Reply With Quote
Bynum was a free agent for three weeks because he wanted more than the minimum. The Spurs, Heat, Clippers, etc. could only offer the minimum. The Pacers had a salary cap exception remaining that allowed them to offer more.
Turner is a minus impact player, him
Bynum was a free agent for three weeks because he wanted more than the minimum. The Spurs, Heat, Clippers, etc. could only offer the minimum. The Pacers had a salary cap exception remaining that allowed them to offer more.
Already had a history with the Spurs and a good relationship with Pop. It was a huge money saving move and the Spurs wanted to give Jackson a chance to right some wrongs. He ran his mouth to the media and the Spurs cut him. Pretty simple.
Was playing on a team that was tanking and wouldn't give him PT anyway. I think it's completely understandable that going to a contender would be a huge motivating factor to push yourself extra hard.Boris Diaw
Bynum has basically demonstrated what a head case he is. Would you feel okay about him playing any meaningful minutes without worrying he's going to flip his and start jacking up 3s? I wouldn't. And if he can't play important minutes then there's no point in chasing him.
Agreed. Turner is more SG than SF, Danny, Manu and Beli absorb the most of the minutes at the 2, so he would get limited playing time.
And that's the main reason to disbelieve the rumor, the Spurs sign a 6,6 M guy to not play him?
For $1 million dollars, I don't see the risk. If he's a head case or doesn't fit in, release him or sit him on the end of the bench. The Spurs already have a plethora of useless spare parts that do nothing but warm the bench. It would be nice to get a potential double-double of the bench from time to time. Indiana has basically the same makeup as the Spurs so if they can take small risks, so can the Spurs.
Jackson has always been a headcase as was Nick Van Exel. The Spurs have enough leaders and a no nonsense head coach on this team to set the guy straight. If he didn't work out, it basically costs them nothing. I agree that the Jackson trade was strictly financial that didn't even benefit the team after his departure. They literally pissed away the money they saved from RJ's contract. And Jackson ended up being an expensive cut.
Personally, I don't think Bynum is a head case, I think he's immature and being on a team like San Antonio with a lot of veteran leaders could have helped his growth and maturation in the same way it helped Diaw.
I also think they went after Metta World Peace the first time he was brought out.
Last edited by Hoops Czar; 03-12-2014 at 02:14 PM.
Interesting but ultimately irrelevant.
Ditto.
Would much rather have Young, tbh.
So would I, but I doubt he was ever even in the mix to be traded.
We could've done some kickass smallball with Diaw-Young-Kawhi-Manu-Marco
Pass.
Turner would have been RJ #2 here. Nothing more than a volume scorer who only succeeded because he was on a crappy team. We have a system here that doesn't lend well to the Iso Joe's of the world.
Like others have said, Thaddeus would have been awesome here though. He has the needed size and can grab contested boards, shoot threes, play the small ball center role, man he would have been a great ing fit here.
Would have been nice to see, and we might see it right before draft day if they are thinking about trading for him.
But who do you give up to get him? Leave our draft picks out of it hopefully.
He actually was, but as their most valuable trade piece, with time left on his contract, they probably didn't get their price. I'm betting he gets moved during the draft.
That would be my guess too, or right before it.
I think on draft night, someone will see their player(s) off the board, and cough up that first round pick that Philly probably wants.
Doubt the Spurs cough up theirs for him. Maybe a second round and a player, but not a first round.
He isn't worth a first round pick IMHO.
I think they would. Won't likely be anyone at 30 that's better than him. The problem would be the salary to send out. Expiring contracts could not be used, since they officially expire on the last day of our season, which will be before the draft. Spurs would have to send out contract(s) for next year that offset his $8M deal. I don't think they'd want to do that.
I think contracts roll over to the next year on July 1, so since the draft is at the end of June, players can be traded on their existing contracts during the draft. I'm not sure about this, though.
Even if that is true, I can't see the Spurs trading expirings for Thad Young because he'll eat up almost $10M in precious 2015 cap space (he has a ETO for 2015-2016 and I highly doubt he opts out).
I only disagree on the draft part because this is a very deep draft and especially for SFs.
The rest of your opinion I agree with.
Nah. I went through this last year at draft time with your position, and was educated. Expiring contracts can't be dealt during the draft. That would kind of make the trade deadline moot if you could just move the expiring at the draft. Puts a little more pressure on you to do a deal at the deadline if you want to move or take on an expiring.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
