Reply With Quote
I think it's more like a $13m contract... do you have any official numbers?
If that's true then they be $400K on the good side of the tax line
I can send you my spreadsheet if you want to compare
I think it's more like a $13m contract... do you have any official numbers?
His defense for Bonner was mainly the FO being willing to pay the money. I think its valid, even though no one on this site would want Bonner back for 3-4 million, including DesignatedT. Therefore, I don't think hes defending Bonner getting a raise, rather there are people willing to people for him. Although I don't agree with Bonner being paid that much, even if the FO is willing to pay, I dont think his intentions are to defend Bonner being overpaid and remaining a Spur.
Did he defend Finley? I hope not lol.
With RJ, it could really be worse.. hes got the potential to turn things around and is a talented player.
R.J will have no say in the 4th year.
R.J playing out the 4th year will be solely the Spurs decision. ( Which is not likely; meaning this deal is really a 3 year deal with an extra bonus parting gift-- this is if he doesn't fit in their plans that 4th year or if his expiring contract isn't traded away the 3rd year)
That's ok. I don't get too complicated, just use Sham and a calculator.
Well, we saw what he did for our chances last year. I am basing mine off the games I have seen, including the playoffs.
Where are you basing yours off of?
Also everything is opinion. Just like saying Petro's contract was a bad one. It's all subjective. But sometimes, the signs are pretty clear.
Answer this question (and not with, they have a better chance with him than without): Are the Spurs contenders for the le? Was that their goal?
Last edited by DPG21920; 07-21-2010 at 07:54 PM.
It's not bottom heavy. It's a standard contract with 10.5% raises each year.
I can get them up to $640K on the safe side if Anderson signs @ 80% of scale...which I doubt because I think the Spurs will treat him like they did Blair, which is to say pay him what he should have got had he not dropped.
Where did you get that from? I'm basing the player option from all these:
@DonHarris4WOAI R.J's new deal with Spurs: 4 years, 38.8 mil. Starts at 8.4 mil. 4th year at his option.
-Sources tells TNT's David Aldridge that forward Richard Jefferson's new contract with the San Antonio Spurs, officially announced on Wednesday, is for four years and $38.8 million, with a player option for the final season at a little more than $11 million.
Do you understand what a player option is, right?
I use the Sham #'s too, but my first mistake was using the 4 Toros actual salary not the 2 year minimum that is required to calculate the tax.
Just wondering, would you have been okay with the Spurs limping into the season without a starting SF? Would you just have backed on us picking up a SF next offseason? Or are you just against the contract?
So this is like 28mil/3y contract.
Don't have time to read all 17 pages of this crap. So excuse me if this has already been mentioned.
From the Yahoo story:
THIS is what it's about. Without resigning Jefferson, they could not acquire a free agent with anything in the same zipcode as his capabilities on the court, because of the salary cap rules. Jefferson's agent knew this, and so...The Spurs were hamstrung by salary cap restrictions in what they could offer an outside free agent, limited to the $2.4 million leftover from the mid-level exception. Though Jefferson struggled at times last season, there aren't many 12.3-point-per-game scorers available at that price.
THIS is why he opted out in the first place, and THIS is why the Spurs offered him what he wanted... a longer term contract that gets him towards the end of the career, and that will be grandfathered in post-new-CBA.
It's really a win-win for both the Spurs and Jefferson.
There was really no option of getting someone else who could contribute even 1/2 of what Jefferson did last season, so most of this 17 pages of reaction is pointless drivel.
But he was the best option. He truly gives the Spurs a legit shot to help Tim get #5. So much so that it was worth giving out a contract.
I guess the Spurs did not want to stand out from everyone else giving away bad contracts to players who make no sense.
McDonald sad that his last year is partial guarantee.
http://twitter.com/JMcDonald_SAEN/status/19115544517
Isn't most of what's on the internet pointless drivel...especially within forums?
If the option was RJ at 4/40, then yes, I was ok with limping into the season with Malik and what ever they could sign with the rest of the MLE.
In my mind, the difference in our le hopes with RJ or with Malik/MLE are not that different. Plus there was also the possibility the Spurs actually got better without RJ and using the young guys/MLE guy + possible trade.
it can be both partially guaranteed and at his option
It's both. You can have both a player option AND a partial guarantee.
We've been discussing this, named 'mutual option', 3 or 4 pages ago.
Pierce has the same deal in the last year of his contract.
Lots of little details.
I'm sure of this much. If the Spurs have an ownership directive to stay under the tax this season, they can do it. The next few weeks will tell us whether or not that's the case.
Well if that is the case it is even better.
Agreed, good post
I thought Parker's agent was Marc Fleischer, and their agent is Leon Rose. Did Parker switch agents?
What did RJ contribute exactly? 12 meaningless PPG? That can be made up by committee. Spurs need better defense. They need some better 3 point shooters. They need system players, not talented bad fits. At least not at this cost for this many years.
How will a a players option solely the Spurs decision?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions