Reply With Quote
Cut everybody that is labled as having "some sort of future in the NBA" and only keep players who can play now.
Decision day for Hairston
By Jeff McDonald on Jan 5, 10 06:37 PM |
In the 19 months since being drafted into the NBA, Malik Hairston's career has enjoyed more ups and downs than a pogo stick.
The Spurs have waived him twice, re-signed him twice and sent him to the NBA Development league three times. Now comes the latest most important date in Hairston's pro hoops odyssey.
Come Wednesday, the Spurs must decide whether to keep him on the roster — and thus guarantee the remainder of his contract — or waive him to keep from doing so.
Basically, before the end of official business tomorrow, Hairston will know whether he still has an NBA job or not. As of Tuesday evening, the Spurs' brass was still weighing the merits of keeping the second-year swingman, or cutting him loose.
The argument for keeping Hairston: The Spurs like him. He is young, athletic and a capable defender, a player they believe has some sort of future in the NBA. He played well enough during summer league and in the preseason to warrant a contract, and really hasn't had a chance to prove himself this season. He should probably be back in the Development League, where he can get minutes and sharpen his game — but Michael Finley's sprained ankle in early December required an extra body on the big club. It's not Hairston's fault he isn't getting more playing time to show what he can do.
The argument for not keeping Hairston: Times are tough, and the payroll already puts the Spurs over the luxury tax threshold. Including the dollar-for-dollar tax bill, waiving Hairston before his money is guaranteed saves the Spurs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 million. That's chump change, but in a season in which the Spurs are sure to lose money, every cost-cutting measure helps. Plus, losing Hairston would free up a roster spot, giving the Spurs a bit of flexibility should they feel the need to add a more substantial piece later on.
Which way will the Spurs go? In less than 24 hours, everyone — including Hairston himself — will know. Right now, it could go either way.
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblog...on-day-fo.html
Cut everybody that is labled as having "some sort of future in the NBA" and only keep players who can play now.
And that would be the reasoning I'd expect they'd use if they did decided to let him go. I just can't believe the guaranteeing of his contract (chump change, really, when considering where they're already at) would be what prevented him from sticking this time; they're going to need cheap options to fill the roster next year and they're not likely to find better options than Hairston to do so.Plus, losing Hairston would free up a roster spot, giving the Spurs a bit of flexibility should they feel the need to add a more substantial piece later on.
You're my boy, 'Lik! (in his best Will Ferrell)
i say keep him. hairston is the !
Hairston has done nothing to impress me. I wouldn't care either way
waive him and open roster spot for another big
1.4 mill is not chump change, especially to the spurs.
Has Pop given him much of a chance?
With the Spurs being over the cap I don't see him staying...
If Mark Stein is right, Malik's contract became fully guaranteed at some point in December. From his Weekend Dime:
Four other players had partially guaranteed deals that, as stipulated in their contracts, became fully guaranteed in December: Boston's Lester Hudson ($150,000 of his $457,588 salary was guaranteed); Cleveland's Danny Green ($140,000 of his $457,588 salary was guaranteed); Indiana's Luther Head ($250,000 of his $884,861 salary was guaranteed); and San Antonio's Malik Hairston ($50,000 of his $736,420 salary was guaranteed).
http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/p...t-decades-five
No, but that's what I mean. If he's not gonna be used outside of garbage minutes, why not clear a spot and save 1.4 mil? If he's sent to the D-League or something cuz the spurs want him to develop and comes back at a later date to produce, so be it. But the truth remains that he hasn't done anything at the NBA level to impress anybody.
That's why I say I didn't care lol
I say we let him go.
JK
I like this guy, its a shame he hasn't got many minutes. He is good on both sides of the court and improving. I honestly would rather see him play than Finley.
I think next year we will wish we still had him if he is cut.
Unfortunately for Hairston, the Spurs are paying Haislip about what Hairston would be getting.
So I don't see the Spurs keeping Malik. I think they'll try to save the 1.4M. You can't really blame them if Pop isn't going to play Malik anyway.
But I agree with the posters who have said they'd rather see Malik play rather than Finley. Finley is making 2.5M this year. We could have Malik for three years for that kind of money.
cut him. He won't see the floor so whats the point? I'd feel better knowing the Spurs save 1.4 million. Holt deserves that. If we are going to be over the cap, we should make every dime worth it. This is not worth it. Not now anyways... he wont play this year. I'd rather take my chances and let him go. The spurs can draft someone just as good, if not better next year. He is not a rare talent.
I don't care what they do w/ him. He's already closing in on 23.
My one-game analysis is that this guy is not worth keeping if there's someone else who is available for the roster spot. I went to the game against the Heat and since it became a blow out by the fourth quarter I got to see plenty of Haislip and Hairston. My observation is that the latter (I had to double check his number, which is #1, to make sure the one I noted was the right one) is terrible. He turned over the ball repeatedly and failed to make shots, rebound, or defend. Yes, it's garbage time, but that's your time to shine. And in that game, he didn't do so.
Haislip, on the other hand, looked pretty good. FYI
That is such faulty analysis. Yes, in that one game Malik played poorly and Haislip played well all things considered.
But so far, Malik has shown much more than Haislip, although neither have proven to be a sure thing at this level.
LOL @ one-game analysis..
Cutting Hairston would make no sense to me..he DOESN'T affect the 2009-2010 Spurs, but he would affect the future, as soon as next year..with Finley and Mason on expiring contracts, with the Spurs hoping to bring in Splitter, with the Spurs having to s out some $ for some of our other free agents..having a guy like Hairston that is on a cheap contract makes a lot of sense, especially if we lose Mason..
Hairston HAS produced on every level when he's been given the playing time..
He had 5 NBA games last year where he played 20 or more minutes..22 minutes, 9.2 PPG, 56% FG, 3.4 RPG, 1 steal and 1 block per game against other team's rotation/bench players..very respectable numbers for a rookie role player..he also outplayed his counterpart in the majority of those minutes..
He outplayed his opposition in every SL game, and he was the most consistent performer we had..
The past preseason was the same thing..he impressed enough to get a contract with a team that pretty much knew he wasn't going to play..
The Spurs franchise desperately needs project players..this is one of them..getting rid of him and continuing to rely on old role players would be stupid IMO..
All good points. The reality is that the decision will have more to do witht he 1.4M than with Malik.
However, it they keep him, it will speak volumes.
Yup, I would also like for the Spurs to keep him. He usually makes a good play as soon as he gets in the game.
So is it official yet? Did they keep him, or was he waived? I hope spursdotcom or someone provides us with an answer soon.
Probably won't know until later in the week.
i thought it would be an easy decision to keep hairston . apparently not. him being on the team may not be justified this year but next year when bogans, mason, finley, and ginobili's contracts all expire, he would be a cheap option.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
