Reply With Quote
I don't have to ask Black... I've noticed it myself in your posts...
By one year when it's expiring. Big deal.
I don't have to ask Black... I've noticed it myself in your posts...
Well, we can't let RJ's contract expire before we can resign either. So yeah, it could be a big deal.
Spurs can go over the cap to resign(extend) their own players. RJ's contract doesn't have to expire in order to extend Hill and Blair (if Spurs payroll is at the peak of the cap;under the luxury tax). So it's not really a big deal.
The only way it could be somewhat of a deal is if Spurs give Parker your proposed 20 million dollar salary and resign Tim and Manu to modest deals or if Spurs are in a situation where they are close to exceeding the luxury tax. (Which doesn't look to be a realistic scenario.)
how would one year not be a big deal?
if one of the biggest arguments for giving RJ that deal was that the Spurs couldn't afford the one year of big salary commitments in 10-11, how are they supposed to afford one year of big salary commitments for 12-13?
At this point, we don't even know if there's going to be a luxury tax anymore (and I would say it's a fairly realistic scenario that there won't be, considering what Stern has been trying to sell about the new CBA).
That's why I said this deal is what it is. It can easily come bite you in the ass later on, something that wouldn't have happened if RJ would have been a $15 million expiring this season. But he's not, so I guess we'll deal with whatever happens when it happens.
As far as Tony goes, there's the possibility that he will be willing to sign for less than max with the new CBA looming, but it's also not a given. I think the Spurs understand that the Duncan era comes to a close if Tony isn't back next season, so both sides are going to have some degree of leverage.
If Parker really demanded 20 a year, RJ's continued contract could be the nail that slammed Duncan's window beyond shut.
And Parker at the max of whatever the new CBA allows is not unreasonable compared to what players get. Someone out there could be willing to pay it. The Knicks only have Felton under contract for one more year and are a team that would eat it without care.
Because that year would be 2013-2014 (complete different scenario than 2010-2011), Tim Duncan will be 38 years old, Manu will be 37 years old; most likely retired. Spurs won't be contenders. Having a contract on the books for just one year doesn't necessarily spell death to any rebuilding process that will be in full force by then.
If I have to explain to you what "hater" means then maybe you need to go find a new Internets.
Pop said the same thing to Mighty Mouse, and he quickly went from being a pretty good backup point guard to the most useless player player the Spurs had in years. Relatively speaking, the Spurs have been circling the bowl ever since Pop got it in his head to tell guys to just keep chucking. Telling RJ to do it is just stupid. RJs offense isn't what's going to make a difference to this team.
I'm talking about 2012-2013. The Hill RFA period you're missing.
Manu is under contract. Duncan if he sticks by his 'wheels fall off' statement will be there. Parker will be there hopefully.
If the new CBA is similar enough to the current one, and the current one is what we are familiar with, some team will offer Hill an RFA deal and force the Spurs to match or not match.
And I already laid out a plausible scenario where they could be at $65 million without matching Hill, and that's without Tony getting a $20 per year deal.
George Hill will make $2,273,723 in his final year (12-13), as long as the Spurs pick up his option by Oct. 31 the prior year.
You don't give a qualifying offer to a first-round draft pick until after his fourth year, as of now, anyway.
Edit:
Here, Coon explains it better:
Teams have until the October 31** preceding the player's second season to exercise their option for the player's third season. Likewise, they have until the October 31** preceding the player's third season to exercise their option for the player's fourth season (see question number 51 for more information on options). If the team invokes both options (keeping the player for all four seasons) then the player becomes a restricted free agents following his fourth season (see question number 37 for more information on restricted free agency). If the team declines either option, then the player enters free agency as an unrestricted free agent.
I overlooked that scenario, but in all honesty R.J's contract doesn't even hinder the Spurs matching an offer for Hill. That's if Spurs want to invest a lot of money into having both Parker and Hill for the long haul ( which doesn't make sense in my eyes). I think Spurs would be wise to keep one or the other and use the rest of the money to address a different position or skill-set.
Anyway here's your worst case scenario:
Spurs in 2012-2013 ( If Duncan is still playing and if Parker resigns; rough estimates)
Tim Duncan= 10 million (generous salary for Duncan at 36-37 years old.)
Manu Ginobili =14 million
Jefferson= 10 million
Parker =15 million (generous rough estimate)
Hill's first year in new deal = 6 million (very generous; considering his restricted)
Splitter= 4 million
Bonner= 3.6 million
Anderson=1.5 million
Blair= 1 million
Rookie 11'- 1.2 million (rough estimate)
Rookie 12'- 1.2 million (rough estimate)
Thats 10 players under contract and I'm not even including possible 2nd round picks or vet minimum signings.
