Reply With Quote
By the way, has this thread crossed the ridiculous threshold for number of back-and-forth over pointless minutiae? ;-)
Would they have? I thought the OP original calculation of $75.8MM included Splitter and Neal's salary already figured in--so $5.8MM is all-in over the tax threshold #?
By the way, has this thread crossed the ridiculous threshold for number of back-and-forth over pointless minutiae? ;-)
And there is another charge eists for the teams who are overluxury tax:
The luxury taxes which are paid by teams are collecting in a pool and the teams who do't pay luxury tax are sharing that money.
For exapmle, let's ssum that last year 5 teams paid 50M luxury tax last year. The remaining 25 tams is getting this 50M. 50/25 = 2M for each team.
You haven't been here long enough, obviously.
Just for the of it:
Change that $8.4M of RJ's to the $15.2M he was due and go with the median salary for Anderson ($1,135,000) and you come to a number of $74,455,000 for 11 players -- the tax line is $70,307,000.Players with guaranteed contracts
Duncan + Parker + Ginobili + McDyess + Blair + Hill : $50.82M
Matt Bonner: $3.05M
Tiago Splitter: $3.4M
Richard Jefferson: $8.4M
Gary Neal: $.85M (against the tax)
$66.52M for 10 players
James Anderson will likely be signed. His salary will be between $0.91M and $1.36M.
That's $4,148,000 in tax for 11 players. Even if they went with 13 and signed minimum players they're paying $6M in tax . . .
All this number crunching is really impressive, and while I have no doubt that the Spurs saved themselves money from a business standpoint, the fact remains that, from a basketball standpoint, they've taken an overpaid player that doesn't fit well with this team who was here until the trade deadline and turned him into an overpaid player that doesn't fit well with this team who's here for four years. Many people questioning the decision to retain RJ are focusing on that rather than the financial windfall Peter Holt bought himself into.
In the scenario laid out above losing the ability to trade RJ's expiring is a very valid criticism of the restructured deal because it would have dropped the Spurs below the LT if they traded him at the deadline (or before for that matter) as well.
I guess the Spurs figured a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Species Playoffticus Chokeritus Softo aka Jefferson donning his renewed Spurs jersey:
From a basketball standpoint they signed the best FA SF they could afford.
Or that was willing to come to SA (see Barnes, Matt).
From a basketball standpoint they didn't even look at anyone else and signed a decent guy for too many years and too much money.
From a basketball standpoint, they said their goal is to win a le and they did nothing to achieve that goal all the while adding long term money problems with an aging player.
Good job, DPG. So, you had a solution that could let the Spurs join the ranks of the Lakers and the Heat? Please share it with us if you do.
Good job, Chieflion. So, you had nothing either. You realize we are fans and not in the front office? Your little argument that since I could not personally orchestrate an off season that vaults the Spurs into true contention it means my opinion is wrong is damn silly.
I do know that when a team gets swept, and their goal is to win a le, it takes pretty major overhaul if you truly want to reach said goal.
I don't know what could have happened outside of opinion and fictional, but logical trade ideas, but I do know that what they did is not good enough.
Holla black.
So since the Spurs couldn't sign Lebron James and Chris Bosh, they might as well overpay for players that don't fit the system and lock them in for several years? You actually thought about what you were going to type and this argument is what you came up with? Really?
The Spurs didn't overpay any player (*) except Bonner (and that's still a big if since we don't know what other teams would have offered him). As far as players not fitting the system, I guess you mean RJ - I think there's hope.
As for the other solutions, they all revolve under expecting junior players will turn into All-star vets in 6 months... which even Parker, Hill or Blair couldn't do. Perspective is seriously lacking on this board.
The reality of it is that with Duncan, Ginobili and Parker already on the books for significant salaries, there's just no cap space at the moment, and the Spurs will have to find a way to win with those 3 without being able to attract any other All-Star to the team. Get used to it. The Spurs FO job is to bring in the best role players, and they are trying hard.
Whenever faced with the fact that there weren't other significant FA deals to be inked by the Spurs for the kind of money they could spend, all this discussion becomes moot.
(*) Anybody who thinks the Spurs overpaid RJ should take a Finance 101 course asap.
I didn't have an idea, so I am not ing. The FO hasn't done us wrong much in the past, so I will trust them, if not for one last time. I will post my opinion in this thread. We don't have a top 8 NBA player in the NBA anymore, so we don't have that star power the other contenders do. Adding depth wasn't the answer. Yes, it takes a lot of overhaul, but the overhaul can't happen unless said top 8 player in the league can come over to the Spurs or it will take quite a few years, sadly the Spurs know they don't have that luxury of time. You post good arguments, but the Bobby Simmons idea was really dumbfoundingly ridiculous. Holla black.
Maybe you need basic math for elementary school students?
4 years/39 million.
he OPTED OUT on July 1. They didn't owe him anything; they didn't have to resign him, so don't try the, "They saved 6.8 million on his salary and XXX for luxury tax."
I'm not sure if you know this. When a player OPTS OUT, you don't owe them the salary for that year. So, let's walk you through it: Richard Jefferson, who was due 15.2, opted out. When he did that, the Spurs didn't owe him anything. They could have signed a minimum player and saved almost 8 million versus what they paid out to him. That's finance 101 for you.
We are all operating under the premise the Spurs and RJ had a deal in place. That is the mistake. Once that was done, the Spurs were hand cuffed
You can operate under that premise, but he opted out. The Spurs did not have to pay him anything.
$40,000,000 > $0
I'll say it's lacking. Since I'm sure you aren't implying that Richard Jefferson is going to be an all star in six months (something he's never been), I'm not sure why you're asking his replacements to do the same thing, so that must be a strawman - apology accepted.
What the Spurs need from that position is outside shooting, some free throw attempts, and decent defense. No part of that is an outrageous expectation from the guys that are here plus whoever the Spurs could have signed during the offseason, particularly since there's some evidence that the "junior players" can do exactly those things at least as well as RJ did last season.
Actually, I have a question for the CBA experts out there. As many have stated, it is generally assumed that a pre-arranged deal was made:
Jefferson opts out of his last year and in return the Spurs put a 4 year/40 Million deal on the table for him.
If such an arrangement was made with a player from another team, it would definitely be tampering. Similarly, the Joe Smith deal (Smith was a Wolves FA at the time), where he took a small contract from the Wolves in return for the promise of a larger contract later, was considered a CBA violation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Smi...ry_cap_scandal
How could such a deal between the spurs and Jefferson not be a CBA violation?
Xs 10.
We can only hope Splitter rocks and Blair stays healthy and gets minutes from coach Moron.
And since obviously no team offered Soft more, why would Bumford and Popazit offer such a ridiculous contract? In fact did any team offer Soft anything? What a joke the FO/Zit surrounding Tim Duncar with a quality frontline continues to be.
Spurs bidding against the Spurs.
They weren't handcuffed before? I'm pretty sure RJ wasn't opting out with out this.
It would be a CBA violation, if they could prove it. E.g., was stupid and said they talked about it before July 1st, but it's plausible deniability until evidences is brought forth. One thing that they have going for them is that Jefferson made his intentions known and what he was looking for around April; that he would opt for long term security. I could be wrong, but I believe he even gave an example 4 year/40 million contract.
The Joe Smith situation also spanned several NBA seasons and several one year contracts in order to build up bird rights.
There's nothing illegal about the Spurs saying opt out and we'll sign you long term or RJ proposing the same.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
