Reply With Quote
LOL, you beat me to it.
Sign Wallace or McDyess to start and deal for Nocioni without giving up Mason (Bonner+Finley+1st rounder). Re-sign Bruce. That would give you a swingman rotation of:
Starters
2 Ginobili
3 Jefferson
Bench
2 Mason
2/3 Bowen
3 Nocioni
Nocioni could also play some 4 as needed. A dream, perhaps. I'm just not sure that if Bonner & Finley are moved that they would be moved for a big. Nocioni's deal isn't cheap, but it apparently declines over time and has $21 mil left over the next 3 seasons. I have no idea what Sacto intends to do with him but as they are in the middle of a rebuild, that would free up a fair amount of cap space after next season. Spurs are loading up to take their last shots at a le and the window will get smaller every season from here on. Nocioni would add some real depth to the swingman rotation.
LOL, you beat me to it.
I think I'd rather trade for Collison than Nocioni. Nocioni sure has turned into a slow "in his own mind" three point chucking shooter.
If Finley opts out and the Spurs trade Mason and Bonner, all that means is that Bowen would have to be re-signed and Hill would have to get more minutes at the backup shooting guard. I don't see the horror in that. (And don't forget that RC has said they are looking for a young, defensive perimeter player. That's even more depth.)
Finley picking up his option costs the Spurs $5M. Trading him with one or two other players forces Holt to spend even more money in filling out the roster. Unless we've entered bizarro world and Holt has bottomless pockets, I don't think he's going to keep okaying moves that will cost him.
Don't villify Michael Finley for a mistake by the FO.
I'm up for this, but if you think Manu is crazy about playing for the NT, Nocioni is 20x worse. He will play in one leg if necessary and the team be damned. That's just how he rolls. I believe he already confirmed his presence for next year worlds.
Theoretically I think it would be ok with Nocioni because he would be just a bench player.
Leaving out my response to that of course. Convenient.
I personally have no beef whatsoever with Mike. I appreciate what he has given to our team. My beef is with Pop. That said, if Mike is around I'm afraid Pop will keep on making that mistake, and considering Pop is going nowhere, the only solution I see is Finley gone.
I agree, I think Nocioni would be too risky.
True. At this point I think you load up and the Spurs seem to agree thusfar. After 2012 there will be plenty of time to carry a low payroll and ac ulate lottery players on cheap contracts as the team is built around TP.
If what you just said was not drivel I don't know what it is...
How about you stick with defending Bonner and leave it at that?
I don't think it's about money at all for Finley. It's more likely he's thinking he's got one more year to win a championship and retire a Spur.
But if he knew the Spurs were going to trade him to some bum team then I think he'd take the vet to play with Cleveland, Boston, Orlando, LA (though I don't think interest is there) without hesitation.
+1
As to trading Finley/Bonner/Etc for a big, I dont understand this. Would we then go after a wing player in FA? Or are we banking on resigning Bruce and him playing solid minutes as backup sf? Wouldnt a deal for Nocioni, or any other 3-4 be a better idea of us? Considering that we have options in FA when it comes to quality Bigs.
A Parker/Hill/Ginobili/RJ/Bowen perimeter rotation lack of a shooter.
Even if Mason is quite expensive, I rather keep him in that role.
I would rather have Marquis Daniels for cheaper than Noc.
How many times did Bowen opt out to save the Spurs money? How many times did he pass up money to stay with the Spurs? If Bowen were in Finley's place, he'd do what was best for the team ... and Finley's made way more money than Bowen in his career.
But even if you to ignore that, which is fine, then there are still ways to get creative to help everyone involved. Finley could opt out and then sign a two-year deal at the minimum. He would end up making more money than he is currently owed but it would cost the Spurs less because the NBA would pick up the tab for a lot of his salary. Plus a vet minimum doesn't fully count against the lux tax. So Finley would make ~$300K more and the Spurs would save ~$2M, if my math is right.
But yeah, timvp is being mean because he has the best interest of the team in mind and doesn't have compassion for Finley trying to reach the $130 million mark in career earnings.
I like Chapu, but loath his contract. It, together with RJ's deal, would really put a squeeze on us next summer when it comes time to make a decision on Manu. In effect, a move for Chapu could signal that the Spurs are OK with Manu being on his way out next year. I'm not sure how I feel about that...
Collison on the other had would be an interesting pick up.
Also, has Morrow recieved a QO?
So a Parker/Hill/Ginobili/RJ/Finley perimeter rotation = good
and a A Parker/Hill/Ginobili/RJ/Bowen perimeter rotation = lacks a shooter?
Streaky volume shootings are a dime a dozen. Considering that Finley doesn't shoot well off the bench and Bowen did shoot well off the bench last year, I don't follow the logic to begin with.
I didn't say that.
At the end of the day it may turn out Finley taking the option was pre-arranged to give the Spurs maximum salary to play with in trades. Then Finley retires and everybody here dumping on him looks stupid. Afterall, like Kori said, you still have to explain his house being on the market.
Then what does it equal?
Pop or Finley: Pick.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
