Official 2016 Spurs Offseason Thread

[montgod]

That's not leverage. That's FO suicide. There is literally not a worse thing you can do to a player that is not illegal.



Bertans will be done at around the same time as Gasol. But if the Spurs want to sign anyone to a deal that isn't a min contract (meaning also for more than two seasons), then they really need to do it before they start signing their over-the-cap guys. Bertans has to fit into that slot with Pau, so they're going to coordinate those salaries around any other plan with cap space before finalizing them, whereas we pretty much know what LJC will make no matter what.

Quick question, haven't other teams renounced their first rounders in order to gain cap room or is this a different situation with LJC? Just trying to fully understand. Thanks Chinook!

[raybies]

I don't know what kind of promises they've made him. But I really hope that they didn't just guarantee him a roster spot. He's played four seasons, and the numbers don't look very good - especially on the boards. He was too skinny, and he's only put on a few pounds. To be fair, he's improved year after year, and I know that's something Pop believes in. But he started so low, he had a lot of room for improvement.

I'm just saying - I hope renouncing is still on the table. A rookie contract is only a bargain if there is any chance of him seeing floor time. Right now I'm not so sure. It would be a shame to be saddled with any bad contracts for three years.

on a rookie contract, near the minimum in this era of this salary cap, it will not be a bad contract. He came here for two things and two things alone and that is defense and rebounding. I don't know what y'all seen but I thought he performed these two things well enough. He got beat a couple times but for the most part he played solid defense. At least two blocks and two steals in limited minutes and first game in. He will never be a star or put up big numbers. He just needs to do two things, I repeat, defense and rebound. It was a mixed bag, tonight. He showed exceptional defense on some possessions and got outplayed on others, but overall it was encouraging. One possession on the perimeter, against Dinwiddie, he forced him to pass the ball just on solid technique. Dinwiddie had nothing and on one possession against Portis, same thing, passed the ball out cause he didn't get anything. That was the play where Portis pushed him in the back. My point, is that most people expect perfection, or are so quick to judge. He got beat a couple times. Everyone gets beat at some times. He missed some shot. Everyone misses shots. If judge solely off production alone then you are missing the intangibles. He's cheap and he's nothing more than a 14th or 15th player on a rotation at this point. He can play situationally next year/

[GSH]

That's not leverage. That's FO suicide. There is literally not a worse thing you can do to a player that is not illegal.

Really? So a stash player that doesn't develop should be given a roster spot (and a guaranteed contract) no matter what? What if a guy decides to come right away, when the Spurs want him to stay in Europe? Or after only one year, when they thought he was a project?

I'm not trying to just be argumentative, I'm curious. I know that first-rounders have been renounced, but not many. But stash players are another thing. Or at least I thought they were. I always just assumed that they picked LJC partly because they didn't have a roster spot for a late-first-round rookie at that time. So they wanted someone who they knew for sure wouldn't be NBA-ready, but who MIGHT have some upside.

LJC wouldn't have been able to get a min contract with any NBA team that first year. Or after his second year with Asvel. I can't believe that a guy in that situation would be able to just announce that he's coming, and be en led to a roster spot and guaranteed contract. And his improvement since then has been small and slow. But maybe there's a protocol for these things?

[Kawhitstorm]

The Spurs should be looking for either a really old/washed up vet like Varejao or a young guy with potential but no stock like Cady, Stokes or Ndoye. A player like Terrence Jones would be nice, but I'd prefer someone who can play center with that final spot. I'm not sure if there's a decent Euro center to bring over, but that would obviously be a decent option

I don't see the point of signing Sideshow Bob as if he's playable against the Duds. If they aren't gunning for the Duds then might as well develop young players like Stokes.

[Chinook]

Quick question, haven't other teams renounced their first rounders in order to gain cap room or is this a different situation with LJC? Just trying to fully understand. Thanks Chinook!

They really don't. That is a huge middle finger to the NBPA and FIBA to do that. LJC literally cancelled all of his workouts with other teams because the Spurs proposed this plan to him. For all we know, he could have been a completely different player had someone else selected him -- a better player with more money in his pocket. And he'd likely not be a worse one or have less money. He would have completely put his trust in the organization only for them to on him when it was the slightest bit convenient for them. It would be by far the worst thing they've ever done to a player.

[Chinook]

Really? So a stash player that doesn't develop should be given a roster spot (and a guaranteed contract) no matter what?

Yes. No matter what. That is the trade-off for there being a rookie scale. AND it's a double trade-off of them stashing a first-rounder. It's a system completely built on trust, and the Spurs couldn't get away with breaking it so egregiously without facing harsh consequences.

I know that first-rounders have been renounced, but not many

I can't think of any, especially those who didn't do something illegal.

ut stash players are another thing. Or at least I thought they were. I always just assumed that they picked LJC partly because they didn't have a roster spot for a late-first-round rookie at that time. So they wanted someone who they knew for sure wouldn't be NBA-ready, but who MIGHT have some upside.

By agreeing to be stashed, LJC agreed to delay millions of dollars in compensation on the promise that he'd get it later on. That he did his part of waiting while not being able to engage other NBA teams for three years means that the Spurs are more than obligated to do their part.

LJC wouldn't have been able to get a min contract with any NBA team that first year.

That's not true. The dude had high stock coming out of the Nike Hoops Summit. The Spurs gave him a promise, and he essentially shut down all of his workouts. He likely would have been drafted in the top 40 anyway. He was 18 and at the time better than folks like Embiid, Vonleh and Jabari. He wasn't going to be drafted over them, of course. But, yeah. he looked good.

I can't believe that a guy in that situation would be able to just announce that he's coming, and be en led to a roster spot and guaranteed contract.

Yes, he can. The same way that Thomas did last season, but there's no min tender for the Spurs to give LJC to bring him into camp.

But maybe there's a protocol for these things?

Of course there is. The CBA allows them to renounce him. It's perfectly legal. It's just FO suicide.

[ElNono]

By agreeing to be stashed, LJC agreed to delay millions of dollars in compensation on the promise that he'd get it later on. That he did his part of waiting while not being able to engage other NBA teams for three years means that the Spurs are more than obligated to do their part.

...

Of course there is. The CBA allows them to renounce him. It's perfectly legal. It's just FO suicide.

The Spurs have traded players in similar situations before (see: Scola, Luis). They could do the same with LJC.

[objective]

eh. Bulls renounced Travis Knight. Didn't kill the franchise.

Suicide or negotiating? Spurs have been do ented as one of the very few teams to go cajole first rounders into taking less. if a player with a bum knee, few skills, and might not be in high demand in Europe, maybe he and his agent would take the bait, that's all I was suggesting. It's not like the Spurs would renounce and then offer the unguaranteed minimum. 80-120% is negotiable. Winning at the margins is what teams like the Spurs need to do to get an edge.

We'll see if he got 120. Maybe he did.

[GSH]

Yes. No matter what. That is the trade-off for there being a rookie scale. AND it's a double trade-off of them stashing a first-rounder. It's a system completely built on trust, and the Spurs couldn't get away with breaking it so egregiously without facing harsh consequences.
I can't think of any, especially those who didn't do something illegal.
By agreeing to be stashed, LJC agreed to delay millions of dollars in compensation on the promise that he'd get it later on. That he did his part of waiting while not being able to engage other NBA teams for three years means that the Spurs are more than obligated to do their part.
That's not true. The dude had high stock coming out of the Nike Hoops Summit. The Spurs gave him a promise, and he essentially shut down all of his workouts. He likely would have been drafted in the top 40 anyway. He was 18 and at the time better than folks like Embiid, Vonleh and Jabari. He wasn't going to be drafted over them, of course. But, yeah. he looked good.
Yes, he can. The same way that Thomas did last season, but there's no min tender for the Spurs to give LJC to bring him into camp.
Of course there is. The CBA allows them to renounce him. It's perfectly legal. It's just FO suicide.

