Reply With Quote
Isn't there a rule that you have to wait a full year to sign a player you traded?
We would trade him only because his contract is the only piece that would allow us to bring in a big player. He'll be a FA, and I doubt he gets offered much money this offseason at age 35. If he wants to continue playing, I could see him signing a one year deal with the Spurs for relatively cheap. He knows the system, brings at ude, and plus I think he wants to retire a Spur. Makes sense tbh.Why would you resign Jackson in a scenario where you trade Jackson
Isn't there a rule that you have to wait a full year to sign a player you traded?
Oh that's right. We would have to sign him as a FA after the date in which we traded him, which is highly unlikely unless he really wants to do that, which I doubt.
Right, so you HAVE to view this as a rental. People are talking about giving up two first round picks. Not going to happen.
Not true. The Spurs could sign him this offseason because he'll be a free agent. You're thinking of a buyout. If the Jazz trade for Jax and buy him out, he couldn't sign with the Spurs this season.
What if we pull a sign and trade and get picks back in the offseason?
If we view it as a rental, the price goes down. The Jazz know teams won't pay much to rent Jefferson.
If he comes in and the management like him, I see no reason not to offer him around $12m. Maybe he'll choose earning an extra few million on a bad team, but I think theres a good chance he'll be willing to re sign on a contender to play next to his childhood idol.
$48m/4yr would be a good deal for Jefferson, we'd have a couple years of contending and he'll still have value in 2015 if we decide to blow it up.
It's a gamble, but if we're only paying Green + a #30 pick I think it's a good move.
How do you see minutes being handed out in that case? Would Jefferson play behind Duncan because of the chemistry of Duncan and Splitter in the starting line-up? Diaw would also play a lot more SF.
How do you see minutes being handed out in that case? Would Jefferson play behind Duncan because of the chemistry of Duncan and Splitter in the starting line-up? Diaw would also play a lot more SF.
My bad - hopefully the Jazz do not want a big back - would potentially make it better for Spurs. IF a Jefferson trade with Spurs went down I still think a third team would need to be involved given lux tax and roster size of each team. We know the Spurs would have to include Sjax + and most likely 2 additional bodies/contracts to make slary match. A third team would make it possible for Spurs to move another player or two, stay under the lux tax, and possibly fill additional holes such as backup PG, and obviously a SF to backup Kawhi.
I am prettty much on board with Bruno except for the 2 1st round picks - if we keep Tiago, Kawhi, and of course the Big 3 then you have to enertain the idea of adding an offensive post threat like Jefferson
Last edited by JonNOKC; 02-09-2013 at 07:55 PM.
You could also put a player option in Al's contact if he signs for 12 million, so then he can opt out if he wants more money to go elsewhere after year 2 or 3. What is the earliest you can put a player option in the contract?
There is no way Al is going to resign for 8-9 million, anyone who suggested that is delusional. If he was a good fit and liked it here, he would still get a minimum of 11-12 IMO.
I think the success or lack thereof if this trade was to go down would have a big impact on the final number and Jefferson's willingness to maybe accept alittle below what someone else could offer, but yeah it is hard to imagine that number be less than 11-12 million/year. Also the Spurs would most likely have to choose between Splitter and Jefferson.
I don't really see a downside to acquiring Al if we aren't giving up Tiago. It's not like the team we have assembled now is going to compete for many more years anyway. Lets give it our best shot. Picking up Al certainly helps us do that. I'd personally prefer Milsap but its not like acquiring Al is going to hurt our team.
After last night's game, I wouldn't pay Splitter more than 8-9 million a year. He's weak as piss on the boards and doesn't play tough enough consistently. He's also horrible at creating his own offense. Personally, I'd only pay him 8 million, but that probably won't be enough, someone will probably offer more.
Other team wants Splitter more 9M ?
I think Splitter is only in SAS Chemistry .
Our role players disappeared against OKC... Al would be dependable in the playoffs. I don't think anyone is willing to say the same for Tiago.
I don't even let things like this excite me anymore. We NEVER get anyone who already has a name for himself and is still relatively young. This time will be no different. In all likelihood management will have to try to make something out of nothing and get someone new again.
14 pages
The Richard Jefferson trade scarred R.C. for life. I doubt he'll ever make a move of that magnitude again. Unless Utah unloads Al for nothing, he won't make a move.
I must say that I'm impressed with your post count. Almost 50,000?? That's pretty incredible tbh.14 pages
This. I bet we do make a trade, but it's for some player who never plays, or it's Blair for a future 2nd round draft pick or something of that magnitude. It's not our style to make a big splash.
If we can get AJ without trading Splitter, then you simply can't turn that down.
If there was truth to a possible Splitter for Jefferson deal, I see a third team being involved because Splitter just makes no sense for the Jazz because of Kanter and Favors. Hypothetically, I believe Bucks make a great third party and this proposed (long shot obv) deal makes sense to me.
Bucks get: Splitter -- Bucks get back a true big man, which they lack, to team up with Sanders for the next 3-4 years; I assume they'd lock him up obviously. They also get Jackson's expiring (Bucks don't mind getting him back for 1/2 a year because of simple economics; they are trading for the expiring, not the player.)
Jazz get: Monta Ellis -- Jazz have perhaps the worst offensive back court in the league-- Monta Ellis for 2 years helps that and opens up playing time for Kanter/ Favors. They also receive Blair (provides frontcourt depth on the bench; he'd be their 4th big) and Mills (Watson and Tinsley are arguable the 2 worst point guards in the entire league that get playing time. They have been worse than terrible, tbh. Mills gives them an upgrade at the position.
Spurs get: Al Jefferson -- Spurs get the best player of the deal; A viable option Spurs could go to offensively on the block in half court sets deep in the playoffs. Could be an underrated weapon due to Duncan and Manu's age --that age and mileage effects their efficiency/execution to a degree late in games because Pop questionably gives them the same minutes they received 8 years ago (talking playoffs, not regular season). Also, I could definitely see Spurs liking the idea of having Jefferson in the fold for the next 4 years (instead of Splitter) to team with Parker whenever Tim decides to retire.
Spurs also get L.R Mbah a Moute -- a versatile defensive player that can guard 4 positions and be a reliable/affordable and versatile SF to back up Leonard for the next 2 years. He doesn't have a great 3 point shot as of now but I could see Chip playing a role in his development in that area. He'd be an important piece because of his size/defensive ability-- which helps the Spurs match up better against the NBA's crowned favorites that is the Thunder and the Heat of Miami.
Notes: Spurs could choose to go with Dunleavy (who is having a great year for being injured in recent years) instead of Moute. Why? Going with Dunleavy would still keep Spurs under the tax and would provide the Spurs with the better offensive player that can shoot the damn ball. (What would Spurs desire at the back up 3 spot? Defense or offense? And do they want to avoid tax at any cost?). The Mbah a Moute option would put the Spurs over the tax by 556k; not sure if they'd be willing to pay the tax for him.
All in all, Spurs have a tough decision. Hypothetically with this deal, Spurs are risking their chemistry defensively and offensively right now with this proposed (long shot) trade, but in the long run I believe this trade would IMO give the Spurs a higher ceiling in the playoffs this year and the next 3-4 years, tbh. Tough decision, but since I'm a person that is in love with the long run of things, I'd have to pull the trigger.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 02-10-2013 at 02:48 AM.
The Bucks say no, because they will only deal if they can dump Gooden's contract or reduce their front court logjam (Dalembert, Udoh, Sanders, Gooden, Henson, Ilyasova, Przybilla)..not add to it. And I don't see why they will give upon Mbah a Moute when he is a starter for an expiring in Jackson.
The Jazz also say no to the ballhogging Ellis.
Gooden won't be going anywhere, unless the Bucks are willing to give up their future 1st round picks the next 2-3 years, tbh. He's just going to be an expensive bench warmer the next 1-2 years, they know they have to swallow their up until his contract becomes more trade-able (when it becomes expiring). As for Sammy, Dalembert will be traded at the deadline to a contender or he will be bought out (he's irrelevant to the Bucks' depth as is Pryzbilla). That's 3 players on the front-court that you mentioned that are pretty irrelevant and that are as good as gone. And with Splitter, they'd be receiving a better big man than any big they have currently on the roster. They should value a Splitter, Sanders, Ilyasova, Henson front-court rotation going forward.
If the Jazz know they aren't moving forward with Jefferson, they'd want to get talent back in return before he walks. Ellis, IMO, does that at a position they desperately need.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions