The Spurs have the room to match a max offer. Atlanta can't really outbid the Spurs. But if they're willing to offer him a deal that the Spurs think is too much, then they can try to work out a trade. Atlanta doesn't know what the Spurs' number is. And the value of that number may be dependent on a lot of factors, possible compensation from an S&T being among them.
In other words, it's possible that there is a salary number that the Spurs would match if they don't get something from Splitter. By trading a small asset, Atlanta can lower the amount of money they have to pay to secure Splitter.
With the new CBA, I don't think sign and trades exist any more. If we sign him, I think he has to stay on the team for a minimum amount of time, something like until December if I remember correctly. So it's either we sign and keep him, or we don't.
Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot that he was a RFA. So yeah, we could match and then trade him to Atlanta, or whoever. (Or I think we can)
You have it backwards. Because Splitter is an RFA, the Spurs CAN'T match and trade him to Atlanta for a year. Splitter also gets a de-facto no-trade clause for that year, in addition to the Spurs not being able to trade him to anyone before January 15.
People have gotten confused by the CBA's handling of S&T's: They still exist just fine, and for teams below the apron, there's very little difference between them now and before. There is less benefit to signing and trading, because players don't get to keep their Bird benefits now. But that's not the motivating factor in this case.
This is not to be confused with the Lakers and Howard. Their S&T options are extremely limited due to their tax issues. The Spurs have no such limitations.
Thanks. That's helpful. I have usually thought of sign-and-trades as a way for teams over the cap to acquire free agents without using an exception, but I can see how it could potentially be beneficial to both teams in your scenario.
Atlanta really doesn't have the young guys to make a deal work though. They're not going to trade Horford and they got nothing else as far as players. Unless they want to give up multiple draft picks.
I hope he walks after this year and gives the finger to Pop
so much disrespect this guy gets
benching him when he was responsible for 6 straight points even though there was 10 minutes left
I really don't get how the Spurs plan to use this guy in the future. Sure he's been injured, but Pop uses him so inconsistently in the playoffs. Some of it is on Splittler, but other times I scratch my head. I just feel Pop things he's too soft and doesn't trust him in clutch scenarios.
Really would hate to see him in Dallas, but you know munch is going to try to out bid the Spurs. Would rather do a deal with Ferry if it came to it, and try to snag picks. They have 2 in the first this year.
If teams are going to try to outbid the spurs for splitter, another interesting sign and trade partner could be the Knicks. Chandler has been unhappy there, and the Knicks cap situation looks bleak. Sign and trade splittler with other parts that offer cap relief (bonner) to the Knicks. It would offer them some relief this coming year assuming Tiagos deal is for less than what chandler is owed, but more importantly the year after the Knicks will have more room.
Yes the last two years of his deal are 14m a pop, but I think chandler would provide more reliable rebounding and defense than Splitter. Spurs lose something on the pick in roll game, but Chandler isn't too shabby there either. I like a Chandler Duncan front court against the Memphises of the league. Seems doable money wise assuming manu does take about 65% of his current deal.
I'd even ask te Knicks to swap 1st rounders this year, if there is someone the spurs want in the low 20s.
Teams over the tax apron, like the Knicks, are not allowed to receive a player in a sign and trade.
Well that is that.
What about Atlanta they have the 17th and 18th pick and probably going to loose their center. Could we trade our 28th and Splitter for there 17th and 18th pick? If we could should we do it?
The timing is tricky. You can't trade FAs. You can sign and trade them, but not until the FA period, which is weeks after the draft. You would have to allow ATL to negotiate with him, and get him to agree in principle. It happens, but not very often. You also wouldn't get both picks unless you throw in something else.
I like this idea, but as Exstatic mentioned, this timing of all this makes for a very a tricky proposition - especially considering the fact that the draft is conducted before the free agency period. Still, Splitter is the Spurs best pick-n-roll defender and it's hard to picture them letting him walk. Unless, of course, desparate teams like the Blazers and Mavs simply money-whip him - which they are more than capable of doing.
Still, if they are in danger of losing Splitter, I'd much rather see the Spurs negotiate to acquire ATLs two consecutive first-round picks in exchange for a Splitter sign-n-trade, along with the Spurs #28 and whatever else is needed to make the deal work.
