Woj: Pau Gasol to opt out and re-sign long-term with Spurs

[DPG21920]

DPG:

[GSH]

The 5M would hit for 2 years, not just one. I think it's a big deal. Dead money can really hurt teams and SA is still dealing with dead money from Tim.

The answer is yes. I would not trade Murray with the befefit of hindsight. But I would trade the 29th pick. I'm not saying SA will have any flexibility really next year - at least not big, if they are making moves this year. Im saying I don't want what flexibility they may have to be hampered by 5M in dead TP money for 2 years.

Would I give up Kyle Anderson, Livio Jean Charles, Blair? Yes. Tiago, Murray, TP, etc..no. But before the the draft pick is made there are expected values (even if sa is far better than the rest).

Is it debatable? For sure. But again, it's the expected value of 29 + Simmons + the fact Danny would still be on the team + 5M in cap space for two straight years I would be getting in this scenario.

The Spurs are supposed to be one of the best teams in the league at finding the hidden gems in the draft. A 29 pick in their hands is (or should be) worth more than it would be in the Nets' hands. And with the salary escalation going on, those young players on cheap rookie deals have more value. We've talked about it on here too many times. You said what I wanted to hear though. It's closer than you were thinking, when you put it in those terms.

Do me one favor. Don't tell me that the $5M stretch is for two more years, like I don't know it's for two more years. Right this moment, the Spurs only have something like $24M on the books for '19-'20. That $5M carry for Parker would be pretty insignificant. Yes, it all counts. But I would gladly take that on vs. losing out on another player like Murray this year. I believe in the Spurs FO's ability to find a draft gem, and I think this is a great year to find a solid player down that far. Not a star, unless they just get lucky. But still, a player they will be glad to have on the roster - especially on a rookie scale contract.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doesn't Philly have a history of doing this? I remember them making several transactions over the past several years to try to reach the salary floor. I'm pretty sure they made a trade with Denver under similar cir stances- taking on McGee's huge contract to reach the floor and receiving a later first round pick to do so. I don't remember all of the specifics, but while it will be virtually impossible to find an exact replica of DPG's proposed trade I think that this is at least in the same ballpark.

McGee was a $10m contract and it was a lottery protected pick. That is much much better than 29.

The 76ers were also in tank mode. The Nets don't have their pick next year so they have no reason to tank.

[GSH]

I am sure they would take TPs contract but it would take more than just the 29th pick. Teams can trade players too.

Reminds me of an old joke, "Oh, we've already established that you're a . Now we're just arguing over the price." Brooklyn is definitely I mode. I'm sure they will try to get as much as possible out of any salary dump they take on. If it was, say, Chandler Parsons' remaining 3 years/ $72M, or Joakim Noah's 3/$55M? Yeah, I think it would take more than the 29 pick in this draft. You think they can get more than a first round pick for Tony's single season. I can live with that. Difference of opinion, and not even a really big one.

[SAGirl]

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.

Off the top of my head I remember Philadelphia in the middle of their process taking up an injured Javale MCGee in a rather large contract from Denver ... in exchange for picks. I think if you search Philly in their process of looking for picks maybe you find examples....

[DPG21920]

The Spurs are supposed to be one of the best teams in the league at finding the hidden gems in the draft. A 29 pick in their hands is (or should be) worth more than it would be in the Nets' hands. And with the salary escalation going on, those young players on cheap rookie deals have more value. We've talked about it on here too many times. You said what I wanted to hear though. It's closer than you were thinking, when you put it in those terms.

Do me one favor. Don't tell me that the $5M stretch is for two more years, like I don't know it's for two more years. Right this moment, the Spurs only have something like $24M on the books for '19-'20. That $5M carry for Parker would be pretty insignificant. Yes, it all counts. But I would gladly take that on vs. losing out on another player like Murray this year. I believe in the Spurs FO's ability to find a draft gem, and I think this is a great year to find a solid player down that far. Not a star, unless they just get lucky. But still, a player they will be glad to have on the roster - especially on a rookie scale contract.

Lol I knew you knew that but I am trying to make sure all the benefits behind my reasoning are known

We also know that the number we see now for years beyond is going to change probably pretty drastically.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reminds me of an old joke, "Oh, we've already established that you're a . Now we're just arguing over the price." Brooklyn is definitely I mode. I'm sure they will try to get as much as possible out of any salary dump they take on. If it was, say, Chandler Parsons' remaining 3 years/ $72M, or Joakim Noah's 3/$55M? Yeah, I think it would take more than the 29 pick in this draft. You think they can get more than a first round pick for Tony's single season. I can live with that. Difference of opinion, and not even a really big one.

They are only $12m away from the floor. Why not just sign a couple few FA?

And you are looking at it wrong. They don't have a first round pick next year and they have a ton of cap room for the foreseeable future.

I would rather take Parsons or Noah or someone similar and significant assets over TP who will not help much at all next season and a ty pick. I don't see why they would settle for that quickly.

Sure as the Summer rolls along I could see them taking that if better things do not come along but the Spurs need to move quickly.

[SAGirl]

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.

In a more succinct fashion I said this elsewhere. Dumping Tony's deal will require sweeteners that Pop is not likely to want to part with. Then you add in the emotional aspect and the possibility that Tony may... "may" come back to play midseason and that if he could play Pop will want him. It's tough but I don't think they will dump him with sweeteners.

[GSH]

Off the top of my head I remember Philadelphia in the middle of their process taking up an injured Javale MCGee in a rather large contract from Denver ... in exchange for picks. I think if you search Philly in their process of looking for picks maybe you find examples....

It was a single draft pick, IIRC. A first rounder that was just about as low as the Spurs' pick this year. Maybe 26 or 27. And there was some insignificant player involved. An eastern Euro with no vowels in his last name.

That's actually a good example. McGee was injured and making around $12M, and it took a low first round pick to get Philly to take his contract.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was a single draft pick, IIRC. A first rounder that was just about as low as the Spurs' pick this year. Maybe 26 or 27. And there was some insignificant player involved. An eastern Euro with no vowels in his last name.

That's actually a good example. McGee was injured and making around $12M, and it took a low first round pick to get Philly to take his contract.

The deal was made in February. It was a lottery protected pick.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1...adelphia-76ers

Apparently the floor is not accounted until the end of the season.

I don't buy that the Spurs are going to be able to get someone to take the lowball deal by the time July rolls around and FA starts.

[Kindergarten Cop]

McGee was a $10m contract and it was a lottery protected pick. That is much much better than 29.

The 76ers were also in tank mode. The Nets don't have their pick next year so they have no reason to tank.

I'm pretty sure McGee had multiple years and around $23M, instead of the $10M you claim. The lottery protection was from Denver, which actually supports my claim that it was a later pick (after some quick research, I found that it was the 26th overall pick in the first round - which is really not that far off from number 29 in this year's draft) .

Regardless if they were "tanking" or not, teams still have to get to the salary floor - so they have to decide if they are going to greatly overpay marginal talent or gather assets and take on dead money.

Honestly though, it doesn't really matter though, because you're going to round/amend the information to support your stance - I was just trying to give you a little of what you were asking for, but I can see now why DPG was not too quick to offer up your research that you were asking for.

[cjw]

I would rather take Parsons or Noah or someone similar and significant assets over TP who will not help much at all next season and a ty pick. I don't see why they would settle for that quickly.

Its all relative - what are significant assets? A top 5 pick (which neither of those teams can offer)? A stud young player (Porzingis - not happening)?

Length of the deal really matters too. You have to give up a lot less for an expiring like TP than someone with three more years like Noah and Parsons. And correct me if I'm wrong, neither of those players is expected to produce much of anything. At least pre-injury, Parker was key in a playoff series win.

For an albatross like Mozgov, the market was set. Take back a reasonable expiring to match salaries, and give up the equivalent of a late lottery pick - say 10th or so (what I equate Russell, who only has two more cheap years left, minus the late first LA got) to.

Parker would require a lot less to move.

[GSH]

Lol I knew you knew that but I am trying to make sure all the benefits behind my reasoning are known

We also know that the number we see now for years beyond is going to change probably pretty drastically.

I expressed my deep belief in the Spurs FO's ability to draft a gem at 29, and you didn't take the bait. Damn. I thought I had that hook hidden.

I'm all out of basketball wisdom and lore for one evening. Maybe tomorrow we'll wake up and read about the Spurs in one of these big announcements.

[SAGirl]

What does not make sense (to me) with this logic is that Pau opting out doesn't help SA keep their own players. SA has Mills & Simmons rights. SA can go over cap to sign them. Why would Pau take a pay cut to save SA ownership money when they aren't improving their team?

I mean, him taking less money gives SA what money (if he's signing for 8M for example) to sign what level of PG?

I think what it accomplishes is what I understood from crv quote of J. Young: that they want to add a PG bc of their current situation with TP injured and are looking for ways of doing it without having to renounce guys (Mills for example).. with the intention of adding this FA to their current crew. Simmons is 50/50 bc he's looking for a payday and won't budge. Spurs may or may not meet his demand depending on others (said FA guard to be added demands for example).... that's what I took from the comment.

[GSH]

I don't buy that the Spurs are going to be able to get someone to take the lowball deal by the time July rolls around and FA starts.

They probably won't. More likely Tony will be here until he's 40.

Sleep well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm pretty sure McGee had multiple years and around $23M, instead of the $10M you claim. The lottery protection was from Denver, which actually supports my claim that it was a later pick.

Regardless if they were "tanking" or not, teams still have to get to the salary floor - so they have to decide if they are going to greatly overpay marginal talent or gather assets and take on dead money.

Honestly though, it doesn't really matter though, because you're going to round/amend the information to support your stance - I was just trying to give you a little of what you were asking for, but I can see now why DPG was not too quick to offer up your research that you were asking for.

I meant AAV. I have to admit it is possible. But we have one example from 3 seasons ago. It's not like its a regular occurrence.

The Spurs would have to make this deal in less than two weeks. In contrast, that deal was made more than half way through the 2014-15 season.

I do appreciate the example though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They probably won't. More likely Tony will be here until he's 40.

Sleep well.

I'm going to be up for awhile as I wait for stuff to assemble.

[DPG21920]

I expressed my deep belief in the Spurs FO's ability to draft a gem at 29, and you didn't take the bait. Damn. I thought I had that hook hidden.

I'm all out of basketball wisdom and lore for one evening. Maybe tomorrow we'll wake up and read about the Spurs in one of these big announcements.

Maybe, but I doubt it .

I also don't like hearing that Jabari comment at all considering I dont think he makes stuff huff. He only seems to report what he hears and does not even promote it.

Makes no sense that Pau would take less money to save SA ownership money, but who knows. Very well may be the case that in order to keep Dedmon (since Mills/Simmons aren't a concern) that Pau takes less. Or to get some lower rent PG to fill in for TP while he's out with the 5.5M that *Pau opting out (and taking 8M per year) provides the spurs with no other moves/trades/stretching.

*arrived at 5.5M because Manu being renounced, Lee declining option & Pau opting out and taking 8M = 5.5M in cap space.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its all relative - what are significant assets? A top 5 pick (which neither of those teams can offer)? A stud young player (Porzingis - not happening)?

Length of the deal really matters too. You have to give up a lot less for an expiring like TP than someone with three more years like Noah and Parsons. And correct me if I'm wrong, neither of those players is expected to produce much of anything. At least pre-injury, Parker was key in a playoff series win.

For an albatross like Mozgov, the market was set. Take back a reasonable expiring to match salaries, and give up the equivalent of a late lottery pick - say 10th or so (what I equate Russell, who only has two more cheap years left, minus the late first LA got) to.

Parker would require a lot less to move.

Why not try for another lottery pick then?

[DPG21920]

I think what it accomplishes is what I understood from crv quote of J. Young: that they want to add a PG bc of their current situation with TP injured and are looking for ways of doing it without having to renounce guys (Mills for example).. with the intention of adding this FA to their current crew. Simmons is 50/50 bc he's looking for a payday and won't budge. Spurs may or may not meet his demand depending on others (said FA guard to be added demands for example).... that's what I took from the comment.

The math doesn't add up (see my last post). They are trying to say SA convinced Pau to take less money so that they could keep the same team plus add a PG for 5.5M roughly?

Why would Pau take less money to open up 5.5M in cap space when he could have kept all his money and SA uses the MLE for the same thing?

It literally makes no sense to me at the moment with that logic.

[SAGirl]

The math doesn't add up (see my last post). They are trying to say SA convinced Pau to take less money so that they could keep the same team plus add a PG for 5.5M roughly?

Why would Pau take less money to open up 5.5M in cap space when he could have kept all his money and SA uses the MLE for the same thing?

It literally makes no sense to me at the moment with that logic.

I suppose we haven't seen all of it. Maybe someone is renounced (Mills? Doesn't make sense to retain him you get a FA PG, still have an injured but expected back TP, have Murray and Forbes)... I am in a tablet and it's late looking for charts of salaries and what not right now is a discomfort. But it does help a little. Not a lot though. It's very underwhelming.

[objective]

Then why would Spurs go this route? Gasol didn't just up and decide this on his own volition; he's clearly working in concert with them. With Jefferson, it was about ducking the tax. That's not a concern in this case. Clearly, they want to increase their flexibility now, which tells me they intend to upgrade PG and aren't enamored with '18 free agent class. Otherwise, they'd operate over cap, utilize Mills' Bird rights to re-sign him and have MLE at their disposal.

With cap holds and sequencing required, I'm confused as to whether they actually have the $25M in cap space being reported, but if they do, that possibly gets them in the game for Paul (1+1, opt out after 1st year, sign 4 year max; "only" $10M short of what Clippers can offer), probably would for Holiday and definitely would for Hill.

Why would they go that route?

They would do it if they're dumb enough to like Pau and pretend that he won't fall apart and be terrible.

They've done dumb deals below. The 07 summer was full of them.

Pau does it to lock in money after 17-18 and guard against injury. He knows the market for a 38 year old zero pick-and-roll defense antique will be crap. This way he can lock in near MLE​ money for the extra 2 years to get him to 40 if it's a 3/36 deal.

Factor in the injury risk all old players carry ... Pau did witness Parker explode his thigh just by jumping ... Pau can opt out and have the leverage on the Spurs who won't keep Dedmon and are too timid to just rely on Milutinov if he even comes over.

And the Spurs are just the team to buy into it. Pau's so smart, such a veteran winner ... Gotta bring him back like a 7 foot lazy Finley.

[dabom]

I don't feel I am coming at you. We were having a conversation about the Spurs options and you laid out a specious claim about teams taking on TP's salary for the 29th pick.

There is no reason beyond blind faith to believe what you are saying. Apparently me not giving you presumption is coming at you but you are the one calling me pigheaded.

Dude actually thinks we would get the 29th pick for Porker?

I think he just overrates enrique too much.

[Chinook]

Why the are people letting Fuzz troll them? Dude's using an archaic standard. No one's bought a first-rounder for cash in a while. The Spurs got more than $12 Million in cap space by dumping Jefferson. It cost a late-first. The Cavs dumped $20 ing Million from Varejao for a first-rounder. The Nuggets dumped Javale McGee's $20-plus Million for a late first. This happens all the time. If it didn't, there's be no way Portland would be trying to dump their bad deals with picks, nor would teams like Brooklyn and LAL be winning to take on several million and give up rotation players for late-firsts.

[Mal]

Would team trading for Parker deals even pay him real money ? Isn't he covered by insurance or other ? Wouldn't it be 29th pick for cap space ?