I don't get the "reward a bad fit who made a dumb decision" with a good contract logic. If the Spurs want him back, they should give him not one penny more than the best offer he gets.
If he gets nothing, then you offer him nothing but pennies on the dollar short term.
I personally believe they will pay him a little more than what's needed because they'd want to have him back under the best possible conditions given the cir stance. They still need to have him perform to the best of his ability and showing him a little love after he got his ass humbled and beaten in FA could possibly be the best way to do that.
Ya, I agree..
It would be a huge mistake to overpay, but I don't think they should give him his current "market value", since it would be too low..
Jefferson seems to be the moist type that would probably sulk all year due to the way everything has went so far, especially since the media will probably ridicule him all year for opting out and not getting a proper contract..
Couldn't have said it any better...
Still haven't gotten used to that avatar. The thought of having an intelligent discussion with ducks . . .
So if you sulk, teams should pay you more
IMO he would be sulking regardless.
Jefferson is washed up and sucks in our system. All the motivation in the world won't change that.
Pragmatically it makes zero sense for the Spurs to overpay Jefferson one red cent. We pay him the least amount we can get away with.
It is what it is.So if you sulk, teams should pay you more
IMO he would be sulking regardless.
Unfortunately for basketball front offices, players are human. And if you need them to perform at a certain level, there's a certain amount of catering to one's needs and feelings that has to be taken into consideration in a cir stance like this.
He won't be happy but it's hard to be a Jake when a team gives you an unnecessarily kind offer; even if that offer doesn't make up for all of the butthurt.
I'm unsure where this idea that RJ's going to stop giving any effort if he doesn't get paid a lot of money came from. I don't think there's any evidence of his doing that at any time in his career. Furthermore, as you mention, I don't think you can throw more money at a guy to keep him from quitting on you.So if you sulk, teams should pay you more
IMO he would be sulking regardless.
Usually, I would say no, but he's pretty much the only option the Spurs have right now..I don't think he's going to be any better this year, as you already know DPG(since I was on your side against most people that are desperate to keep him here), so I'm saying the Spurs should give him a reasonable contract to keep him happy..
It's not about "stop giving effort"..it's about Jefferson being extremely mentally weak, as we've already seen..
So while he's going to suck either way, and he should be a bench player, it's better to keep him happy and have a good relationship with the team IMO, especially since he's probably going to be here for years(sadly)..
I would rather the Spurs not re-sign Jefferson instead of giving him more than 2 years, but they obviously will IMO..
Basically my sentiments, both as it pertains to my affection for RJ and the Spurs' need for him. Sometimes the best option is a necessary evil.
JMcDonald_SAEN
Heard three, heard five with fifth year partial guarantee RT @Amer_Mansour if RJ were to re-sign, how many years/$?
I'd rather the Spurs overpay RJ over three years than give him five years. Three years and $27 million and let's end this charade.
My thoughts exactly.
Why pay $27m if you can pay $20m? I think that's where the Spurs are at this point.
I'd shoot between 21 and 24M for 3 years but if tacking on a few extra mil mitigates not giving him another year ... get 'er done.
My default response would be structure the contract to be as easy to move as possible if the right trade opportunity comes up... but the lockout / CBA makes a lot of this so speculative.
But one thing that is predictable - existing contracts won't be voided, so there will be a lot of teams that will be way over the cap is the new CBA drops it. Even if things don't change significantly, there will be teams looking for relief like now, so I would say do the three year contract - but add a fourth fully or mostly unguaranteed year that gives the Spurs an attracative trade chip.
JMcDonald_SAEN
It is. @Stang_08 I thought u said signing Jefferson was pretty much a lock.
lol trolling McDonald on Twitter...
Again, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that he's mentally weak. I think too many Spurs fans are taking it personally that he didn't mesh as well as they thought and that he didn't score the same number of points as he did with the Bucks with only 40 percent of the shots he got with the Bucks. If he's really as useless as many of you say, then I don't quite understand why you wouldn't want Hairston or Gee or free agent x starting in his place.
What's the hurry? Opting out was a gamble. If it doesn't pay off then the Spurs should get him for market value. He's not an asset that warrants overpaying to lock up.
Same here. I think in the end, he ends up with something like that, but with a partially guaranteed 4th year tacked on. That would give the Spurs the option of using him as an asset in trades going into that 4th year.
Update: In red, players that are gone:
1. Mike Miller
2. Josh Childress
3. Wesley Matthews
4. Kyle Korver
5. Anthony Morrow
6. Travis Outlaw
7. Linas Kleiza
8. Josh Howard
9. Ronnie Brewer
10. Ryan Gomes
11. Matt Barnes
12. Dorell Wright
13. Rasual Butler
14. Tony Allen
15. Pete Mickeal
16. Quentin Richardson
17. James Jones
18. Bobby Simmons
19. Tracy McGrady
20. Jarvis Hayes
21. Bostjan Nachbar
22. Rodney Carney
23. Stephen Graham
24. Alan Anderson
25. Devin Brown
26. Antoine Wright
27. Joey Graham
28. Dominic McGuire
29. Keith Bogans
30. Damien Wilkins
Gross list.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
