RJ's Contract Details

[Mel_13]

This thread is mostly:



Yet I find it oddly compelling.

More please.

[ElNono]

Also, is it official we won't be paying the luxury tax this season?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not asking about your reasoning, I'm asking you if you asked him what his criteria was. Did you?

As he was simply stating years and dollar amounts, what else could his criteria be?

[ohmwrecker]

Thanks for your contribution!

Hey, no problem, but seriously just take a step back and read this . Soak it in.

[benefactor]

This thread is mostly:



Yet I find it oddly compelling.

More please.

You are surprised that a conversation with CD would result in anything less?

[ElNono]

As he was simply stating years and dollar amounts, what else could his criteria be?

Market value perhaps? Trading value?

I'm pretty sure there's more to player value than luxury tax implications.

Now, I don't pretend to know what criteria he was using.

You can ask him, he's right here.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, is it official we won't be paying the luxury tax this season?

Nothing is official until the end of the season. I also don't know if there is still a cliff provision built into the tax since the threshold is known beforehand.

Given the salaries and the threshold amounts that are known, it's pretty clear to me that the Spurs are trying to at least minimize their tax exposure if not reap the rewards of the tax dispersal. Feel free to counter this assertion.

[ElNono]

This thread is mostly:



Yet I find it oddly compelling.

More please.

I'll be bailing out soon, I gotta eat dinner. Sorry Mel!

Maybe I'll chug along later if I'm bored like right now.

[ElNono]

Nothing is official until the end of the season. I also don't know if there is still a cliff provision built into the tax since the threshold is known beforehand.

Given the salaries and the threshold amounts that are known, it's pretty clear to me that the Spurs are trying to at least minimize their tax exposure if not reap the rewards of the tax dispersal. Feel free to counter this assertion.

I agree that they're trying to minimize their tax exposure, if not this season, at least long term, and stated as much. We definitely agree on that.

I think we'll know by January more clearly what is going on.

[ChumpDumper]

Market value perhaps? Trading value?

I'm pretty sure there's more to player value than luxury tax implications.

I'm pretty sure there are more to contracts than market value and trading value, as illustrated in my own post.

Now, I don't pretend to know what criteria he was using.

You can ask him, he's right here.

Why do I need to ask him?

To clear up your confusion?

[DPG21920]

Chump is playing a silly semantics game, like a child.

He is arguing that Manu's contract could be seen on the same level as RJ's by most people. One contract is viewed as a good deal, and one is not by seemingly the consensus.

He then asks if I think my opinions change the Spurs FO way of thinking.

He asks me if Bonner being the 5th big is for sure, as if the Spurs not paying the LT is. He turns reasonable assumptions into petty arguments without realizing he does the same thing. It appears to me with having Duncan, Splitter and Dice (who got more minutes), that Bonner is at best a 4th big. Then when you factor in Blair's abilities, it is not a stretch to assume Bonner is the 5th big. Feel free to counter this assertion.

For example, I am not changing the Spurs minds with my posts, like he is not changing mine with his, yet he still replies to me.

Also, lol at saying if your goal is to save money, why spend more than the minimum. Are you just acting dense or is this real? Trying to play semantics and taking things to extremes is just meh.

[DPG21920]

Manu's contract was seen as a bad one? Because many see RJ's as a bad one.

As he was simply stating years and dollar amounts, what else could his criteria be?

[ElNono]

I'm pretty sure there are more to contracts than market value and trading value, as illustrated in my own post.

Exactly. There's multiple criteria. They all need to be taken into account before declaring that a deal makes business sense.

Why do I need to ask him?
To clear up your confusion?

You're the one arguing with him about money amount and years and assuming what his criteria was, not me.

I'm not confused at all, seeing I'm not arguing with him about what he posted.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump is playing a silly semantics game, like a child.

He is arguing that Manu's contract could be seen on the same level as RJ's by most people. One contract is viewed as a good deal, and one is not by seemingly the consensus.

Most people come from a pure basketball point of view, which is understandable. From that perspective, it could be argued that both contracts are on the high side.

He then asks if I think my opinions change the Spurs FO way of thinking.

You said you got upset.

He asks me if Bonner being the 5th big is for sure, as if the Spurs not paying the LT is. He turns reasonable assumptions into petty arguments without realizing he does the same thing.

Bonner could well be the 5th big, but big men do get money in the NBA. I don't think his getting the 5th most number of minutes is by any means a certainty. One could make the argument he could be as high as 3rd, which is might change the perception of the salary dramatically.

For example, I am not changing the Spurs minds with my posts, like he is not changing mine with his, yet he still replies to me.

I never expect to change anyone's mind here. No one ever does. I merely stated my case.

Also, lol at saying if your goal is to save money, why spend more than the minimum. Are you just acting dense or is this real? Trying to play semantics and taking things to extremes is just meh.

It was your argument, not mine. I believe the Spurs are trying to win on a budget, that budget's amount being the luxury tax threshold. Simply saving money is not the goal as you tried to argue for me.

[ohmwrecker]

[ElNono]

Chump is playing a silly semantics game, like a child.

