thats probably about right. maybe payne a tad higher on the list, but who knows.
ultimately might not matter barring a trade. if barlow/cissoko get real roster spots, all of those guys (payne/osman/bullock/birch) would have to be waived anyway to cut us down to 15.
still not sure what's going on with barlow. the QO they've given him is for a 2-way deal. there doesnt seem to be any chatter of other teams approaching him for an offer sheet. my guess is he's trying to negotiate for an nba deal, and the spurs basically want to bend him over and lock him up cheap for 1-2 more years than he's willing, and that's the impasse they're currently at.
Don't the Spurs need Pay's contact to meet the salary cap floor? And why not keep the contract to facilitate a trade for assets if the opportunity arises down the road? I'd also say Payne is every bit as good as Jones so I don't see him doing anything other than competing for a roster spot.
As Bruno mentioned, I think both Cissoko and Barlow are looking at contracts that will require cap space to sign. That means the Spurs probably do have a clock on them. I think SA is perfectly willing to have Barlow come back on a two-way deal though. I don't think most teams want to waste time negotiating for the Spurs, who would probably be okay matching any contract that another team would realistically offer. Complicating matters more is that offer sheets have to be for three or four years, and that means teams can't just offer a min deal. They'd need their own cap space or MLE to make the offer, and teams aren't willing to do that just for the Spurs to match.
Supposedly New York, Phoenix, and Indiana were working on a deal that would have moved TJ McConnell to the Suns and the Knicks would have received Cam Payne in return. Not sure why the deal fell apart, perhaps because Phoenix wanted to shed salary instead to get the tax savings. It might suggest lingering Knick interest in Payne, however, and I believe they can absorb him into an existing trade exception.
Evan Fournier is still an option for a consolidation-of-expirings trade. He was out of Thibodeaux' rotation this last year. They might be okay with breaking his large-ish salary into pieces.
Ah, the good old days when FRPs flowed like honey from the comb.
They're clearly credible comps and the Warriors moved on Poole quickly because of their historic tax bill/poor chemistry.
Even if closer to net negatives than not, the difference is likely to be negligible as the cap continues to rise an estimated 10% year over year during the life of their contracts.
Good list, i would just invert graham and payne, bullock and osman.
I have a hard time understand why people value graham ( not you) over payne, really good 3pts shooter but that's it imo.
I think they value Graham like that because volume 3pt shooters aren’t a bad thing to have deep on the bench of a championship run. Usually these guys are good for at least one game if not a series.
It’s double the cost to waive Graham over Payne.
That’s interesting, especially if they have a trade exception to fit him in. Will happy take another SRP lol.
doesnt really cost more or less. either way, no matter how we slice it, graham and payne are going to make 18.5 mil and count as that much against the cap
whether we waive one, waive the other, or waive both, those numbers are basically static (unless they agree to buyouts to varying degrees)
I don't expect any more player acquisitions. This is it. I expected a veteran PG addition and now that has happened, that is it.
Just have to trim the roster down now.
After Wemby very minor additions and really no big difference making upgrades to the roster.
It's true but not true. Graham being waived locks in his guarantee next year. If they don't waive him they can still trade him later. Payne being waived now or in February, on the other hand, wouldn't make a difference.
Third Two-Way spot doesn't open up until next year with the CBA, yes?
The new CBA kicked in this year. Some of the measures are being eased in -- particularly the financial ones. But most kicked in on July 1
Ah gotcha, thanks
The Spurs brand is not the Big Ballah brand so no spurs named ball.
The whisper grapevine is that he's never going to play again, AND he's got a hefty player option ($21M+) for 24-25 that he will most certainly exercise, so no.
i think thats factored into the deal. we arent generally seeing FRPs traded anymore for 1 year salary relief
We have enough draft picks to not need one more to take on $40M in dead salary.
we're gonna have plenty of dead salary this year one way or another because we have to waive enough guys to trim down to 15. if we can unload some of those to chicago and consolidate, it makes sense for this year. like... if we were going to waive birch + bullock, thats already nearly 20 mil. no skin off our backs to replace that with lonzo
we'd be eating 20 mil next year as an expiring in exchange for the pick, really. but could then also immediately apply for the DPE
Why would the Spurs trade for Lonzo if he has 3 years left on his contract? How does the DPE work?
This seems complicated. When were these swaps of swaps made?
As for the cash thing, how much cash are you allowed to send out in trades? Is the limit per transaction/trade?
Also, when comparing/ranking players, do they majority of you guys think Graham is better than Payne? In other words, do you guys expect Devonte to be the backup PG to start the season?
Lowry is a much better option for those players. We've already monetized them once for cash and the swap with Dallas, plus a residual SRP or two, and can probably get something on the back end for Lowry at the deadline, and his money ends this year. Oh, and he can actually play. Not dead money.
If you look at the players we've taken into cap room this year, they're all serviceable guys who can defend and shoot. I'd rather let Chicago wither and die, and maximize the 2025 pick we already have from them, rather than sending them decent players in lieu of a cripple. That would improve their fortunes and make our existing pick worse. F the Bulls.
I agree with Exstatic. I'd much rather trade for Lowry.
i prefer lowry as well. but as we know with the westbrook thing last year, we dont always get in on the trades that we want. the lonzo one is just an additional route. lowry carries a higher salary than lonzo meaning we could potentially consolidate even more spots instead of making wasteful cuts
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote