RJ's Contract Details

[MannyIsGod]

So, they couldn't use the MLE on someone next year? ~6 million is less than the ~9 million they will pay to Jefferson to next year. That's 3 more million to put on Tony's contract. Seems logical.

I'm sorry is there a provision in the RJ contract where they lose the MLE?

[MannyIsGod]

You are calculating a tax penalty and salary they did NOT have to pay. He opted out on July 1st. I'm not sure if you saw that. They didn't owe him a salary. They could've signed MannyIsGod for a min contract and saved 8 million.

Except that its likely the only reason he opted out was to sign the deal the Spurs offered him. You know, that smoking gun and bull you were yapping about above?

No new deal then RJ never opts out.

Of course the Spurs could have screwed him but I'm sure that would just have made getting free agents so much easier in the future.

[dbestpro]

You are calculating a tax penalty and salary they did NOT have to pay. He opted out on July 1st. I'm not sure if you saw that. They didn't owe him a salary. They could've signed MannyIsGod for a min contract and saved 8 million.

We would have not opted out unless this was already in the works.

[oligarchy]

u dint answer the question... why is "smoking gun" = illegal? can u pull up the CBA and show the clause where it said its against the rules?

Why do I need to provide the evidence? Can provide the evidence that it is not?

I'm sorry is there a provision in the RJ contract where they lose the MLE?

Dude. You are ing moron. Did you type some and not even comprehend what you were typing?

They weren't going to be able to bring anyone in the following offseason because if they extend Tony they'll have no room and if they don't extend Tony then we're ed either way.

Why would they have no room next year? If they don't re-sign RJ, they have room. They would have that thing.. what's it called? Oh, it's the called the MLE. Next year, 6 million is less than 8 million, no? Do we need will_spurs to give us a finance lesson?

Except that its likely the only reason he opted out was to sign the deal the Spurs offered him. You know, that smoking gun and bull you were yapping about above?

No new deal then RJ never opts out.

Of course the Spurs could have screwed him but I'm sure that would just have made getting free agents so much easier in the future.

We would have not opted out unless this was already in the works.

I didn't know you guys worked in the front office.. That's sweet, what's that gig like?

[ChumpDumper]

They would have that thing.. what's it called? Oh, it's the called the MLE.

Why do they not have it after signing RJ?

[oligarchy]

Why do they not have it after signing RJ?

Exactly. Works in either case, if he did or didn't. They'd still have it.

[MannyIsGod]

So like I was saying, with or without RJ they don't have any cap room.

Thanks but try to keep up.

[MaNu4Tres]

[Obstructed_View]

My point is that you're both wrong. Its not a violation of the rules. The Boozer situation was not a violation of the rules and this situation was not a violation of the rules.

You think Gund was going to violate the rules then go on the record and say in the media "Hey Boozer just renigged on our agreement that violated the rules - I just figured I'd throw that out so I can lose draft picks like my friend McHale!"?

Your point that we're both wrong is therefore wrong. Gund wrote a letter to the fans of Cleveland afterward where he says that an agreement is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and then goes on to explain the agreement that they had.

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gu...er_040714.html

[oligarchy]

So like I was saying, with or without RJ they don't have any cap room.

Thanks but try to keep up.

You seriously are a ing moron. I feel bad for you.

You said they had "no room" if they re-sign Tony next year. They can still bring in a player. They don't need cap room. If they used the MLE next year on a player, they would be about 3 million below what RJ will cost them next year. I know English is hard, it's okay.

Try to keep up dummy.

[MannyIsGod]

Your point that we're both wrong is therefore wrong. Gund wrote a letter to the fans of Cleveland afterward where he says that an agreement is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and then goes on to explain the agreement that they had.

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gu...er_040714.html

Yeah, written agreements are against the CBA. Gund didn't have one. Thats why it wasn't against the CBA like you said it was. The Spurs (as far as we know) didn't have a written agreement either which is why it wasn't against the CBA either.

[ChumpDumper]

You seriously are a ing moron. I feel bad for you.

You said they had "no room" if they re-sign Tony next year. They can still bring in a player. They don't need cap room. If they used the MLE next year on a player, they would be about 3 million below what RJ will cost them next year. I know English is hard, it's okay.

Try to keep up dummy.

So your strategy was to not have a small forward at all this season?

[dbestpro]

Is someone keeping score?

