Reason to trade Mahinmi?

[ChumpDumper]

The top man in an organization never takes the fall for bad decisions if someone else under him can be pointed to.

Right, so you're really talking about Holt and the other owners -- not Pop.

[objective]

The top man in an organization never takes the fall for bad decisions if someone else under him can be pointed to.

I thought the Pop public comments about Scola was just CYA.

re: taking the fall at the top . . .

remember the alleged scout who was blamed for the FO not knowing how old Nocioni was? Clearly the scout was responsible, the buck stopped with him.

[temujin]

He had a good game against one of the worst teams in the history of the NBA.

Before talking contracts and millions, wouldn't it be wiser to wait until he has, say, eight straight games in the NBA?

Possibly playing, not watching.

[lurker23]

The problem is that Ian will be an UFA this summer and Spurs don't have bird rights on him.

Teams overpay for young athletic bigmen. For example, Ryan Hollins got $7M/3 years last summer. If Ian shows some good things, Spurs will have to spend a part of the MLE to keep him. Spurs will surely have other needs for their MLE like a SG/SF or Splitter.

Right now, Spurs are in a no-win situation with Mahinmi. He is still very green so he won't really be able to help the team short term wise. Long term wise, either he doesn't pan out and Spurs are wasting their time on him or he is good and Spurs will likely lose him this summer.

After reading much of the thread, this is one of the few takes that is dead on. Bottom line, unless you seriously think Mahinmi is a le piece this year, then the Spurs don't have much to gain by not trading him and giving him a lot of minutes. I doubt the Spurs will bring him back next year if he costs any more than the minimum, and even that might be questionable.

Oh, and Mahinmi =/= Scola. He's given us no real indication that he's anywhere close to Scola. And if it turns out that he is the next long-term regret the Spurs have, trading him now shouldn't be the decision that fans lament for all eternity; rather, the move that sealed his fate (for better or for worse) was not picking up his option for next year.

[ceperez]

Oh, and Mahinmi =/= Scola. He's given us no real indication that he's anywhere close to Scola. And if it turns out that he is the next long-term regret the Spurs have, trading him now shouldn't be the decision that fans lament for all eternity; rather, the move that sealed his fate (for better or for worse) was not picking up his option for next year.

It's completely perplexing that they didn't play the guy for at least one game before the option deadline.

However, an expiring contract has a lot of value in the market and maybe the Spurs have their eye on another potential athletic big man (i.e. Serge Ibaka)

[HarlemHeat37]

I wouldn't mind trading Ian if it helps get a legit big man in return..a 3 for 1 trade for a guy like Haywood, or maybe if they trade Ian for the Nets potential 31st pick so that the Spurs would feel more comfortable giving up our own 1st rounder in a different deal..

If it's just to save money, that's very disappointing..while I understand the reality of the financial implications and the reality that a million $ is a lot of money, even to wealthy owners, it would still be giving up on a guy that has some upside to help us this season..while it's way too early to proclaim anything about Mahinmi after 1 game, he still IS the biggest non-Duncan big we have and by far the most athletic big man we have..it's kind of puzzling how he wasn't given a chance earlier in the season..

That Haislip signing sure turned out to be a waste though, even though it was a low-risk/high reward potential move..I understand that those types of results are likely in these kinds of situations(we lucked out with Bogans though, he's been good), it does look bad in the end..

[SenorSpur]

It's completely perplexing that they didn't play the guy for at least one game before the option deadline.

However, an expiring contract has a lot of value in the market and maybe the Spurs have their eye on another potential athletic big man (i.e. Serge Ibaka)

I like Serge Ibaka too, but I can't see Presti letting him go - even in a trade.

[SenorSpur]

I wouldn't mind trading Ian if it helps get a legit big man in return..a 3 for 1 trade for a guy like Haywood, or maybe if they trade Ian for the Nets potential 31st pick so that the Spurs would feel more comfortable giving up our own 1st rounder in a different deal..

If it's just to save money, that's very disappointing..while I understand the reality of the financial implications and the reality that a million $ is a lot of money, even to wealthy owners, it would still be giving up on a guy that has some upside to help us this season..while it's way too early to proclaim anything about Mahinmi after 1 game, he still IS the biggest non-Duncan big we have and by far the most athletic big man we have..it's kind of puzzling how he wasn't given a chance earlier in the season..

That Haislip signing sure turned out to be a waste though, even though it was a low-risk/high reward potential move..I understand that those types of results are likely in these kinds of situations(we lucked out with Bogans though, he's been good), it does look bad in the end..

How is it possible that Haislip is under contract for next year, but Ian is not? Here is a athletic big, that was a 1st round draft choice, still young, shows promise, but hasn't played. The Spurs brass doesn't what they have in this kid yet because they inexplicably chose not to play him - for some God-awful reason. Meanwhile, the Fakers have cultivated and developed Andrew Bynum into a starting big - and oh, he was drafted the same year as Ian.

They already made the first mistake by not picking up his option. Getting rid of him only compounds this mistake and makes absolutely NO sense. If the FO is going to continue their short-sighted approach toward player personnel, investing only in short-term, experienced options that are all on the north side of 30 years old and dumping young players before they develop, then the FO should forfeit all their future draft choices.

[Obstructed_View]

How is it possible that Haislip is under contract for next year, but Ian is not?

The same reason that Beno Udrih's option was picked up, but Ian's was not.

[wildbill2u]

I agree with the poster who said that not picking up Ian's option probably sealed his fate with the Spurs for a couple of reasons.

1. No matter what the kid says, the Spurs move probably pissed him off. If any other team comes close to that money with an offfer he will take it.
2. Since the Spurs avoided paying Manhinmi 1.7 on the option, they couldn't come close to that money they avoided without looking stupid.
3. They can't continue to play Mahinmi. What if he's one of those guys who doesn't look good in practice but comes to play at game time? They'll look dumb if he's adequate and dumber if he plays well. Playing him is a no-win situation for Pop and FO.

Summary: Spurs aren't about to check their ego at the door and turn around and keep him after not picking up the option. He's gone.

[wijayas]

Can someone please explain to me the reasons to trade Ian Mahinmi? From my understanding, trading him would likely be a salary-cutting move. It would save the Spurs the rest of what he's owed this year, about 700K I think, plus the discount on the luxury tax from lowering the payroll by that much. In total it would save about 1.5 million, I think.

The possible upside though, and I think a lot of ST agrees with me, outweighs saving that comparatively small amount of money. The payroll is already 80 mill. According to what we've heard, R.C. and Pop persuaded Holt that the team needs to spend more to compete against the LAs and Bostons of the league.

Those teams, especially LA, have many talented, athletic bigs. We need similar players to keep up. They are rare, and coveted by teams who have them. It appears we may have one with Ian. As we all know, the team is getting older, especially on the front line, and needs young athletic big players. In most of the trade talks we have on this board, a young big is often at the top of the wish list. I think we'd all like someone who is a bit more experienced and plays better D than what it seems Ian has to offer, but is what we could find in the trade market going to be significantly better than Ian, more experienced in the Spurs system, any cheaper?

I know a lot of this is repe ive and well-known to those who follow the team, but I'm trying to lay out all the reasons I see to keep him vs. the minimal benefit of saving not a lot of money. I really don't see the logic. I hope this thread isn't too repe ive and I'm hoping it can focus specifically on the reasons to trade him. Can people please explain them to me?

PS: If the Spurs do trade him, this message board may burst into flames.

I agree. It is a stupid move to shed a seemingly low salary by NBA standard. Got to see the upside! None of our bigs are that athletic.

[CGD]

I see that but the Early Bird limitation is for a player who "just completed the second year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the third season". Ian fits the regular Bird Exception, because at the end of the year (when he'll be re-signed or sign with a new team) he will have been a player who just completed the third year of his rookie contract but the team declined the fourth year exception. As I read it, he doesn't fit in the early bird limitation.

Yup, I think you're right. The statement that the "the Spurs don't possess Ian's Bird Rights" made earlier in this thread is not accurate. I made a similar observation yesterday:

Hmm... I was under the impression that this was Ian's second year. If this is his third year, then the Spurs should possess Ian's Bird's right subject to the limitation on 1st Rounder whose teams did not exercise their team option.

[VI_Massive]

Yup, I think you're right. The statement that the "the Spurs don't possess Ian's Bird Rights" made earlier in this thread is not accurate. I made a similar observation yesterday:

So just to re-cap and summarize:

1. Ian's regular bird rights limit the Spurs to offering him the value of the extension they declined.

2. Ian does seem to be eligible for the full early bird exception because the limitation that restricts his offer for regular Bird rights does not apply to his early bird rights. So if Ian is eligible for the full early Bird rights, the Spurs can offer him, without touching MLE or LLE, 175% of his pay, or the league average, which ever is higher. In this case that would be the league average, which for next year will be somewhere around 5 mill. The deal has to be between 2 and 5 years in length.

Do I have this right? If so, assuming the Spurs were willing to pay Ian up to the max available under early Bird, wouldn't they be able to make him a pretty solid offer in the offseason? Of course, someone else could blow them away, but they'd be able to give him like 3 years, 12 million or something, right? This is of course assuming they play him and performs well and stay healthy.

[pad300]

Follow up question to all this. IF Ian is traded, he is still a UFA. However, does the team he is traded too have full bird rights? The Spurs don't; they declined his rookie option, and can't pay him more than that would have been worth. The team he is traded to would have made no such decision. If this is the case, there is at least still some value in his bird rights, assuming he continues to play well. Otherwise, he is simply a small expiring contract.

[VI_Massive]

So just to re-cap and summarize:

1. Ian's regular bird rights limit the Spurs to offering him the value of the extension they declined.

2. Ian does seem to be eligible for the full early bird exception because the limitation that restricts his offer for regular Bird rights does not apply to his early bird rights. So if Ian is eligible for the full early Bird rights, the Spurs can offer him, without touching MLE or LLE, 175% of his pay, or the league average, which ever is higher. In this case that would be the league average, which for next year will be somewhere around 5 mill. The deal has to be between 2 and 5 years in length.

Do I have this right? If so, assuming the Spurs were willing to pay Ian up to the max available under early Bird, wouldn't they be able to make him a pretty solid offer in the offseason? Of course, someone else could blow them away, but they'd be able to give him like 3 years, 12 million or something, right? This is of course assuming they play him and performs well and stay healthy.

I've been tweeting back and forth with CBA guru Larry Coon about Mahinmi. He says that, for sure, a team cannot decline an option on a rookie deal and then subsequently pay the player more than the option. So it looks like SA is limited to offering Mahinmi the 1.8 value of the option or using LLE or MLE.

As far as the transfer of his bird rights to team receiving him in a trade, I have no idea.

[Bruno]

To clarify the situation with re-signing Mahinmi.

If Ian is still a Spurs this summer and Spurs wnat to re-sign him, they will have 4 options:
- Minimum contract: 1 or 2 years contract with a minimum salary ($885,120 for the first year and $947,907 for the second year)
- Re-signing using the limited bird exception they have: a contract from 1 to 6 years with a 10.5% raise. The first year can't be higher than $1,786,354M (the value of the 4th year of his rookie contract).
- Using the LLE: 1 or 2 years contract with 8% raise. The max salary for the first year is $2.08M.
- Using the MLE: 1 to 5 years contract with 8% raise. The first year of the contract can't be above about $6M (next summer MLE).

And if Spurs trade Mahinmi, the other team won't have full bird rights on him. Mahinmi's contract situation surely doesn't help his trade value.

[pad300]

To clarify the situation with re-signing Mahinmi.

