Jax is still playing good defense tbh, but his offense has been a disaster. That said, Kawhi has been getting big minutes (roughly 35/game) the last couple of weeks. Possibly being a blind fan here, but I'm still going to have faith in Jax to be important in the playoffs with his defense, particularly against Durant and some stretch 4's, like if we play the Mavs round 1. I also trust him to hit timely shots, like he did in last seasons playoffs after being a lousy shooter for us in the regular season games he participated in. Last season for us he shot 30% from range and hit 60% in the playoffs
Not really. The difference between the cap and tax is $14 Million (EDIT: actually it's about $12.3 Million). Splitter would at most count for $9 Million more than his cap hold (that would supposed a crazy-high cap, and thus a crazy-high max salary). That leaves $5(3.3) Million dollars under the tax if the Spurs spend to the the cap and then give Splitter his contract.
You probably just don't know that cap that well.
Last edited by Chinook; 03-30-2013 at 06:08 PM.
It's impossible to answer at that question for at least 3 reasons:
1) We don't know what trades Spurs could have done with Jack at the trade deadline.
2) We don't know how Jack will play in the playoffs.
3) We don't know what Spurs will do with their cap space this summer.
There will have answers to 2) and 3) in a few months so we will have a better idea if Spurs made the right choice by keeping Jack.
And regardless of what the right business move was, I'm damn GLAD Spurs kept Jack given what he and his wife were going through. Trading Jack in these cir stances would have been somewhat of a jackass move.
Just to clarify, the had the Spurs had traded Jack for a player making his exact amount next season, then they would still have been able to max out Splitter. They would be able to off Splitter anywhere from $12-14 Million a year next season if the cap stayed flat, Ginobili were re-signed to a reasonable deal ($6-8 Million a year) and they cut Bonner. The max for Splitter would be about $13 Million, so the room is there. I understand that that'd leave very little space left, but since the cap will increase by a least a couple of million, the Spurs would have gotten their wiggle room back.
And you were wrong, last season Jackson made as big a difference a bench guy could make.
toxic personality?
we'd have to know what the opportunities were obviously. The Jefferson and Smith deals woul have likely required the spurs to give up splitter or Leonard. No starters really. I'd prefer keeping the cap-space for the summer.
Hickson is horrible on defense. That's not an exaggeration, at all.
Spurs will never again pay $10M a year for "halfway decent" on multiple years. RJ was the last of that.Yeah they did. I think they could've brought back something halfway decent in return. I'm not a Jack hater, but being a realist, he clearly has not produced. He is the worst player on the team who's not considered a scrub imo.
I can understand why they didn't trade him though; Manu's health is questionable, Kawhi had knee tendonitis, Neal was banged up (and still plays terrible defense), and even Danny Green had a hamstring injury at one point this year. Luckily, Green seems to be a durable guy and recovered fast, plus Kawhi has taken the next step to being a very reliable player. . .but that all seemed to become apparent after the trade deadline.
But yes, I definitely thought they should have utilized Jackson's contract to pull back something to help us get over the top, even if it wasn't for another wing. Hopefully it won't be a mistake that we'll pay for later. If Manu can play properly, and Jackson produces for even a few games where it matters, then it won't have been a real loss.
Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers. Their spending habits might be more to your liking.
We need bodies to play physical at the likes of Durant, and hopefully James... neither of those two really fit that criteria.
co-sign
True, and good for them if they never do. But I think people are making some false assumptions here. Just because Jack's contract is $10 Million doesn't mean the Spurs would have had to trade him for one player making that much. They could have traded in for a $4 Million player on a long-term deal and a $6 Million player on with an expiring contract.
That's why I pointed out the Mbah a Moute/Dalembert for Jack/Blair example. The Spurs would only be committing to paying Mbah a Moute $5 Million a year to back up Leonard. The Bucks apparently wanted to get rid of his deal, so they probably wouldn't have required any other asset. Of course, they might not have wanted to take back Jack, but that's another issue entirely. Even so, the Spurs may have been able to facilitate Re deal using Jack. I can't say the Spurs dropped the ball without knowing if that deal were available. But that's the type of trade I wanted them to make (or Marion if Dallas wanted to give him up to the Spurs for some reason) instead of the mega-deals for Smith or Jefferson.
And you would be wrong. Jack was one of the best players on the team in the playoffs.
Splitter's never started a playoff game, so that's ridiculous right off the bat. Manu's been a critical factor in whether or not the Spurs had success in the playoffs, and Jack, again, does nothing but step up when he's needed.
So at age 24, I suppose his career is pretty much mapped out for him then, right? He's improved steadily over the last three years and there's no reason to think he couldn't continue to improve under the tutelage of the right coaching staff. He has the athletic ability to take his defense to the next level. Might I remind you that Bowen wasn't a great defender his first three seasons in the NBA. He didn't come into his own until his last season in Miami before joining San Antonio. I could write a book on the things Splitter couldn't do when he came into the league. Now he's at least adequate to above average in most categories.
Hickson is the type of player the Spurs have been longing for.... athletic, excellent rebounder, strong finisher and good low post scorer. I'm not expecting him to be MT. Mutumbo meets Yao Ming in the post, but think he can be a solid contributor on both ends of the court and I don't think he'll cost an arm and a leg to sign nor do I think it will impact the Splitter signing. I really don't have a clue what Splitter's market value will be in the offseason but, IMO, I would hesitate to offer up a contract that topples the $9-10M mark.
Hickson is garbage. Ole defense comes to mind.
Bad math.
You probably just don't know who you left out of your bad math there.
I didn't leave anyone out. My original post said the Spurs didn't have to worry about the cap with Splitter because they had his Bird rights. That means that if they have Jack under contract for another year (to simulate them having traded for an $11 Million player), they'd still have room to re-sign Splitter. If that player you're thinking of is Manu, then no, I didn't forget him. This was a subsequent post I made in this thread:
It's not about having bad math. The Spurs can re-sign Ginobili and Splitter and STILL have cap room next year, not even counting anything against the tax. Having traded Jack for another comparable deal would not have pushed the Spurs beyond the tax, because Manu's decrease and salary and Bonner being waived would give the Spurs anywhere between $8-10 Million to spend on top of Splitter's $3.9 Million this season. So the Spurs can even max out Splitter with out going over the tax.Just to clarify, if the Spurs had traded Jack for a player making his exact amount next season, then they would still have been able to max out Splitter. They would be able to off Splitter anywhere from $12-14 Million a year next season if the cap stayed flat, Ginobili were re-signed to a reasonable deal ($6-8 Million a year) and they cut Bonner. The max for Splitter would be about $13 Million, so the room is there. I understand that that'd leave very little space left, but since the cap will increase by a least a couple of million, the Spurs would have gotten their wiggle room back.
I apologize for coming off jerkish in my first reply to you. That wasn't right. But the math isn't wrong here. If you don't believe me, look at Bruno's salary thread in the Think Tank. The room is there for another $11 Million player along with Splitter and Ginobili.
Last edited by Chinook; 03-30-2013 at 09:02 PM.
Specifically, this is the Spurs' salary situation next year, according to Bruno:
The Spurs will have about $35 Million between their committed salaries and the tax threshold. Subtract $11 Million for this Player X, and the Spurs would have $24 Million to re-sign Ginobili and Splitter. That's room for Splitter, Ginobili and an MLE player. Even if the cap doesn't go up, the Spurs would have $19 Million to split between the two of them. So yes, there would have been room between the cap and tax for Splitter's deal.How much cap space Spurs could had in the 2013 summer:
It's early to answer at that question but let's give it a try.
Let's make first some assumptions:
- The salary cap is $62M.
- Spurs use the amnesty rule on Bonner.
- Diaw and Mills decides to pick their option and stay.
- Spurs either use their first round pick on a draft and stash player or trade him away.
Spurs team salary in the 2013 summer:
Tony Parker: $12,500,000
Tim Duncan: $10,361,446
Boris Diaw: $4,702,500
Danny Green: $3,762,500
Nando De Colo: $1,463,000
Kawhi Leonard: $1,887,840
Patrick Mills: $1,133,950
Cory Joseph: $1,120,920
Aron Baynes: $788,872
Roster cap hold: $490,180
Roster cap hold: $490,180
Roster cap hold: $490,180
Total: $39,191,568
In this scenario and with a $62M salary cap, Spurs will have $22.8M in cap space next summer. Diaw opting out will create an additional $4.2M in cap space and mills opting out another $0.6M.
*looks at my post again* Not seeing where I said the Spurs should bring back multi-year players that are halfway decent. Instead, I see where I said we could've gotten something decent for our trashy overpaid player, then went in to explain why I understood why they didn't trade him.
Also, wrong again, Stephen Jackson would be "the last of that", not RJ. They traded RJ for Jackson's multi-year deal. So yeah, "never again", except they did just last year for the guy we're talking about right now.
Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers, since you don't seem to be following the Spurs very closely.
Josh Smith does, tbh.
Jack was a subtraction of a year off of another bad contract, so yes, no more bad contracts. To trade him, they'd have to take back another like sized contract. It would have to be for more than one year, because no one is trading a decent ending contract for Jack's ending contract. That's the rules and parameters for trading Jack at the deadline. You're not getting , or rather, you are.*looks at my post again* Not seeing where I said the Spurs should bring back multi-year players that are halfway decent. Instead, I see where I said we could've gotten something decent for our trashy overpaid player, then went in to explain why I understood why they didn't trade him.
Also, wrong again, Stephen Jackson would be "the last of that", not RJ. They traded RJ for Jackson's multi-year deal. So yeah, "never again", except they did just last year for the guy we're talking about right now.
Perhaps you should follow the Knicks or Lakers, since you don't seem to be following the Spurs very closely.
Smh, tbh..
Nice.
Well, . if they had known he was having issues and being waived was a possibility, sure, he should have been dealt. If we had known about this issue before, I'm sure we all would have been on board with a trade. I was looking forward to seeing him ball in the playoffs
The Spurs should have known, they know if a player is disgruntled or has issues with money or playing time or whatever and of course how would they not know if he would be waived, you have to know how far you'll go with something. I think the Spurs dropped the ball.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