[oligarchy]

So your strategy was to not have a small forward at all this season?

What is this "my strategy" bull ? I didn't say I had any strategy. I merely stated that it is was a fallacy to say that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony.

[ChumpDumper]

What is this "my strategy" bull ? I didn't say I had any strategy. I merely stated that it is was a fallacy to say that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony.

So it isn't your strategy.

Who said re-signing RJ would cost us Tony?

[MannyIsGod]

You seriously are a ing moron. I feel bad for you.

You said they had "no room" if they re-sign Tony next year. They can still bring in a player. They don't need cap room. If they used the MLE next year on a player, they would be about 3 million below what RJ will cost them next year. I know English is hard, it's okay.

Try to keep up dummy.

Jesus Christ. Thanks for reaffirm the point you're arguing against. RJ's contract doesn't' change who they can bring in next season because they don't have any cap room either way.

[oligarchy]

So it isn't your strategy.

Who said re-signing RJ would cost us Tony?

Either read or shut the up.

[MannyIsGod]

What is this "my strategy" bull ? I didn't say I had any strategy. I merely stated that it is was a fallacy to say that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony.

Cool. Who argued that point? Can you give us a link to a post saying that not resigning RJ would cost the Spurs Tony?

[MannyIsGod]

Either read or shut the up.

You should just stop posting.

[ChumpDumper]

Either read or shut the up.

U mad?

I did read.

No one said that that I saw.

Maybe you could show me which post to read in this 37 page thread.

[MaNu4Tres]

MannyisGod and CD FTW

[oligarchy]

U mad?

I did read.

No one said that that I saw.

Maybe you could show me which post to read in this 37 page thread.

No, I'm not mad. I just don't care to hand hold you as you cherry pick quotes to prove something I'm not even arguing about so you get you socks off. If you don't know what's being said, don't quote me about something I didn't say.

I didn't say they can play without a SF.

I said, they didn't need to sign him to 4 years. Everyone is under the premise that he was staying for 1-year if there wasn't some pre-arranged deal. Otherwise, the choice is 4 years. Then MiG said it handcuffs then in either case. I basically said, 1-year rental doesn't cripple the team.

MiG said they couldn't bring in a player next year if RJ stayed for the final year.

I said they had the MLE next year to use because they would be over cap. That would be 3 million less than what they are going to pay RJ next year.

It's all hypothetical bull that doesn't matter.

That is all.

[ElNono]

The only scenario lost is the possible trade due to his expiring but that was never a sure thing to bring back a more talented player or a better fit.

It wasn't a sure thing, but it's better to have the option than not have it, IMO. You can always embellish the trade offer with some picks and/or a kid like Blair and you have a $17 million or so in value to get a different piece for one last run in TD's final season.

But as it is, if RJ keeps on laying turds, then why even bother extending Tony? We're not going to be contenders so might aswell start tanking ASAP.

[ElNono]

Either read or shut the up.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[DPG21920]

I understand that, but this segway was in reference to the handcuffed comment. The Spurs were always handcuffed by RJ. I get that people wanted them to go out and get someone this off season but if they had a deal with RJ lined up then that was never a possible situation.

We can argue day and night about possible trades but neither are scenarios were the Spurs are necessarily free to do whatever they want. You needed either a team willing to trade for Jefferson who has someone better or a better fit.

They weren't going to be able to bring anyone in the following offseason because if they extend Tony they'll have no room and if they don't extend Tony then we're ed either way.

The only scenario lost is the possible trade due to his expiring but that was never a sure thing to bring back a more talented player or a better fit.

My handcuffed comment was in reference to the Spurs making the mistake of agreeing to the deal before RJ opting out. They could not go back on the deal when they saw how poor the market for RJ was and that is why I said they were handcuffed.

You are right. We can argue about hypothetical trades all you want, some logical, some not. But what we do know for sure is that paying someone 40M for 4 years that does nothing to help you win a le realistically is a bad idea.

We also know that doing essentially the same thing as last year, but bringing in a few rookies and one solid big man would not be enough to contend. I don't know what else they could have done, but it still does not make sense to sign RJ to a bad contract because of that.

I'm sorry is there a provision in the RJ contract where they lose the MLE?

Well considering the Spurs robbed Peter to pay Paul in terms of skirting under the LT, it is safe to assume they won't go that far into the luxury tax. I know Holt said he was willing last year, but this next year and beyond....not so sure.