He is arguing that Manu's contract could be seen on the same level as RJ's by most people. One contract is viewed as a good deal, and one is not by seemingly the consensus.

He then asks if I think my opinions change the Spurs FO way of thinking.

He asks me if Bonner being the 5th big is for sure, as if the Spurs not paying the LT is. He turns reasonable assumptions into petty arguments without realizing he does the same thing. It appears to me with having Duncan, Splitter and Dice (who got more minutes), that Bonner is at best a 4th big. Then when you factor in Blair's abilities, it is not a stretch to assume Bonner is the 5th big. Feel free to counter this assertion.

For example, I am not changing the Spurs minds with my posts, like he is not changing mine with his, yet he still replies to me.

Also, lol at saying if your goal is to save money, why spend more than the minimum. Are you just acting dense or is this real? Trying to play semantics and taking things to extremes is just meh.

He's just trying to close down this thread, and I don't blame him...

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly. There's multiple criteria. They all need to be taken into account before declaring that a deal makes business sense.

The business itself also needs to be taken into account.

You're the one arguing with him about money amount and years and assuming what his criteria was, not me.

He is free to add to that.

I'm not confused at all, seeing I'm not arguing with him about what he posted.

I think you are confused about who is arguing at this point.

[ChumpDumper]

He's just trying to close down this thread, and I don't blame him...

Not really. It's a good talk if we get away from arguing about how we argue.

[ohmwrecker]

[ElNono]

The business itself also needs to be taken into account.

All the criteria mentioned before affect the business one way or the other. Do they not? Which implicitly mean that business is indeed taken into account.

He is free to add to that.

You're also free to ask him if you don't know.

I think you are confused about who is arguing at this point.

I'm not. I know for sure I'm not arguing with him about his points.

[DPG21920]

Most people come from a pure basketball point of view, which is understandable. From that perspective, it could be argued that both contracts are on the high side.

That's not the point. You said that my criteria was just years/money. You inferred that (terribly). Most people see RJ's contract as bad and Manu's as good. Especially when you compare Manu's contract to what he likely would have received as a FA.

You said you got upset.

I did not say I was flipping tables or screaming. I got upset in the context that I did not like the deal, not like it actually effected my day to day activities.

Bonner could well be the 5th big, but big men do get money in the NBA. I don't think his getting the 5th most number of minutes is by any means a certainty. One could make the argument he could be as high as 3rd, which is might change the perception of the salary dramatically.

So Bonner could be a 5th big? Then why make your argument against mine, when everything everyone says could be debated? I feel the odds of him being the 4th or 5th big or greater than him being the 3rd. If that is the case, why sign him to 16M if you are saving money?

I never expect to change anyone's mind here. No one ever does. I merely stated my case.

Same here. So why take it to the next level and ask if I was changing the Spurs minds? Just silly.

It was your argument, not mine. I believe the Spurs are trying to win on a budget, that budget's amount being the luxury tax threshold. Simply saving money is not the goal as you tried to argue for me.

That was not my argument. That was again inferred by you (again terribly). One could easily see that was not my argument based on the culmination of my posts. Again, you were just arguing to argue.

[ElNono]

Not really. It's a good talk if we get away from arguing about how we argue.

You're free not to argue about that.

[ChumpDumper]

All the criteria mentioned before affect the business one way or the other. Do they not? Which implicitly mean that business is indeed taken into account.

By the Spurs, or by SpursTalk posters?

You're also free to ask him if you don't know.

But I don't need to.

I'm not. I know for sure I'm not arguing with him about his points.

But you are arguing. I don't even think he is anymore.

[ElNono]

By the Spurs, or by SpursTalk posters?

By anybody with an opinion.
You don't think that all the criteria mentioned before affects the business one way or another?

But I don't need to.

Seeing that he called you out for inferring on what he thinks, maybe you should start to ask.

But you are arguing. I don't even think he is anymore.

Unless there's another DPG21920 posting right now, I'm pretty sure he indeed is.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not the point. You said that my criteria was just years/money. You inferred that (terribly).

Are there others when talking about CBA negotiations?

Most people see RJ's contract as bad and Manu's as good.

Good for them. I already stated there are reasons for that.

Especially when you compare Manu's contract to what he likely would have received as a FA.

What would he have likely received as a free agent?

I did not say I was flipping tables or screaming. I got upset in the context that I did not like the deal, not like it actually effected my day to day activities.

How could one know?

So Bonner could be a 5th big? Then why make your argument against mine, when everything everyone says could be debated? I feel the odds of him being the 4th or 5th big or greater than him being the 3rd. If that is the case, why sign him to 16M if you are saving money?

So you are saying he isn't officially the 5th big.

OK.

Same here. So why take it to the next level and ask if I was changing the Spurs minds? Just silly.

I agree this is all ultimately silly.

That was not my argument. That was again inferred by you (again terribly). One could easily see that was not my argument based on the culmination of my posts.

No, it was your argument. You posted it. I don't know why you would take issue with it's being taken to its logical conclusion. You inferred (terribly) that I thought the Spurs only goal this season was to save money. Now you are upset that it was done to you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you.

The Spurs want to minimize their tax exposure and even get some distribution money if possible while fielding a compe ive team. That is my argument.