Reply With Quote
It's 'principle', and if the team deemed both to be useful last season, I don't see anything that says such assessment has changed. If anything, the Spurs have said they would want him back.
Baynes is worth $ 2 million and in a year or two will be worth a lot more than that.
It's 'principle', and if the team deemed both to be useful last season, I don't see anything that says such assessment has changed. If anything, the Spurs have said they would want him back.
Yes, they want him back so badly and need him so desperately, they've let it be known they'd be interested in possible sign and trade deals. They value him greatly.
Yeah, I know. I never said I was perfect . . . but I am damn close.
As I said, they wanted something closer to a more proven commodity than Baynes last season. Also, they clearly thought Ayres was a more versatile player than he showed. Buford specifically mentioned his 18 footer, meaning they thought he could credibly play both big positions. They found out that wasn't the case, which made him redundant with Baynes.
Sure, he provides compe ion for Ayres, but I think they want (wanted?) him back more for chemistry and continuity purposes than anything.
Exactly. There's nothing that says a player has "jumped the shark" with a team like being offered on the trade market.
I think they wanted him back...right up to the point where he showcases himself at the WC, his team is eliminated, the WC ends, and he STILL won't sign that ing QO.
The only thing we know for sure is that the Spurs tendered him a QO. They don't offer a contract to a player they don't want back.
They did so with Neal last year. They wouldn't tender a player whom they wanted back under no cir stances, but they certainly wouldn't let an asset go to waste if they didn't have to.
I thought they wanted Neal back too, at a certain price.
The "wanting back" part was qualified, just like with Baynes.
I just think Neal was much more expendable than Baynes (my opinion, obviously). I wouldn't want the Spurs to break the bank on Aron, but $2m? He's worth that (again, just my opinion).
Nono, you like to talk about what we know for sure (earlier post), but not in this case? We don't know for sure that he's worth 2 million. We know for sure he's worth 1.1 million because that is currently what someone is willing to pay. Baynes and you think he's worth 2, but you guys aren't writing any checks. Again, he's been given a raise, if he wants a windfall, that's up to him and his agent. That's what free agency is all about. I much rather they put Baynes in the hot seat to save a million and not play hardball with Kawhi, etc. If they save a million here and there over the years it adds up to real money that they can give to players that we can't live without. We would like to have him back, but we can live without him. I don't think most of us care if they pay him 2 million, but only if there is a serious offer from someone else. It's been mentioned over and over, but why bid against yourself, and why start a negotiation at your extreme offer? It usually doesn't work that way for me, but I don't deal with such large numbers. Maybe the art of negotiation is different for you and you find bidding against yourself and starting at your extreme price a successful strategy. (I am assuming that The Spurs wouldn't be interested in him for much more than that.) But, I find that when I bid against myself I get buyer's remorse in addition to lost profit, and when I start at my extreme, I lose deals because the other party never takes me at my word that max means max or min means min, instead interpreting my offer as weakness or beginning for negotiation, then when they counter my max/min, and I refuse to go higher/lower, they see me as being recalcitrant and unwilling to negotiate. What The Spurs have done is just fine. Offered him a raise, and said that if he gets any other offers they would be interested in trying to be competetive with those offers, to a point. A maxim that I have found very useful is this: "The first person to give a number loses." As with all maxims, it's not perfect, but this one has been helpful to me on more occasions than any other I can remember. So, when I am forced to name a number first, as sometimes it can't be avoided, I always name as ridiculous a number I can that will still be in the realm of negotiation. Essentially, I attempt to follow the maxim, still. Give a number without giving a number. (Let's get in that boat and fight on that island over there.) You attempt to elicit a response from the other party. The Spurs have done even better than that, as his offer is above the minimum for his years of experience, I believe. They're showing respect. They're not totally playing hardball with him. All he has to do is bring in another offer. What's the problem? The problem is he either doesn't have one, or he doesn't want to live in China for three years, etc. I suspect that's the case. He has an offer, but doesn't like what it entails, and is being resentful of the fact that if he wants more money he's going to have to live in an environment that he maybe doesn't feel he'll enjoy as much. Tough ties. In those scenarios why do I have to pay you another million? You want it? Take your newlywed wife and go earn it in China for a year or three. Oh, wait, those Chinese offers come with the stipulation that you have to live in China? . Didn't realize that. You mean every Sheila MIGHT NOT want to live in China for 1-3 years? Tell her to not be such a Xenophobe and pack her suitcases and her pocket Mandarin dictionary. Internet isn't totally restricted over there, with the right government do ents, she should still be able to use Skype to communicate with you and family and friends, and there may be an ex-pat community she can knit with while you're away on the road. Or, she can stay back in Australia, and you can see her on occasions and the offseason. It's cool. Just mail her back that extra 900k, it smooths over the wrinkles in those long distance relationships. At my day job, I don't make as much as I could 90 miles south of San Antonio as an engineer in the oil fields. I am sure that's true for a lot of people on these boards. We take less money because that. That's Baynes decision. I won't blame him one bit if he leaves, but him for being what I think was a 300lb. , beginning several months ago, with a whiny comment in the media. Ball's in his court until October 1. Otherwise we find another bruiser that can't shoot, dribble, or pass, even though I like the bruiser he is and want to keep him.
holy ing great wall of text!
^ Missing an Enter button there.
Last time, you and HeyHey said it was TL;DR, so I took out the page breaks to make it shorter for you, and now you're complaining that there aren't enough paragraphs.
There's just no pleasing some people.
I said throughout my posts that him being worth $2m for one season is just my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine. Like I said twice before, I understand the Spurs don't have to offer a penny more.
I like the bruiser too, I think he's a good fit for our roster, and hope the Spurs don't lose him over a mere $900k or so difference.
EDIT: I read your post, BTW.
I know you don't think The Spurs are obligated. I know it was your opinion, and I realize you stated as much, but you did just politely hold someone's feet to the fire for asserting an unknown. Baynes' value of 2 million is not known, and can't be asserted. Can't use it. That's your rule.
I like the bruiser too, I think he's a good fit for our roster, and hope the Spurs don't lose him over a mere $900k or so difference.
EDIT: I read your post, BTW.1.1 million. That's known. If he gets a real offer for 2 million, they probably try to appease him. They aren't in the habbit of making enemies. Even waived guys like Jackson still hold The Spurs in high regard. And, they've really been soft with Baynes in my opinion.
1) They could have offered the minimum. Instead they bid against themselves once already and gave him a raise.
2) They've said they'll pay him more than what they've offered, if necessary. Definitely not hardball. An admission that he's worth something more to them. That doesn't strengthen their position.
If he would have handled it right he might have already gotten a better offer from The Spurs than what he got. He is the one playing hardball with them. If he would have taken 1.5, for example, he may already be signed, but he wanted to pursue the open market, stating what he was worth, and so The Spurs said: Have at it. We'll give you 1.1 to start, see if you can improve on that. But, they sound weak, to me. They sound as if they might have paid a little more if he had forgone his courting on the market. He didn't forego that, so they are simply following protocol. See what you can get above 1.1, we'll see if we can match. Problem is, it just doesn't appear to be going as well as Aron thought it would. It turns out that 1.1 isn't as lowball an offer as he thought, because maybe there isn't a flood of offers coming in for 2+. And the one he may have is in China, and he doesn't fit in the chairs over there. Maybe now he wishes he would have told them: I don't want to play anywhere else. I'll play here for 1.8. (Ayers' salary) and see what they counter with from the very beginning. But, he ain't got a time machine to go back to the very beginning.
He didn't do that. He got adversarial with them, they let Shane ride. You can't homestead Shane. He's wild. Come back Shane! Come back!
Did Shane die from his wound? Does the tombstone read October, 1st?
And, I'm flattered that you read. I do know it's long.Luckily I've got people to point that out for me.
It's a contract negotiation, I expect both sides to play hardball, more or less. He obviously isn't a franchise great like Tim, Tony or Manu, where the Spurs will just hand out a blank check.
I just hope it ends up with the banger back as a Spur... I liked his at ude and play, even if limited, with us last season.
I think we're all in general agreement, there.
If we did a sign and trade for him, what would you take? Any 2nd rounder? Probable mid-second rounder? In terms of trading for picks, what do you think is equitable?
I'd take a top 61 protected pick for Ayres
True, but what about Baynes?
The only thing we'd ever get is a protected 2nd and a small trade exception. Certainly better than just having him walk. I'd rather resign him for 2 mil than facilitate such a deal though
Austin and Errors need to go.....keep Baynes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