And those totals for 10 players are roughly 67 million (which would be under the current luxury tax; and I'm being generous with the rough estimates). It could be even less if Duncan resigns for 6-8 million his last few years. With this *worse case scenario* Spurs would be flirting with the luxury tax if they use their mid-level exception or they could possibly employ a sign and trade if they don't want to exceed the luxury tax for that one year.
As you can see, this is the most sticky scenario that the Spurs have with RJ's new contract. But it's not unreasonable to believe the Spurs can afford Hill's first salary of his new contract and Duncan/ Parker for that 2012-2013 season even with R.J's new deal; especially with Duncan possibly retiring the following year along with Manu's contract coming off the books with him. (Also remember Hill's deal will be front-loaded more than likely.)
About the new CBA
I honestly don't think there will be a difference in the amount the players make per year with the new CBA nor do I believe there will be a significant difference in salary cap and luxury threshold compared to what it is now . I honestly believe they will just change the structure of the contracts (shorter and not fully guaranteed). But time will tell.
Coon is backing up everything I've posted.
12-13 would be Hill's 5th season, i.e. his QO RFA year. He will be on the market as an RFA July 2012. If he doesn't sign a deal with another team or agree to an extension with the Spurs, then he takes his QO and makes 2.273
Come on guys, work through it.
I actually forgot Hill was in his third year. I'm not used to having youth on the team, it just seems like they're all rooks by comparison.
Your generous salary for Duncan I would be hugely surprised at. I think roughly 70% of his prior year is more reaslistic, which would be about $15. Am I placing it too high? Maybe, but I remember the nicest man in Spurs history getting incensed at substantial paycut-type proposals and threatening to sign with the Knicks, and Robinson had slipped farther than Duncan has.
And Parker I would have at about 16, and that's not being generous. Just a straight line of raises basically. So our estimates aren't so different.
Hill is a legit NBA scorer, and I would be surprised if he's healthy and doesn't get numerous offers starting at the MLE and certainly some that are more. John Salmons has a contract at 8 per year and he only performs in contract years. I could go on and on about current deals for players, and MLE for Hill is anything but generous, it is probably better described as conservative.
AND . . .
what if Parker demands 20? What if the Spurs are only offering 15?
Wouldn't then the ultimate decider in that scenario be RJ's obligations?
Will supporters of the RJ deal have any second thoughts if Tony bolts over money that is instead being paid to RJ?
And please don't argue that Parker isn't worth 20 per and therefore the Spurs shouldn't pay him after supporting a deal of 9.75 per for RJ when he definately isn't worth that.
Do you honestly believe the Spurs will invest a lot in both Hill and Parker for the long haul?
I personally believe that is very Kahn-like and bad basketball economics to invest that much money into players who essentially play the same position, even if Hill is more of a SG-- he's too undersized to pay him and use him like a full time starting shooting guard.
It's ridiculously premature to project future salary, and you've gotta believe the Spurs knew what they were doing when they gave him the contract.
Their intention is to capitalize on Duncan's last year or two of elite play and keep themselves relevant (playoff-bound, hopefully) in following years -- they know full-well what happens to attendance once the team becomes irrelevant compe ively.
Maybe that means means Parker's gone, maybe it doesn't. I do believe the Spurs know how to spend their money better than most and they wouldn't have handed out the contract to RJ if they didn't believe they could manage it on and off the court moving forward.
Mediocrity's comin', boys. ... Whether RJ's here or not -- they may just pay a little more for it.
not with RJ
Come on Blackjack, did the Spurs knew what they were doing when they junked Scola and hitched their big-man hopes on repeated deals for Bonner?
Only recently did Buford even admit that it was a mistake with Scola.
Just because the Spurs are our team and have made so many good choices and had good luck, doesn't mean they can't make mistakes.
And that's what RJ's contract is in severe danger of being, if not outright already is.
$6 mill for Hill's new deal?
If Tony really wants to be a Spur there really isn't a huge difference between $15-20 mil. There will only be a few teams that will be willing to pay him more than that and they won't be good teams.
Also, I don't see why Parker and Hill can't play together long term. I'm not saying they should, but their skill sets are pretty different for two players who play, relatively, the same position.
To be fair, no one knew that Scola was going to be as good as he is (except maybe Manu). The Spurs were, retrospectively, more interested in replacing Horry than having another Oberto on the team.
I think the Spurs would want to keep both... it's actually debatable that they want a 34 year old RJ at that point.
Then again, I somewhat expect the Spurs to figure out a way to dump RJ's contract before all that happens, but it will probably cost a fairly decent player to do so. Maybe Anderson, or some other guy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions