Reply With Quote
Yeah, but it was a team decision, not his, right? So he could have been had at that same price with a decision made much later no?
Why wait? Dude just played 81 games last season.
Yeah, but it was a team decision, not his, right? So he could have been had at that same price with a decision made much later no?
Why do it now? What is the tangible benefit for SA?
The move to make the last year only partially guaranteed was to give the Spurs flexibility. Now the Spurs must have a better picture on how long they want to keep LMA so they have offered the full guarantee, its still a good price if he fits in your current plans.
Im not saying I don’t want LMA, or that it’s a bad decision. Just saying I don’t see the benefit of doing this now - if he gets seriously injured now you just really hurt yourself.
Even if that is a small chance, it’s still odd to do something like this now if you don’t have to. It’s the point of having that option. Obviously SA feels good about it and it does not bother me. I am just asking in earnest why now?
Hmm, maybe to get on his good side? Perhaps they are going to try to keep him for super cheap once his contract is up? Who knows...
off chance he suffers a debilitating injury. why not protect yourself against that, unless there is some tangible benefit to doing so now... i would understand if it was an option that they had to exercise today, in which case it would be a no-brainer... but that's not the case
That’s what it seems like to me. Maybe there was some rumbling behind the scenes with LMA? Wouldn’t be the first time. But also with the Kawhi stuff maybe there is even more of an emphasis of a public show of “loyalty”?
I agree that it's a little bit of an odd decision since the Spurs weren't incentivized to make the decision now. But, given Aldridge's personality, it makes some sense. I wrote more here: https://www.spurstalk.com/why-san-an...idge-contract/
He just played 81 games the year before. If he's out for the next season you get the injured player exception and insurance pays the salary. There's no potential cap room available until the following season. It just solidifies the plan that's already plain to see.
That’s not true at all. If Derozan is traded or declines his options, then with LMA at only 7M and DeRozan gone there would be SIGNIFICANT cap space next season. And the insurance paying his salary doesn’t make up for the lost potential cap space either.
And that's not the plan. Looks like they want to keep both players. Sorry.
It's a steal and some team might want to trade for him and use him next year.
turning this into some “gotcha”. You are annoying as f*ck
They extended DeRozan? So how is that highlighting their plan to keep DeRozan by him not being extended and having a player option? Please explain in detail that plan.
i didnt say he's breaking down. a freak injury can happen at any time.
oh then every team with a partially guaranteed player should just turn those into full guarantees... the injured player exception will not save them as much space as just not guaranteeing his salary. insurance paying it does nothing to help the cap. i dont think this order came down from ownership as a financial decision. i could be wrongIf he's out for the next season you get the injured player exception and insurance pays the salary.
nothing stopped them from solidifying it at the end of the season, provided there isn't some unfortunate injury.There's no potential cap room available until the following season. It just solidifies the plan that's already plain to see.
There's no gotcha. They were trying to work a deal with Derozan. They obviously plan to keep both players. Sorry.
They extended DeRozan? So how is that highlighting their plan to keep DeRozan by him not being extended and having a player option? Please explain in detail that plan.
And they don't think that's going to happen. Pretty simple.
which would be a perfectly valid explanation on its own if they were on the clock to exercise some option by today
They don't think that will happen later either.
I know the counter to that argument is "But maybe!" OK. I get it.
Key word trying. So they didn’t do it. As in right now, with no guessing, DeRozan is in control of what happens. So with no guessing, and that in mind, it’s odd for SA to do this and there is some risk to this even if the risk is deemed to be minor.
no, the argument is that if you can mitigate risk (however small) at no cost, it makes logical sense to do so.
do the spurs have anything to lose by guaranteeing his money now? yes. he can get hurt, or show a substantial drop in play late in the season. do the spurs have anything to lose by not guaranteeing his money now? no. if he plays well and remains durable, then they can go ahead and guarantee his money at that point.
as timvp suggests , they are approaching it as a showing of goodwill with the intention of maintaining a good relationship that may result in a further extension (if the numbers make sense and his play holds up). that's a more valid argument than taking an unnecessary risk for no reason just because they consider the risk to be small
Nah. They did it because the risk is minor and signals to everyone that they don't want to blow up the team anytime soon.
no one said it was for no reason.
LMA was never gonna get traded at this deadline.
the reason for the guarantee was the basis of this entire conversation
why would they do this now?
you: because they dont think he will get hurt.
but why do it now when they could do it later? (aka, what other reason is there)
you: because they dont think he will get hurt
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions