Not that I know of.
I just don't see why the Spurs wouldn't do it to Rj. We have to get under the lux tax.
Just seems like avoiding a couple mil tax plus the kick back for staying under in addition to another team paying at least 40% of his contract would make it a financially good decision. Especially because the Spurs would get flexibility to add player they want on the cheap. The Spurs also don't have to spend all the way up to the tax line saving even more money.
It's not guarenteed anyone would claim him.
Spurs have 2 years to get out of the tax... and under the amnesty the Spurs would still need to pay off at least a portion of RJ's contract. You add an extra contract to that, and you might be spending more than RJ + tax.
Well that's just sad.
Maybe if throw in a few more training sessions with Pop.
Not sure what it was last year, but Spurs are sitting at $73M before offloading McDyess, but also before their two rookie deals are inked. They'll get about $2.6M relief from Dice on his 50% guaranteed deal, but spend most of that on the two rooks. Spot #15 is much more expensive that our usual late 20s spot, which we have to pay anyway since we kept the pick.
I'd be surprised if they essentially did nothing but fill out the roster with a couple of minimum salary vets. It would jive with the whole "Holt is cheap" line, but it would also go against Pop's comments at the end of last season. He made it clear that their goal is to get back to being 5th-7th defensively and it was also clear that neither he nor Buford are sold on Splitter being a fit next to Duncan.
The current roster has a microscopic chance (and that's being generous) of being in that range defensively and it also lacks a starting PF, so I've got to think a move for a starting PF is coming. Maybe that's the only move, rotation wise. But add it to Splitter and Anderson being in the rotation and Leonard being on the fringe of the rotation and they should have a legit shot at finishing 5th-7th defensively.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/s...ck-1379352.php
“I think Tiago has to be a linchpin for our future here, because he has the size, the length, the toughness, the grit, the consistency,” Popovich said. “He's going to be a stalwart of this team going forward.”
“We played with two bigs before, when Fab was here,” Popovich said. “Fab and Timmy were the starters, and we got it done.”
He may not be the "perfect" fit next to Tim, but he's the best option and it looks like he will get significant time this year.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 11-28-2011 at 08:28 PM.
Season is finally starting soon.. whoo.. havent really been following the CBA discussions but it seems like the more knowledgeable posters are expecting RJ not to be cut. Being uninformed I would have jumped on the opportunity to cut him (more minutes for JA, KL) so hopefully this thread keeps on providing more insight on this situation.
I'm aware of that article. Did he sound thrilled with the notion of playing them together or did he sound like he knows it's the best in house option and given their financial limitations, they may not be able to do better? It sounded like the latter to me. I didn't hear "I think they'll be a good fit together" or anything to that effect.
As for Buford, in a radio interview in the summer, he made it clear that they view both Duncan and Splitter as centers and said something to the effect of "given where Duncan is at in his career, it would be difficult to play them together". It didn't sound like they viewed Splitter as being able to consistently defend power forwards.
Even if they essentially stood pat and paired them together, Duncan would probably play 28-30 mpg and Splitter 24-28 mpg. Even with mixing and matching, that would mean plenty of minutes with Blair and Bonner paired together and that would mean no chance of finishing 5th-7th defensively.
I think Bonner is a more possible candidate for being amnestied, but that's just me.
He'd only be a consideration if you trade RJ. If you don't trade RJ, then you gotta keep that amnesty option to be able to use it on RJ at any point during his contract. That would also be too big of a waste to use it on Bonner, who is a relatively small contract in comparison.
Also, do you have to use it in between seasons? can you use it on someone during the season? and how about if you trade for someone? Can you use it on them if they signed their contract before July 1 2011?
We forget that RJ averaged 11 ppg and almost 4 rebounds. FG % was over 47% and surprisingly, his 3 Pt. % was over 44%.
Granted he looked like a fish our of water at times and wasn't Bruce Bowen on defense, I doubt the Spurs will spend millions just to get rid of him. It's a bad deal financially for the output received, but other teams probably have worse players with similar contracts.
After thinking more about the waiver process for amnestied players, I'm now thinking that there's a good chance the Spurs do amnesty RJ. You can hear Larry Coon explain the amnesty and waiver issue on the Cowbell Kingdom podcast, download link here.
Now, of course RJ should be cut. His play on this team has been total garbage when it matters but that wouldn't stop the Spurs from keeping him.
However, when you combine the luxury tax, the MLE differences for teams in tax and out, and the waiver team absolving a portion of the RJ salary obligation, now it makes sense for the Spurs.
For one, if they kept RJ, and if McDyess gets his partial guarantee buyout, the Spurs wouldn't be able to use the full MLE on players because it would take them to $4 million over the tax. They wouldn't be able to spend on these rumored washed up SFs like Howard or Butler or Evans AND sign a body to replace McDyess on the team (like McRoberts). They'd be in a bad place with only Duncan, DNP Splitter, WhataBlair and Bonner, especially on those back-to-back-to-backs.
