Is the Warriors close to the tax?
Every year is supposedly Nelson's last. Fact is if GS is still willing to pay him, he's going to keep taking their money. He won a power srtuggle with Mullin and has basically carte blanche to do whatever he wants to / with that team.
There was a series of articles about six months ago that were linked to on Truehoop about how ed up the situation is out there. I'd love to have Jack back, but I think it's a longshot.
No, but they have two contracts that go to 2014 and two others that go 2013. They also have 4 swing players making at least 7.6M next year.
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...s/warriors.jsp
Most of the scenarios discussed are, at least the Spurs could fit this longshot under the lux tax. It would be a perfect fit.
One can have hope.
Because RJ's contract is for just 2 more years not 4. So in the next 2 years if we don't end up with a le we can always have 2011 to sign another max player to pair with Tony for the future. We can't do that by signing someone with the contract like Jackson ( even though I would trade for him). And even though Jackson would cost 6.5 million less, it wouldn't really be if you look at it this way.
Spurs trade: Bowen, Oberto, Bonner, Mason
Milwaukee trades : Richard Jefferson
Milwaukee would buy out Oberto and Bowen to save 3.5 million on the books next year. Spurs would resign them for the minimum. So in essence Spurs really would be trading Mason and Bonner for Richard Jefferson.
Richard Jefferson would take Mason's minutes. So in reality we would only have to find Bonner's replacement, oh darn.
So yes it can be possible.
But all in all I'm down for Jackson or Jefferson or any move that would really improve our team around the big 3 for the next 3 years. All i know is our window is shutting fast and our FO needs to act quickly and rationally.
You keep saying, but you have yet to show it.
Show a 13-15 man roster that includes the Big 3 and RJ and stays under the lux tax without having 9-11 minimum contracts. You haven't shown it because it is not possible.
And the idea of RJ's two year commitment allowing the Spurs to point to 2011 to sign a big time FA is further evidence of your lack of math skills or your utter laziness to check the numbers. In 2010, Tim and Tony have combined salaries of 32.4M. In 2011, Tim will make 21.3M and Tony will be in line for a significant raise from the 13.6M he will make next year.
The Sjax contract is 4 yrs for 35.4M. RJ's is 2 yrs at 29.2M.
Which is the better deal?
Jack at his current contract and his current output is a steal. If there's any shot the Spurs could land him, I'd be all for it. I really don't mind his long-term deal; the thought of Parker+Manu+Jack+Duncan through 2012 makes me drool.
In fact, the more I think about it, I'd be willing to give up any player on the Spurs roster short of the Big 3 to get Jack back. Sure, Bruce+Oberto for Jack works, but I'd be willing to throw RMJ or even George Hill into the mix. Not that I want to, mind you, but sometimes you have to give up quality to get quality.
Last edited by lurker23; 05-03-2009 at 02:41 AM.
price tag is a MAJOR con. hes pretty old too.
He's 31 and isn't declining really. 31 is young for spurs years.
first off, I don't think Sjax is on the market. GSW will try to get rid of either Maggette or Crawford, best case both. maybe they are willing to talk about Sjax when they get desperate because they fail to trade the other two. but this won't happen before the beginning of training camp and I don't think the Spurs have the time to wait that long with their major move. (and then the contracts of Bruce and Fab will have become guaranteed, so their value for other teams isn't as high).
but if he was on the market, sure he would be a great acquisition. age isn't a big problem. of course it would be nice if he was 2 or 3 years younger, but at least he should be able to play 2 more high level seasons. Ray Allen is 3 years older than him and he just played maybe the best PO series of his career.
even the last year of Sjax contract isn't that much of a bad thing. Spurs will need to make their big moves in 2012, this means the expiring contract of him might be the centerpiece the Spurs need to get a blockbuster trade done.
however, for the next two years at 7.6 and 8.4 the contract isn't bad at all. could be called bargain, if Sjax delivers big time.
GSW 59,27m $ for 2009/10 for 11 players
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/golden_state.htm
31 isn't that old for a non-highwire act. Jack plays his game pretty close to the ground. It's the same reason JKidd is still a VERY effective player in his late 30s.
You have to evaluate a player's game to see how they'll age.
Reason why Duncan is still great and will be geat for a while longer.
Close to the ground.
Jack however when tempted will drive to the basket.
iirc there was a few games he helped win in 2003 because of his drives to the basket and would either get a layup or duncan would tip in the miss.
Trade Bonner and Thomas to GS for Jackson.....I believe both will be coming off the books after next year. They get 2 bigs.......we get a wing we desperately need.
He would like Bonner, but again, why would GS do that?
Originally Posted by Biggems
I believe both will be coming off the books after next year
This in my opinion would be the best pick up for the spurs. We all know how good he is. Is his contract really that bad? Is he making over 10 million a year?
If the Warriors stay at the #7 pick, then that salary added to the shamsports numbers give them a total for 09/10 of about a little over 64 million.
The concern with Jackson is that he's coming off surgery.
his estimated salary (via shamsports, numbers differ from hoopshype and seem more in line with espn)
09/10 - 7.65
10/11 - 8.45
11/12 - 9.26
12/13 - 10.06
Don't see a reasonable trade scenario that GS would go for. But if you did sign Jax it means no new deal for Manu unless he takes a major paycut.
Maybe there's hope for a Jackson trade after all.
There was a conference call Thursday (5-21) for GSW season ticket holders yesterday featuring the Team President and new General Manager fielding questions from fans.
A transcript from "Golden State of Mind"
Why the rush to sign Stephen Jackson?
Rowell [team president]: Need to get facts straight. We sat down last summer with the entire basketball staff and everyone was in agreement to extend. At the time of the extension there were 96 players in the NBA who were paid more than him. He's a player our coaches, front office, and basketball people wanted. If they want to move him later, it's a movable contract.
Nope. What id DOES mean is that Jack and Manu are your 2010 plan, and no one else is coming.
manu i do it....who knows if manu is going to bolt if he gets a better offer?
sure we can use the free cap to bring in someone, when was the last time a big name player would come here....
i rather have jackson then trying to sign someone with the 2010 plan.....at leasts his guaranteed on our books for another 2 years....if it doesnt work out, we can always trade him away and extend parker what his really worth and you got duncans contract going of the books in the same period as jacksons....
We need younger guys right now. We can't keep getting older.
Getting Steven Jackson IS getting younger...for the Spurs, anyway.
Nah. let's worry more about him being 31 years old, rather than his playoff assassin shooting, and multiple years of Mav killing in the playoffs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
