2013 Free Agent: Gary Neal

[Captivus]

The Spurs can't trade Neal during the draft no matter what. A QO isn't a contract; it's just a tender unless/until Neal signs it. He's not going to do that, and so he's pretty much a cap hold for the first couple of weeks.

Also, teams can't sign him to an offer sheet until July. He's not a free agent until then.

So the Spurs cant use him to get a higher draft pick.
They will make the QO, he would accept it probably before the draft. But the Spurs cant use him...shame...unless he signs with the Spurs or another team before that...which doesnt make sense, he can wait until July like you said...smh...

[Chinook]

So the Spurs cant use him to get a higher draft pick.
They will make the QO, he would accept it probably before the draft. But the Spurs cant use him...shame...unless he signs with the Spurs or another team before that...which doesnt make sense, he can wait until July like you said...smh...

Neal would not accept a qualifying offer before the draft. It's only $1.1 Million. Neal will almost certainly make more than that if he waits. Moreover, Neal is NOT a free agent until July. He can't sign with the Spurs or anyone before then. He's also an expiring contract, which means he's untradeable during the draft. His qualifying offer won't affect that.

Also, why would Neal accept a qualifying offer just so the Spurs could trade him? It's pretty much a minimum contract, and he'd be giving up his right to choose his team.

[Captivus]

Neal would not accept a qualifying offer before the draft. It's only $1.1 Million. Neal will almost certainly make more than that if he waits. Moreover, Neal is NOT a free agent until July. He can't sign with the Spurs or anyone before then. He's also an expiring contract, which means he's untradeable during the draft. His qualifying offer won't affect that.

Also, why would Neal accept a qualifying offer just so the Spurs could trade him? It's pretty much a minimum contract, and he'd be giving up his right to choose his team.

Does he thinks he can get more minutes in another team?
Does he want to go to another team?

If he accepts the QO he is a RFA, so the Spurs have the right to match any offer, thats the key to me, does he want to continue to play for the Spurs?

Neal's agent is probably talking to teams right now, the salary increase should be there, the question is does he want to stay?

[Mel_13]

Does he thinks he can get more minutes in another team?
Does he want to go to another team?

If he accepts the QO he is a RFA, so the Spurs have the right to match any offer, thats the key to me, does he want to continue to play for the Spurs?

Neal's agent is probably talking to teams right now, the salary increase should be there, the question is does he want to stay?

You're a little confused on this.

1. When the Spurs tender the QO, Neal becomes an RFA.

2. As an RFA, the Spurs can match any offer sheet that Neal signs with another team.

3. Neal would only sign the QO (a one year contract) if he did not receive any better offers. That is highly unlikely.

4. If Neal's agent is talking to any other team right now, he's breaking the rules. Any other team caught talking with Neal or his agent now can be punished for tampering. Neal can only talk to the Spurs until he becomes a free agent on July 1st.

[Chinook]

Does he thinks he can get more minutes in another team?
Does he want to go to another team?

If he accepts the QO he is a RFA, so the Spurs have the right to match any offer, thats the key to me, does he want to continue to play for the Spurs?

Neal's agent is probably talking to teams right now, the salary increase should be there, the question is does he want to stay?

If Neal's agent is talking to other teams, then that's illegal. Neal is not a free agent until July. He's not allowed to act like one. Teams that tried negotiating with him would be tampering, which can come with pretty severe penalties.

I don't know what the bolded part of my post has to do with your reply.

Neal doesn't get to "accept" a QO in the sense you seem to mean it. It's not a contract; it's a tender. The Spurs can tender him without his consent. If he were to sign the tender, THEN it becomes a contract. However, signing a QO also takes away his RFA status -- he'd just be a player under contract. He couldn't negotiate with the Spurs or anyone else until the following off-season. He would, however, gain a de facto no-trade clause, but that's incidental. If he refuses to sign his tender (and doesn't get signed by anyone else), his rights remain with the Spurs ad infinitum.

When I said he wouldn't accept his QO, I meant that he wouldn't sign his tender, as he'd want to remain a free agent as long as possible. The only way he'd sign his offer quickly would be if he wanted to get out of San Antonio as quickly as possible, but the Spurs made it known they'd match any offer. But that's not even close to a realistic scenario. That doesn't mean he would not want to come back to the Spurs, but he wouldn't be able to negotiate a long-term deal with them, either, once he signs his QO.

In any event, Neal is still untradeable during the draft. No finagling will change the CBA.

[Chinook]

Just when I thought you had gotten complacent, you pop up to beat me to the punch again, Mel_13

[Mel_13]

Just when I thought you had gotten complacent, you pop up to beat me to the punch again, Mel_13

Mostly leaving this stuff alone until after the playoffs, but Captivus looked like he needed some help.

[Captivus]

You're a little confused on this.

