I know how frequently scrubs seem to go off on the Spurs because I watch their games. But without watching every NBA game, I wish there were some way to know how frequently scrubs go off on other teams - for comparison purposes. To a Spurs fan it certainly feels like scrubs go off on us much more than they do against other teams.Very true, but then again, scrubs going off on the spurs seems to happen often.
Seriously, every time I see Austin Rivers it is against the Spurs. So, I always wonder why we (or some team other than his daddy's team) don't make a run at him.
Its variance. And a big part of it is fans tend to only remember the good games " scrubs" go off and completely ignore the times they regress to their mean. Same thing with " clutch" shooters like Robert Horry. He's hit big shots but also failed to deliver more often than not in the playoffs during the course of his career. Fans only remember the shots that go in.
So true. A few that come to mind this season: Jamcycle Green, Tim hardaway jr., Coach's boy, buddy heild, and a few random Pels.
As already stated and pretty much the consensus, his market value will more than Spurs are/able willing to afford. The future is Murray.
That's not to say I would like for Mills to take a friendly offer like Danny did and stick around because he loves it here. Doubt that though; go get paid homie.
The $15M/year Pelton is referring to is I think under the premise of a 2-year deal. I can't see Mills getting the rate of 3 years/$45M or more. If he gets a +3 year deal, it'll probably be more like 3 years/$36M ala Jeremy Lin, which I think is a very good comp for him as far as overall production. Lin's creativity may actually put him above Mills and may be the starting point of offering Mills something less, like 3 years/$33M or something similar. Mills is a good player, but I would be surprised if another team offers him a huge contract. The only way I can see it happening is if a team with summer expectations completely flops and needs to just make a deal (e.g. if NOP were to lose Holiday and was desperate to find a player that may be able to please Cousins enough to sign a long-term deal).
That being said, I think the Spurs should only re-sign Mills on a 1- or 2-year deal. If he wants more than that, things get tougher. The only backcourt reserve under contract would be Murray. Manu is probably gone. Retaining Simmons would probably require a big salary increase (though not as much as Mills). Do they cough up the money for Mills and Simmons for the sake of continuity, or do they slide Murray into the rotation and gamble on this year's draft pick and free agents (Tim Hardaway Jr.? Ian Clark? Justin Holiday? Bring back Forbes?) to fill out the rest of the backcourt? The current makeup of the team puts a huge roster turnover on the line this summer.
Perhaps, but that's the going rate for a passable PG & decent shooter in today's NBA, Dellavedova got that kind of money last summer, right ?
I really, really hope that Dijon can develop much faster & realizing his potential, becoming a true perimeter side kick for Kawhi, so we won't waste another year of his peak years by being a mediocre contender.
I let him walk tbh. Spurs more than likely can't afford him anyway. Develop Murray and get G. Hill back in Manu's place (assuming he does retire)
4/40 or let him walk tbh. He prob ends up in Philly or OKC.
3 years 26 million, 3rd year being player option. Frontloaded if possible.
1st $9,122,807, 2nd $8,666,667, 3rd $8,210,526 (player option)
Time for Murray to step up and hit that 3
Thanks for everything Patty. Go get your money...you've earned it.
I don't understand this forum really. A lot of people complain that this year guard rotation is bad and slim, still want to replace patty with Murray on the hopes he is a viable nba player.
Talk about inconsistency.
Patty will stay a Spur because nor Tony nor Murray are consistent options at point guard, and because the market won't be great on pgs.
Unless the spurs pull a steal on next market i expect patty to resign.
By trade, you mean dump? If they trade and take back salary, they won't have that money to give to Mills. No matter what some people think of Danny, at $10M he is a cheap starter these days. If you get back another player making $10M, he probably isn't as good as Danny.
Like it or not, the Spurs are paying Tony's salary next year. There's on PG. Murray may be as good a distributor as Patty right now. He obviously lacks Patty's shooting ability - but then again, Patty can't hold a candle to Murray in penetrating and/or getting to the rim. On a per-36 minute basis, Murray scores just about as much as Patty. He just does it a much different way. And, of course, we don't know if he can maintain for longer minutes, or against starter-caliber defenders. And speaking of defense... can Murray be much worse than Patty on the defensive end?
I think your picture has the Spurs top two PG's for next year, and they will try and sign another older veteran to fill out the rest of the minutes. Maybe they can arrange a S&T with Patty, to get some value out of losing him. But I don't think they will be able to offer him what another team will. And they aren't known for guaranteeing starter minutes, which is something I think Patty wants in his career.
You talk about defense and offense and lack to talk about impact. GTFO got.
I can show you many cancers than can get points. It's not about raw stats you stupid .
Ready to be consistently a more solid contributor than Patty Mills.Ready for what?
On what grounds? You "feel" it?
I agree with everything you said tbh, and yes I meant dump Danny for a 1st round pick
It's amazing to me how many people don't understand that this sport is not like the others. You can't really seek out certain numbers or stat pad in them, but this one is different.You talk about defense and offense and lack to talk about impact. GTFO got.
I can show you many cancers than can get points. It's not about raw stats you stupid .
PPG is one of the most irrelevant stats in sports, especially for role players (and even some stars), since it's largely tied to mpg and usage.
For example, if you swapped Mills with Thomas or Walker and gave him their mpg and usage, he wouldn't score as much as them because he's not as complete a scorer, but he'd probably average high teens. It wouldn't matter though because he'd still be the same player.
A similar player (and one I could see the Spurs signing as an inexpensive replacement, if they lose Mills) is Brooks, who in '10 averaged 20 ppg and won MIP . . . and outside of that season, he's been a career backup.
This notion that if they replace Mills with a supposedly more well rounded player, they'll be better off, ignores the fact that this team labors to score, but is already the best defensive and one of the better rebounding teams.
The grounds that he's objectively terrible right now. On what grounds do you "feel" the opposite?On what grounds? You "feel" it?
"Terrible"
The problem with ST is that y'all want to arbitrarily set the value of players. Or get a hometown discount on everything. That's not how it works. Y'all didn't even want to give Kawhichael the max a couple years ago.
I also find it funny that the little excerpt in the OP s on the Porker crews argument that MVPaddy can't survive without the great Emmanuel Ginobili by his side.
Spurs have his Bird rights so he only costs $6.8 million against the cap until they work out a deal. They can then pay him whatever they want, so long as they don't need to renounce him to make a big signing. Given Bird rights I think it's much more likely he stays than Dedmon.
And to those saying Green will definitely opt in (18-19) because he'll have to take a pay cut otherwise, you have no clue how little talent there is at his position across the league and how valuable players like him are. He may opt out to grab more years sooner, or even to test his value on the market. He will certainly get more than the $10 million he's getting today barring a collapse.
Yes, but you cannot get a good free agent even then. One of the cap experts may confirm this if they want but i am pretty sure that the spurs salary projection including mills cap hold and renouncing Manu and Simmons will stand at 101 millions.
Latest projections set the 2017/18 cap at 102 millions with the luxury tax line at 122 m.
So even then the spurs really have very few room to maneuver with.
I feel patty will command as said between 8 and 9 millions a year and at least 3 years. That really is not so bad as the spurs would have a few trade assets, some players already developing in Austin and Murray.
There would be a big hole if Manu retires but that was bound to happen.
I feel J. Crawford contract 2 years at 30 million with a third year a player option is a bit above what he should have gotten and is a good measure for patty as jamal is a more accomplished and seasoned player.
3 for 35 TBH
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote