Boris Diaw looking to get a 2 year $18-$20 contract with Spurs

[ElNono]

If Boris was willing, they'd probably prefer a decreasing contract rather than an increasing one. They won't, in most scenarios, be using cap space this summer. Better to have less salary committed in a summer where they're more likely to need cap space.

While I understand that line of thinking, I don't necessarily agree with it, for a number of different reasons.

[Mel_13]

While I understand that line of thinking, I don't necessarily agree with it, for a number of different reasons.

Care to share one or two? I don't see the downside for the team.

[Sean Cagney]

So many of you rooting for the FO to get a bargain. You do what you have to in order to bring this core back for another run. Simple as that.

YES, do not pull a Cuban and blow up a le team as we saw backfired bigtime.

[Mel_13]

YES, do not pull a Cuban and blow up a le team as we saw backfired bigtime.

Team history tells us that the FO's first choice will be to bring everyone back. Strangely enough, large numbers of STers criticized the FO for doing just that in 2007.

[Sean Cagney]

Team history tells us that the FO's first choice will be to bring everyone back. Strangely enough, large numbers of STers criticized the FO for doing just that in 2007.

Your right! The thing is though Boston pulled a big trade for two guys and LA got Gasol gifted to them! If that doesn't happen? Would the Spurs ring? Nobody expected that other stuff to happen so I guess expect the unexpected at times. I think they bring them all back, they have such a chemistry and the role players are young enough IMO not to get worn out. I know Manu will be older and Tim too! If Parker takes off the summer he should be fresh and ready because he is not too old yet.

If they let two go and bring in some other pieces what happens? Boris and Patty are key to this team and know it well IMO, too much of a risk at this point to let them walk and start over.

[Ice009]

Team history tells us that the FO's first choice will be to bring everyone back. Strangely enough, large numbers of STers criticized the FO for doing just that in 2007.

The Spurs weren't as deep back then, and other teams reloaded and made some really, really big moves. I still think it was the wrong decision to not try very hard on upgrading the team back then. Boston, LA and Phoenix all made gigantic moves that really put the Spurs at a disadvantage. Still, with a healthy Manu, who knows what would have happened if the Spurs had beaten LA and made the finals. They didn't have any depth though to cover for the Manu injury, so I think it hurt them by not trying to upgrade the team from the get go.

This Spurs team is much deeper, so I won't say that they need to reload like I thought the 2007 team should have. I think that they should try and bring the same team back, but also still look at trying to get an upgrade or two if at all possible.

[Mel_13]

The Spurs weren't as deep back then and other teams reloaded and made some really, really big moves. I still think it was the wrong decision to not try very hard on upgrading the team back then. Boston, LA and Phoenix all made gigantic moves that really put the Spurs at a disadvantage. Still, with a healthy Manu, who knows what would have happened if the Spurs had beaten LA and made the finals. They didn't have any depth though to cover for the Manu injury, so I think it hurt them by not trying to upgrade the team from the get go.

This Spurs teams is much deeper, so I won't say that they need to reload like I thought the 2007 team should have. The Spurs should still look at trying to get an upgrade or two if at all possible though.

That's true. The 2007 team wasn't nearly as deep as the 2014 team and most STers remember 2007 as the summer that Scola was lost.

[ElNono]

Care to share one or two? I don't see the downside for the team.

Sure. In the immediacy, I think there's a sense of urgency for obvious reasons, and I think winning the le only exacerbates it. Diaw is truly a irreplaceable component on this version of the team. Even if there's a risk he could become complacent with a fat check, I think they'll rather roll the dice and try to give themselves the best odds for next season.

Looking longer term, I think they'll have plenty of cap space regardless, even if they throw a max or near-max deal to Kawhi. I'm also not sold yet they're going full rebuild if Tim and Manu hangs them up next season. There's just too many variants out there, but if they can offer a loyalty contract to Tony, along with keeping Kawhi in a central role, and Green in an affordable deal, I think they'll try that for a couple of seasons.

[Strategic]

How many guys out there can be a backup point guard, a back up two guard, a back up small forward, a back up power forward, and a back up center on offense, then turn around and be a back up two guard, a back up small forward, a back up power forward and a back up center on defense? All in the same game, but not at the same time, smart ass. Oh, and in a pinch he can start at all of these spots also. Boris Diaw is one of the two players (rested Manu) that made us forget that this board and some other en ies cried for the Spurs to acquire a backup small forward for half of this past season. Keep him, and if possible help him lose another ten.

[Chinook]

Scola

You were right, man. Every thread becomes a Scola thread eventually.

[Mel_13]

Sure. In the immediacy, I think there's a sense of urgency for obvious reasons, and I think winning the le only exacerbates it. Diaw is truly a irreplaceable component on this version of the team. Even if there's a risk he could become complacent with a fat check, I think they'll rather roll the dice and try to give themselves the best odds for next season.

Looking longer term, I think they'll have plenty of cap space regardless, even if they throw a max or near-max deal to Kawhi. I'm also not sold yet they're going full rebuild if Tim and Manu hangs them up next season. There's just too many variants out there, but if they can offer a loyalty contract to Tony, along with keeping Kawhi in a central role, and Green in an affordable deal, I think they'll try that for a couple of seasons.

I don't have any great issue with assessment, but how does a decreasing contract for Diaw have a negative effect?

[Mel_13]

You were right, man. Every thread becomes a Scola thread eventually.

A SpursTalk trademark since 2007.

[Chinook]

Sure. In the immediacy, I think there's a sense of urgency for obvious reasons, and I think winning the le only exacerbates it. Diaw is truly a irreplaceable component on this version of the team. Even if there's a risk he could become complacent with a fat check, I think they'll rather roll the dice and try to give themselves the best odds for next season.

Looking longer term, I think they'll have plenty of cap space regardless, even if they throw a max or near-max deal to Kawhi. I'm also not sold yet they're going full rebuild if Tim and Manu hangs them up next season. There's just too many variants out there, but if they can offer a loyalty contract to Tony, along with keeping Kawhi in a central role, and Green in an affordable deal, I think they'll try that for a couple of seasons.

But why would having an increasing contract help that? I agree with Mel that having a decreasing contract ($6M--$5M--$4M yes, that's not a possible deal; it's just an example) would be best for both Diaw and the team, since it maximized 2016 cap space (which may end up being the big year if Duncan plays for two more seasons) and it gives Boris his money immediately. The only downside is that the Spurs could not take as much salary back by trading a front-loaded expiring contract than they could if it were back-loaded. But even that con is negated by the smaller salary being easier to trade.

[ElNono]

I don't have any great issue with assessment, but how does a decreasing contract for Diaw have a negative effect?

Oh sorry, I was addressing the last part of your post (the "Better to have less salary committed in a summer where they're more likely to need cap space." part)

I don't think the Spurs will be able to do a decreasing deal if they plan to keep Patty. I don't know how many teams are lining up to offer Diaw over $6m a year, but I suspect there could be a few.

I think Boris is, just like Pau, looking at one of his last generally good paydays of his career. There were even talks of him being Finals MVP worthy. He's in a position of strength right now to fetch good money, and I can't blame him.

I'll be ecstatic if the Spurs can secure his services for next season, even if it comes at a relative cost.

[ElNono]

But why would having an increasing contract help that? I agree with Mel that having a decreasing contract ($6M--$5M--$4M yes, that's not a possible deal; it's just an example) would be best for both Diaw and the team, since it maximized 2016 cap space (which may end up being the big year if Duncan plays for two more seasons) and it gives Boris his money immediately. The only downside is that the Spurs could not take as much salary back by trading a front-loaded expiring contract than they could if it were back-loaded. But even that con is negated by the smaller salary being easier to trade.

yeah, just clarified that. Post right above

[Chinook]

Unless they move Tiago of course... We have a saying over here that says "to reign is to foresee"... If they want to repeat (reign) they better better think long and hard about the way they wanna play next year...




The Splitter is getting better myth is annoying, guy is 30 he's what he is, we're seeing a prime Splitter out there... And everyone would take Cousins no question asked.

I agree on both counts, in the sense that the Spurs are going to have to move away from a twin-towers default SL pretty soon and that Tiago has a trade value. I'm not in favor of targeting Marc Gasol in 2015 like some posters are because I don't think a two-center lineup will work well with the future makeup of the team (it's not even working all that well now in certain match-ups). I wouldn't even think about trading Splitter for Ilyasova, though. Cousins? Obviously. Amir Johnson? Yes if enough sweeteners were included. Ilyasova/Thad Young/Millsap? Nope. That's just bad for business.

[Mel_13]

Oh sorry, I was addressing the last part of your post (the "Better to have less salary committed in a summer where they're more likely to need cap space." part)

I don't think the Spurs will be able to do a decreasing deal if they plan to keep Patty. I don't know how many teams are lining up to offer Diaw over $6m a year, but I suspect there could be a few.

I think Boris is, just like Pau, looking at one of his last generally good paydays of his career. There were even talks of him being Finals MVP worthy. He's in a position of strength right now to fetch good money, and I can't blame him.

I'll be ecstatic if the Spurs can secure his services for next season, even if it comes at a relative cost.

Got it.

Yeah, they have to sign Boris if they're serious about trying to repeat. I'll stand by 3/21 as a number that gets it done, but I'd imagine that they're prepared to go further than that.

[Chinook]

I'll be ecstatic if the Spurs can secure his services for next season, even if it comes at a relative cost.

Am I the only one who constantly struggles to spell that work because of the poster here with the very similar name?

[ElNono]

Am I the only one who constantly struggles to spell that work because of the poster here with the very similar name?

It's Firefox spell-checker FTW here...

[Mel_13]

It's Firefox spell-checker FTW here...

I love those squiggly red lines.

[Chinook]

It's Firefox spell-checker FTW here...

Nah, I just avoid typing that word altogether. It's just the more healthy and sensible approach all around.

[Arguendo]

not really. There were teams who couldnt offer him money, right? because they were over the cap, or would be, right? then there isnt any way to know his real MARKET VALUE because other teams could have bid higher/paid higher, had there been no cap. then that number would be his MARKET VALUE...

and see, you told the audience we couldnt argue market value, proven wrong again.

I very rarely feel the need to chime in on a discussion here but wow.

Tholdren, do you have any idea what context means?

In a discussion regarding NBA salaries, free agents, and the like, market value is defined and limited by the existing CBA because the market providing the valuations is made up by the 30 NBA teams who are regulated by the CBA.

This is not ing micro-Econ 101. There is not a theoretical perfect free market (anywhere), nor is each and every party a rational actor (ever), and there are barriers and transaction costs (always). You are arguing bull and showing yourself to be an idiot.

The market value of a player, especially a RFA, is what can be obtained by a given player, during a given period. Variables such as available talent/FAs, current and expected rosters, available cap space and exceptions shape and define the market value at a certain time. And market value is static, linked to a certain point in time and to certain variable such as those discussed in the previous sentence.

Tiago's value was unambiguously and unquestionably set by Portland and matched by the Spurs. There is absolutely no arguing that past market value, it's his current contract.

Please quit making the world a worse place.

[will_spurs]

not really. There were teams who couldnt offer him money, right? because they were over the cap, or would be, right? then there isnt any way to know his real MARKET VALUE because other teams could have bid higher/paid higher, had there been no cap. then that number would be his MARKET VALUE...

So what you're arguing is that Splitter's "real market value" (if there was no CBA) would be even higher than what Portland offered him, or what the Spurs paid for him.

So what you mean is that Splitter is effectively being underpaid by the Spurs. Thanks for making it clear that you agree with all of us 100%.

[benefactor]

I very rarely feel the need to chime in on a discussion here but wow.

Tholdren, do you have any idea what context means?

In a discussion regarding NBA salaries, free agents, and the like, market value is defined and limited by the existing CBA because the market providing the valuations is made up by the 30 NBA teams who are regulated by the CBA.

This is not ing micro-Econ 101. There is not a theoretical perfect free market (anywhere), nor is each and every party a rational actor (ever), and there are barriers and transaction costs (always). You are arguing bull and showing yourself to be an idiot.

The market value of a player, especially a RFA, is what can be obtained by a given player, during a given period. Variables such as available talent/FAs, current and expected rosters, available cap space and exceptions shape and define the market value at a certain time. And market value is static, linked to a certain point in time and to certain variable such as those discussed in the previous sentence.

Tiago's value was unambiguously and unquestionably set by Portland and matched by the Spurs. There is absolutely no arguing that past market value, it's his current contract.

Please quit making the world a worse place.

[jag]

So what you're arguing is that Splitter's "real market value" (if there was no CBA) would be even higher than what Portland offered him, or what the Spurs paid for him.

So what you mean is that Splitter is effectively being underpaid by the Spurs. Thanks for making it clear that you agree with all of us 100%.

He doesnt know what he's arguing. He continues to think Splitter is overpaid, but he has no idea what that really means.