Free Agency: Top 25 Richard Jefferson Replacements

[Mel_13]

Also, wouldn't RJ have lopped off 15M from the books with his initial salary? I don't know why my Math seems off, but I could have sworn they would have had more than the MLE to use if not resigning RJ?

It doesn't matter how much would have come off, it only matters how much remained on the books outside of RJ's contract.

For this most recent offseason, the Spurs cap situation with RJ off the books is exactly equal to their cap situation if they used the amnesty on RJ's new contract. (Assuming that they were willing to use the amnesty, which they were)

[DPG21920]

Given Holt's position during the CBA negotiations, I'd say it's a good bet that the Spurs expected an amnesty provision to be part of the new CBA.



Except that they were clearly willing to use the MLE and sign an RJ replacement.




The RJ trade was in June, 2009. It didn't work out but there was nearly universal approval of that trade on ST and among the most respected basketball experts. Many believed the trade would make the Spurs contenders in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Well between Holt whining about their ability to make money, I disagree with you on how much they are willing to spend. We'll just have to see. They haven't used the amnesty, they haven't done trades or added salary & for me the proof is in the pudding. I don't disagree that it appears they were willing to do things, but to date they really haven't actually done anything. So either they weren't really committed to what it appears or they have been inept at doing their jobs knowing full well a team that got swept in the first round needed something if they want to contend.

I am not knocking the RJ trade; I agree with those who said it was the right move. I still think it was the right move for that year. But they saw it fail. It wasn't a guess, they had tangible proof. Since then, it has been nothing of note. People can reason it all they want, but when you look back there is no reason to give players like RJ+Bonner the money they got. It's just bad business.

[Mel_13]

Well between Holt whining about their ability to make money, I disagree with you on how much they are willing to spend. We'll just have to see. They haven't used the amnesty, they haven't done trades or added salary & for me the proof is in the pudding. I don't disagree that it appears they were willing to do things, but to date they really haven't actually done anything. So either they weren't really committed to what it appears or they have been inept at doing their jobs knowing full well a team that got swept in the first round needed something if they want to contend.

I am not knocking the RJ trade; I agree with those who said it was the right move. I still think it was the right move for that year. But they saw it fail. It wasn't a guess, they had tangible proof. Since then, it has been nothing of note. People can reason it all they want, but when you look back there is no reason to give players like RJ+Bonner the money they got. It's just bad business.

You're changing the subject, so we'll call it a night. I wasn't defending the decision to resign RJ, I was challenging your assertions as to its effects on the club's ability to make moves this past offseason. They were clearly willing to use the amnesty on RJ and then use the MLE on a replacement.

[DPG21920]

I wouldn't disagree (namely because I was off a year as you pointed out), but I still think the decision to resign RJ did have impacts on the Spurs ability to do things as I explained above. My central point was that regardless of the situation (I was wrong about the actual cap space with regards to RJ since the amnesty came into the picture now after the fact), the Spurs have "shown" the willingness to do a lot of things all the while doing nothing to truly help the team in the past couple years.

[ChumpDumper]

Well between Holt whining about their ability to make money, I disagree with you on how much they are willing to spend. We'll just have to see. They haven't used the amnesty, they haven't done trades or added salary & for me the proof is in the pudding. I don't disagree that it appears they were willing to do things, but to date they really haven't actually done anything. So either they weren't really committed to what it appears or they have been inept at doing their jobs knowing full well a team that got swept in the first round needed something if they want to contend.

I am not knocking the RJ trade; I agree with those who said it was the right move. I still think it was the right move for that year. But they saw it fail. It wasn't a guess, they had tangible proof. Since then, it has been nothing of note. People can reason it all they want, but when you look back there is no reason to give players like RJ+Bonner the money they got. It's just bad business.

How much more do you want them to spend?

Give us a number.

[Mel_13]

I wouldn't disagree (namely because I was off a year as you pointed out), but I still think the decision to resign RJ did have impacts on the Spurs ability to do things as I explained above. My central point was that regardless of the situation (I was wrong about the actual cap space with regards to RJ since the amnesty came into the picture now after the fact), the Spurs have "shown" the willingness to do a lot of things all the while doing nothing to truly help the team in the past couple years.

They added Splitter in 2010 and traded for Leonard in 2011.

I understand the point that the Spurs haven't made moves that made them legit contenders. I'm just not at all convinced that such moves were possible. And I don't accept the position that some take, and I have no idea if you're among them, that if the Spurs can't field a legit contender then they should just blow it up.

[DPG21920]

They added Splitter in 2010 and traded for Leonard in 2011.

I understand the point that the Spurs haven't made moves that made them legit contenders. I'm just not at all convinced that such moves were possible. And I don't accept the position that some take, and I have no idea if you're among them, that if the Spurs can't field a legit contender then they should just blow it up.

That's really all I was talking about. The thing with RJ being re-signed (that I said a few posts back and even back when it happened) wasn't that I didn't understand the financial side of it (although I was off with regards to the impact on their cap space this off season), but that it lacked direction. I don't know what trades were available that could propel this team into contention truly, but something had to be done when you were not making playoff runs anymore and were being knocked out by an 8 seed. Trading a rotational player and arguably the 4th best player in Hill for an unproven rookie (although it's working out well) along with not much else didn't really accomplish the goal at all of taking any kind of reasonable step forward.

I'm not in the boat that you need to blow it up entirely either, but as a fan and just speaking about what I would personally like to see, I would have liked to see something besides giving RJ+Bonner a nice chunk of money for playoff failures.

[Mel_13]

That's really all I was talking about. The thing with RJ being re-signed (that I said a few posts back and even back when it happened) wasn't that I didn't understand the financial side of it (although I was off with regards to the impact on their cap space this off season), but that it lacked direction. I don't know what trades were available that could propel this team into contention truly, but something had to be done when you were not making playoff runs anymore and were being knocked out by an 8 seed. Trading a rotational player and arguably the 4th best player in Hill for an unproven rookie (although it's working out well) along with not much else didn't really accomplish the goal at all of taking any kind of reasonable step forward.

I'm not in the boat that you need to blow it up entirely either, but as a fan and just speaking about what I would personally like to see, I would have liked to see something besides giving RJ+Bonner a nice chunk of money for playoff failures.

And that's where we part company. If no such trade was available, then nothing could be done.

Look, winning championships is hard.

Since MJ left in '98, the scoreboard reads:

Lakers: 5
Spurs: 4
Pistons: 1
Heat: 1
Celtics: 1
Mavs: 1
24 other franchises tied with zero

Now, many of those franchises are poorly managed, but plenty aren't. They're all pursuing the same goal with varying strategies and the great majority of them have zilch to show for it.

The Spurs since '97 have recorded a sustained period of success that has few peers in NBA history. No team in NBA history has had that sort of success and then returned to a championship level without first taking a trip to the lottery. I don't expect the Spurs to be the first.

[Johnny RIngo]

And that's where we part company. If no such trade was available, then nothing could be done.

Look, winning championships is hard.

Since MJ left in '98, the scoreboard reads:

Lakers: 5
Spurs: 4
Pistons: 1
Heat: 1
Celtics: 1
Mavs: 1
24 other franchises tied with zero

Now, many of those franchises are poorly managed, but plenty aren't. They're all pursuing the same goal with varying strategies and the great majority of them have zilch to show for it.

The Spurs since '97 have recorded a sustained period of success that has few peers in NBA history. No team in NBA history has had that sort of success and then returned to a championship level without first taking a trip to the lottery. I don't expect the Spurs to be the first.

With the Lakers being a big market team that always attracts FAs and is gifted dubious trades, the Spurs FO has to be THAT much better to make up the difference. Unfortunately, they have Holt and his checkbook holding them back resulting in awful moves like the Scola trade

[DPG21920]

And that's where we part company. If no such trade was available, then nothing could be done.

Look, winning championships is hard.


The Spurs since '97 have recorded a sustained period of success that has few peers in NBA history. No team in NBA history has had that sort of success and then returned to a championship level without first taking a trip to the lottery. I don't expect the Spurs to be the first.

I'm not saying that it's easy, all we can look at is what they have done. So unless you think the front office has done a good job at helping the team contend by trading away a rotational player for a rookie (again, it's working out fine, but I'm talking about conventional wisdom) and signing RJ+Bonner to a large amount of money after their playoff failures, then I'm not sure nothing could be done. Their decision making makes me believe (this is just my opinion obviously) that they have just done a poor job. That doesn't mean I hate them, but I'm just speaking about the reality of what they have done (re-signing Bonner+RJ) and what they haven't done (completed any trades to help the team improve to where most would say they are closer to contention than they have been in the past couple years). I'm not a GM or involved directly obviously, but I find it hard to believe there was nothing they could do. I think that is somewhat of a cop out for a front office that hasn't been very good at accomplishing what appears to be their goal in recent years. Boiled down, if you don't agree that the FO has done a poor job at building a contender when that was their goal by all accounts over the past couple years, that's fine, I just do. Everything else in between is just semantics IMO, at least with how I look at it.

[Mel_13]

I'm not saying that it's easy, all we can look at is what they have done. So unless you think the front office has done a good job at helping the team contend by trading away a rotational player for a rookie (again, it's working out fine, but I'm talking about conventional wisdom) and signing RJ+Bonner to a large amount of money after their playoff failures, then I'm not sure nothing could be done. Their decision making makes me believe (this is just my opinion obviously) that they have just done a poor job. That doesn't mean I hate them, but I'm just speaking about the reality of what they have done (re-signing Bonner+RJ) and what they haven't done (completed any trades to help the team improve to where most would say they are closer to contention than they have been in the past couple years). I'm not a GM or involved directly obviously, but I find it hard to believe there was nothing they could do. I think that is somewhat of a cop out for a front office that hasn't been very good at accomplishing what appears to be their goal in recent years. Boiled down, if you don't agree that the FO has done a poor job at building a contender when that was their goal by all accounts over the past couple years, that's fine, I just do. Everything else in between is just semantics IMO, at least with how I look at it.

Impasse.

[Mel_13]

With the Lakers being a big market team that always attracts FAs and is gifted dubious trades, the Spurs FO has to be THAT much better to make up the difference. Unfortunately, they have Holt and his checkbook holding them back resulting in awful moves like the Scola trade

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it.

[DPG21920]

Oh ya, now I remember a point I wanted to make. The Spurs, if they hadn't made the financial decision to re-sign RJ could have used his large expiring contract in a trade as well. Now, we can debate how valuable expirings have proven to be over the past couple years, but it definitely could have opened the door to some possibilities with regards to improving the team or at least trying to inject new life.

[Mel_13]

Oh ya, now I remember a point I wanted to make. The Spurs, if they hadn't made the financial decision to re-sign RJ could have used his large expiring contract in a trade as well. Now, we can debate how valuable expirings have proven to be over the past couple years, but it definitely could have opened the door to some possibilities with regards to improving the team or at least trying to inject new life.

I've discussed this point with others. Having traded expiring contracts to acquire a much more expensive asset in RJ and failed miserably, I just don't believe there is any way they would have repeated the same tactic. The Spurs busted the budget for RJ and were burned badly.

[tuncaboylu]

Oh ya, now I remember a point I wanted to make. The Spurs, if they hadn't made the financial decision to re-sign RJ could have used his large expiring contract in a trade as well. Now, we can debate how valuable expirings have proven to be over the past couple years, but it definitely could have opened the door to some possibilities with regards to improving the team or at least trying to inject new life.

I'm highly doubtful about values of expiring contracts when I think last season's trades. Not many teams were running after expirings(and even trade exceptions) since nearing lock-out.

As far as I remember, Rj's opt out was a coordinate work between Spurs FO and RJ. If he wouldn't opt out, Spurs was going to pay luxury tax more than 7M last year. By opting out and resigning a new contract, Spurs made a reasonable profit on short term.

And the other issue, making moves for being contender. Spurs will not have cap space until 2012 summer. When Duncan's contract expire, they will have space. Resigning with RJ didn't change anything about it.

Another issue is, if we wouldn't resign with RJ, we still wouldn't have cap space this off-season. We could use only MLE, which is proven that it wasn't enough for a RJ replacement.

Now we can use amnesty on next summer for RJ's contract and even we resign with Duncan for a reasonable contract (2 years 11M), we will have a chance to bring a maximum contract to here. Resigning RJ didn't hurt any financial or team based balance for Spurs.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Oh ya, now I remember a point I wanted to make. The Spurs, if they hadn't made the financial decision to re-sign RJ could have used his large expiring contract in a trade as well. Now, we can debate how valuable expirings have proven to be over the past couple years, but it definitely could have opened the door to some possibilities with regards to improving the team or at least trying to inject new life.

In order to claim the huge expiring would have been a good trading asset you'd have to have at least one such trade last season but there wasn't so I'd rather take the logical standpoint - it was worth nothing in the trade market.

Now, while overly simplistic, if the Spurs hadn't re-signed(re-structured) RJ's contract, they would have been very very deep in the lux tax last season. One might argue that they wouldn't have been able to afford to sign Tiago as well because of that and definitely that Tiago's contract would have costed them twice as much for last season. They might have been forced to trade away a good player/pick in order to get some deal that'd save them lux tax money, Scola style, but worse.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that while the new RJ contract is certainly not cap friendly, it was more of a damage control thing and it's not as black or white as some people are trying to make it. Also, as Mel already pointed, with the amnesty available now, this contract can easily be voided in case the Spurs are willing to spend a lot of money and they've at least shown an intent to do so.

Bottomline is neither RJ's, nor Bonner's contracts are the reason why the Spurs aren't serious contenders anymore.

[therealtruth]

Oh ya, now I remember a point I wanted to make. The Spurs, if they hadn't made the financial decision to re-sign RJ could have used his large expiring contract in a trade as well. Now, we can debate how valuable expirings have proven to be over the past couple years, but it definitely could have opened the door to some possibilities with regards to improving the team or at least trying to inject new life.

The Spurs generally don't like to make midseason trades. And midseason trades generally don't lead to championships. The only team that I can recall in recent memory that made a big midseason trade that worked was the '04 Pistons acquiring Rasheed Wallace. It was the perfect deal since they basically didn't have to give up anybody in their rotation to acquire an all-star.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

The Spurs generally don't like to make midseason trades. And midseason trades generally don't lead to championships. The only team that I can recall in recent memory that made a big midseason trade that worked was the '04 Pistons acquiring Rasheed Wallace. It was the perfect deal since they basically didn't have to give up anybody in their rotation to acquire an all-star.

Malik for Nazr can be considered quite a big one, as Nazr was a big part of the rotation in 2005.

[Russ]

I'm highly doubtful about values of expiring contracts when I think last season's trades. Not many teams were running after expirings(and even trade exceptions) since nearing lock-out.

As far as I remember, Rj's opt out was a coordinate work between Spurs FO and RJ. If he wouldn't opt out, Spurs was going to pay luxury tax more than 7M last year. By opting out and resigning a new contract, Spurs made a reasonable profit on short term.

And the other issue, making moves for being contender. Spurs will not have cap space until 2012 summer. When Duncan's contract expire, they will have space. Resigning with RJ didn't change anything about it.

Another issue is, if we wouldn't resign with RJ, we still wouldn't have cap space this off-season. We could use only MLE, which is proven that it wasn't enough for a RJ replacement.

Now we can use amnesty on next summer for RJ's contract and even we resign with Duncan for a reasonable contract (2 years 11M), we will have a chance to bring a maximum contract to here. Resigning RJ didn't hurt any financial or team based balance for Spurs.

This cuts right through the noise.

[DPG21920]

This cuts right through the noise.

I believe what cuts through the noise is simple: there's nothing good about rewarding playoff failures with big money (RJ+Bonner) & there is nothing good about a team who's goal is essentially le or bust to make no significant changes towards that goal after playoff failures in recent years.

There are valid points being made with regards to RJ's impact on the Spurs financial situation after the fact (now seeing that an amnesty provision was put into place), but IMO nothing changes the cut and dry aforementioned.

[DPG21920]

Bump: Some people had thoughts on AK47 in this thread.

Sidenote: lol this thread was all kinds of whacky. Spurs did not amnesty RJ, Prince was hilariously bad lately and many guys got some surprisingly large deals. But there are some comments about AK here.