But if they amnesty RJ, they get well below the tax and would then not only save the money they'd pay in tax but also get their portion of the tax payout, but they also would be able to spend the full MLE on new players.
AND with the waiver process, they wouldn't even owe all the money due to RJ. All it would take is a team under the tax putting in a claim on what they think RJ is worth (I'm thinking his actual value would be maybe 2.5-3 per year for the remainder, but maybe someone bids 4). Then instead of owing RJ another 30 million, they'd only have to pay him say, 21 million, plus save 1-4 million in tax, plus get some unknown number of tax payout . . . that's a good argument to take to Holt and get RJ the out of town.
Plus, add in Harvey's piece today basically laying the groundwork for RJ to be amnestied, and we're good to go. Harvey is satisfying the usual requirements for the way the Spurs-SA Media works. The Spurs feed their agenda to the media, and the media pukes it into the groundwater to prepare the fanbase for the taste.
Then when it does happen, all the people who were just repeating, "RJ just needs a better system!" and "RJ is better than some 2nd rounder, even though he got tooled on by a 2nd round minimum player like Sam Young!" instead will be saying, "Yeah, RJ is like the football player who dives on the pile when the plays over! I like football, I like the Cowboys, and this RJ character just isn't good. CIA Pop is at it again, cutting off the barnacles and loose ends! Mario Elie was so tough, not like RJ!"
All the more reason why they MUST swing some sort of a trade for a mobile PF. I believe that is their highest priority and I believe they will. There have been numerous hints dropped over the past few months, that another trade could be eminent. Based upon the limited number of assets the Spurs have, I'm highly curious to see what they come up with.
As for RJ, I simply cannot see Holt "eating his contract" and turning him loose. A point which makes the Spurs recent rumored interest in a couple of SFs another very curious move. Is it real? Or is it just a smokescreen?
I believe they might just surprise us.
If Spurs use the amnesty clause on RJ and if no teams claim a part of his contract, Spurs will have spend $39M just for one year of play. For reference, players like Jordan, Garnett, Bryant or Duncan have never been paid $39M a season.
I don't see Spurs suing the amnesty rule on RJ. They will try to trade him and if they fail, they will try again at the trade deadline or next summer. It's what they did with Rasho before finally being able to dump his contract.
If nobody claims a player on the amnesty clause, wouldn't that player be situated like a waived player? And if that's the case, wouldn't the x2+1 years prorated payment clause in the new CBA kick in?
Probably, but that doesn't change the fact that they owe him 100% of what is due, just the time to pay it off.
Yes.
No.
The stretch exception for waived players can only be used for players who sign their contract under the new CBA.
Thanks... plus I would suspect a team like Miami might just pick him up for the vet min... which would suck
Sorry, but that's an illogical non-sequiter.
Jordan, Garnett, Bryant and Duncan were never guaranteed $40 million to play like absolute soft, lazy garbage either.
With the last amount of money as a player option. After being putrid mess for the previous contracted time with the team. After having to dribble around cones for two weeks for the head coach just to convince him to give another chance. After opting out thinking NJ was going to give him a monster deal only to see them laugh in his face and sign other scrubs instead.
RJ is getting his money. He can either A) get it while vomiting all over the Spurs with his pathetic performances, or B) get it while another player actually has the chance to do something good.
Option B could be a trade (though I can't imagine any team being that dumb no matter how much I hope), a flat amnesty, or an amnesty where part of the bill is paid for by another team. If anything, dropping the amnesty on RJ this year gets them out from the luxury tax for this year and allows them to spend the whole non-tax MLE, though hopefully it wouldn't be on washed up busted vets like Butler and Howard.
Keeping Jefferson solely because of the sunk cost is flawed judgement. It's not as bad, but it reminds me of when posters on this board in 07 argued against bringing in Scola at his requested 3/10 because it would have made him the highest paid 2nd round pick in history. It had nothing to do with anything.
RJ would get picked up by somebody. No way he just sits in FA.
Exactly. That's the difference between perception and reality. In reality RJ was 17th in the league in TS percentage. Basically he scored more efficiently than about everyone else on the team. The Spurs should have been looking into getting him more shots like they did earlier in the season. Not surprisingly that's when they played some of their best offense. Could he work on his defense, toughness, and at ude? Off course, but if you score more efficiently than anyone on the team you deserve to get more touches.
rjs play on this team, can be replicated by our younger players once given the same minutes...im expecting neals stats to go up and KL to avg above 10ppg
Being a shortened season, they obviously aren't paying him as much as they would next year. I bet they wait until at least the trade deadline, but I've been wrong before.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
