Reply With Quote
Man, if those were girls, I'd say you had a MAJOR case of beer goggles. Gilbert Arenas, post surgery, was a HORRIBLE decision. Same with B-Diddy and his bad wheel.
So the 32 million dollar for 5 years that the Bucks gave Drew Gooden was not on the list? I guess it will not be that hard to move...
Man, if those were girls, I'd say you had a MAJOR case of beer goggles. Gilbert Arenas, post surgery, was a HORRIBLE decision. Same with B-Diddy and his bad wheel.
It was actually a 6/30 for Walton. 6 years for a bench guy? What a terrible ing deal that was. Should be in the top 5 on this list.
I see where you're coming from, but if "ease of movement" is a consideration, the Spurs could have left things be and had a 15 million dollar expiring sitting here this season. If there's a time that we look back and say "That's when the window slammed shut", it could be when the Spurs spent that kind of money on both Jefferson and Bonner in the same offseason. The new CBA has the potential to render both contracts historically bad.
Bonner's is monetarily less, but he's had more time to prove he can't be trusted to deliver. And so giving him any contract just doesn't make much sense if you're serious about winning. Now if Pop was of the mindset to let him play here and there in the regular season when there is no pressure and then NOT play him in the playoffs, then I could somewhat understand having him around. But as it is, I don't see how he won't be stealing minutes from Blair or Tiago.
Hypothetical question: If the Spurs somehow manage to beat the odds and win a championship this season, will the length and value of Jefferson's contract become a non-issue? In other words, if the "all in" strategy actually works and yields the 2011 le, what significance does the Spurs' success over the next 3 years have?
This question is open to everyone.
Of course not. If the Spurs win, all bets are off on the contract. Unless the Spurs somehow manage to win despite another year of terrible RJ play.
Then, even with a le, the Spurs would look bad for the contract when analyzing in depth.
I can't see those two things happening simultaneously, but I see your point, hypothetically speaking. I wouldn't characterize Jefferson as terrible. Inconsistent, non-aggressive and bewildered at times, but not terrible.
Bonner's contract is worse (for the Spurs) than RJ's. The Spurs didn't have much choice with RJ as he's still the only SF on the roster. They would have a big hole if he left and no way to replace him.
Bonner is a proven choker and will take time away from Blair and Splitter. With his contract, he's not going to sit at the end of the bench as he should. I would have preferred Ratliff at vet's min - some interior defense and shot blocking - Spurs have enough offense.
When I say "terrible" you have to take it in context. What I mean by that is terrible compared to expectations. Terrible compared to abilities (or at least perceived abilities).
He is not terrible like he should not be in a league, but he played pretty damn bad.
I kind of assumed that's what you meant, but it's kind of hard to tell sometimes. The expectations were always attached to the money, which is not entirely fair to Jefferson.
He played pretty damn bad at times, but he also played pretty damn good as well. Like I said, consistency, aggressiveness, awareness. If he can maintain that mantra, the game will come easy.
he was pretty pivotal in that one game vs dallas in the playoffs (already better than bonner, so shud not be grouped with him), where he came out agressive established himself and played really well. So hes not a choker and ability is there. Its just that consistency that was eluding him.
Also during the regular season when 2 of the big three were out he played well and scored 28 pts or so during the early part of the season.
Anyway, lets see how this season plays out, i still feel he is clueless about his role/how to mesh .. not so much ability.
if TP gets an extension, the Spurs top 6 contracts would all be bad contracts
think about that
1 through 6: all. bad. contracts.
Loading the team for TD at this stage in his career is actually the smart move, not as fiscally responsible as normal, but I'm sure that the FO has this worked out to the penny and will finish this contract, somehow, to their advantage.
Can't always do a backroom deal and get Gasol for Kwame...ya know?
It's a fair question, but the Spurs had him this year even if they didn't extend him, so signing him for three years has little impact on this season's success or failure. At worst the Spurs could be coming off a championship and having to re-sign RJ in the offseason. By that rationale, this strategy with RJ needs to result in either more than one le run or, at the very least, one in the next three years.
Spurs gave Malik Rose a deal of 6 years 42 million..
Then turned around and gave Rasho Nesterovic 6 years 48 million the following off-season.
Considering those 2 and a plethora of other factors, such as the notion which the Spurs wouldn't be able to add a significant free agent anyway the next 2 seasons had they simply let Jefferson's deal expire because of the fact that Manu and Tim's contracts are still on the books for 2-3 more seasons-- Jefferson for 4 years/39 million isn't so bad. Especially considering he will only have 2 years remaining when Duncan's current contract comes off the books (when the window is shut) . Meaning in just one year after the window is "closed", his " absurd" contract becomes a valuable expiring contract. Spurs won't get a star in return when this day comes, but what they can get is a young prospect in return along with another expiring contract worth 5-7 million. A 2 for 1 deal like such, which one of the players involved in the trade for Jefferson has more than 1 year left on his contract and the other player involved in the deal for Jefferson has just 1 year left on his contract (expiring) is very reasonable.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 10-07-2010 at 03:29 AM.
Baby Drew says "Hi"
Something I don't understand is how so many of us on this board can see bad contracts a mile away but NBA GMs offer them all the time. In the last 10 years, there have probably been 50 contracts that have been absolutely horrendous. Why do teams continue to overpay? The instant these long term, bloated deals are inked, they're like a block of cement tied to the franchise's shoe.
I'll never understand a lot of things about pro basketball but these obviously terrible signings bother me the most. The Spurs have been one of the top teams at driving the hardest bargains and coming away with great contracts but Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner's deals were really bad.
The big money deals with Allan Houston, Steve Francis, Michael Finley, Rudy Gay, Drew Gooden, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Rashard Lewis, Larry Hughes, Erick Dampier, Brian Grant, Eddy Curry, Kenyon Martin were/are all obviously horrible. I would think 85% of your common fans could see this but somehow there's always a gm out there that makes the signing - even after seeing the crippling affect these monster contracts have on the franchise.
RJ didn't opt out and re-sign.
He, obviously, had a per-arranged deal with the Spurs to keep them out of the luxury tax. This SAVED the team money, and MADE RJ money; and kept the window open for the Spurs, ever so slightly. As bad as this contract looks - how about paying him $15 million THIS year, AND not having Splitter?
The problem wasn't the contract this summer; it was the trade LAST SUMMER - which at the time looked, if not brilliant, very good.
This. Great point.
The Spurs FO rarely throws money around or away.
Pop and RC always get the benefit of the doubt, they earned this too many times.
Nor I suspect will RJ be a dud under any cir stances. The madness of the methods often later becomes apparent and they again become those "shrewd SOB's" 9 out of ten times.
No RJ judgments til after the season.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
