Reply With Quote
Wow . . . six pages in one day. Benefactor is going to be so jealous.
and if Tony leaves because the Spurs can't afford both TP and RJ?
Forget the lights, the dreams of winning just got evicted.
Wow . . . six pages in one day. Benefactor is going to be so jealous.
They could prefer Paul and still end up with Parker, who would be available as a free agent unlike Paul.
They preferred Lebron and settled on getting Randolph, Felton, Azubuike and Turiaf.
Ecomoically speaking, the Spurs made a terrible move by investing this kind of money in RJ & Bonner. There is no side stepping that. You may understand the logic of the moves, but essentially the choose the lesser of two evils. That does not mean they did something good. They were able to side step the LT (which could change even this season) for one year. But it's coming next year, especially if they re-sign TP which IMO is likely.
They robbed Peter to pay Paul, and even if it makes some sense, it was still a bad move. They very easily could have kept RJ as an expiring and been no worse off basketball wise and better off financially long term. Instead they choose the 1-year reprieve.
Now you guys know how I felt about Trevor Ariza last year on our team. Dude sucked and got to go. Just glad Morey made it happen. With some luck your front office can pull off the same magic. Maybe the full summer of working with the coaches will turn him into the prototypical Spurs SF but that's a stretch right now.
I'm not convinced that is a likely scenario. Surely, the FO is fiscally intelligent enough to take all things into consideration before making that deal.
i hope you're right.
There's a difference though with the contract I suggested.
Red s contract is back-loaded where he receives the biggest salary his first year (7.25 mil for this year, then 6.75, then 6.1 (team option) his 3rd year.
In comparison a 5 year-38 million dollar deal like I suggested is a better deal than Red s. Even if Hill were to receive less money his first year.
And the knock on Red used to be that he was one-dimensional, but to anyone who has seen him play the last two years can tell you he's become a better than average defender. He's not as one-dimensional as he used to be coming out of Duke. He's developed into something more than that over the years. IMO
Yes, but they can't be expecting to contend with this current lineup.
Well you did keep Bonner and gave us Scola
That was fiscally intelligent
Well you did keep Bonner and gave us Scola
That was fiscally intelligent
Grrrrrrrrr!!!!
Well you did keep Bonner and gave us Scola
That was fiscally intelligent
My point is that Hill > Re . Re 's is the floor for what I expect Hill to be offered, not the ceiling.
What I'm also pointing to is that teams will offer front loaded deals to make it hard for a team to match. The Spurs themselves have done it and been unlucky enough to have it work (Elson).
And by one-dimensional, I'm not knocking Re 's defense which is servicable. He is just a shooter. Hill can shoot, drive, score in-between, get on the break and run an offense at point. He may not be a pure point or even a good one, but he has that added dimension over Re .
they're the Knicks, they can delude themselves into thinking they're contenders with the best of them. Parker may not be Paul, but he might be light years ahead of Felton who isn't looking any better than Duhon tonight.
I think Tony would want to believe the Spurs can stay more than 'relevant' for a few years if he's going to sign any kind of long term contract with them and leave $30 million on the table.
In a nuts , I don't think it's all about the money, or all about the glory.
I think there's a middle ground somewhere which is obviously different for every player. That said, is chasing a ring worth $30 million for Parker? It's a risky gamble too, because the window might not last more than two seasons at best, and he would still be tied to the team for another 3 or 4 years after that.
I wouldn't discard the offseason trumpeting as a FO move to pitch a trade for the seemingly 'new' RJ... then, we might be talking about another brilliant move
I was surprised RJ was so sucky last year. I really thought he was a better player. The worst was how he GAVE UP even trying to shoot 3's, when he has been a decent 3pt shooter and should have been able to get it together. What kind of player, at his age and experience level, gets so psyched out that they totally give up? But I am a Spur fan so I have to believe that maybe he plays better this year.
You gotta spend money to make money
I couldn't care less if there payroll was as high as the Yankees' roster, if it translates to's, then i'm happier than a pig in
Which makes the Spurs' 4 all the more impressive.You gotta spend money to make money
I couldn't care less if there payroll was as high as the Yankees' roster, if it translates to
Well played
Wanna come in here and apologize for starting shot. This was a thread dedicated to a certain section of people on the forum I obviously disagree with and again sorry and carry on.
yeah when he opted out we sure saw the other 30 teams in a bidding war.I wouldn't discard the offseason trumpeting as a FO move to pitch a trade for the seemingly 'new' RJ... then, we might be talking about another brilliant move
Lowering it from super extreme rip off 15 mil a year (an expiring at that) to 10 mil a year for 4 years is not going to change a thing (actually the years makes him more difficult to trade) unless he does some miraculous breakout. Nothing to indicate he will.
But but but....He's working out with Pop.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
