Spurs Salaries, 2010-2011 Edition

[MannyIsGod]

It's what I've thought all along and I respect Aldridge enough to think that he wouldn't suggest something like that if he didn't hear it from the horse's mouth or someone extremely close to the situation and with knowledge of the gameplan.

Maybe next year but at this point I really do not see the Spurs paying the Luxury Tax unless it happens via trades. The RJ deal only makes sense if it was done in order to avoid the luxury tax and going right back into LT territory makes no sense considering how they just gave him a four year deal.

Perhaps Aldridge is indicating they have no qualms with going into tax territory for a Tony Parker extension (that still wouldn't affect this year) because as Bruno pointed out you're effectively paying 5 million or so just to keep a marginal player on the team. That just doesn't add up for me.

[Blackjack]

Between the salary, the luxury tax paid on the salary and the redistribution, Spurs could be in a situation where they had to decided between keeping a player like Gee, Jerrels or Hairston and nearly $5M.

Even if Holt is ready to pay some luxury tax, I somewhat doubt he will be fine with keeping a marginal prospect for almost $5M. And he will be right.

I don't disagree with your rationale at all, but I don't believe the Spurs will allow themselves to get to the point where they think, 'We're not likely a contender so why pay tax?'

I think they'll probably start the year with Hairston, Temple and Gee on the roster and evaluate them until they're forced to make a decision to keep or release any or all of them. But I firmly believe they're exploring the trade market and will continue to do so to find a player or players that they feel can legitimately help to put them over the top -- and they'll have no problem paying for the next two years to acquire the talent to do so.

The RJ deal only makes sense if it was done in order to avoid the luxury tax and going right back into LT territory makes no sense considering how they just gave him a four year deal.

The RJ deal makes sense because it allowed them to get under the tax, yes, but it makes just as much since because the Spurs were able to upgrade their talent by using the same figure RJ would've received and turning it into the salary of 3 players (RJ, Splitter and Bonner). It gave the Spurs more flexibility to make some different kind of moves and massage the roster just so, which is always what an NBA team always strives to attain -- more talent, but same, actually, a little cheaper price. (RJ would've been $15.2M now the three combined cost roughly $14.8M)

Honestly, and this is just me (Aldridge has only confirmed my belief, not given it to me), I'm more prone to believe the Spurs have alloted a certain amount of cash to spend over the next two years and they fully intend to spend it. This is the stash you take to Vegas and fully expect to lose. They have a gameplan and an overall number or percentage they're beholden to, and RJ's $15.2M and whatever the cost that it would've been additionally to that to put together a team with a realistic shot at bringing home another le, that's the number they have in mind, IMO.

I think Bruno is dead-on with his rationale and how he comes about his views to run a fiscally responsible and cost-efficient model. But I personally believe these next two years are about Tim and capitalizing/maximizing on any and every opportunity available to meet their goal: championship.

When the two years are up, they'll have it set up to where they're playing youngsters on cheaper contracts mixed in with Manu and possibly RJ getting paid the big bucks for a year or two; but the team will be under the tax with Tim gone and Tony possibly playing elsewhere (and if he's not they'll have somewhat of a Big 3 in contracts with Tony, Manu and RJ -- their core of young players should all still be playing on cheap or reasonable contracts).

[kobyz]

is Tim Duncan gonna use his early termination option at the end of the season?
he is not gonna to be worth $21,300,000 and he could do Spurs a favor and sign for the minimum so this way Spurs could get better!

[DPG21920]

Where are you getting the numbers for Bonner & Neal?

[CubanMustGo]

Where are you getting the numbers for Bonner & Neal?

Gotta say Bonner @ $3.05 mill makes a lot more sense than that ridiculous number his hometown paper was throwing around.

[Bruno]

Where are you getting the numbers for Bonner & Neal?

I got the Bonner figure from espn and realgm. Most of the time, they are right.

Neal exact salary isn't important for the luxury tax. He will count for $854,389 against the tax as long as his salary is below that level (which is likely the case).

[elemento]

i've seen 2.75/3/3.05

i don't really know the correct number.

But as Bruno said, we're gonna have to waive guys to keep the team below the tax

[MannyIsGod]

Reading into the Aldridge article that was posted today I think him mentioning that Holt is willing to pay the luxury tax for the next couple of years is just rereporting of Holts willingness to do it last year but I don't think he has any new signs that they're still willing to do that.

[elemento]

If we had the money to get a good backup SF, then it would be reasonable to pay the luxury tax.

i don't see any good SF player coming for the money we can offer.

So what's the point to be above the lux tax only to keep guys like Hairston, Gee and Jerrells ?

I mean ..The Spurs would lose the 3/3.5m rebate to keep those guys. I really don't see the point.

[Bruno]

Update of Spurs luxury tax situation:

Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,050,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Gary Neal: $854,389
The total tax hit for these 11 players with a guaranteed contract is $67,888,143.

With 2 more players with a $854,389 tax hit, Spurs tax payroll is $69,596,921. Spurs will be $710,079 below the tax.


Some thoughts:

- Spurs won't be able to carry 14 of the 15 players they have under contracts. They will have to waive 2 of Gee, Hairston, Temple and Jerrells to stay under the tax.

- I don't think it's really a problem for Spurs to trim their roster to 13 players. Jerrells should be cut. Hairston and Gee will play a similar role for Spurs, keeping the most promising of them makes sense.

- If it isn't obvious who should be cut at the end of the training camp, Spurs could test their players at the start of season. Saying that, a choice should be made before January 10th and the longer you wait the more money it will cost.

- With $710K left below the tax, Spurs have some breathing room to do some moves during the season. They have enough money to try some players with 10 days contract in January and sign the most interesting ones for the rest of season. They could also spend some money for training camp contracts.

- Gist, as a draft pick, will only cost $473,604 against the tax. He has virtually no concurrence for that 14th roster spot since he is the only one who can be signed and keep Spurs below the tax. I don't think Spurs are interested in him but he has a golden opportunity because of Spurs financial situation. Maybe he should force Spurs hand, signs a fully non-guaranteed contract and hopes he will impress Spurs during the training camp. It could be a good gamble for him.

[will_spurs]

- Gist, as a draft pick, will only cost $473,604 against the tax. He has virtually no concurrence for that 14th roster spot since he is the only one who can be signed and keep Spurs below the tax. I don't think Spurs are interested in him but he has a golden opportunity because of Spurs financial situation. Maybe he should force Spurs hand, signs a fully non-guaranteed contract and hopes he will impress Spurs during the training camp. It could be a good gamble for him.

Prereq: an agent who understands these considerations.

Also if I understand your post correctly, signing a 14th player to a contract would have a tax hit of $854,389 (even if they sign for less?), which is only $144,310 above luxury tax.

I expect Jerrells to be cut and Temple to be signed, so the Spurs could still sign both Gee and Hairston and pay only $144,310 in luxury tax, which isn't all that much. Of course they would lose a bit of flexibility for the rest of the season, but gain a bit of flexibility at the problematic SF back-up spot.

If they don't do that and only sign 2 out of these 4 players, my bet is on Temple + Gee.

[kobyz]

that make the signing of Bonner and the money that he got even more bad!

[CubanMustGo]

Also if I understand your post correctly, signing a 14th player to a contract would have a tax hit of $854,389 (even if they sign for less?), which is only $144,310 above luxury tax.

If true that $144K would also cost SA the $3+M they'd get back from the league for being under the cap.

[Bruno]

Yes, the luxury tax system is explained in the first post. Between his salary, the luxury tax paid and the loss of the redistribution share, keeping a 14th player will cost Spurs more than $4M.

The most logical scenario is Spurs carrying 13 players with Temple and one of Hairston and Gee. You can imagine scenarios, where both Gee and Hairston stay, like Temple sucking and being cut after the training camp or Neal sucking and being salary dumped before the trade deadline. Saying that, Pop seems to be really high on Temple and Spurs have spend a lot of money and Neal. Spurs surely don't expect them to fail and these scenarios aren't the most likely ones.

[ElNono]

I have a feeling that Gee needs to impress greatly in camp, or he's going for another stint with the Toros. I think Hairston has preference because he can't be sent to the Toros anymore and because the Spurs didn't think they needed to take another look at Malik in SL, meaning, they already know what he can contribute on the main team.

[lurker23]

Bruno, have you had any confirmation from good sources that Anderson got 120% for his first year? I understand what you said earlier about Anderson being a good player from a big conference, but 100% for the first year and 120% for all subsequent years would be a pretty good deal for him, considering what the Spurs have paid in the past.

[Bruno]

Bruno, have you had any confirmation from good sources that Anderson got 120% for his first year?

Both espn and realgm trade machines have him at 120%. They update their numbers through league sources and I consider them as the most reliable sources after shamsports.

[lurker23]

Both espn and realgm trade machines have him at 120%. They update their numbers through league sources and I consider them as the most reliable sources after shamsports.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Part of me finds it hard to believe that the Spurs would go through all this work to get under the luxury tax, then be limited to 13 roster spots by a mere $0.12 million.

However, if you had asked me 2 months ago how many of the Jerrells/Temple/Gee/Hairston quartet would make the team, I would have said 2. So it shouldn't be all that surprising.

Carrying 13 players into the regular season and having room to add part-year or 10-day contracts is a flexible situation that could benefit the Spurs later in the season, so I think they'd be okay if that's how it has to work out.

[TD 21]

Update of Spurs luxury tax situation:

Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,050,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Gary Neal: $854,389
The total tax hit for these 11 players with a guaranteed contract is $67,888,143.

With 2 more players with a $854,389 tax hit, Spurs tax payroll is $69,596,921. Spurs will be $710,079 below the tax.


Some thoughts:

- Spurs won't be able to carry 14 of the 15 players they have under contracts. They will have to waive 2 of Gee, Hairston, Temple and Jerrells to stay under the tax.

- I don't think it's really a problem for Spurs to trim their roster to 13 players. Jerrells should be cut. Hairston and Gee will play a similar role for Spurs, keeping the most promising of them makes sense.

- If it isn't obvious who should be cut at the end of the training camp, Spurs could test their players at the start of season. Saying that, a choice should be made before January 10th and the longer you wait the more money it will cost.

- With $710K left below the tax, Spurs have some breathing room to do some moves during the season. They have enough money to try some players with 10 days contract in January and sign the most interesting ones for the rest of season. They could also spend some money for training camp contracts.

- Gist, as a draft pick, will only cost $473,604 against the tax. He has virtually no concurrence for that 14th roster spot since he is the only one who can be signed and keep Spurs below the tax. I don't think Spurs are interested in him but he has a golden opportunity because of Spurs financial situation. Maybe he should force Spurs hand, signs a fully non-guaranteed contract and hopes he will impress Spurs during the training camp. It could be a good gamble for him.

I agree. It sounds great to carry 15 and be (theoretically, at least) at least three deep at every position, but the reality of the situation is, barring this team being decimated by injuries, most likely there isn't going to be a role for Gee or, if he were to get signed, Gist. They'd be Toros fodder and insurance policies.

I think that's exactly what will happen (unless Gee wants to go to a team with lesser wing depth, where he has a better chance at sticking in the NBA...in that case, the Spurs might do him a favor and release him). They'll keep Gee until January 10th, which get's them through a good chunk of the season (in case they are decimated by injuries on the wings), then release him so as to avoid paying the tax.

Sure, Gee's an intriguing prospect, but if at some point there isn't a role to be had (which I think is likely and I'm not just talking about next season), what's the point in retaining him? Even if he becomes a rotation player, it's likely not going to happen with the Spurs, so it makes sense to let him go. It's like the Mahinmi situation.

[mcdunk]

Or pay one more minimum 854,389 contract and a decent veteran $1,564,468 to carry 13 on the roster. Go with a couple 10 day contracts throughout the year. Maybe is the Spurs wait long enough Rasual Butler or Shaq might accept the $1.5 mil.

[Bruno]

Part of me finds it hard to believe that the Spurs would go through all this work to get under the luxury tax, then be limited to 13 roster spots by a mere $0.12 million.

Even if Spurs had the capacity to get 14 player and stay just under the cap, I'm not sure they would have done it. They could be more interested in some flexibility than carrying 14 players. As you said, having some flexibility is great. It can allow to sign players in case of injuries, it can allow to sign some D-League prospects, it can allow to sign some vets waived by lottery teams before March 1st...

Now let just hope for Spurs that they won't have to make a cut at the end of the training camp that will lead them to regret not to have enough space under the tax to carry 14 players.

And while Spurs are currently $145K short of carrying 14 players, they could be short by more than that at the end of the season. Current salaries include the base salary and likely bonuses while at the end of the season, the luxury tax is computed with the base salary and bonuses really paid. If players are doing great, they could received their unlikely bonuses and Spurs team salary against the tax will be higher. For example, Parker with a good season could earn $150K more than his current salary.

[boo_radley]

Counting only currently guaranteed money for Temple and Gee, putting Neal @ $510K, Anderson @ 120%, and Bonner @ $3,422,271 I have the Spurs at $397,197 under the TAX, does that sound about right? Of course I have counted nothing for Hairston or Jerrells in this scenario.

What I am thinking is that there is almost no way that the Spurs avoid the tax this year.

[MannyIsGod]

Counting only currently guaranteed money for Temple and Gee, putting Neal @ $510K, Anderson @ 120%, and Bonner @ $3,422,271 I have the Spurs at $397,197 under the cap, does that sound about right? Of course I have counted nothing for Hairston or Jerrells in this scenario.

What I am thinking is that there is almost no way that the Spurs avoid the tax this year.

I think your Bonner number is way too high and Neal will count for more against the cap.

I trust Bruno's calculations.

[boo_radley]

I think your Bonner number is way too high and Neal will count for more against the cap.

I trust Bruno's calculations.

If Bonner's deal is for 16Mil over 4 years that's the number that works with 10.5% raises, but no one seems to know what the dets are on that deal... good point about Neal, I will have to recheck that

[boo_radley]

Update of Spurs luxury tax situation:
Tim Duncan: $18,835,381
Tony Parker: $13,500,000
Manu Ginobili: $11,854,584
Richard Jefferson: $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess: $4,860,000
Tiago Splitter: $3,400,000
Matt Bonner: $3,050,000
James Anderson: $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair: $918,000
George Hill: $854,389
Gary Neal: $854,389
The total tax hit for these 11 players with a guaranteed contract is $67,888,143.

Bruno, I see that you have Bonner @ $3,050,000, but that puts his contract value @ $14.2+mil not the $16mil originally associated with his new deal. Any idea what the deal is actually for?

Also, what's the deal with Parker's contract? I have him a bit higher than you $150K to be exact...am I counting his bonus and you're not?