1. When the Spurs tender the QO, Neal becomes an RFA.

2. As an RFA, the Spurs can match any offer sheet that Neal signs with another team.

3. Neal would only sign the QO (a one year contract) if he did not receive any better offers. That is highly unlikely.

4. If Neal's agent is talking to any other team right now, he's breaking the rules. Any other team caught talking with Neal or his agent now can be punished for tampering. Neal can only talk to the Spurs until he becomes a free agent on July 1st.

If Neal's agent is talking to other teams, then that's illegal. Neal is not a free agent until July. He's not allowed to act like one. Teams that tried negotiating with him would be tampering, that can comes with pretty severe penalties.

I don't know what the bolded part of my post has to do with your reply. NOTHING! (I deleted that part and forgot to change the format in your post)

Neal doesn't get to "accept" a QO in the sense you seem to mean it. It's not a contract; it's a tender. The Spurs can tender him without his consent. If he were to sign the tender, THEN it becomes a contract. However, signing a QO also takes away his RFA status -- he'd just be a player under contract. He couldn't negotiate with the Spurs or anyone else until the following off-season. He would, however, gain a de facto no-trade clause, but that's incidental. If he refuses to sign his tender, his rights remain with the Spurs ad infinitum.

When I said he wouldn't accept his QO, I meant that he wouldn't sign his tender, as he'd want to remain a free agent as long as possible. The only way he'd sign his offer quickly would be if he wanted to get out of San Antonio as quickly as possible, but the Spurs made it known they'd match any offer. But that's not even close to a realistic scenario. That doesn't mean he would not want to come back to the Spurs, but he wouldn't be able to negotiate a long-term deal with them, either, once he signs his QO.

In any event, Neal is still untradeable during the draft. No finagling will change the CBA.

Thank you both.
One more question: See bolded part. Can you explain that. If he sign the QO, his salary is $1.1, isnt it?

[Chinook]

Thank you both.
One more question: See bolded part. Can you explain that. If he sign the QO, his salary is $1.1, isnt it?

I hesitated to even bring up that scenario, as it NEVER happens, especially not to players of Neal's caliber.

Good players tend to stay with the team that drafted them for 7-9 years, because after their rookie deal is done, they're RFAs. So even though they'd probably like to leave their teams if they're bad like the Raptors or Kings, they'd rather get a big contract. So they just accept a max extension from their current team, as that team will probably match whatever deal another team gives to a player.

If the good player REALLY wanted to leave his team as soon as possible, he'd just sign his QO when free agency starts. That means he'd have to play for his current team one more year, but after that, he'd be unrestricted and could sign with the team of his choice without fear of his current team matching. He's also gain a de factor no-trade clause, which would allow him to choose whatever team he wanted to go to if his current team wanted to get something from him.

You never see this maneuver, though, because it's financially and socially risky. The player gives up a lot of guaranteed money and really earns his team's ill will . It makes for a terrible year for everyone. However, when you hear players like Eric Gordan beg Phoenix not to match his offer sheet, you have to laugh. He could have just signed his QO and picked his place his season. Instead, he's stuck in New Orleans or wherever the Pelicans decide to ship him for the next three years.


As far as Neal goes, however, that means nothing. If he REALLY wanted to leave the Spurs, they'd just let him go. The only player they'd keep against his will (for more than just one season) is Leonard. Neal just isn't worth the struggle.

[Captivus]

I hesitated to even bring up that scenario, as it NEVER happens, especially not to players of Neal's caliber.

Good players tend to stay with the team that drafted them for 7-9 years, because after their rookie deal is done, they're RFAs. So even though they'd probably like to leave their teams if they're bad like the Raptors or Kings, they'd rather get a big contract. So they just accept a max extension from their current team, as that team will probably match whatever deal another team gives to a player.

If the good player REALLY wanted to leave his team as soon as possible, he'd just sign his QO when free agency starts. That means he'd have to play for his current team one more year, but after that, he'd be unrestricted and could sign with the team of his choice without fear of his current team matching. He's also gain a de factor no-trade clause, which would allow him to choose whatever team he wanted to go to if his current team wanted to get something from him.

You never see this maneuver, though, because it's financially and socially risky. The player gives up a lot of guaranteed money and really earns his team's ill will . It makes for a terrible year for everyone. However, when you hear players like Eric Gordan beg Phoenix not to match his offer sheet, you have to laugh. He could have just signed his QO and picked his place his season. Instead, he's stuck in New Orleans or wherever the Pelicans decide to ship him for the next three years.


As far as Neal goes, however, that means nothing. If he REALLY wanted to leave the Spurs, they'd just let him go. The only player they'd keep against his will (for more than just one season) is Leonard. Neal just isn't worth the struggle.

Perfect!
At the end, the Spurs will tender him a QO, he wont sign it, he will look for other teams and see his value. Assuming he will receive offers the question is:
How much are the Spurs willing to pay for him? By that time, the draft is over and he will know if the spurs drafted a backcourt player.
Like you said, if he want to leave they will just let him.

Keeping Leonard against his will!!

[CGD]

The Spurs can't trade Neal during the draft no matter what. A QO isn't a contract; it's just a tender unless/until Neal signs it. He's not going to do that, and so he's pretty much a cap hold for the first couple of weeks.

Also, teams can't sign him to an offer sheet until July. He's not a free agent until then.

wait, could someone please reconcile the first sentence above, with what the Spurs did with George Hill? Before trading him to the pacers weren't the Spurs going to have to decide whether to extend him a QO?

[Chinook]

wait, could someone please reconcile the first sentence above, with what the Spurs did with George Hill? Before trading him to the pacers weren't the Spurs going to have to decide whether to extend him a QO?

Hill had a year left on his deal. Neal does not. Hill's RFA off-season was after his first with the Pacers. Remember, Hill had a four-year deal, while Neal had a three-year deal.

[CGD]

Hill had a year left on his deal. Neal does not. Hill's RFA off-season was after his first with the Pacers. Remember, Hill had a four-year deal, while Neal had a three-year deal.

Thanks for that. All this time, I thought he was going into his RFA year.

[Chinook]

Thanks for that. All this time, I thought he was going into his RFA year.

Being an RFA isn't really a year-long thing. It's almost always resolved in the off-season, either through a new deal or just the player signing the QO. Hill was only an RFA for a few days, for example.

[SenorSpur]

Neal and Blair are two players that just don't give us what we need which is being athletic and a good defender. They are both tweeners playing out of their positions and we can do better by replacing them by draft or free agency.

Add Bonner to this list too. That's 3 roster spots that are being underutilized.

[SenorSpur]

As far as Neal goes, however, that means nothing. If he REALLY wanted to leave the Spurs, they'd just let him go. The only player they'd keep against his will (for more than just one season) is Leonard. Neal just isn't worth the struggle.

I agree. I've soured on Neal and I hope the Spurs have too. His limitations, as a one-tool player, are too pronounced for a team that is a perennial championship contender. He's a terrible defender, poor ball-handler and offers nothing in the way of playmaking. This experiment has run it's course and it's high time that Pop stop falling in love with one-tool players. Let the guy walk and fill his spot with a young, cheap player that can be productive on both sides of the ball.

[td4mvp2k]

If Mills doesn't opt out, I'd look to trade him to some team that needs a backup PG for a future top 55 protected pick. Doesn't make sense to keep with Parker, Nando, Cojo here already and those 2 presumably ahead of Mills in the pecking order. He should get work, but he'd probably only get minimum deal and might like the certainty of having the contract, and a trade would give him a chance to play more than spot minutes.

a trade wit mills or nando in the draft would be good

[exstatic]

I agree. I've soured on Neal and I hope the Spurs have too. His limitations, as a one-tool player, are too pronounced for a team that is a perennial championship contender. He's a terrible defender, poor ball-handler and offers nothing in the way of playmaking. This experiment has run it's course and it's high time that Pop stop falling in love with one-tool players. Let the guy walk and fill his spot with a young, cheap player that can be productive on both sides of the ball.

The thing about Neal, though is that, outside of Tony and Manu, he's the only ball handler that can get his own shot pretty consistently.

[SenorSpur]

The thing about Neal, though is that, outside of Tony and Manu, he's the only ball handler that can get his own shot pretty consistently.

Yeah, but his negatives have started to outweigh his positives. And I wouldn't exactly call Neal a ball handler either. Surely, the Spurs can find another player capable of getting his own shot on one end, but isn't the turnstile that Neal is on the defensive end.

[exstatic]

Yeah, but his negatives have started to outweigh his positives. And I wouldn't exactly call Neal a ball handler either. Surely, the Spurs can find another player capable of getting his own shot on one end, but isn't the turnstile that Neal is on the defensive end.

For a million dollars? At the cost of no assets? People forget that Neal cost us nothing to get, and costs us almost nothing to keep.

[SenorSpur]

For a million dollars? At the cost of no assets? People forget that Neal cost us nothing to get, and costs us almost nothing to keep.

I understand that he's a cheap backup option. Still, for me that doesn't mitigate his negatives and it doesn't make me feel any better about him. We've had a 3-yr look at him and unfortunately he is what he is. I trust the Spurs will find a better option than him for next year.

[exstatic]

I understand that he's a cheap backup option. Still, for me that doesn't mitigate his negatives and it doesn't make me feel any better about him. We've had a 3-yr look at him and unfortunately he is what he is. I trust the Spurs will find a better option than him for next year.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[yavozerb]

For a million dollars? At the cost of no assets? People forget that Neal cost us nothing to get, and costs us almost nothing to keep.

How do you know it will cost "almost nothing to keep"? Alot of teams need shooters like Neal and I would not be suprised to see him get a contract like green's. Just cannot see the spurs giving a contract like that to Neal at that position which has depth already.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

How do you know it will cost "almost nothing to keep"? Alot of teams need shooters like Neal and I would not be suprised to see him get a contract like green's. Just cannot see the spurs giving a contract like that to Neal at that position which has depth already.

I agree, someone's going to overpay him this summer.

[Gagnrath]

Make Neal a 3.5 mil per year offer. If he takes it great if not let him go.