Reply With Quote
This is no where near as bad as original thought.
If the final year is fully non-guaranteed, I believe that means the Spurs could waive and stretch Pau's contract next summer for $3.36 per year for five years. And if Pau plays out the second year he would also be a good trade chip in 2019.
This is no where near as bad as original thought.
Yeah, but still Spurs could have had him for 16 mil, not stretching .
Moreover, what it could mean is that SA will try to trade Pau after the season in 2019. I'm not sure if the new CBA's nerfing of non-guaranteed deals starts after the deadline the season before or the first day of the non-guaranteed year. If it's the latter, that means that SA could use Pau's $17 Million to grab salary in June.
If the Spurs are pivoting to a 2019 complete and total window for cap space(only Patty is guaranteed to be under contract in 2019-2020), then it makes sense. Ideally, Patty is on the table for Irving in Januray (extremely unlikely for multiple reasons), and the team gets to both start over cleanly if Kawhi leaves but also gets a decent two-year attempt to compete for a le in the meantime.
I like the deal a lot more now than before, especially if LMA opts and and PATFO never wanted to pursue Cousins.
Is it confirmed that it's a zero guarantee in year three vs. what Lowe reported of 6.7 guaranteed?
Anyway, this deal would make a lot more sense and actually is an asset. Worst case, he falls off a cliff and they stretch him if no takers and they need the cap space. More likely, he's treated as an expiring with a potentially nice asset in a non-guarantee in year 3 (can dump to a team needing cap relief, or create a trade exception).
Because he was signed so late in FA, this is essentially as if he had never opted out (but he did, which provided flexibility) and then he signed a one year deal, albeit at an expensive amount, next summer with a non guarantee in year 2.
I tried to be the voice of reason and tell everyone to pump the brakes on making judgement on PATFO....
But I guess I'm just a cliche, vanilla, homer fan who had a ty podcast
People will always overreact here thinking they know everything going on behind the scenes and what not. It's pretty comical.I tried to be the voice of reason and tell everyone to pump the brakes on making judgement on PATFO....
But I guess I'm just a cliche, vanilla, homer fan who had a ty podcast
With the prediction being that a lot of players will be opting in, league-wide, next summer, I suppose I understand the FO motive, too. I'm a Gasol fan, actually, but I didn't like this deal for the Spurs. I hate the idea of 2017-2018 being a wasted year for Kawhi, and potentially next as well, but your observation makes senses. I suppose the thought was that none of this season's FAs or trade options would move the needle any closer to dethroning the Warriors than with the players we already have in the locker room. A lot can happen during the season, GS could have some setbacks opening the door, and the Spurs did make the WCF with this group.Moreover, what it could mean is that SA will try to trade Pau after the season in 2019. I'm not sure if the new CBA's nerfing of non-guaranteed deals starts after the deadline the season before or the first day of the non-guaranteed year. If it's the latter, that means that SA could use Pau's $17 Million to grab salary in June.
If the Spurs are pivoting to a 2019 complete and total window for cap space(only Patty is guaranteed to be under contract in 2019-2020
I like the deal a lot more now than before, especially if LMA opts and and PATFO never wanted to pursue Cousins.
Spurs made it to the WC finals, and were up big on the Warriors until Leonard's injury - I wouldn't bank on that happening next year, given what went down over the summer. Some seem to think that because we were up big against the Warriors in a portion of 1 game, we would are compe ive and would have possible even defeated GS.
Rather, Leonard's injury showed how vulnerable the Spurs are as a one man team. Warriors have options which would have hampered or isolated Leonard in that series, and still would have possibly swept the Spurs or won 4-1.
Spurs are in the same position as the rest of the league: competing against an All-Star team. I don't think there's much hope for anyone to knock them off, especially since the consensus is to go small. The Warriors can only be beaten, I believe, by a "traditional" team with excellence at every position. Think 80's Lakers and Celtics.
It sucks to see the Spurs to put up weak of a fight, but the type of players they need just aren't out there in this era.
The Spurs weren't a one-man team against GS until after Kawhi got hurt. That's when they started doubling LMA and jumping the passing routes. When Kawhi was in, both were able to score against anything the Warriors could throw at them.
If true, this is not bad at all. I'd argue even good since this comes at a time when the cap space environment is tightening. All the sudden the Spurs have a nice little trade asset for a team, two years from now (Spurs included), that want to open up space nearly 17 in space.
Yea this isn't as bad as originally thought. Still not a great deal by any means, but as mentioned above, we can cut bait after year 2 since it's a fully non-guaranteed third year or if he REALLY starts to suck (unlikely), we can just stretch him. His contract is tradable after this season, although I doubt the Spurs go that route. I think Pau plays 2 more years in SA and then hangs em up after the Spurs tell him he's going to be cut.
And he probably would have put forth more effort, knowing the bigger CBA coming in summer of 2018.
As is he stays in passive phuck mode most likely.
Which is not to say he didn't have his moments, he gave good effort on occasion. On occasion.
What a disgusting up by PATFO.
Burning Demon, Boban, Simmons (still don't believe he was asking for 50, could just be PR spin by Pops San Antonio media cucks)
...while rewarding
Gasol
Mills
Parker
LMA was a passive, ineffective turd for most of the playoffs. That's his default setting, a bit of one game doesn't change that fact.
Spurs are a one-man team.
The Spurs weren't a one-man team any any point in these past playoffs until Kawhi went down. We have no idea what would have happened had LMA gone down instead, but I'm pretty sure GS would have swept the Spurs just the same. You simply can't dismiss a guy who was getting ready to go for this second-straight 30-point game before Leonard went down.
Your argument would be more valid had we not advanced to the WCF when missing that "one-man".
In regards to the Warriors - of course we're not going to beat Golden State if our squad is not at full strength (especially missing an MVP candidate and 2 other key players) ... nobody is.
It has been confirmed that year 3 is in fact 6.7M guaranteed.
Or, Spurs were good enough as a one man team to make it to the WCF - this year. Beating powerhouses such as Memphis and Houston (yawn). A one man team is not advancing beyond that point against GS, or any other good team.
Spurs are a lottery team without Leonard. The drop-off from what Leonard provides for this team and the rest of the squad is immense.
By Garcia? Lowe isn't exactly Woj
Eric Pincus
I'm not understanding your point. In one breath, you state that we advanced without Kawhi (our "one man") because of inferior compe ion and in the next you say that we are a lottery team without him? We are in agreement that we are not advancing beyond Golden State (regardless of what stage in the Playoffs we face them) without Kawhi - but already being down TP (who was playing his best basketball of the season), we were up 23 in the third quarter on the road against those guys. Would we have won that game had Kawhi not been injured? Most certainly. Would we have won the series? Sadly, nobody will ever know - but I'd like our odds being up 1-0 and stealing home court.
I love how some people here think only Mills will be under contract in 2019-2020...Like if Paker returns this season, the Spurs won't give him at least a 2 year new deal to allow him to retire as a Spur when his current contract ending.
Obviously, because LMA makes the same impact and have the same importance than Kawhi's on the Spurs. I find so ridiculous when someone compares the game of a top#20 player to #3-5 in the league.
It's just context. Spurs won without Kawhi in game 6 against Rockets because after they lost Nene, D'Antoni put Harden to guard LMA most times...I have doubts if the Spurs had to beat Memphis in a game 6 in 2nd round without Kawhi, LMA would have had the same success.
Could the Spurs have won the series against Rockets without Kawhi in game 2 or 3? Or even w/o him in the 3rd quarter of game 5 when he was keeping us alive? I don't think so.
Do I think they can make the playoffs without Kawhi? Depends on when he gets injured. If that's in the first two months of the season, I would say...no.
Last edited by YGWHI; 07-31-2017 at 10:07 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
