So if Danny's gone, the contingency plan is ?????

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

This guy?

Please, Green made a mistake. But notice Green didn't give Pop ANY AT UDE. Imagine someone like JR Smith getting yelled out like that.

Manu committed an even worse foul on Dirk in 2006. like this happens some time. But at least Green is coach able and doesn't give his coach at ude.

[hater]

JR Smith

We need some balls in our team tbqh

[Chinook]

Still no word on what Chinook is willing to pay for Danny. do you want to max him out or something? You believe he's worth that? What about 15m/yr. You believe he's worth 15m/yr?

Whats the word.

I'd be willing to give him a contract with heavy incentives. If he plays like a max player, he deserves to be paid like one. But the base salary would be pretty low in comparison. Probably something like $57.5M/5 with the final year non-guaranteed unless he meets certain goals (all-defense for two years, starts 85 percent of his games over the first four years. The max incentives he'd can get from that deal would kick it up to $68 Million. Also give him a full trade kicker, which would raise the maximum to $79 Million.

I know people are going to see $79M/5 and freak out. But the guaranteed portion of the deal is only about $45 Million. If Danny remains a fixture on the team, he'd get $13 Million more for that final year (when the cap is going to be well over $110 Million, btb). If he starts to collect All-Defensive honors or All-Star bids (or whatever other stringent requirements there are for the incentives), he'd make up to $11 Million more. And if he does all those those thing for another team because the Spurs trade him, then he'd get up to $11 Million on top of all that.

So it sounds good to me. Danny gets top-end role-player money if he's a top-end role-player. If he becomes a part of the foundation, he gets extra security. If he starts to get recognized for his work, he gets lower-tier star money. And he gets to remain a Spur for the next
few years, because there's no way they'd pay that much to move him.

And if he bombs, he becomes a of a trade chip in a few years.

[Chinook]

Please, Green made a mistake. But notice Green didn't give Pop ANY AT UDE. Imagine someone like JR Smith getting yelled out like that.

Manu committed an even worse foul on Dirk in 2006. like this happens some time. But at least Green is coach able and doesn't give his coach at ude.

Not to mention that Danny was straight carrying the Spurs in that game (20/10/2/2/3) and Manu jacked up a terrible shot instead of passing to a mostly open Green with a chance to win the game. Pop freaking out at Danny looked pretty stupid at that point, honestly.

[tmtcsc]

Please, Green made a mistake. But notice Green didn't give Pop ANY AT UDE. Imagine someone like JR Smith getting yelled out like that.

Manu committed an even worse foul on Dirk in 2006. like this happens some time. But at least Green is coach able and doesn't give his coach at ude.

Lol, ask Stephen Jackson what giving Pop at ude will get you. I have a feeling mistakes like this might be a little more common place than we know. This one was blatant and came out of time out I think. How do you not have court awareness at this point?

Would like Danny back in San Antonio but not at the expense of a top-tier talent like Aldridge or Gasol.

[Chinook]

Lol, ask Stephen Jackson what giving Pop at ude will get you. I have a feeling mistakes like this might be a little more common place than we know. This one was blatant and came out of time out I think. How do you not have court awareness at this point?

Would like Danny back in San Antonio but not at the expense of a top-tier talent like Aldridge or Gasol.

It wasn't even a bad play; it's just not what Pop wanted. A lot of coaches would want to foul in that situation. In fact, it worked out for the Spurs because it game the Spurs about 10 more seconds than they would have had otherwise. Spurs would have had six seconds to score if they stopped Brooklyn (game would have been over had the Nets scored). They had 16 seconds to get a three because Green fouled.

[tholdren]

Not to mention that Danny was straight carrying the Spurs in that game (20/10/2/2/3) and Manu jacked up a terrible shot instead of passing to a mostly open Green with a chance to win the game. Pop freaking out at Danny looked pretty stupid at that point, honestly.

I don't think that it looked "stupid." If you're a defensive specialist you have to have a high defensive IQ. That was a -the-bed moment that would have gotten a player benched in high school. I'm not sure what he was thinking, especially having the offensive player, who he is and where he is, not even attempting to attack.

Two things I noticed - green was trying to act like he thought he heard someone say foul, NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, and Ime Udoka about as clueless as Green on what to do in that situation.

*then the infamous parker stare *

I do agree with your other post regarding what to give him with incentives. How do incentives work against the cap?

[tholdren]

It wasn't even a bad play; it's just not what Pop wanted. A lot of coaches would want to foul in that situation. In fact, it worked out for the Spurs because it game the Spurs about 10 more seconds than they would have had otherwise. Spurs would have had six seconds to score if they stopped Brooklyn (game would have been over had the Nets scored). They had 16 seconds to get a three because Green fouled.

I whole-heartedly disagree - from a coaches standpoint. You have a guy standing in the corner not even facing up, a foul here is a bail out. I would be interested to see which coach would have said to foul in that exact cir stance.

[Chinook]

I whole-heartedly disagree - from a coaches standpoint. You have a guy standing in the corner not even facing up, a foul here is a bail out. I would be interested to see which coach would have said to foul in that exact cir stance.

The correct play in my mind would have been to play heavy ball pressure with the goal of fouling if the Nets broke it. The Spurs were not very good defensively in that game, and they should not have felt confident in getting a stop when they absolutely needed one. Plus, even if they did, they only had six seconds to come back and score. It was just not very smart.

Again, though, it ended up being a good thing.

[Juan]

I'd be willing to give him a contract with heavy incentives. If he plays like a max player, he deserves to be paid like one. But the base salary would be pretty low in comparison. Probably something like $57.5M/5 with the final year non-guaranteed unless he meets certain goals (all-defense for two years, starts 85 percent of his games over the first four years. The max incentives he'd can get from that deal would kick it up to $68 Million. Also give him a full trade kicker, which would raise the maximum to $79 Million.

I know people are going to see $79M/5 and freak out. But the guaranteed portion of the deal is only about $45 Million. If Danny remains a fixture on the team, he'd get $13 Million more for that final year (when the cap is going to be well over $110 Million, btb). If he starts to collect All-Defensive honors or All-Star bids (or whatever other stringent requirements there are for the incentives), he'd make up to $11 Million more. And if he does all those those thing for another team because the Spurs trade him, then he'd get up to $11 Million on top of all that.

So it sounds good to me. Danny gets top-end role-player money if he's a top-end role-player. If he becomes a part of the foundation, he gets extra security. If he starts to get recognized for his work, he gets lower-tier star money. And he gets to remain a Spur for the next
few years, because there's no way they'd pay that much to move him.

And if he bombs, he becomes a of a trade chip in a few years.

Thanks for the response. I value your opinion on this matter. Say the Spurs offer him a straight up 5/57.5M like you mentioned with little incentives and maybe an ETO after the fourth year similar to Leonard (assuming they can grant him that). Do you feel like that would be enough to keep him a Spur?

[Chinook]

I don't think that it looked "stupid." If you're a defensive specialist you have to have a high defensive IQ. That was a -the-bed moment that would have gotten a player benched in high school. I'm not sure what he was thinking, especially having the offensive player, who he is and where he is, not even attempting to attack.

Two things I noticed - green was trying to act like he thought he heard someone say foul, NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, and Ime Udoka about as clueless as Green on what to do in that situation.

*then the infamous parker stare *

I do agree with your other post regarding what to give him with incentives. How do incentives work against the cap?

He was trying to force a TO, which is what everyone should have done there. There's no reason why the Nets should have gotten a clean trip up the court. It's entirely possible that Green may well have heard someone call for the foul. It's not like he was staring at the coaches there.

Anyway, incentives come in two forms: likely to be earned and not likely to be earned. The first category initially counts against the cap while the second one doesn't (initially). The determining factor in how an incentive is classified is usually whether a player achieved the goal during the previous season. So something like Green making an All-Defensive team will count as not likely to be earned. But if Danny gets that honor, then it shifts to likely to be earned for the next season. If a player earns a not likely to be earned incentive, then the team loses that much cap space the following season. And if the player fails to meet a likely to be earned incentive, then the team gets a credit for that much cap space the following season.

Make sense?

[Richie]

It wasn't even a bad play; it's just not what Pop wanted. A lot of coaches would want to foul in that situation. In fact, it worked out for the Spurs because it game the Spurs about 10 more seconds than they would have had otherwise. Spurs would have had six seconds to score if they stopped Brooklyn (game would have been over had the Nets scored). They had 16 seconds to get a three because Green fouled.

Nobody would foul in that situation. If you're going to foul, you foul quickly. Once that much time has already gone you have to let it play out. It's much, much more likely that they will hit 2 free throws than score a field goal in that situation.

[Chinook]

Thanks for the response. I value your opinion on this matter. Say the Spurs offer him a straight up 5/57.5M like you mentioned with little incentives and maybe an ETO after the fourth year similar to Leonard (assuming they can grant him that). Do you feel like that would be enough to keep him a Spur?

I think that'll be a better offer than he's going to get elsewhere, so yes. I might add in a trade kicker to seal the deal, though.

[tmtcsc]

It wasn't even a bad play; it's just not what Pop wanted.

Maybe that's what Green was trying to explain before Pop told him to STFU. And if you think Pop looked stupid freaking out, you can add Duncan and the other coaches to that list.

[Chinook]

Nobody would foul in that situation. If you're going to foul, you foul quickly. Once that much time has already gone you have to let it play out. It's much, much more likely that they will hit 2 free throws than score a field goal in that situation.

Not really, when you look at that game. The Nets were scoring at will. You're right that teams don't want to let seconds run off the clock before fouling. The right play, as I mentioned, would have been for them to pressure the ball and try to force a TO.

[Chinook]

Maybe that's what Green was trying to explain before Pop told him to STFU. And if you think Pop looked stupid freaking out, you can add Duncan and the other coaches to that list.

Pop looked stupid for acting like Green lost them the game when he was the only reason why they were in it. He looked even more stupid when the Spurs ended up forcing a turnover the next play doing what they should have done on the play before.

[SpursFan86]

I'd be willing to give him a contract with heavy incentives. If he plays like a max player, he deserves to be paid like one. But the base salary would be pretty low in comparison. Probably something like $57.5M/5 with the final year non-guaranteed unless he meets certain goals (all-defense for two years, starts 85 percent of his games over the first four years. The max incentives he'd can get from that deal would kick it up to $68 Million. Also give him a full trade kicker, which would raise the maximum to $79 Million.

I know people are going to see $79M/5 and freak out. But the guaranteed portion of the deal is only about $45 Million. If Danny remains a fixture on the team, he'd get $13 Million more for that final year (when the cap is going to be well over $110 Million, btb). If he starts to collect All-Defensive honors or All-Star bids (or whatever other stringent requirements there are for the incentives), he'd make up to $11 Million more. And if he does all those those thing for another team because the Spurs trade him, then he'd get up to $11 Million on top of all that.

So it sounds good to me. Danny gets top-end role-player money if he's a top-end role-player. If he becomes a part of the foundation, he gets extra security. If he starts to get recognized for his work, he gets lower-tier star money. And he gets to remain a Spur for the next
few years, because there's no way they'd pay that much to move him.

And if he bombs, he becomes a of a trade chip in a few years.

How do incentives work when it comes to cap holds? Would the cap hold just be for the guaranteed amount, or the max amount he could possibly get?

[spurraider21]

Um, really? Name a SG in this league that can shut down the best PGs in this league while shooting over 40% from 3 in the playoffs. smh.

this is a bit overstated imo

[Chinook]

How do incentives work when it comes to cap holds? Would the cap hold just be for the guaranteed amount, or the max amount he could possibly get?

I answered the first question a little further upthread. The second question is that neither amount would could against the cap as far as holds go. Only Green's $7.6 Million hold counts until at least July 10.

[tmtcsc]

Nobody would foul in that situation. If you're going to foul, you foul quickly. Once that much time has already gone you have to let it play out. It's much, much more likely that they will hit 2 free throws than score a field goal in that situation.

They had a foul to give which means even more time would have gone off the clock pending a successful inbounds on the next play. Luckily, the Nets blew the inbounds play in true Spurs fashion and the Spurs got the ball back. The ends did not justify the means.

Green was on fire offensively but it was another end of game situation where he had his head up his ass. His game 6 in the 2013 Finals where he didn't stick with Lebron seems pretty ingrained in Pop's memory. He is a terrific defender and 3 point shooter but he's not worth passing up on an All-Star player.

I'm confident the Spurs will find a replacement who can give them solid defense. He won't be as good as Green but maybe he won't have to be. If he leaves, its not the end of the world. I also don't think he'll duplicate his success somewhere else. He can't create his own shot or take anyone off the dribble on offense. Where ever he goes, he better get wide open looks.

He's been solid but he's definitely benefited from playing in San Antonio as much as they've benefited from having him.

[look_at_g_shred]

How many times does this need to be reiterated???.... With Danny, it's not about his shot so much more than that. It's the rebounds ( I know he had a career best one night this season on the boards), deflections, transition D, blocks... sometimes it doesn't even show up on the stat sheet ( cliche but needs to be said)

[Richie]

I'd be willing to give him a contract with heavy incentives. If he plays like a max player, he deserves to be paid like one. But the base salary would be pretty low in comparison. Probably something like $57.5M/5 with the final year non-guaranteed unless he meets certain goals (all-defense for two years, starts 85 percent of his games over the first four years. The max incentives he'd can get from that deal would kick it up to $68 Million. Also give him a full trade kicker, which would raise the maximum to $79 Million.

I know people are going to see $79M/5 and freak out. But the guaranteed portion of the deal is only about $45 Million. If Danny remains a fixture on the team, he'd get $13 Million more for that final year (when the cap is going to be well over $110 Million, btb). If he starts to collect All-Defensive honors or All-Star bids (or whatever other stringent requirements there are for the incentives), he'd make up to $11 Million more. And if he does all those those thing for another team because the Spurs trade him, then he'd get up to $11 Million on top of all that.

So it sounds good to me. Danny gets top-end role-player money if he's a top-end role-player. If he becomes a part of the foundation, he gets extra security. If he starts to get recognized for his work, he gets lower-tier star money. And he gets to remain a Spur for the next
few years, because there's no way they'd pay that much to move him.

And if he bombs, he becomes a of a trade chip in a few years.

He will definitely not be a trade chip if he's got a 15% trade kicker, he'd only get traded if he becomes Richard Jefferson levels of useless and then we'd have to pay to get rid of him. Expiring contracts aren't worth much in the modern NBA.

5 years is also way too long for a player as limited as Danny. He's only good at two things, defense and spot up 3's, and it'd only take one injury for him to become unplayable by losing one of those things. It's not like he's some kind of great talent who would be able to remodel his game.

I think $48m/4yr is fair, possibly with the last year partially guaranteed. All defensive incentives aren't a bad idea but I most definitely wouldn't put in any kind of trade kicker. The main thing I want to see is a decreasing contract which keeps him more valuable as a trade asset and squeezes out a little extra cap room when the cap jumps. Something like 13.5/12.5/11.5/10.5 would be a nice, future cap friendly deal.

[spurraider21]

Being an All-Star means nothing. Watching Tim then, it would be hard to believe he'd still be an All-Star --caliber player now. Parker was obviously in him prime. No argument there. Manu was coming off an injury by probably had his last truly great season in 09-10. Bogans might have seen some minutes at the three, but Jefferson was a fixture at the three.

manu's 10-11 season was one of his very best, though. that year, it really was Manu's team tbh

[Richie]

Not really, when you look at that game. The Nets were scoring at will. You're right that teams don't want to let seconds run off the clock before fouling. The right play, as I mentioned, would have been for them to pressure the ball and try to force a TO.

I'm not too sure about that. Full court pressure to force a turnover can often end up in a dunk the other way, it's a big gamble when you're only down 2. Sometimes you just have to rely on your half court defence and if they beat you then you didn't deserve to win.

[tmtcsc]

Pop looked stupid for acting like Green lost them the game when he was the only reason why they were in it. He looked even more stupid when the Spurs ended up forcing a turnover the next play doing what they should have done on the play before.

What? Pop was incensed that Green made a bone-headed move AND DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIM. It wasn't even a mistake. A mistake implies he didn't mean to do it. As for his offense, Green did his job by making 3's to keep the Spurs in the game - but his baskets were the culmination of the rest of his teammates getting him the ball. Green wasn't carrying the Spurs by any means.