Reply With Quote
I guess I'm glad somebody in the media stopped deepthroating the FO for once
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...winners-100726
San Antonio Spurs
I put the Spurs here because they got under the luxury tax while signing the best free-agent contract of the summer, Brazilian big man Tiago Splitter's three-year, $10 million deal. Splitter could start at center for a good chunk of the league's teams right now, but in a summer in which Brendan Haywood got $55 million, San Antonio got Splitter to cross the pond for relative chump change.
On the other hand, they got under the tax solely because Richard Jefferson opted out of a final year on his deal that would have paid him $15 million. This one raised eyebrows in front offices around the league, many of which suspected that there was a prearranged deal between the two parties.
This isn't an outlandish premise, given that:
• Jefferson told reporters in April that it might be worth it to opt out if he could get a four-year, $40 million deal (he said it right here on April 11).
• That's almost to the dollar the deal he received in July.
• Doing so got the Spurs out of the luxury tax and allowed them to sign Splitter at a discount.
• There didn't appear to be any kind of serious bid from another team to drive up Jefferson's price.
That said, we have no smoking gun that there was any kind of prearranged deal between the Spurs and Jefferson. We don't even have a smokeless gun. All we have is the cir stantial evidence above, as well as two other pieces of information:
1. The Spurs don't sign bad contracts.
2. This is the worst contract of the summer.
Seriously, four years and $39 million for Richard Jefferson? Did Isiah Thomas take over the franchise and not tell anybody? Wings who depend on athleticism have a rough time in their late 20s and early 30s; Jefferson just turned 30. He wasn't a $10 million per year player two years ago, and sure as heck isn't going to be one two years down the road.
Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing.
So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.
I guess I'm glad somebody in the media stopped deepthroating the FO for once
Bonner was the worst signing of the summer. Where is the outrage??
So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no one tell him we re-signed the red choker...raptor arms has soo much upside its ridiculous!!! i mean he must if you let go of haislip/ratliff/mahinmi for the most unathletic big in the league. please dont give me the haislip sucked story, if he would have put haislip out there for more than 2minutes when were up by 20 or down by 20 we would have def seen him exceed matt " post season" bonner.
all haislip needed was a little time to get some type of chance then matt breaks his hand wohhoo haislip gets a some minutes!! no pop played richard jefferson at the 4 and dejuan blair (love the kid)all im saying is this time last year i was soo freaking excited until pop pulled his stubborn absurd lineups for reasons only tom cruise or his ex findog knows
" Follow the money, however. Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing"
This is really how we should look at his extension. Sure years 3 and 4 of his contract will be bad, but that's a price to take to at least try to stay relevant for now while not being over the tax.
Last edited by ogait; 07-26-2010 at 11:35 AM.
Haislip? Seriously?
Considering the luxury tax situation and how much they were going to spend on Jefferson (22-25 million figuring LT) I don't see how the anyone can call that the worst contract of the offseason. There were so many bad contracts that I think for anyone to even say that is complete bull .
the extension should be look like we Subtract $17 million from $39 not from 31$ million, and that give us 22$ million for 3 years extension - 7.3 million per season!
I thinks the worst contract is Joe Johnson for zillion of dollars. Or Haywood for half a zillion. Or giving Rudy Gay max extension without making quallifying offer and waiting to match other team`s offers.
I think Hollinger is basically spot on. He calls Jefferson's contract the worst of the offseason but does explain the Spurs' reasoning for doing what they did.
I like the Spurs moves. Realistically, what other options did they have?
Nope, Hollinger wrote this corretly. With 9 mln RJ new contract counted in, Spurs are saving 17 mln $. So this money can be subtracted from salary from last 3 years of deal
He assumes an extension would be made after this year as if he hasn't opted out of his contract. It can't be 39$ - 17$ because he will receive 31 $ millions for the finals 3 years of his current 4 years deal.
Jefferson's contract is not good, but "the worst"? Amir Johnson? Johan Petro? Darko? JJ?
That performance incentive deal is pretty interesting I wish it were a bit higher and the guaranteed money was a little lower.
Well, its been a known fact that players usually play a lot better after a year playing within the Spurs system. If by some miracle, Jefferson plays to what everyone expected from him last year, then I think its a good deal. I honestly didn't want Jefferson back but considering what was out there, this deal was the best the FO could do. So, I'll reserve any type of judgment until after the season begins and see where Jefferson's play stands.
From the money perspective it's not bad. But i'm sure the FO was praying that some other team could match the offer. Then the FO would work to get a S&T. That would be the best cenario. And that's what the FO really wanted.
He doesn't fit and Pop and RC Buford know it. It's not a matter of time to get into the system, it's a matter of playing style.
Let's just hope RJ puts some effort in his defense and can shoot at least decently from the arc.
I assume that RJ's contract doesn't have a no-trade clause in it, so the Spurs might do even better with his contract in the years to come if things change.
Haislip?
As much as I can't stand Hollinger, this is probably the best argument for the contract I have heard.
That said, I would have rather let him walk.
Maybe that wasn't an option if it was all pre arranged between them.
What would've held them back?
What other 12 ppg small forward would you have chosen in our price range? I sure hope RJ has a better upcoming season than last, but he showed signs of beginning to "get it" about 2/3 of the way into last season. Given the limited pool of small forwards and the inflated prices they were getting, RJ is still the best fit.
Anyways, when does training camp starts?
Jefferson doesn't opt out in the first place?
I thought you meant it wasn't an option to continue on with the arrangements. I was asking what would stop them from getting rid of the plans after he opted out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