If Ian is still a Spurs this summer and Spurs wnat to re-sign him, they will have 4 options:
- Minimum contract: 1 or 2 years contract with a minimum salary ($885,120 for the first year and $947,907 for the second year)
- Re-signing using the limited bird exception they have: a contract from 1 to 6 years with a 10.5% raise. The first year can't be higher than $1,786,354M (the value of the 4th year of his rookie contract).
- Using the LLE: 1 or 2 years contract with 8% raise. The max salary for the first year is $2.08M.
- Using the MLE: 1 to 5 years contract with 8% raise. The first year of the contract can't be above about $6M (next summer MLE).

And if Spurs trade Mahinmi, the other team won't have full bird rights on him. Mahinmi's contract situation surely doesn't help his trade value.

Well, congratulations to Spurs management on this one. They have well and truly ed themselves by declining Mahinmi's option; they didn't even save themselves some tax space this year...

[Bruno]

Well, congratulations to Spurs management on this one. They have well and truly ed themselves by declining Mahinmi's option; they didn't even save themselves some tax space this year...

Well, you'll be damn right if Mahinmi turns out as a good player. For the moment, it's way too soon to say.

[pad300]

Well, you'll be damn right if Mahinmi turns out as a good player. For the moment, it's way too soon to say.

Even if he doesn't turn out to be a good player, they have minimized his value. Right now he a very small expiring and nothing else. However, given the game he had against the nets, he clearly has some potential even if he never achieves it. But no team can trade for that potential; they have no way of keeping it. If a team trades for him they are limited to paying him a max of 1.8 million next year. Look at the contract Amir Johnson (Detroit) got. Ian can't be thrown into a trade as a prospect on a cheap contract.

[lurker23]

Even if he doesn't turn out to be a good player, they have minimized his value. Right now he a very small expiring and nothing else. However, given the game he had against the nets, he clearly has some potential even if he never achieves it. But no team can trade for that potential; they have no way of keeping it. If a team trades for him they are limited to paying him a max of 1.8 million next year. Look at the contract Amir Johnson (Detroit) got. Ian can't be thrown into a trade as a prospect on a cheap contract.

I think you're putting too much weight on one game. I'd argue that as it stands right now, he has more value as an expiring contract than as an unproven player who is owed close to $2 million next year. That might change if he has 5 more good games, but we'll deal with that "problem" when we get to it.

[OrEmuN]

To clarify the situation with re-signing Mahinmi.

If Ian is still a Spurs this summer and Spurs wnat to re-sign him, they will have 4 options:
- Minimum contract: 1 or 2 years contract with a minimum salary ($885,120 for the first year and $947,907 for the second year)
- Re-signing using the limited bird exception they have: a contract from 1 to 6 years with a 10.5% raise. The first year can't be higher than $1,786,354M (the value of the 4th year of his rookie contract).
- Using the LLE: 1 or 2 years contract with 8% raise. The max salary for the first year is $2.08M.
- Using the MLE: 1 to 5 years contract with 8% raise. The first year of the contract can't be above about $6M (next summer MLE).

And if Spurs trade Mahinmi, the other team won't have full bird rights on him. Mahinmi's contract situation surely doesn't help his trade value.

Do we have the LLE to offer to him ? I am under the impression that we have signed Haslip under LLE and as such, LLE is only available to us next year.

In any case, option 2 does not look too bad. Most probably no one is going to offer much for an player that they have hardly seen (I assume that Pop is not going to play him much) and we still can preserve MLE for Tiago.

Lets keep in mind that Tiago is the number one option and Ian is not. In any case, if Ian does break out, we will stash Tiago for another year and sign Ian on MLE.

[Bruno]

Do we have the LLE to offer to him ? I am under the impression that we have signed Haslip under LLE and as such, LLE is only available to us next year.

There were reports saying that Spurs have signed Haislip with the LLE but they were wrong.
Haislip has been signed to a minimum contract and Spurs will have a LLE next summer.

In any case, option 2 does not look too bad. Most probably no one is going to offer much for an player that they have hardly seen (I assume that Pop is not going to play him much) and we still can preserve MLE for Tiago.

Lets keep in mind that Tiago is the number one option and Ian is not. In any case, if Ian does break out, we will stash Tiago for another year and sign Ian on MLE.

The re-signing problem is only one if Ian plays some minutes and plays well.

Now look at what happens against Mavs and Lakers: Ratliff and Blair barely plays and Pop went with small ball and overplaying Duncan. Pop isn't obviously fine with Spurs current crop of bigmen. Bonner coming back should help but I'm quite skeptical that it will solve everything. Spurs will need an upgrade: a trade is by far the most likely solution but Pop could also give a try to Ian in a kinda desperate move.

And I don't know what Spurs will do with Splitter. He Spurs in 2008. I'm not sure Spurs FO is willing to "reward" him by offering a big fat contract with him. I can see Spurs saying "you sign for the rookie scale or stay in Europe", especially if they don't badly need him.

[venitian navigator]

I think that in any case Spurs will need him next year...Mc Dyess and Duncan are aged, Ratliff won't be here, Blair, Haislip and Mahinmi are not exactly proven nba players and Bonner is an outside shooter more than a real big... We need a young body than can make what a true big should make : rebound, defend and block shots. Splitter, also if still not with nba experience, fits the scheme : he's long, plays good defene, rebounds dedcently and block shots. I don't know if hes worth the entire mid level, but I seriously doubt that if we solw-ball him offering just the rookie scale he could easily choose to stay overseas...with a little damage for him (he will still command big european money, given he's surely one of the best five bigs in Europe at the moment) and a big damage for Spurs (that will difficultly find a player of that kind, even not at a good price, in nbe market).

[objective]

I'm not sure Spurs FO is willing to "reward" him by offering a big fat contract with him. I can see Spurs saying "you sign for the rookie scale or stay in Europe", especially if they don't badly need him.

I can picture that happening, easily. Even if they do badly need him. That wouldn't stop them from offering $1 million a year AND lecturing him about how no one is guaranteed minutes, so he could forget even asking about a role.

[SenorSpur]

I think that in any case Spurs will need him next year...Mc Dyess and Duncan are aged, Ratliff won't be here, Blair, Haislip and Mahinmi are not exactly proven nba players and Bonner is an outside shooter more than a real big... We need a young body than can make what a true big should make : rebound, defend and block shots. Splitter, also if still not with nba experience, fits the scheme : he's long, plays good defene, rebounds dedcently and block shots. I don't know if hes worth the entire mid level, but I seriously doubt that if we solw-ball him offering just the rookie scale he could easily choose to stay overseas...with a little damage for him (he will still command big european money, given he's surely one of the best five bigs in Europe at the moment) and a big damage for Spurs (that will difficultly find a player of that kind, even not at a good price, in nbe market).

. Good points here.

There isn't any question that we need this guy. Frankly, the fact that the Spurs were dumb enough NOT to pickup the kid's option and the fact that we're having this forum debate to justify him being retained, is insane.

Given his natural raw skills, and the small sample of what we've seen recently, along with his continued development, Ian could be a very integral part of the Spurs future. , they've already invested 4 years in him. Pair him up alongside Blair and Splitter and these 3 guys could allow the Spurs to build a rather formidable frontline. This will help the Spurs hedge themselves against an almost certain talent dropoff.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unless the Spurs are planning a total roster makeover when Duncan shuts it down, tanking a few regular seasons, and breaking out the ol' rabbit's foot, on their way back to New York for the NBA Draft Lottery, in a mad search for the #1 pick and the next Tim Duncan or David Robinson, they can ill-afford to let young talent walk out the door. That goes for Ian, Blair, Hill, & Hairston, too.

For 20 years, the Spurs have been so fortunate to have had not one, but two franchise centers. In all likelihood, that will not happen anytime soon. The Spurs probably will not be bad enough to be an annual lottery team and the number of underclassmen and foreign players pouring into the draft have all worked to change the talent pool landscape of the NBA draft. A franchise-saving, quick-fix, savior is not likely to be heading their way anytime soon. The Spurs are going to have to grow their talent from within.

It's too late to take out auto insurance after the car has been demolished in an accident.