I come here to learn. Welcome to the team, LJC.

I will say this: I remember when LJC was drafted. I don't think there was any way he goes in the first round to any team that thought he would be playing for them that first year. (He almost didn't go in the first round.) It was probably too early for him to declare, but that's on him. Three picks later, and there's no rookie guarantee. If that's the understanding, that's the understanding. I'll take your word for it. But I still say that there is no way... zero... that anyone would have handed that kid a guaranteed deal that year. If there wasn't an understanding that he needed to develop, there should have been. But I don't make the rules.

[Chinook]

The Spurs have traded players in similar situations before (see: Scola, Luis). They could do the same with LJC.

Scola wasn't a first-rounder. Had he been, he could have been a Spur in all likelihood.

[Chinook]

eh. Bulls renounced Travis Knight. Didn't kill the franchise.

The Bulls did sort of fall apart soon after that, though that probably had to do with Jordan retiring and Pippen moving on. But that was pre-rookie scale.

Suicide or negotiating?

Suicide.

Spurs have been do ented as one of the very few teams to go cajole first rounders into taking less

Yes, and that may be a reason why Paul was such a hard-ass in negotiations about Murray. However, they rarely do in the first year with picks, because they often add incentives, which as mentioned always count against the cap the first season.

80-120% is negotiable.

It's really, really not. Not reasonably. Sure, it happens -- and with the Spurs more than most. But it's so rare that it sticks out, even more so with this new cap climate.

Winning at the margins is what teams like the Spurs need to do to get an edge.

Making them sound an awful lot like the Patriots now.

[ElNono]

Scola wasn't a first-rounder. Had he been, he could have been a Spur in all likelihood.

With Scola there was a lot of chatter about the Spurs and his agent not wanting to bring him over or trade him, an uncomfortable situation, until they eventually accommodated him.

Then again, Scola's stock was high at the time, I can't say the same about LJC. I don't know there's team eager to get him, but I suppose you could always get a 2nd round pick for him.

[Chinook]

With Scola there was a lot of chatter about the Spurs and his agent not wanting to bring him over or trade him, an uncomfortable situation, until they eventually accommodated him.

Then again, Scola's stock was high at the time, I can't say the same about LJC. I don't know there's team eager to get him, but I suppose you could always get a 2nd round pick for him.

The rookie scale makes all of the difference. Had Scola been a first-rounder, the team could have signed him to a cheap deal without worrying about the MLE. But they didn't have a way to keep his contract cost down, so they had to move him. LJC has a set contract for nearly one percent of the cap. The two situations aren't remotely comparable.

[eDizzle20]

Does anyone know what the deal with Milutinov is? I thought he was supposed to play in SL. Are the Spurs actually trying to sign him for this upcoming season?

[objective]

. The Bulls did sort of fall apart soon after that, though that probably had to do with Jordan retiring and Pippen moving on. But that was pre-rookie scale.

They were such a failure that they won two les after renouncing Knight .... so ... ? And there WAS a rookie scale. Guaranteed three years. That's why Knight was renounced, so they wouldn't have to pay. The guaranteed years was the compromise with rookie scale in response to end high salaries and hold outs along rookies like Glenn Robinson and Jim Jackson. Michael Jordan was so offended at the Bulls that he signed another deal to play for the Bulls.

's really, really not. Not reasonably. Sure, it happens -- and with the Spurs more than most. But it's so rare that it sticks out, even more so with this new cap climate.

It is when there's leverage. Little leverage with a Rich Paul client, or someone else who 'fell' into range like Anderson. But for other cases? They used leverage on Hill. He was a small school guy no one had in the first. There was another. I'll pull up the numbers if I have to. They've done it. Case closed.

Making them sound an awful lot like the Patriots now.

That's who they've been compared to before. They don't have the finances of most teams with that aba deal.

