Reply With Quote
Post of the thread
It means that the team probably couldn't trade him. I still haven't seen many plausible trades involving Rj.
Post of the thread
Rj and his contract are the biggest problem because it handcuffs the Spurs ability to make moves.
The guy played 10min in a elimination game and he makes 9.3mil next year. By far the biggest problem on the Spurs.
yes, 9 million dollars for a 12th man caliber player is not the Spurs biggest problem
Not really...
In regards of the cap-space and their ability to add significant free agents in the off-season--Spurs are going to be over the salary cap with or without R.J-- Due to Tim's contract; Tony and Manu's extension.
If anything R.J's contract gives the Spurs more versatility in the trade market because of them being able to take back either small salary or big salary. (Even with keeping the Big 3 intact.)
What I mean by that is, without R.J - Spurs wouldn't have the cap-space to offer free agents anyway. Therefore, the only way the Spurs would be able to dynamically change the outlook of the team is through the draft (long-shot) and being able to trade for players with small-medium salaries (which mostly consists of players in the rookie contracts (either untouchable- or nothing exciting) and average rotational players--if they happen to be out of their rookie contracts already. Again this is the hypothetical angle to improve the team this off-season,if R.J had not been resigned.)
The realistic angle is R.J was indeed resigned. Therefore, with R.J's contract Spurs have more options this summer to improve the roster because of the size of salary. Of course they won't be in the market for a premiere player or anything like that, but they're are quite a few contracts in the league that are similar to R.J's(overpaid) or much worse). Spurs can seek through these options and see if they can find a better fit- whether it be a post or a wing. And at the same time, they still have every other option they would have had (had R.J not been resigned), which I previously discussed.
Therefore, Spurs have more versatile ways to improve the overall roster with R.J believe it or not.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-06-2011 at 01:58 PM.
RJ sucks and his horrible contract significantly reduces chances for Spurs to improve their team this summer.
Agreed.
Disagree completely.
to sixers for Nocioni?
if Arenas was traded I refuse to believe trading RJ is near impossible
1.Tim would likely restructure his contract if Rj didn't have 10mil coming his way next year.
2. Rj sucks and has a terrible contract so it is going to be nearly impossible to trade him.
He is the biggest problem and his contract will definitely reduce the chances that the Spurs improve this summer.
That's your right but you seems to forget some points.
1) Spurs don't have infinite financial possibilities. Even if no RJ won't allow Spurs to have some capspace, it will hurt them. It's very likely that Spurs won't be able to spend their MLE thsi summer (if there is still one) because they won't have enough money.
2) Trading RJ will be damn hard and Spurs won't get a quality player for him. For example, your idea of RJ for Varejao is a pure pipe dream. Even if you add Blair to the mix.
3) Spurs could have had a player with a high salary even without RJ. Bonner + McDyess allow to get a player paid $10M.
R. Lewis contract was worse but it was 1 year less.
The options are very limited when it comes to trading Rj.
1) Their ability to sign a player with the MLE this summer is questioned because we don't know what the luxury tax will be set at. Thinking worse case scenario-- if they can't afford the MLE as is, they can simply decline McDyess' option to be able to afford it (if they are 2-3 million below the lux tax). We won't know exactly til later on. So this is all hypothetical.
2) Never said it will be easy. And on the R.J/Blair for Varejao proposal--that is your opinion. Which you have the right to have.
3) With R.J signed and traded away for another 10mil player, Spurs have more versatility to improve other areas by having McDyess' contract available to use still (which explains my notion with the Spurs having more versatility). For example, if you trade R.J/Blair and this years 1st round pick for Varejao-- Spurs can then turn around and have the versatility to fill other holes such as the small-forward position by being able to use McDyess' expiring. Which backs up my whole notion on Spurs having more options this summer with R.J under contract (even overpaid). Simply put, without R.J's contract, Spurs have less cards to play with.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-06-2011 at 02:44 PM.
Sorry but it makes no sense.
Spurs ownership agreed to the RJ big contract. They knew that he will likely implied to have Spurs paying luxury tax in 2011-2012. If Spurs hadn't re-sign RJ, they would surely have the greenlight to spend the MLE this summer.
RJ has a negative trade value. Getting something that will really help Spurs will be a miracle.
disagree. the hardest part will be getting the other team to agree to taking RJ. tons of NBA players could possibly do a better job than RJ. (Neal did)
in other words IMO getting a body that will do better than RJ will be the easy part. Getting the other team to agree will be the hard part.
It's unknown where the luxury tax will be next year, til then we will know more.
At the same time, we don't know any of the moves yet that could be made prior to the Free Agency period. So we don't know if the Spurs will or will not be under the tax enough to afford the MLE. Til' then..
I never said R.J has positive trade value, but if you package him with Hill or Blair you can get a quality piece back, not a premiere piece but quality-- sure. That my friend isn't a pipe-dream/miracle scenario. Not if the contract coming back to the Spurs is similar to R.J's.
And I personally think you are too high on keeping Hill and Blair. Those two players are undersized at their natural positions, which is a valuable component to the ceiling factor. Not to mention, within the next few seasons the Spurs will need to decide if they are worth extending--which I don't believe they are.
On Hill's end-- Parker just received a 50 million 4 year deal extension to man the point guard position for 75% of each game. I don't think it's wise to have plans to resign Hill for 600-700% of his salary value as of now--because of his small-size at his natural position (which hurts his ceiling and overall effectiveness against players at his natural position;SG). At the same time, Spurs have Neal and Anderson that are more than capable to carry the burden at the backup two spot the next couple of years. It would be wise to get the most value as possible in return for Hill now (if the deal is right).
On Blair's end-- In two years, like Hill, his salary value will increase 500-600%. I don't think it would be wise to hold onto him with intentions to give him that type of contract because of him being an undersized big-- who will become irrelevant come playoff time. In the long-run, he just won't be worth such of an investment. I rather, like Hill, trade him now and get the most value as you can out of him--while his contract is virtually nothing( which increases trade value).
I don't get why you're so high on keeping the two (which is the vibe I've gotten from you in other threads).
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-06-2011 at 03:35 PM.
Next season's gonna suck.
Nothing new really..past 4 seasons have all ended with disappointment.
McDyess is not a team option, his deal is a partial guarantee.
Spurs have the option to make his deal fully guaranteed or not (they can choose to outright release him to save roughly 3 million). That's what I meant when I said, "team option", because it is ultimately the Spurs' option if they want to save 2-3 million (sorry I didn't clarify)--that is if he isn't traded away to a team that wants his salary for that specific purpose before July 1st.
If by more versatility you mean albatross and poison pill, then yes.
Everything you post about the Spurs being over the cap with RJ or without is true. But RJ's contract and it's versatility with being included with trades is shackled by it's length combined with how terrible Jefferson was. He's over 30, declining athletically, had an arguably worse season than the year before, and was so terrible that he was benched in the biggest game of the year when there were no SF alternatives on the table, just Hill and Neal who weren't even playing great.
Why would any team want to pay 10 million a year to have Blair, who is just another Jason Maxiell? Which is what a team would be doing when taking on Jefferson's deal.
Maybe the Spurs can swap him for other garbage like Hedo. That's not helpful versatility, that's just trading one disease for another.
I hope I'm wrong. I want RJ out of here.
Correct.
All true.
Moreover, RJ even being on the roster hurts them. If RJ is on the roster getting paid, Pop will forgive him and roll him out again next year after RJ trots about with some drills. No alternative SF will be given a legit opportunity, be he a draftee or Green or Butler or a young FA. RJ will eat up minutes and be an anchor pulling the Spurs down.
I'd like to see return
I'm not high on keeping Hill and/or Blair but reasons that makes them not worth being extended are also reasons that limit their trade value.
Teams won't give you a lot for Blair and/or Hill, they aren't great trade assets for tons of reasons (limited size, limited upside, Hill only locked one year on a cheap contract, Blair knees...). Packaging Hill and/or Blair with RJ won't be enough to offset RJ's bad contract.
I'm with Bruno here. I can fool myself for a little while thinking we can get something in return if a trade transpired, but that doesn't seem likely at all. The numbers+talent of said player isn't going to net any interest with trading
Agree with Bruno. A bad contract is bad.
By all means keep fooling yourself, you seem to have a knack for it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions