Reply With Quote
He is Manu Ginobili and He is going to be a Lifelong Spur. Thanks, Peter Holt!
Andrew Bynum is overpaid worse than Manu. Luke Walton is overpaid worse than Manu. Rashard Lewis is overpaid worse than Manu. Kenyon Martin is overpaid worse than Manu. Eric Dampier is overpaid worse than Manu.many failures of logic here, first, none of those players were overpaid to the extent Manu is being overpaid, only a couple are even close, most of them have specific situations that demanded a little overpayment for future returns, others were trades, and then Dallasis Dallas really a model of how to successfully spend money? Dallas overpays, so we should too
So what exactly was the point of saying overpaying players is what bad teams do, if all the best teams do it too? It's obvious the direction you were arguing in, but you once again had to go back and change things when your point got shot down again.but the #1 failure of logic here is that I said overpaying players is what bad teams do, I did not say good teams never overpay players. you look across the rosters of the bad teams in this league, and you will see that their money is mostly misspent, and Spurs will soon be among them.
What would you trade Parker for? Please tell.I would have wanted to trade Parker this off season, but what's the point now anymore, we're forced to watch the continued steady decline of the Spurs as build around the Big 3. 47 wins next year, 44 the next...
I said compete for a le, as in make playoff runs and maybe get lucky and pull one off like in 07. So yeah, having an outside shot at a le beats the out of losing your best players and wasting Duncan's final two years.you think this team can win a le next year with these same guys another year older?
I get it. Your philosophy is why even try?you lose every player eventually, we're going to lose Manu one way or another, from a basketball ability standpoint, we've already lost much of him, as well as TD, yet you want to keep paying for 110% of Manu while he's at 60% and falling fast
No, you want to chase a bird in the bush when you have two in your hand.I want a return to contention, it appears as though you don't really care about the post-big 3-Spurs, or le contention, you just want to see the same old Spurs as long as possible, no matter how far they have fallen.
He is Manu Ginobili and He is going to be a Lifelong Spur. Thanks, Peter Holt!
What I don't get is why yall argue with him?
I think the FO may be able to swallow the Manu extension and Splitter for the MLE, but they may not be able to manage those two plus 6M for Salmons next year. The spot that Salmons would have filled next year will likely be filled with a rookie or minimum-salaried player.
For the same reason that you watch a dog chase it's own tail.
so, "the future" is "next year"
while that is your creation, and obviously not how I was using it, if you could read, I've actually explained numerous times in this thread what will be happening over the next few years, "next year" included,
so I ask you again to learn to read and comprehend, this little gotcha! word-play game was lost from the start, It's really sad to see you continue to repeat is for so many posts.
How did you know I like to do that?
So, Manu gets a slightly inflated contract of nearly 13mil/yr to finish his career. I have said for months that I thought a DRob-style 10mil contract would be about right, but given that Manu took less than he could have gotten elsewhere to remain a Spur in his last contract, this is a nice tip of the hat from Holt, effectively a thank you for his past sacrifices. I'm down with that. Also, if Manu were allowed to leave it would cost the Spurs far more than 3mil/yr (or even 6mil/yr if you want to assume this keeps them over the lux tax) in lost revenues because Manu is so popular. It all makes sense, really.
so, "the future" is "next year"
while that is your creation, and obviously not how I was using it, if you could read, I've actually explained numerous times in this thread what will be happening over the next few years, "next year" included,
so I ask you again to learn to read and comprehend, this little gotcha! word-play game was lost from the start, It's really sad to see you continue to repeat is for so many posts.
You mean backtracked and ignored where you wrote explained, right?
I am glad for Manu and for the Spurs I think he will earn his money but Pop is going to have to treat him more like Timmy regarding minutes and back to back.
So next year our salary is 64.135 mill for eight players...Timmy, Richard, Tony, Dice, Hill, Blair, Malik, and Gee. So if we keep Temple thats almost 65 mill and then sign Splitter, re sign Bonner and our number one draft pick thats probably close to what 71 mill for 12 players?
Please don't cherry pick my posts - quote the whole thing.
If they move RJ and/or Parker over the offseason (as I said in the post), Salmons could have fitted nicely at a reasonable price.
Actually, I think they ignored Salmons because he seems to need the ball to be effective, and that doesn't really fit with the current Spurs model.
The future clearly includes next year and you said the team would not be compe ive after this year.
so, "the future" is "next year"
while that is your creation, and obviously not how I was using it, if you could read, I've actually explained numerous times in this thread what will be happening over the next few years, "next year" included,
so I ask you again to learn to read and comprehend, this little gotcha! word-play game was lost from the start, It's really sad to see you continue to repeat is for so many posts.
You've been asked repeatedly to explain how the extension makes the team less compe ive next year. Clearly you won't do so for the most obvious reason. You can't.
So you're not going to answer the question.
Gotcha.
worth every penny
Not my intention to cherry pick your post.
I just always viewed the decision not to acquire Salmons, or Thomas for that matter, as attributable to their price tags for next season and the potential impact their acquisition would have on the team's ability to acquire Splitter and to keep Manu.
I agree with this. Salmons on the Bulls earlier this season was trying his best to fit in, but just was not effective. He's thrived being the go-to point producer on the Bucks (backed up by his performance last year on the Kings and Bulls).
I do not believe that TP will be traded this offseason. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised to see him get an extension. At the moment, the only players they have signed past next season are Manu/TD/Hill/Blair. If Splitter comes over he'll be an additional piece. The signing of Manu (and the line about Holt clearly wanting him signed) indicate to me that the Spurs ownership is still fully behind getting a championship before TDs current contract expires.
A group of TP/Hill/Manu/TD/Splitter/Blair + a dart board throw of Gee/Hairston/Temple/Jerrels/Gist/de Colo + whatever could potentially be netted with the RJeff+Dice expirings + veteran free agent signings has the potential to still be a quality team in 2011-2012 (the last year of TDs contract).
As I said though in the another thread, I do not forsee TP being traded for an established star, it will be to jumpstart the rebuilding process by bringing in young players and draft picks.
Last edited by L.I.T; 04-07-2010 at 09:38 PM. Reason: Added "not" in.
he's special, he only makes sure bets. because winning championships requires having good contracts, just look at the teams that have been in the finals the past few years: boston, orlando, la...
Im glad they got it done. but its sad that, were it not for precisely the line of thinking vander is using, had the spurs shown a little faith they could have extended him for 10, maybe even less.
every player is a risk, and they dont grow on trees...
mostly untrue, (homervision) and all completely ignorant of context to suit your arguementso you either do or don't? there's no scale? fine, don't believe me. go on thinking that overpaying is fine, that we'll continue to contend for les, just like the Lakers who are wasting all that money on Walton and Bynum
No problem, it was just that what I said in the second para actually depended on the first.
Rudy ing chucker Gay for Tony Parker?!?! LMAO stupid Kobe fan. Game's on now, kid. Maybe I'll come back at halftime to hear more re ed crap from you.
UnderstoodNo problem, it was just that what I said in the second para actually depended on the first.
exactly what i was talking about... who are these younger birds that we can pick up for next year, or do you want to blow the team up? if you want to blow it up, just say so, laker fan.
because if we don't blow it up, it will stay 2007 forever?
yeah, I said I wanted Rudy Gay, only Rudy Gay, disregard those other filler words
and we all know how much you overrate TP. it's amazing this team ever loses a game that both TP and Manu play,
and Gay that chucker, it's amazing Memphis ever wins...
it's 2010
It's mesmerizing to me how so many people miss the important factor of marketing behind all this. This is a business. Period. I'm sure the owner of the Spurs thinks he will be making more money than 40M in the next 3 years with Manu playing for the Spurs than not. Manu is a huge commercial success and I'm pretty convinced this was also on the table when they decided to go ahead and re-sign him.
It's not just how good a player he is or whether he was overpaid strictly because of what he has left in the tank. He's the franchise money-making player.
lol I can't believe y'all waste your time arguing with vander, rascal and/or ducks... the fail is to even try to make them see value in something that makes them cringe...
Rough times ahead for them... for each post they have in between the three of them Manu makes more than 100 times in dollars without even playing a minute...
but you can also be emphatic... give them a break... in March they have been eating rotten crow daily with Manu playing so well...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
