trading for pennies on the dollar. But given the parameters you've suggested in the quoted post, would you support(keeping the rest of the current roster in mind):
1) Manu and Oberto for Deng and Thomas?
2) Manu and Oberto for Gordon and Thomas?
3) Manu and Oberto for Okafor and a draft pick?
4) Manu and Oberto for Richardson and Ajinca?
5) Manu and Oberto for Iguodala and Speights?
6) Manu and Bonner for Crawford, Lee and Chandler?
I've included Bonner and Oberto assuming cap constraints. Beside, if the Spurs were to trade Ginobli, Oberto would be crushed. Might as well send him in the deal.
Most of the people on this board would reject all 6 scenarios listed above. Personally, I'd say yes, no, no, yes, maybe and maybe. On the maybes, I'm more no than yes.
The two deals I'd be inclined toward both effectively diminish the 2010 plan.
So, are these the sort of deals you'd want to see Rustyman?
Manu's value to this team over the next two years will be greater than anything the Spurs could get for him in return...especially coming off the injury-plagued series with LA.
His value after that is difficult to determine at this point, but not having him count against the cap in 2010 is VERY valuable. If the Spurs decide Manu is past his prime and have the option to sign a younger talent to play alongside Tim and Tony, they'll opt not to re-sign him.
If they can't find someone willing to come to SA for big bucks, they might just be better off signing Manu to a reasonable contract and going after another player or two for reasonable contracts.
Either way....trading Manu at this point or likely any point in the next two years wouldn't be worth it.
I more or less agree with you. But I'm just trying to engage Rusty on his terms. I don't see a worthwhile trade out there, but I'm not opposed to it as a conversation piece.
I'd say the Spurs should definitely go for 1,3 and 5 as the major players in those deals are likely to at least be good 2nd tier stars. With the other options, I have doubts as to whether the Spurs would be better off with any of them. Of these, 2 may be a possibility but the others simply don't make the Spurs better in the short or medium term.
Now whether those deals are out there to be made is another question but the Spurs should at least ask. In normal cir stances 1,2,3 and 5 would not be available in a swap for Manu and extras as these are young players with potential to get significantly better. However, RFA contract negotiations mean that these players could possibly be had at a discount because of the fear that the clubs may lose them for nothing in a year's time.
Deals 4 and 6 could be made now but in this case the Spurs would not get equal value in return. The Spurs will get younger but not potential star quality players in return. Both the Bobcats and Knicks would jump on these deals as it will make them immediately better.
The reason I floated the potential trades idea for Manu was that I really cannot see him averaging more than 30 minutes a game from this point forwards and Pop might be best limiting him to 24 minutes a game to ensure he has something in the tank come playoff time. At that point, while he delivers great value when on court, a younger player can offer 35-40 minutes per game and have a greater overall effect on the game outcome. With Duncan not likely to average more than 35 minutes a game either, you start having significant periods during a game where the backups and role players have to play a larger role than what they are capable of.
The easy way to address this situation is to get a younger player or two of close to equal ability who can stay on the court longer. Now getting that younger player might not be easy, the Spurs should still be trying. That is why I think Mahinmi could play a potentially critical role for the Spurs, if he develops into reliable starter in the next season or two, it partially compensates for the reduced minutes Duncan and Manu will play. If Mahinmi develops and Manu is traded for one of the players mention, then I think the Spurs are a legitimate contender for the next 5-6 years.
As for the 2010 plan, the objective of that plan should be to sustain and increase the success of the club. A move such as I suggested would likely do that and a year earlier than planned. For 2010, we should simply accept that the Spurs are not going to get Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc. These guys will get max money wherever they go and in much more attractive destinations than San Antonio. The Spurs plan is likely to hinge on being able to take advantage of moves which teams make to get these guys. I believe the Spurs don't have to wait to 2010 to make their move.
07-08 was the first season he even averaged 30 mpg for the Spurs. In 06-07, he averaged 27.5, did you find him valuable then? I'm not being a smartass; I'm just curious why you think his inability to play near 35 mpg isn't worth it now. For the four years prior to last season, he always played 27-29 mpg. I think he'll probably average right around 27 mpg again this year.
Thats just the point, I think Manu has been good value at $9m/year playing 27 mpg at his previous level of play. I do however think he is very likely to play 27 mpg or less at a lower level of performance in years to come. I think he is very unlikely to be good value for money at $10m/year playing 24 mpg from 2010 onwards.
Unlike some, I am not bashing Manu or denying that he has been great for the Spurs. What I am saying, is the there may be better value for money options for the Spurs from this point forward in trading Manu and even if these options are equal value for money, going with one of the young stars mentioned is likely to extend the Spurs window of opportunity.
When I look at it, I think there is a good chance that Duncan can sustain his level of performance or not drop off substantially for the term of his existing contract. I think Parker will sustain or even improve his performance over the next 5 years. I think Manu will decline significantly in the next year or two to the point of no longer being a 2-3rd tier star but more of a role player. I think that before that happens, the Spurs should explore their options to ensure ongoing success.
How many high profile Hispanic players have there been over the years? Not too damn many until recently. I do recall both the Rox and the Mavs having spanish speakers on their squads. Dallas had Najera and the Rox had Carl Herrera, who was Venezuelan, IIRC. Houston is hardly Hispanic when compared to SA or even Dallas. I'm sure that if the Mavs could get their hands on an All Star, All NBA hispanic guard, they'd jump at the chance.
i assume you, and most bball fans in general, would trade manu for pierce straight up (i know the celts wouldnt, but bear with me). it seems logical right? similar skill sets, similar stats, and pierce averages a good 5-6 minutes more.
but how would it improve the spurs if pierce had similar output in more time?
the upside of pierce isnt that he plays 5-6 mins more, its that he is presumably less injury prone.
but this is professional sports. pierce has had severe injuries, as has duncan, and kobe and dirk and iverson and so on and so on. are some guys more injury prone than others? absolutely. but that doesnt make it an exact science.
, a lot of the younger guys being proposed as trade targets have had injury woes of their own (okafor, richardson, crawford). what guarantees do you have they would be healthier than manu?
there are risks no matter what, from injuries to chemistry to bbal iq to work ethic and so on and so on.
IMO, a manu trade would have to improve the spurs for sure, not maybe. i have no doubt in my mind that, right now, there isnt a player out there that can give the spurs what manu does, at the price he does, and have yet to see a trade proposal to question that idea.
Ginobili is the rare type of player that will win you something even averaging 5 mpg.
Scoring 3 ppg.
He just has it.
Some posters -manifestly- don't.
Where was Pierce in the MVP voting, and the All-NBA team? Not trying to attck, I just really don't know. I think we'd be getting the bum end of the deal. Manu, Tony, and KG would be scarier than the current Celtic big 3, in my opinion.
Rustyman, thanks for the response.
After reading your response, I agree that if the Spurs *could* swing any of the aforementioned deals, they should give it careful thought. Again, I don't think that any of them cons ute no brainers, or even that the suggested trade partners would consider such deals, but the Spurs would not be receiving pennies on the dollar. I wouldn't be upset with Buford if he dealt Manu for something on the scale we're discussing. But all of the deals come with significant risk, and staying the course looks like a good option.
Trade Manu to Rockets for Scola!!!
Manu is probably one of the top 3 closers in this league when he's healthy, and the dropoff on the Spurs was obvious against LA when Manu's not 100%.
I hope they renegotiate/extend him for another three years at $10M+. In my mind he's up there with David/Tim/Ice as one of the greatest Spurs ever. Even a Manu that might be a half-step slower in a couple of years is still better than 90% of what's available in the league.
True. How many NBA players are there, anyways? 10 out of 720 right now means he's better than 98% of the players in the league last season. I think in 2010 he'll still be better than 88% of them, which is a great deal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
