Reply With Quote
Ding Ding. As I said, it would be almost 3 million (or more if you didn't spend the whole MLE) since is owed around 9 million next year. That's also saying MLE is around 6.
It very well could change who they bring in next season because with him off the books, although that does not equate to more cap space, it does equate to financial flexibility with less commitments on the books.
Ding Ding. As I said, it would be almost 3 million (or more if you didn't spend the whole MLE) since is owed around 9 million next year. That's also saying MLE is around 6.
I'm confident that they'll still use the MLE regardless of Jefferson's contract. We'll have to wait one year to know for sure, but yeah.
The option of not re-signing Jefferson was proposed. Considering the free agent market, that is pretty much de facto going without an SF.
And there was no quote made of anything you didn't say. A conclusion was drawn.
It certainly does hurt the team financially.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.
That depends on Tony's new deal and the luxury tax threshold, none of which are currently known and which could be further affected by CBA negotiations.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.
In that case, one should probably not get so worked up over it.It's all hypothetical bull that doesn't matter.
That is all.
That was something discussed in a parallel topic, but wasn't what was being "argued." The main premise of either Jefferson for 1-year or Jefferson for 4.
That's debatable, as explained. Keeping RJ for 1-year, would be better for Tony next year. The other point being, if RJ is bad fit, why keep him around longer with the possible impact of hurting Tony's chances of staying here?It certainly does hurt the team financially.
That depends on Tony's new deal and the luxury tax threshold, none of which are currently known and which could be further affected by CBA negotiations.
indeed.In that case, one should probably not get so worked up over it.
Aldridge has a report out saying he's going to do it in the future as well but I understand your final point because I am pretty much in the opinion that they did make the extension to save money this year.
I don't think you can say RJ doesn't help you win a le. He definitely helps, but he doesn't put this team over the top. This team didn't lose last season because of RJ. He's an easy scape goat because he was brought in with a lot of fan fare and people thought it would put them over the top but the number one factor for the Spurs is health and they didn't have it last year.
RJ helps, but he doesn't put you over the top this year. He's a piece. He's not the ideal piece, but he's the best the Spurs have and had access to. Everytime I play poker I want a full house but I take top pair when I get it.
This is where we disagree I guess. I don't think RJ moves you forward. I think he keeps you from *possibly taking a step back (*there are a lot of variables that could have worked out in the Spurs favor had he not opted out or not been resigned; possible trades, young guys surprising, FA...).
If you want to call that moving forward, then ok. I just don't see it that way. I also don't see the reason to pay what you described, which is best case scenario (meaning a piece, even though not the right piece), 40M over 4 years.
I am not blaming RJ for everything like I have said before. It is the situation and RJ just so happens to be that player. There were a lot of things wrong and RJ was in the group. Even though it was not all his fault, it certainly did not warrant a 40M/4 year deal imo, even if that was the best option.
Spurs imo, had to take the gamble with RJ for one year or take the gamble with young guys/FA and possible trades.
So Jefferson for one year puts the spurs so far into the luxury tax that they don't even sign Splitter. That's a possibility.
And worse for now, which could make it worse for tony later.That's debatable, as explained. Keeping RJ for 1-year, would be better for Tony next year.
Is he that bad a fit?The other point being, if RJ is bad fit, why keep him around longer with the possible impact of hurting Tony's chances of staying here?
As I see it, RJ did do the Spurs a favor by opting out and the Spurs rewarded him with probably one more year than they really wanted to give him. They may have only kicked the can down the road when it comes to luxury tax payments, but having the time to figure something out has its own value.
I think that sums up the whole RJ situation pretty well.
Probably the Spurs wouldn't have been able to get a better SF than RJ to come here right now. Alright, you could always trade Tony and definitely get a good SF (and a couple of other things) for him, but who is going to play PG in the S5? Anyone saying Hill is clearly delusional in my opinion.
So if you want to make the impression you're trying to get a team as compe ive as possible for the upcoming season, RJ was the best option available.
Yeah, barring a miracle, the Spurs won't beat the Lakers, Splitter or no Splitter. But not signing RJ would have made it look like throwing in the towel right away from the beginning of this season. I'm not living in SA or anything, so there are a bunch of people who are closer to the situation than I am, but I think Holt and the FO want to show Duncan they are doing everything they can to line up the best possible team they can right now. So yeah, RJ being around for maybe four years more is bad, but it's in the line of going all-in as long as Tim is under contract (without getting too deep into Luxury Tax area, that is).
Actually, I don't see the situation like that at all. RJ was playing for the Spurs this season pretty much no matter what.
True, but alot of what people are calculating for luxury tax savings were assuming that Splitter was coming over regardless. Still a valid possibility, but we don't know either way, nor what Holt was really "willing" to spend
True, spending that much the season before and getting no returns would definitely inhibit the extension, but to what degree? The savings next year could be 3 million or more, depending on the FA and the salary they command. That definitely doesn't make up for the other 12 million lost, but does it make it make it more or less likely though, that Tony re-signs based on the savings of this year? Does that mean they'll offer him max?And worse for now, which could make it worse for tony later.
For four years, I think so.Is he that bad a fit?
As I see it, RJ did do the Spurs a favor by opting out and the Spurs rewarded him with probably one more year than they really wanted to give him. They may have only kicked the can down the road when it comes to luxury tax payments, but having the time to figure something out has its own value.[/QUOTE]
I can see the case where he can inhibit their spending in the future. I don't believe it's all doom and gloom once Duncan leaves, so it could be a problem where his contract can be burdensome on the back-end, since they'll have a number of contracts to resign, etc. That extra 10-11 million in the those last two years could carry alot of weight.
What will be funny is if Jefferson comes out and hustles and plays great D and hits his open shots, doesn't stifle the offense, etc. That will make me laugh if he is stellar next year.
The question in my mind is: How much better are the Spurs impact wise (meaning regular season games, playoff run) with RJ vs without him and is that worth the 40M?
It's not just that for me though, although that is a big question. The other big part is what is the real goal? To save money or to "go all in"? If it is to go all in, there are, at least in theory, plenty of bad contracts like RJ's that could be had via trade that would have changed things up and had a chance of working out. The thing is we know RJ is not a good fit and that his upside is low, for now and 4 years down the road. If you are willing to do that (although I know getting under the LT was the driving factor), why not do a trade for a bad contract for someone with more upside?
Exactly. The mistake was having this deal in place instead of letting RJ just stay for 15M. If they let RJ stay without a pre arranged deal they still have the "best option" and he is expiring and off the books next year. Of course, they could potentially trade him as well.
If he decides to opt out anyways, then they get him for a seriously reduced value more than likely.
For people using the calculations on RJ's salary vs the luxury tax, my point is that money was a sunk cost. They should have just let it go, but obviously it is not my money and they want to make some money.
They needed RJ to opt out. The only way to assure that was to offer him years.
It's not sunk if you don't have to sink it.For people using the calculations on RJ's salary vs the luxury tax, my point is that money was a sunk cost. They should have just let it go, but obviously it is not my money and they want to make some money.
But only if this prearranged deal stuff is true, isn't it? He could have opted out, not wanting to come back, and we might be talking about how much Bobby Simmons has left in the tank right now. Because RJ opting out doesn't give the Spurs the money to sign a great free agent SF either.
The best case scenario would have been RJ not opting out, of course. His expiring contract would have been a nice asset come trade deadline. But as soon as he opts out, I can see why the Spurs have been doing what they were doing.
Why? To save money?
Huh? They were either going to pay the LT or pay it to RJ over 4 years. They were paying the money regardless.It's not sunk if you don't have to sink it.
You're such a moron reading your stuff makes my eyes bleed.
RJ OPTED OUT BECAUSE HE HAD A PREARRANGED DEAL WITH THE SPURS.
I dont' know if I'd say they needed him to opt out but RJ opting out did make Splitter coming over much easier.
It has to be true. I mean, you can try to convince me otherwise, but there's no way he's that dumb to drop $16m guaranteed without that deal being in place. It also explains why he did basically get no interest from any other team. Who else is going to offer him that kind of money?
And if you tell me he did opt out without that offer in place, then I have to take offense with the FO for offering him that kind of money when all the other potential suitors for RJ only had MLE money left. Basically, the Spurs could have simply offered $6m per season, and that would have been the best offer RJ could receive, plus the Spurs had bird rights. So, I'm pretty sure he had this offer in his backpocket before opting out.
I absolutely refuse to believe that the Spurs would pass on a player like Splitter for the cost they got him at because he more than anyone helps them now and in the future.
Yes.
Were they going to pay double for every other player signed this season as well?Huh? They were either going to pay the LT or pay it to RJ over 4 years. They were paying the money regardless.
If they end up paying the same amount of luxury tax later, you could say it was sunk -- but that isn't readily apparent.
As I said, they probably only signed him for one more year than they really wanted.
So their goal is not to go all in, but to save money?
My guess is that, even if he improves this season, RJ's impact won't be that huge (good or bad).
The thing is, this team will be toast the minute Duncan retires. By then (assuming it's the Maya year), RJ will be a bad contract for one more year, and after that, he will be an asset again. By then, Spurs will be rebuilding no matter what, and RJ's contract won't really hurt this process that much.
I see your point with going all in and take someone with a bad contract and more upside than RJ, but if you assume that the Spurs don't want deep luxury tax contracts again, I still think resigning RJ is an alright move.
I can see your points thinking otherwise, though.
They passed on Scola.
Financial concerns have to be taken into consideration.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
