They did that by getting Russell and taking on Mozgov contract
Maybe. They really have never been in this position. Tim and DRob retired before it became an issue. There really has been no one else of this stature. Lesser players in similar cir stances have been moved. It's not like the Spurs would be screwing him. He has been paid better than he has produced for the past 3 years. He still gets paid the $15.5m.
We will see.
Thanks. So does that mean he still gets to stay on the Spurs? His contract is just stretched over 3 years? Have many teams does this before? I haven't really heard of it being done much, but then again, I don't follow other teams.
That is one transaction - likely of many. This time they got Russell and gave a pick. Other times they will want to replenish their draft pick stock; as the article very clearly mentions.
I wonder how he'd feel if he's let go and the Spurs rang without him.
No - he's effectively waived. But for me, it's unclear on the rules on re-signing him and when it would be possible. What I *think* happens is you can re-sign him basically any time though.
Well if he doesn't stay on the team then, why wouldn't you go the trade route first. Why are people even talking about stretching if he's waived. You may as well look for a trade to get his whole contract off the books and try and keep Simmons and/or Green instead. Is the chances of keeping Simmons and Green possible if TP is traded instead of stretched or does it make no difference? Sorry if this has already been asked and/or answered in the thread before.
If you can re-sign him in the same season, though, then maybe stretching is worth looking into, but that would only be worth doing if the Spurs think he can still be a helpful player which no-one is going to know coming off of that injury, so again, may as well look at trading him first if you need that cap space for a big free agent signing.
That is not an example and the article doesn't say they are going to take the 29th pick and eat $15m. Please quote the portion you think does though. That should be fun.
Stop being re ed
He is a UFA as far as I can tell. I see provisions where when he signs with another team the stretched amount is reduced by how much he signs for but I see nothing prohibiting him from signing back to his original team. I only scanned it though.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q66
No worries - I don't mind helping where I can. You hit the nail on the head. There is a big difference, not just this year with who SA could keep while getting max money by trading TP vs stretching him, but the next two years as well.
That's what I said with regards to stretch vs trade: If you are going to stretch TP makes no sense to not trade him with regards to it being offensive to fans/TP.
However, the reason to stretch might be because no team will take TP (not likely) or SA doesn't want to give up an asset to trade TP (more likely).
I'm looking for examples of salary dumps that are similar. That article says that they are looking to trade for picks and talent but the 29th pick is not worth $15m.
The Russell-Lopez trade is not an example.
You are looking at it wrong. How dense are you? There are plenty of examples - do some damn research if you are going to come at me and not take my word for it. I'm not going through the damn trouble of digging them up myself; I don't remember off the top of my head immediately any examples, but I know I have seen them enough times that if I looked, I could find them.
The aren't eating 15M. There is a salary floor they have to hit. They are paying that money NO MATTER WHAT. It's either pay the money to reach the floor or get TP to hit the floor and get a first round pick for your trouble. It's really not a new concept nor a complicated one to understand if you aren't just trying to be annoying.
No it's not...but you're not understanding the concept of the article and how that can relate to Spurs-Parker...
The Nets are willing to take bad contract (Parker) for picks or prospects (29th)
What first round picks do the Nets have currently in the next couple years? Hmmmm let me know...
It makes sense for both sides..but unfortunately it won't happen and Green will be the casualty..,
Yeah, but the Spurs aren't "desperate to offload long-term money". We're talking about 1 year of salary for Tony vs. a 3 year stretch. I want to ask you a serious question, then I'm putting this to bed for the night.
You keep talking how the Spurs will have huge flexibility next season - and it's true. But you act like the $5M from stretching Tony would screw up the next two seasons' cap space. So much so that you would give up a first round pick to get rid of all of Tony's salary this year. So here's the question:
Would you give up Dejounte Murray, right now, to flush Tony's contract to Brooklyn? (Don't say "It depends on whether that $5m let them sign a max player" - we don't know that either way.) The point is, if you would give up this year's first round pick, why not last year's first round pick?
If the Spurs stretch Tony, they clear $10M in cap space this season. If they trade him, they clear $15M. The extra $5M hit next year wouldn't hurt as badly as missing out on another Murray caliber player at a cheap salary.
Again. I am not going to prove your assertion and for there supposedly being so many examples you sure do come up empty. You should have figured by now that I don't find you credible in the least from our past interactions. Asking you to prove your assertions is not an unreasonable standard. I certainly would meet that standard myself.
And sure there is a floor but
a) eating Parker's salary is not the only option and
b) While the Spurs would need to do this quickly, the Nets do not need to act quickly as the floor is not going to be accounted until the season starts in 4 months.
c) they are still eating a $15m contract for something you admit is worth 1/5th of that.
Which NBA team would take Parker?
TD can send feelers out through their friendship and Wake Forest connection, and be an unofficial conduit of communication. Much like Draymond did with Durant. League can't stop players/expplayers from talking. I guarantee Timmy has sent a text or two in Paul's direction, and I'm sure Pop and RC knows what CP3 told Timmy.
Dayum... what's up with ya'lls personal beef
I told you guys
It's crazy how you guys don't know how Pop and the FO operate.
Spurs are going to squeeze that old ass as much as they can. TP and Manu following the same path obviously
It says picks AND prospects.
And sorry but the 29th pick is not a valuable asset. It's worth $3m not $15m.
The 29th is not going to make up for trading away their lottery picks.
Thanks for sharing that. Then it's not as good news as I thought.
I tend to get an ominous feeling about it now like objective.
Dayum... what's up with ya'lls personal beef
Fuzzy has been snoring and keeping DPG up at night. DPG keeps using all the damn not water in the mornings. They'll work it out.
I think his analysis is about as facile as possible but that is besides the point.Dayum... what's up with ya'lls personal beef
That a team would take on a $15m contract for a late round first is a significant claim. Past history has shown that a late round pick is worth around $3m. I am asking for proof and he won't give any telling me that I am a fool for not buying it.
Significant claims require significant proof.
Told us what? Who are they going to squeeze?I told you guys
It's crazy how you guys don't know how Pop and the FO operate.
Spurs are going to squeeze that old ass as much as they can. TP and Manu following the same path obviously
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote