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

[tmtcsc]

this is a bit overstated imo

Way overstated.

[Chinook]

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.

The final year in my proposal is non-guaranteed, so the kicker doesn't factor in. He's pretty much be Dust Chip 3.0. Worst case. He'd a good trade chip at that point, and not before.

We're talking about a contract with half the guaranteed money that Kawhi is going to get. I don't really see how you think that's overpaying. Any player who gets injured so badly that it cripples his game is going to struggle to be worth his contract. But Green is the team's iron man, so I feel much better about him staying healthy than I do any other current Spur. Plus, if he starts to get injured, that would essentially nullify that fifth year you seem to fear so much.

So why is $48M/4 ($12 Million APY) fine but $57.5M/5 ($11.5 Million APY) with only $44.5M/4 guaranteed ($11.125 Million APY) if he's not a starter for the vast majority of the preceding four years not a better one?

[Chinook]

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.

Yeah, he was. His whole line (not just his shooting) was absurd that day. He didn't get enough touches, especially to close out. Green may not have heard Pop, seeing as they were on the road. It's not like Pop had a walkie. Anyway, Green didn't foul on purpose. He simply tried to apply ball pressure to a power-forward whose head was too big for his hat. The same strategy forced a turnover on the very next play.

[Richie]

The final year in my proposal is non-guaranteed, so the kicker doesn't factor in. He's pretty much be Dust Chip 3.0. Worst case. He'd a good trade chip at that point, and not before.

We're talking about a contract with half the guaranteed money that Kawhi is going to get. I don't really see how you think that's overpaying. Any player who gets injured so badly that it cripples his game is going to struggle to be worth his contract. But Green is the team's iron man, so I feel much better about him staying healthy than I do any other current Spur. Plus, if he starts to get injured, that would essentially nullify that fifth year you seem to fear so much.

So why is $48M/4 ($12 Million APY) fine but $57.5M/5 ($11.5 Million APY) with only $44.5M/4 guaranteed ($11.125 Million APY) if he's not a starter for the vast majority of the preceding four years not a better one?

When it comes to injuries, Green is more susceptible than most NBA players because just isn't that talented a player. Let's say he hurts a knee and loses 10-15% of his lateral quickness, most players have the talent to add something different to their game but it's unlikely Danny could.

I'd rather $36m/3yr guaranteed with the 4th year a team option, or at least a partial guarantee. To me Danny is the kind of player that when he loses it, he'll be out of the league. I hope it doesn't happen soon but when it does you don't wanna be stuck with him making 8 figures when that money could be better spent elsewhere.

I also think the 4th year guarantee makes a difference because it's around the time we'll be looking again in free agency. Let's say we get Aldridge this summer, that pretty much takes us out of the free agency equation for at least 2 years so it doesn't really matter what he's getting paid. If his 4th year is a team option he'd be easier to get rid of in summer 2017 as an expiring if we had to than if he had the 4th year guaranteed. Alternatively we will have more flexibility in 2018 when Parker comes off the books to get the extra cap space to find someone to add to a Kawhi/Aldridge duo if we can decline Greens option, possibly restructuring his contract or just letting him go.

[DPG21920]

You just can't plan on injuries though - the market won't. Unless there is injury history & even then it's tough.

[Richie]

You just can't plan on injuries though - the market won't. Unless there is injury history & even then it's tough.

I'm not so sure that's true, when was the last time a role player like Danny got a 5 year deal? It might not specifically be about injuries, but it's rare to see someone like Green get so many years, even if the 5th is non guaranteed. Teams are eternally wary of being stuck with an albatross contract, and if they aren't they should be. 5 years is a long time and players with much more talent become unplayable in the league.

[DPG21920]

Don't disagree just don't think it will be based on accounting for injuries. But Danny Green is all the rage right now & I have a feeling there is some serious market adjustment coming for players like him & teams wanting to lock them in.

[Chinook]

When it comes to injuries, Green is more susceptible than most NBA players because just isn't that talented a player. Let's say he hurts a knee and loses 10-15% of his lateral quickness, most players have the talent to add something different to their game but it's unlikely Danny could.

I'd rather $36m/3yr guaranteed with the 4th year a team option, or at least a partial guarantee. To me Danny is the kind of player that when he loses it, he'll be out of the league. I hope it doesn't happen soon but when it does you don't wanna be stuck with him making 8 figures when that money could be better spent elsewhere.

I also think the 4th year guarantee makes a difference because it's around the time we'll be looking again in free agency. Let's say we get Aldridge this summer, that pretty much takes us out of the free agency equation for at least 2 years so it doesn't really matter what he's getting paid. If his 4th year is a team option he'd be easier to get rid of in summer 2017 as an expiring if we had to than if he had the 4th year guaranteed. Alternatively we will have more flexibility in 2018 when Parker comes off the books to get the extra cap space to find someone to add to a Kawhi/Aldridge duo if we can decline Greens option, possibly restructuring his contract or just letting him go.

Most players would be out of the league if they lose the ability to do what they do best at an elite level. Derrick Rose was the freaking MVP, and he's not worth half his contract now. Green has absolutely no injury history and by all evidence seems like a very good athlete, so I don't know why you think he's a marginal player at that position.

Also, despite what you're suggesting, Green doesn't rely on his athleticism to play his role. It helps for sure, but he's as good as he is because he's actually a very savvy defender, especially one-on-one. It's his anticipation that allows him to be as good as he is in transition. He also has pretty good knowledge on how to defend inside the paint, which is rare for a guard. It will serve him well if he did get injured, since he can slide down to the three full time in that case.

If Danny gets hurt, that would suck, but it's not even remotely likely to assume it will happen early in the contract. And even so, he'd only be collecting $45 Million as opposed to the $48 Million or proposed originally. Even if they traded him that last year, he'd only cost about $1.7 Million, while being an expiring worth $12.25 Million. Definitely still an asset.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

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.

I think $48/4 yr is still a little high for Green. Green has the lowest mpg in our starting 5 outside of oft injured Splitter. His ppg game is not much higher than our backup aging SG. He can't create a shot on his own. He makes a lot of bonehead moves. If some other team wants to pay a starting salary of $10+ million then let him leave. Re-sign Marco and Manu and bring in an athletic, long wing that coaching staff can work on to play defense.

[dabom]

Only teams willing to pay a ton for danny are bottom feeder teams.

[lmbebo]

I'd love to have him back, I think he's worth 8-10/mil a year.

I don't know how it would work with going after LMA.

Optimally, I'd love to have Manu, DG, Mills back

I wish we could get someone like stuckey as the other guard. He'll be too expensive, but he would provide a play maker off of the bench and less reliance on Manu.

[tholdren]

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?

Yes, thanks. Could this bite a team in the end. Say Danny gets a 3 year with incentives for all defensive. If he makes it his first year, then do the incentives count against the cap for the remaining 2 no matter how good or bad he is defensively?

[Malik Hairston]

I think $48/4 yr is still a little high for Green. Green has the lowest mpg in our starting 5 outside of oft injured Splitter. His ppg game is not much higher than our backup aging SG. He can't create a shot on his own. He makes a lot of bonehead moves. If some other team wants to pay a starting salary of $10+ million then let him leave. Re-sign Marco and Manu and bring in an athletic, long wing that coaching staff can work on to play defense.

He plays the least minutes outside of the 4 starters(since you excluded Splitter) because his backup is the best playmaker on the team..not to mention Parker, Kawhi and Duncan don't even have backup options(Mills can't run the offense, Diaw would be Splitter's backup and the Spurs don't have a backup SF)..Jesus..

[Malik Hairston]

Anyways, anything less than 10 per year is a slap in the face to Green, tbh, and he should be insulted if the Spurs offer him lower IMO..

[tholdren]

Anyways, anything less than 10 per year is a slap in the face to Green, tbh, and he should be insulted if the Spurs offer him lower IMO..

maybe - but the spurs made him the player he is, so it should be give and take on both ends, and I actually think it will be.

[Malik Hairston]

maybe - but the spurs made him the player he is, so it should be give and take on both ends, and I actually think it will be.

10 per year is probably a discount, based on the reports, so far..I expect both sides to reach a fair deal, tbh, I'd be pretty surprised if he's gone IMO..

From what we've seen in the history of this league, there's always a ty team that will be willing to overpay a role player, though..

[cjw]

Something like 13.5/12.5/11.5/10.5 would be a nice, future cap friendly deal.

If you're going to pay up for Danny, you might at least frontload it so it's more team-friendly down the road to counteract increases in Kawhi's max deal. Look at what it did for Splitter's deal - makes him that much more attractive now.

All it takes is one, but for Green, it still does take one team blowing $12mm to potentially lose him. Hopefully teams are still stuck in the past and don't realize his value / throw it all at other guys (or lock up cap room with RFA offers!).

[Chinook]

Yes, thanks. Could this bite a team in the end. Say Danny gets a 3 year with incentives for all defensive. If he makes it his first year, then do the incentives count against the cap for the remaining 2 no matter how good or bad he is defensively?

Let's say Green only gets the honor his first season. The incentive wouldn't count as all his first season, as it starts off being unlikely to be earned. The second season, the team would have a debit equal to the incentive amount from the previous season in addition to his contract being elevated by that much (because the incentive is likely to be earned at that point). Then, his third season, his contract would drop to normal AND the team would get a credit for the cap hold they took the previous season that they didn't actually have to pay out.

For example, Green signs a flat $30M/3 deal with bonuses of $1.5 Million for each season he makes an All-Defense team:

Year 1: He gets paid $11.5 Million but only counts for $10 Million
Year 2: He gets paid $10 Million, but he counts for $13 Million on the cap (well, he counts for $10 Million for trade purposes, but the net impact is $13 Million)
Year 3: He gets paid $10 Million, but he only counts for $8.5 Million against the cap (well, he counts for $10 Million for trade purposes, but the net impact on the cap is $8.5 Million)

Green gets $31.5 Million, and he counts for $31.5 Million against the Spurs' cap over those three years. But the timing lags a season.

[Mugen]

[Chinook]

Makes it sound like the Knicks will go to Green after they strike out on the big fish. I expect Danny to be a Spur by that point. The Spurs will probably go LMA, Love, then West in very quick order. Knicks have to go through players like Dragic and Monroe first.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

He plays the least minutes outside of the 4 starters(since you excluded Splitter) because his backup is the best playmaker on the team..not to mention Parker, Kawhi and Duncan don't even have backup options(Mills can't run the offense, Diaw would be Splitter's backup and the Spurs don't have a backup SF)..Jesus..

So you're saying that the spurs have sufficient backups to take minutes away from starting SG? And you want Spurs to overpay him? Marco also played more minutes than Green in 2013-2014. Doesn't sound like the coaching staff believe that Green is irreplaceable.
Im sure you'll bring up some advanced stat
that no one has ever heard of but ignore Greens MPG, PPG assists etc.

[timtonymanu]

Anyone in favor of a Parker/Belinelli backcourt obviously does not watch Spurs games. That backcourt was one of the biggest fails by Pop last season.

[RD2191]

Anyone in favor of a Parker/Belinelli backcourt obviously does not watch Spurs games. That backcourt was one of the biggest fails by Pop last season.

Was an absolute fest. Some of these posters are either trolls or legit re ed.

[tholdren]

Makes it sound like the Knicks will go to Green after they strike out on the big fish. I expect Danny to be a Spur by that point. The Spurs will probably go LMA, Love, then West in very quick order. Knicks have to go through players like Dragic and Monroe first.

What the would NY do with Danny Green? And you thought Tony dribbled too much, wait for Melo's garbage

[CGD]

I think the Spurs end up counteracting the ridiculous 14-15m offer that's coming by offering more guaranteed years. Locking up KL and Danny for the same period also makes sense to me.