Reply With Quotescott, get a clue on how things work. If three teams offer the same star the same money, the one that ups the ante has the compe ive advantage.
We paid Avery Johnson $8 million acouple of season ago, scared money.
G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
80 80 40.1 .454 .297 .710 1.00 3.20 4.20 8.3 1.66 .25 2.34 2.30 20.4
80 80 37.4 .414 .341 .841 1.40 4.90 6.30 8.9 2.24 .31 3.70 1.60 18.7
I'll take the first line at 60% of the cost, please.
scott, get a clue on how things work. If three teams offer the same star the same money, the one that ups the ante has the compe ive advantage.
We paid Avery Johnson $8 million acouple of season ago, scared money.
Kidd's worth the difference.
What difference?
I disagree with that vehemently.
Kidd is not $5 million a year better than Payton... and that's not even considering that The Glove would bode better in the backcourt with Parker than Kidd.
Flash forward to 2005 do you honestly think that Payton is going to be putting up similiar numbers then?
I disagree with your price for GP as well. No way he goes for less than $10 mil.
Get a clue, Ghost- when the only other teams in the running are Milwaukee (with two PGs already), Utah (who is rebuilding and will not be interested in an aging PG to join John Stockton sipping Mai Tai's in a few years), Denver (not likely) and the Clippers (are you kidding me)- there is no need to "up the ante."
Flash foward to 2005 when Kidd won't be put up those numbers either.
Both have peaked.
Who can afford to pay him $10 million?
Who will pay him more than $10 million.
We got people her saying $8 million is too high, for krissakes.
Playing alongside Duncan could extend Payton's longevity.
Of course, Kidd will be playing at a higher level in 2005. He'll also be making a lot more.
I can't see Payton signing for as many years as Kidd anyway. He's older.
I believe any deal over 3 years would invoke the over 36 rule for Payton anyway. He is looking at a 2 year deal, tops.
Payton is too freaking grumpy, he will have all the Spurs at each other's throats all the time.
Great. Even better!
Plenty of teams will be interested in GP and will be willing to send back talent in a S&T. He's a marquee name. Given that some of you think his game is going to be at such a high level over the next 5 years then surely NBA front offices will agree and bid up his price accordingly.
Right. The 'over 35' rule would place some pressure on a team to pay GP a higher rate for fewer years.
There you go again, putting words in other's mouth to justify your man love for Kidd.
Gary would be a 1 or 2 year signing. I dont think anyone here gives a how good he'll be in 5 years.
Sorry, I was just exposing the stupidity of your argument that the Spurs should pass on signing Kidd for Payton. And no way GP gets anything less than 3 years.
Yeah man, I guess its "man love" because I'd like to see the Spurs end up with a great player. Come with something better, scotty, instead of that drivel.
Gary signing for 3 years invokes the over 36 rule. Not gonna happen.
Um, if Payton is so coveted, how come his name is not linked to a single team other than Milwaukee at this point?
Payton is clearly the better value than Kidd. Period.
Unless we are playing fantasy basketball- then I take Kidd.
Too bad we aren't and playing style is a factor.
For the Spurs, Brand >= O'Neal >>> Payton > Kidd
Scott! Brand is not > O'Neal....O'Neal is much better than Brand for SA. He is a lot closer to DRob than anyone out there. Brand is Rose with 2 more inches.
Brand is a 20 point scorer, the best offensive rebounder in the game, and the 4th leading shot blocker in the game.
Comparing him to Malik Rose is just stupid.
Scott, you are wrong. O'Neal is much better than Brand. I did not say Rose was a good, but he is the same type of player, an over-achiever, he was in college and he is now. I want a grade A stud and that is O"neal.
So anyway, back to Payton.
Some people here simply have a hard-on for Kidd.
Payton can play a much better off-guard than Kidd and will require less money and years to sign.
With Cassell potentially being traded, do you think it's easier for the Spurs to acquire Payton, or harder?
Question.
I would rather have Cassell over Kidd and Payton to be frank. He is a great shooter, passer and one of the most compe ive players I have ever seen.
To answer you query, I think Payton stays put for sure now that Cassell is gone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions