Can the Spurs release Blair...

[Capt Bringdown]

Duncan/Splitter/Diaw/Bonner
I don't see how/why Blair is needed. But I got no problem with him sticking around as long as his worthless ass is nailed to the bench.
Problem is that Pop doesn't see how limited he is and insists on gifting him minutes.
That's a cute trick in the context of the regular season - the post-season is another story.
"But-but this year it'll be different."

[ElNono]

Your point is because your fantasy is that the Spurs can cut Blair and not have to pay him.

Dejuan Blair last season contract is only partially guaranteed (per here and here).
So the only question is when does it become fully guaranteed. If the Spurs choose to release him before then, they effectively don't have to pay the reminder of the contract.

videogame GM doesn't know how NBA contracts work.
fantasy
takes per par

The remaining question was whether he would still count towards the lux tax, which is where this thread was going.

It isn't overrating. There aren't a bunch of DeJuan Blairs sitting at home hoping to get a call for a ty deal.

So that's a "no, I don't put my money where my mouth is"?

[ElNono]

Probably, but Blair's head and shoulders above the average second rounder. In fact, most of our second round players are heads and shoulders above the average second rounder (Patty, De Colo, Ginobili etc).

then you would think the Spurs would rather pay that guy instead of letting him walk and have to fish for talent again at the bottom of the 2nd round...

[Kidd K]

Dejuan Blair last season contract is only partially guaranteed (per here and here).
So the only question is when does it become fully guaranteed. If the Spurs choose to release him before then, they effectively don't have to pay the reminder of the contract.

videogame GM doesn't know how NBA contracts work.
fantasy
takes per par

The remaining question was whether he would still count towards the lux tax, which is where this thread was going.

Obviously you don't know how NBA contracts work, because you think they can cut Blair and still sign someone else (who's magically better, cheaper, and just as young/younger despite Blair being good for his salary), yet it somehow doesn't count towards the tax. take as it's worst. Dumb doesn't know how salary cap works, has to make thread for it.

As for your stupid question, the Spurs aren't even in the luxury tax. They're roughly 200k under it. They can keep Blair and not pay tax. Pointless thread is pointless.

So that's a "no, I don't put my money where my mouth is"?

That's a, "no, I'm not going to bet against something that has zero to do with what you argued for in the first place".

You posting a bet about him being not re-signed at the end of the season has nothing to do any of with your arguments. So yes, obviously I have no reason to take the bet, since it isn't an event I've argued against, nor is it one you've argued for. What you actually should be betting, if you wanted to be relevant, would be that the Spurs cut him before the season's over. That's what you've been advocating.

[Kidd K]

then you would think the Spurs would rather pay that guy instead of letting him walk and have to fish for talent again at the bottom of the 2nd round...

You'd think the Spurs would rather pay a "good 2nd round talent" 3m+ a year like they are Bonner, instead of "fish for a guy" they can pay under 1m for 4 years?

More logic! Blair is good now because he gets paid peanuts. Blair would no longer become a bargain if he was making 3m+. How do you not understand this?

[ElNono]

Obviously you don't know how NBA contracts work, because you think they can cut Blair and still sign someone else (who's magically better, cheaper, and just as young/younger despite Blair being good for his salary), yet it somehow doesn't count towards the tax. take as it's worst. Dumb doesn't know how salary cap works, has to make thread for it.

As for your stupid question, the Spurs aren't even in the luxury tax. They're roughly 200k under it. They can keep Blair and not pay tax. Pointless thread is pointless.

going from "cut blair and not pay him" to "cut blair and sign someone else" once the first one was debunked
goal-posts ever changing after getting your ass handed to you
more reading comprehension fail from the idiot.

I asked (first post): "his salary no longer count towards the lux tax?"

And there's a reason for that: the minimum guaranteed salary for a rook is $473,604. If the Spurs can scrub the $900K they're paying Blair, they get the flexibility to sign a vet (with up to 6 years in the league) or sign a Toros project guy, save the $700K difference, and remain under the lux tax line.

However, the question arises because in some instances, you can cut a player and get the cap relief, but his contract will still count towards the luxury tax penalty. So my question had to do with the savings being there or not.

resorting to flat out lying
more takes

That's a, "no, I'm not going to bet against something that has zero to do with what you argued for in the first place".

of course you won't. And I'm still arguing about what I posted in the very first post. The only one moving the goalposts is you, tbh, as exposed a couple times already...

[ElNono]

You'd think the Spurs would rather pay a "good 2nd round talent" 3m+ a year like they are Bonner, instead of "fish for a guy" they can pay under 1m for 4 years?

More logic! Blair is good now because he gets paid peanuts. Blair would no longer become a bargain if he was making 3m+. How do you not understand this?

Blair is no longer a long term project for the Spurs. They won't pay him when the season ends, which is my point all along.

The Spurs can pay even less (about half what Blair gets paid) for a project guy that they can work on longer term. But they can only do that if they can kill the impact of whatever is left on Blair's salary towards the luxury tax.

Logic is sound unless you're a re

[my2sons]

so i guess I can use Blair still starts, knows the offense and defense and since no one wants him he may still come cheap next year, wow,didn't even have to overrate laughing smiley laughing smiley....Pop gets more out of players, blair allows pop to use bonner the way he's supposed to be used and is contributing this year....OMG he might even have trade value....why cut NOW when you can wait to see a player who is contributing to one of the best records in the NBA before the trade deadline and pick up another DLeague scrub....I'm sure that scrub would be overrated...insert laughy face insert laughy face

[ElNono]

so i guess I can use Blair still starts, knows the offense and defense and since no one wants him he may still come cheap next year, wow,didn't even have to overrate laughing smiley laughing smiley....Pop gets more out of players, blair allows pop to use bonner the way he's supposed to be used and is contributing this year....OMG he might even have trade value....why cut NOW when you can wait to see a player who is contributing to one of the best records in the NBA before the trade deadline and pick up another DLeague scrub....I'm sure that scrub would be overrated...insert laughy face insert laughy face

Because the Spurs couldn't have the best record in the league if Blair wouldn't be there

more overrating. Blair's play has been in the decline, and it's not more obvious than the recent increase in minutes for Bonner. And frankly, he's been ing about his minutes since game 1 this season and done absolutely nothing to earn those minutes.

As far as trading, depends what do you think his value is... and at that point we enter entirely opinion territory. Personally, as stated, I don't think you can get anything but low 2nd round. Just IMO.

[Kidd K]

going from "cut blair and not pay him" to "cut blair and sign someone else" once the first one was debunked
goal-posts ever changing after getting your ass handed to you
more reading comprehension fail from the idiot.

You did say both things, got. Both things can exist at the same time.

le of thread + your first post:

Can the Spurs release Blair and have his salary no longer count towards the lux tax?

I just can't think any team would be interested in trading for him, and I would rather see some hungry scrub from the Toros getting his minutes at this point."

Now your got ass is claiming you didn't just advocate the Spurs cut Blair, not pay him, then replace him with someone else. . . . . .when that's exactly what your post says. It's pathetic you're claiming you meant something else. What you said is very black and white. There's no grey area there. You had a take, and your post is still there for everyone to read. So you can stop lying about it now.

of course you won't. And I'm still arguing about what I posted in the very first post. The only one moving the goalposts is you, tbh, as exposed a couple times already...

Obviously I won't, because you wanted Blair cut mid season. Yet somehow, your "bet" is that the Spurs don't re-sign him at the end of the season. . .which has nothing to do with "cutting" or replacing him mid season. So why the would I bet you $100 over something that has nothing to do with what we were arguing about in the first place? Dumb .

A bet that would actually reflect your take, would be to bet me the Spurs don't trade him, cut him mid season, then replace him with a superior player who gets paid equal to or less money. That's what the ty take you posted originally was advocating.

Blair is no longer a long term project for the Spurs. They won't pay him when the season ends, which is my point all along.

The Spurs can pay even less (about half what Blair gets paid) for a project guy that they can work on longer term. But they can only do that if they can kill the impact of whatever is left on Blair's salary towards the luxury tax.

Logic is sound unless you're a re

Logic sucks because you don't take into account that quality bigs with upside who are also cheap are players who already have contracts by the teams who drafted them. . .not guys who got cut by teams who thought they sucked, and are just sitting at home scratching their ass waiting to take the worst NBA deal imaginable.

That's the main flaw in your original ty take. You think there's tons of bigs floating around just waiting to get the worst deals possible. You're in some delusional fantasy world with that thinking.

Also, do you seriously think Blair isn't getting paychecks throughout the season? "they won't pay him when the season ends"? ? What, Blair's playing for free right now, and if Holt feels like it, he just won't pay him after the season? More takes.

[ElNono]

Now your got ass is claiming you didn't just advocate the Spurs cut Blair, not pay him, then replace him with someone else. . . . . .when that's exactly what your post says.

It's a question, idiot. Can you even ing read?

I'm not "advocating" anything. I'm asking: should the Spurs want to do that, can they?

Stop trying to tell me what I said. I know what I wrote, it's there for everyone to see. Apparently, other people understood it just fine. The only re with the bleeding vagina is you.

Logic sucks because you don't take into account that quality bigs with upside who are also cheap are players who already have contracts by the teams who drafted them. . .

WTF are you babbling about now? I didn't name any names. I simply mentioned some Toros project guy the Spurs can work longer term. A guy like Wangmene or Wilkerson (or Dentmon)... they're all guys the Spurs can lift from the Toros, are cheaper and do the same bench warming and human victory cigar routine that Blair has been pretty much relegated to. The difference is that if the Spurs want to keep them they don't have to pay them as a 4 year vet.

Also, do you seriously think Blair isn't getting paychecks throughout the season? "they won't pay him when the season ends"? ?

I shouldn't need to explain what that means, but I forget I'm talking to a re . What that means is the Spurs won't offer him a contract when the season ends. In other words, when the season is over, he isn't getting a new guaranteed deal from the Spurs (IOW "getting paid").

Let me know if you got it this time, or if I need to spell it out for you.

[Kidd K]

It's a question, idiot. Can you even ing read?

I'm not "advocating" anything. I'm asking: should the Spurs want to do that, can they?

Stop trying to tell me what I said. I know what I wrote, it's there for everyone to see. Apparently, other people understood it just fine. The only re with the bleeding vagina is you.

You were obviously asking because that's what you wanted to happen. You followed up by saying you would rather have a d leaguer on the team instead of him.

It's black and white, got.

WTF are you babbling about now? I didn't name any names. I simply mentioned some Toros project guy the Spurs can work longer term. A guy like Wangmene or Wilkerson (or Dentmon)... they're all guys the Spurs can lift from the Toros, are cheaper and do the same bench warming and human victory cigar routine that Blair has been pretty much relegated to. The difference is that if the Spurs want to keep them they don't have to pay them as a 4 year vet.

wah wah, but you said you didn't want him replaced! Now you're going into detail about who could replace him.

lol @ this got trying to argue on both sides of the fence while claiming he isn't on either.

I shouldn't need to explain what that means, but I forget I'm talking to a re . What that means is the Spurs won't offer him a contract when the season ends. In other words, when the season is over, he isn't getting a new guaranteed deal from the Spurs (IOW "getting paid").

lol! You're such a dumb got.

Not offering him a deal AFTER the season does not = "cutting" him, nor does it impact luxury tax THIS year, as he's already been paid. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that you think random D leaguers are better than Blair + better fits instantly somehow.

Everything about your take is . Every single aspect of it.

[Paranoid Pop]

WTF are you babbling about now? I didn't name any names. I simply mentioned some Toros project guy the Spurs can work longer term. A guy like Wangmene or Wilkerson (or Dentmon)... they're all guys the Spurs can lift from the Toros, are cheaper and do the same bench warming and human victory cigar routine that Blair has been pretty much relegated to. The difference is that if the Spurs want to keep them they don't have to pay them as a 4 year vet.

Also releasing him is sparing us chemistry issues when he doesn't get babysitted anymore and loses his starting spot again. They may still hope to use him in a trade or something...

[ElNono]

You were obviously asking because that's what you wanted to happen. You followed up by saying you would rather have a d leaguer on the team instead of him.

I wouldn't have a problem if it happened, but I understand it definitely won't happen if the Spurs at least don't break even. Thus the question.

wah wah, but you said you didn't want him replaced!

quote where I said that?

I was responding to your " you don't take into account that quality bigs with upside who are also cheap are players who already have contracts by the teams who drafted them "...

Which per par was another goalpost move... so I listed some guys that are readily available for the Spurs to call up and cost cheaper than Blair should they decide (or are able) to go that route.

In other words, you (again) don't know what you're talking about.

Not offering him a deal AFTER the season does not = "cutting" him, nor does it impact luxury tax THIS year, as he's already been paid. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that you think random D leaguers are better than Blair + better fits instantly somehow.

Goddamn you're stupid.

Who ever said anything like that? I want quotes where I sad that "not offering him a deal after the season = cutting him" or that "offering him a deal next year impacts the luxury tax this season"...

What's really hard to understand is how you're the only one that doesn't understand what I'm saying at all. And BTW, I finally did found out the answer to my question.

Since you know so much, let's hear it. Can the Spurs release Blair before his contract becomes fully guaranteed, and does it count against the luxury cap? Let's hear it from the videogame GM