[raybies]

Does anyone know what the deal with Milutinov is? I thought he was supposed to play in SL. Are the Spurs actually trying to sign him for this upcoming season?

related news, just popped up on Twitter. If they are interested maybe they know something we don't; like he's staying over another year.

[Chinook]

They were such a failure that they won two les after renouncing Knight .... so ... ? And there WAS a rookie scale. Guaranteed three years. That's why Knight was renounced, so they wouldn't have to pay. The guaranteed years was the compromise with rookie scale in response to end high salaries and hold outs along rookies like Glenn Robinson and Jim Jackson. Michael Jordan was so offended at the Bulls that he signed another deal to play for the Bulls.

I think you misunderstood half of what I was saying (half of it was a joke). But yeah, there was guaranteed contracts, but it wasn't quite the same as it is now. And that was the second year of the scaling, so if that's the best you've got.

It is when there's leverage.

There's acceptable leverage and there's unacceptable leverage. When you and a player work out an agreement and then you back out on your half, that's not acceptable. That would be like giving a player a bunch of DNPs his contract year to drop his value. Sure, you CAN do it, but it's wrong.

They used leverage on Hill.

Hill got 120 percent his first year.

I'll pull up the numbers if I have to. They've done it. Case closed.

Don't bring this to me like I wasn't the first person talking about it this off-season. Yes, they have done it. I know that and pointed it out when talking about Murray not playing. But it's not normal. It's extremely abnormal. And a team that really doesn't need cap isn't likely to do it, especially without incentives to let the player make up the difference. Those incentives are part of the cap during the first year, hence why Hill got 120 percent.

That's who they've been compared to before. They don't have the finances of most teams with that aba deal.

That deal is done now, or it's almost there. And no, the Spurs haven't been compared to THAT part of New England yet. And I pray they don't get there, because I will stop watching them if they become shady like that.

[objective]

But yeah, there was guaranteed contracts, but it wasn't quite the same as it is now. And that was the second year of the scaling, so if that's the best you've got.

You JUST posted that Travis Knight was "before rookie scale". You were wrong. And now your response is "yeah. Is that the best you've got?". , that's all I needed.

Also, When ever I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it. Like ...

Hill got 120 percent his first year

Correct. My mistake. They still used leverage on his deal, just not the first two years. They used it on Anderson's deal.

Yes, they have done i

Agreed.

That deal is done now, or it's almost there.

Sorry man, you've missed the point. There was an agreement, yes. But the Spurs don't get out for free. They're still paying off a settlement with real money. Big money. All they did was buy their way out of paying for the rest of time. Looks like the Spurs share of paying off the bulk payment was $125 million. And the articles at the time mention that there was still more money owed as part of a partnership deal.

That's more than enough to impact the Spurs, and motivate shrewdness for many years to come

I wasn't speaking to anything like deflate gate or illegal video stuff. More on the likes of Brady taking a lot less than market value to keep the team compe ive. Picking up ring chasers. Trusting in coaching to elevate the fringe player to a useful piece. Not overpaying for middling talent. Etc.

I don't think negotiating within the framework allowed is on par with cheating.

Speaking of negotiating, do you really think that LJC would have insisted on taking the scale if he had blown up into a domestic mvp like splitter? Splitter didn't take scale, even though he showed up a press conference promising to come the next year (at scale). And despite being betrayed, the Spurs didn't hold him took it because he had the leverage of staying in Europe and making a lot.

If LJC was so awesome, he'd have offers to leverage the Spurs into more money, room money, maybe more.

Also, the Spurs rep among foreign players could probably survive a lot. They have probably spent over six figures repairing and rehabbing guys who have never and will never be Spurs, as well as providing coaching and development work to guys who still haven't signed. I'm skeptical that a fringe player would derail 15+ years of all that and more.

[GSH]

Several people here asked "Why would we want Bourousis". He's signed with Pana now, so he's totally off the table. But here's why we would have waned him:

Bourousis is the second-best rebounder in EuroLeague history (1,444), also ranking fifth in performance index rating (2,922), 16th in scoring (2,149 points), second in blocks (176) and seventh in games played (251). An accomplished player with the Greek national team, Bourousis collected a EuroBasket gold medal in 2005 and a bronze in 2009.

Bourousis was also chosen as EuroLeague MVP for March, averaging 18.4 points, 9.2 rebounds, 2.8 assists and 1.3 steals in five games that month.

[Obstructed_View]

Anyone asking why the Spurs would want Bourousis haven't watched the SL bigs.

[K...]

You JUST posted that Travis Knight was "before rookie scale". You were wrong. And now your response is "yeah. Is that the best you've got?". , that's all I needed.

Also, When ever I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it. Like ...



Correct. My mistake. They still used leverage on his deal, just not the first two years. They used it on Anderson's deal.



Agreed.



Sorry man, you've missed the point. There was an agreement, yes. But the Spurs don't get out for free. They're still paying off a settlement with real money. Big money. All they did was buy their way out of paying for the rest of time. Looks like the Spurs share of paying off the bulk payment was $125 million. And the articles at the time mention that there was still more money owed as part of a partnership deal.

That's more than enough to impact the Spurs, and motivate shrewdness for many years to come

I wasn't speaking to anything like deflate gate or illegal video stuff. More on the likes of Brady taking a lot less than market value to keep the team compe ive. Picking up ring chasers. Trusting in coaching to elevate the fringe player to a useful piece. Not overpaying for middling talent. Etc.

I don't think negotiating within the framework allowed is on par with cheating.

Speaking of negotiating, do you really think that LJC would have insisted on taking the scale if he had blown up into a domestic mvp like splitter? Splitter didn't take scale, even though he showed up a press conference promising to come the next year (at scale). And despite being betrayed, the Spurs didn't hold him took it because he had the leverage of staying in Europe and making a lot.

If LJC was so awesome, he'd have offers to leverage the Spurs into more money, room money, maybe more.

Also, the Spurs rep among foreign players could probably survive a lot. They have probably spent over six figures repairing and rehabbing guys who have never and will never be Spurs, as well as providing coaching and development work to guys who still haven't signed. I'm skeptical that a fringe player would derail 15+ years of all that and more.

Afaik, splitter backed out bc his sister was sick. Splitter was also subject to buyouts which needed negotiating. Ljc is a new kind of stash pic.


You have the Manu type....professional players who want to play in the nba but don't need to.

And the Tony type....young guys who really haven't made their name yet.

The second type, young guys are much more like regular draft pick in what the spurs owe them

[Chinook]

You JUST posted that Travis Knight was "before rookie scale". You were wrong.

I was thinking it was before the rookie scale, but it was in the second season of that scale, which was an antiquated version of the current one. I was indeed wrong on that fact, but it doesn't matter, because...

And now your response is "yeah. Is that the best you've got?". , that's all I needed.

Yeah, because that's the one time in 22 years of rookie-scale deals. That's once in 651 chances. That example only shows that it's possible, not that it's a viable option. As far as the consequences go, we don't know -- or at least I don't. I have no idea if guys resisted be stashed by Chicago for years due to that. I don't know if free agents stopped wanting to come after Jordan left because they hated the FO. That was before my time, and it was before the time where news like that was easily accessible to the public. What I do know is that doing things like breaking draft promises are huge no-nos now, and this is a couple orders of magnitude worse.

Both LJC and Milutinov were FAs who decided to take long-term contracts overseas at the Spurs' request. Do you think other players would be willing to do that if they know that the Spurs will back out on the agreement years later? Do you think international agents are going to want their clients going to the Spurs after they completely ed over one of their players? No. The Spurs have no more leverage with LJC than they did with making Scola take a small contract to come over.

Sorry man, you've missed the point.