This is true. However, I realized that the Knicks wouldn't be over the apron if they did a S&T deal for Splitter, provided his starting salary was less than about $12 Million. From what I read, the limit is a calculated AFTER the trade goes through. The Knicks are barely above this year's apron ($76 Million) in salaries for next season ($77.8 Million). The projected cap increase, modest as it may be, should push the Knicks under the apron (I'm guessing about $79 Million). Even if that's not the case, the drop between Splitter's salary and Chandler's would be enough to keep New York safe, so the trade would actually be viable. Cap holds and roster charges shouldn't affect this.
That doesn't make this a good trade. But I did think it was interesting. This first year with these new rules leads to a lot of ambiguity. So I don't even know if the above interpretation is correct.
This will probably be moot if Splitter keeps improving this post-season.
There may be a narrow window for the Knicks to make such a trade under the rules if there is a good sized increase in the cap, but they couldn't bring back guys like Smith and Copeland and they would probably have to fill all remaining roster spots with minimum contracts. A remote possibility as best, and one that I can't see being of mutual interest to both teams.
I agree with your point in general, but I don't see why the Knicks would lose Smith's and Copeland's rights in this scenario. They'd actually end up with less committed salary for the season, and they'd still have all of the financial la ude they did before (or lack of it, rather). The timing is definitely the issue, but Copeland is restricted, which gives New York three days of leeway in the worst-case scenario (his QO may be too big, though, but I doubt it). And I doubt Smith is going to sign in the first two or three days of free agency unless it's for a contract the Knicks wouldn't have matched in the first place. Besides that, they're pretty much stuck with this roster for the next couple of years anyway, so it's not like they were going to be big players in free agency.
Starting in 2013-14 if a team acquires a player in a sign-and-trade, the apron ($4 million above the tax line) effectively becomes a hard cap for the remainder of that season.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q89
What's the backup plan if spurs opt not to match a ridiculous offer sheet? Throw money at Pekovic? Go after Jefferson or Milsap?Not sure he merits it after this PO, but there are surprisingly more teams with money than I thought and I think at last one may try to pry Splitter.
As much as I dont like Tiago in the POs, he is a big assets during regular season. I just want him to be as good in the finals (absurd thought).
Spurs need to keep him. The biggest problem wil not only be the mony, but also the contract duration.
Paying him 8-10 for 2 years is easier than 8-10 for 4 years.
He has to be a part of the rebuilding process, which should start eventually, unless Tim "Highlander" Duncan continues to play.
I'd let Splitter leave, assuming the Spurs have a real chance at getting Dwight Howard. I don't see Splitter as a part of the team's future core.
I'm sure this thread's going to get a lot of traffic over the next couple of days, so I thought I might as well start.
Splitter's value is dropping tremendously. Re-signing him may not be a no-brainer for the Spurs. If Ginobili retires, the Spurs may consider blowing it up or at least completely overhauling their bench. Splitter may not be part of that anymore.
Yeah seems like they should do what they can to get T-Rob and work all year on a post game.
We'd have a great rebounder with quick feets who can punish small ball PFs. Splitter won't rebound better, won't ever be a force in the post and had a pretty bad 3 years not matter how you cut it.
I have to disagree Chinook. PATFO stuck with Bonner after his poor playoff showings and I'm sure they will do the same with Splitter. If they don't, it will be because he is showing selfishness behind the scenes. I see no indication of that. Right now, Splitter is just making his re-signing a cheaper pricetag. I'd be shocked if we didn't. He's going from $10 - $12M per year to $8-$10M. He has time to bring it back up, in a sense, let's hope he does.
His recent problems notwithstanding, Splitter is still a useful player, especially against teams with bigger, more traditional centers that play in the post. Unfortunately, Miami is not one of those teams. I can't see the Spurs overpaying just to keep him. I don't think he's a $10 million player.... I see them offering something closer to 7-8, which I think is fair, something along the lines of a Gortat or Ilyasova. If someone offers him 40 mil/4years, I don't think the Spurs would outbid them. At under 25 mpg during the season and under 23 mpg in the playoffs, he just barely qualifies as a true "starter," and Tony Parker-- who was the Spurs' mvp this year-- only makes 12.5.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote