It's possible, though I think there are too many unknowns past this coming season to say for sure.
I think they feel RJ can be what they thought he would be when they signed him up. And maybe he will be. As a fan, I really really hope he is. As I told Kori a while back, my mind tells me it's not going to happen, but my heart really wants him to do well for us.
In the meantime, they also are making themselves some room for next season in case TP is extended.
The CBA discussions are going to be something to watch. I still don't know how owners are going to save face after this season's cap increases.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is a point we shouldn't underestimate. Holt pretty much went out of his way to get RJ. It didn't work out so well, so I think the chances of him doing that again (getting a better player with a bad contract) were pretty slim to begin with.
There is the added benefit of the Spurs' getting under the luxury tax so they can take a kind of moral high ground in the CBA negotiations.
Pretty good, actually. How's life?
They just dumped 40M to RJ. They are a part of the bad contracts that were given out.
Also, if the Spurs were trying to just save money, does paying your 5th big 16M make sense?
Really? You have changed the Spurs' minds about spending?
So Manu's deal was worse according to your criteria.
From a luxury tax standpoint. RJ's is a great deal.
Holt will be representing all owners, not just the Spurs. Plenty of black eyes league-wide in this offseason, starting with the cap numbers, to pretend that teams are struggling. But we'll see how that goes in due time.
Why pay any player any money?
If he made $16 million this year and/or put the Spurs into the luxury tax, you might have a point.
Exactly.
What do you think his criteria is?
No, do you expect to change the way the Spurs think with your posts on the team?
Manu's contract was seen as a bad one? Because many see RJ's as a bad one.So Manu's deal was worse according to your criteria.
From a luxury tax standpoint. RJ's is a great deal.
So paying any player money is equal to paying your 5th big 16M?
Money spent on players.
Never. That's why I don't really get upset about what they do.
Why do they see it that way?Manu's contract was seen as a bad one? Because many see RJ's as a bad one.
Because they think they overpaid for a player?
Given Manu's injury history, the same could be said of his deal.
From a business standpoint, however, Manu's deal was a no-brainer.
Considering it got the Spurs comfortably under the tax threshold to sign other players, RJ's deal is quite a good business deal.
I'm pretty sure that's not his criteria. That's probably why you are confused.
1) Is he the 5th big? Is that official?
2) If all you want to do is "just save money" as you said, why spend more than the bare minimum?
What are his criteria?
Did you ask him what his criteria was before assuming what it was?
Maybe you should ask him now so there's no confusion.
I explained my reasoning pretty clearly.
If he has a problem with it, he will almost certainly tell me.
This thread has gone off the rails. I'm pretty sure that everything relevant or insightful has already been said . . . like ten pages ago.
I'm pretty sure he can say if he personally has an issue with this.
Thanks for your contribution!
I'm not asking about your reasoning, I'm asking you if you asked him what his criteria was. Did you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote