Reply With Quote
Which team have you been watching all these years?
scola thread.
Which team have you been watching all these years?
That was different. The buyout was smaller for Tiago IIRC. Not to mention, the Spurs had a bad contract to unload along with Scola.
It seems unlikely they would make a mistake like this twice. Is it possible? Sure.
The one that says they were going all in essentially.
TBH, if you're saying you're going all to try to maximize whatever is left (if any) of the Duncan's window, then you go all in, and that taking the tax hit. They did it last season with RJ's horrible contract. The gamble didn't pan out, but if you're still all-in, then taking the tax hit shouldn't be more of a concern than it was last season.
Was it that summer? Houston seemed to pay it off pretty easily with a Tiago-like contract.
A bad contract that, with a Scola deal, would have resulted in the Spurs' being over the luxury tax threshold.Not to mention, the Spurs had a bad contract to unload along with Scola.
Not if they can avoid it.It seems unlikely they would make a mistake like this twice. Is it possible? Sure.
With the Jefferson deal, they avoided it.
The Scola situation is obviously different because at the time they were coming from winning a championship and they felt they could compete with anybody. Last season things changed. Pop said they felt they didn't have enough talent anymore, and that's why they went all in to try to maximize the chances of winning while Duncan was still around.
It's easy to go all in with other people's money.
Well if the Spurs said we are going all in during Duncan's last years during the Scola trade, then yes, it is comparable.
The Spurs team is a business.
That never changed.
I'm pretty sure it was Holt's money last season too.
I mean, I really have no problem if they changed their mind from last season to this season, and now they decided that the gamble is not worth it.
Sorry you believed that so literally.
Surprise.
They did.
It's hard not to when they do a big trade and pay luxury tax.
It's really no surprise. It's merely disappointing. I personally think Duncan deserves better.
Judging from their recent moves, do you believe this is still their strategy?
Even if they changed their minds, RJ's contract still sucks.
They can trade him to the Lakers.
No and that is partially why I am upset and what I have argued.
So are you saying they changed their minds?
Yeah, I'm not really denying it looks that way. But for your initial point, this off season has been crazy both ways (players getting overpaid big time, but then also players taking less money than they could have been getting). So I still think that RJ could very well have been thinking he will get more than his money's worth by opting out in the first place.
Basically, I suspect that you and a lot of other people here are right in it being a strange kind of contract RJ has been getting (still, financially, it isn't that bad for the Spurs considering luxury tax savings and stuff).
Probably I'm still not able to put together that they would be able to bring over Splitter for this kind of money and at the same time throw money at RJ.
I know that my point with trying to milk Duncan's window and keeping him "happy" (would he even complain? I honestly don't know) even if it means overpaying RJ in advance (prearranged deal) only to have at least a starting caliber SF is a purely psychological one.
And I still think they'll be offering TP a max deal and most likely be paying lux tax next season if Tony accepts. I think this deal is actually so the tax impact is less next season if Tony accepts.
Well, how's that working out for you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