No. Your point is that they're so poor that they'd take a couple hundred thousand from a guy when they just had a big tax bill and would use that money regardless of who got it. Your actual point never made sense, but the general idea that that contract is still hanging over the teams' heads is overstated. The team wouldn't have made that deal if it crippled them financially.

Speaking of negotiating, do you really think that LJC would have insisted on taking the scale if he had blown up into a domestic mvp like splitter? Splitter didn't take scale, even though he showed up a press conference promising to come the next year (at scale). And despite being betrayed, the Spurs didn't hold him took it because he had the leverage of staying in Europe and making a lot.

Splitter wasn't promised. In fact, he fell. Dude was a lottery talent, but teams didn't want to wait on him. In fact, it would've been to his benefit to drop to the second round like what happened with Pek. Only reason why he was going to come over is because he trusted the Spurs FO. His sister dying changed that. And while I don't recall seeing that press conference, I doubt Splitter promised to come over (and especially that he specifically said he wanted to take the rookie scale). He probably just said that was his intention, which is completely different than a team making a draft promise.

Also, the Spurs rep among foreign players could probably survive a lot.

It would be much worse than what happened to the Pats and Spygate. In the same way the media and most fans never gave the team the benefit of the doubt again, the Spurs wouldn't get it after LJC. Difference is that fans being annoyed doesn't really matter to an NFL team, while the foreign basketball community matters a ton to the Spurs.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Anyone asking why the Spurs would want Bourousis haven't watched the SL bigs.

This, tbh.

[Chinook]

Anyone asking why the Spurs would want Bourousis haven't watched the SL bigs.

They have too many. Needed to just focus on Cady, LJC and Ndoye like they did last year. I like CJ Williams, but he shouldn't be starting or getting minutes at the four.

[objective]

If Durant had decided to sign, but only for the max, and the cap number had worked out that it was either shrink LJC for that last bit, or lose Durant, you are certain they'd tell Durant, "No thanks. We got this guy, he blew out his knee, hasn't done much since, but we just can't ask him to give up the money. Sorry KD!"

Because that's what you're saying.

. Your actual point never made sense, but the general idea that that contract is still hanging over the teams' heads is overstated.

The point was about how the Spurs had to operate in ways that other teams didn't have to in order to be successful, and finances play a role in that. Creative finances. You already know the they, as much if not more than other teams, had not given full 120% in past instances. Why else would they have ever done that? Just for fun? Why would they have done that when the 'protocol' followed by nearly every other team was to pay full 120 full four years?

Splitter wasn't promised. ....

Do you think LJC and his agent would have accepted scale if he had exploded into a star?

What I do know is that doing things like breaking draft promises are huge no-nos now, and this is a couple orders of magnitude worse

Teams have broken draft promises before, I believe I heard Givony or another draft guy break it down on a podcast recently. I might try to find it. But about renouncements, yes, it did happen before. Why dismiss history?

Both LJC and Milutinov were FAs who decided to take long-term contracts overseas at the Spurs' request. Do you think other players would be willing to do that if they know that the Spurs will back out on the agreement years later? Do you think international agents are going to want their clients going to the Spurs after they completely ed over one of their players? No. The Spurs have no more leverage with LJC than they did with making Scola take a small contract to come over.

I think the Spurs tell agents and players that truth as it is at the time. That they like the player, but don't think that have room or a role for the player. If the player is fine not coming over, they can keep him on their board. But there's the risk that if the player pushes their luck, it could end badly for them. And if agents and players aren't comfortable with that, they can try to force their way out of the first round. Guys have done it before.

And sometimes players push their luck and win. The Rockets wanted Capela to stash himself to get more room in pursuit of Bosh. He refused. They then had 3 choices: sign, trade, or renounce. He was promising enough that they put up with it.

Second rounders push their luck too sometimes, and I'm pretty sure I remember that happening with the Spurs. They're not owed anything so the leverage is a little different, though not drastically as the renouncing is a last resort threat for first rounders.