Reply With Quote
Stretching the floor is necessary at all costs.
It's already been done multiple times to justify the RJ contract, so why not?
Stretching the floor is necessary at all costs.
A prime example of "butthurt"
I see him taking away more time from Tim. Duncan's time will be even more limited this year than in years past.
I'd rather pay 3.6/yr for 3yrs for Bonner (a very movable contract) than about 10m/yr for 4 years to RJ (which we'll never be able to move).
Sure, Bonner is being overpaid by about 1m a year. Who cares? RJ is bing overpaid by 4-5mil.
Wait...Matt Bonner jumps when he shoots?!
Let's use the Hollinger argument: RJ, Bonner, and Splitter for a combined $14.8M isn't a bad deal, it's just the allocation of the money that people hate. If Splitter got $5.8 (full MLE), RJ got $6.8, and Bonner got $2.2, would people be complaining nearly as much?
And to the "RJ is overpaid" crowd: the Spurs must have had this deal in place before free agency started, so the Spurs are just honoring their word; nothing wrong with that.
Having Bonner is like buying a 55" flat screen TV for $600 that only works from October to March. Only in SpursTalk you'll be asked: 'Well, what other 55" flat screen TV could you buy for $600?'.
It's the wrong question, dammit.
Don't throw good money after bad, don't make the same mistake twice, you cain't grow nuthin' on poor soil.
Becuse the fans will now blame him for our failure for 4 more years instead of focusing on Pop.
When you see all the crazy money throw by NBA teams this summer, $10.9M/3 years for Bonner is a fair contract.
But Spurs should never have re-signed Bonner even if it was at his market value. When your goal is to win a NBA championship like Spurs, you don't spend money on players that disappear during the playoffs. The only case where re-signing Bonner to that contract makes sense is if Spurs have given up on being a contender. For a team, whose goal is to reach the playoffs, Bonner with that contract is a good signing. He can help his team to win some regular season games.
It was stupid to give their word on that type of deal in the first place. But hey, he is getting "market value".
Yes! Four-year sandwich ecstasy!
Because we badly need a Scalabrini stopper
Because we badly need a Scalabrini stopper
Question is, who do you replace Bonner with - with the same money that you could throw at Bonner and hoping to have him reprise his regular season form in the playoffs? Of course, to help win a championship?
I suppose RCB/Pop tried answering it and finally dialed Bonner's number. I think they figured that his patchy work in the playoffs had to do with his recovering from that finger injury late in the season and he could be relied upon if given another chance - a decentish contract at market value.
Signings like this one remind me of the Spurs winning it all in 2005, and the Lakers acquiring Kwame Brown a month later. For Spurs fans at the time, it was 'lol Kwame'.
Fast forward to today, tables turned, and Lakerfan are the one saying 'lol Bonner'
(And sure, Stern turned Kwame into Gasol 3 years later, but if you think he'll be doing San Antonio that kind of favor, you need to pass me what you're smoking)
Maybe we don't need to replace Bonner's role? Maybe you let Manu, Hill, (insert 3 point shooter here) take the 3 pointers Bonner takes and Dice taking the long 2 jumpers and spreading the floor all the same? I don't recall the team having spacing problems when we were winning with Oberto/Rasho/Nazr or when he was injured last season...
I guess that would work if you think shooting is his only problem. But what was the excuse the playoffs before last one? Oh, that's right, he had the wrong role.
Why couldnīt we offer 4 years and 9 millions? who was bidding against us!!?
I would have trust Blair, Duncan, Dice and Splitter to be my main PF/C rotation and for the 5th bigman spot, I would have signed a random player for the min.
But spreading the floor through Bonner has worked really well in the regular season and there is no reason why it shouldn't in the post-season with spot minutes for Bonner. The thing is ..if he made some of his threes and did better than Frye for the Suns, the Spurs had a chance to avert that 0-4, which didn't happen. I suppose RCB/Pop thought it was better to trust Bonner to "get it" rather than try getting someone without "corporate knowledge".
I also suppose that the seasons with Oberto/Rasho in the mix were those where Timmy was at his dominant peak and there were a lot more competent 3 specialists around him. I guess Bonner with his relatively better rebounding, a la Robert Horry as a sweet shooting PF made sense in the later seasons.
But there was definitely improvement from one season to another for Bonner since his arrival. What is not to say that ..if injury free.. he could deliver? There is a risk to take, but weighed against the fact that the alternatives include Steve Novak/ 3 shooting 3s, I guess, it was worth taking that risk. We have to wait till the '10-'11 playoffs to know for sure.I guess that would work if you think shooting is his only problem. But what was the excuse the playoffs before last one? Oh, that's right, he had the wrong role.
Or 0 years and 0 millions?
I agree with FO on this one. More so, because $10.9million is far more palatable, enough to roll the dice once more on Bonner reprising atleast half a Horry.
With the exception of the part about O'Neal, I agree. I'm just saying, if you're going to judge a contract, you should judge it based off of market value and not let your personal opinion of the player cloud your judgment as to whether it was a fair contract or not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
