Reply With Quote
Yes, but that would be the same as taking a d-league player or picking up someone from waivers.
If it is someone that is already on a team that has a contract that is above the minimum, the Spurs could not get them unless they traded a player.
It's the salary and the luxury tax combined.
Yes, but that would be the same as taking a d-league player or picking up someone from waivers.
If it is someone that is already on a team that has a contract that is above the minimum, the Spurs could not get them unless they traded a player.
No, I don't see why it would be the same.
I do not see why the Spurs would even entertain bringing in another player to ride the bench. Isn't that what Mahimi is doing and Harriston was doing? Why take on more penalty?
Because if they are coming from the D-L aren't they getting minimum contracts? The Spurs can call up someone from the D-L now that they have a roster spot, and they would likely get a 10-day contract or pro-rated minimum.
If they claim someone from waivers or get a bought out player, it would likely be on a minimum contract.
So being able to trade for a player on a minimum contract without giving up a player as if they were under the cap is the same thing in my eyes, which is why they are allowed to do it.
I don't know of anyone in the D-League who would be of immediate help -- maybe tweener forwards like Mike Harris, Trey Gilder or Rob Kurz who might fill a Haislipish role.
There are a few good point guards if they want to go that direction. I'm not overly impressed with Curtis Jerrells' defense this season. There are a couple of guys I would call up before him -- and Antonio Daniels is just sitting around right?
There are no swingmen who play better than Hairston. There is only a need for one if Finley is really done. Also there are no big men better than Ian at this point either -- or really much better than Dwayne Jones for that matter. A couple of them like Greg Stiemsma have some potential as shot blockers, but they are quite a ways off from contributing to a team like the Spurs.
Right. Such a player would have to be able to help immediately or have a Hairston-like level of potential.
Well, what you say makes no sense. It simply isn't at all the same thing.
http://www.euroleague.net/news/i/65616/180
Both of PAO backup big men are injured. Backup Batiste and backup Tsartsaris and they will miss top 16 games.
This is why Haislip will be signed to try to backup Antonis Fotsis. There is nothing to this to do with Spurs future roster moves.
Kurz plays in the Greek League with Aris.
Can you please clarify? Are the types of contracts the Spurs would be giving out to D-L players and waiver players not the same as the ones they can trade for without giving up a player?
Spurs making a move on the trade block. Book it.
No, for example Spurs could sign players with the LLE.
And it's not because they have the same contract than it's the same thing. It would be like saying Mike D'Antoni is the same thing as a cat because they have both staches.
Spurs waive Haislip
By Jeff McDonald
The Marcus Haislip era with the Spurs has come to a close. The team waived Haislip Friday, saying in a release it wanted to allow him to focus on opportunities outside of the NBA (most likely read: Europe).
A former first-round draft choice of the Milwaukee Bucks, Haislip had hoped to use the Spurs to make his triumphant return to the NBA after four seasons abroad. It didn't quite work out.
Haislip appeared in just 10 games with the Spurs, and was inactive most nights. The 6-foot-10 forward averaged 2.5 points.
Haislip's 2009-2010 contract was guaranteed, meaning the Spurs must eat the remainder of his $855,189 salary, as well as a portion of the $915,852 he is owed next season, in order to waive him.
By doing so, the Spurs bring their roster down to 14, giving them the flexibility to sign another free agent going forward.
Yes, because the problem the Spurs have is lack of talent. If they add another player, who goes to the bench? Doubtful that the rotation is going to open up to share minutes.
James White!!
That sucks, if true. However, if the Spurs did eat the rest of Haislip's contract, that does make it much more likely this move was meant to open the door for another transaction.Haislip's 2009-2010 contract was guaranteed, meaning the Spurs must eat the remainder of his $855,189 salary, as well as a portion of the $915,852 he is owed next season, in order to waive him.
I was making a reference that the rule you mentioned is in place because there are other cap rules (10 day contracts, unlimited league minimum contracts...) in place that allow for similar moves. It would just make sense. But I see what you are saying.
Certainly, the Spurs usually do right by their players, as long as it makes financial sense. But I could not see them just eating his contract to let him go play. There would have to be some incentive. Unless the Spurs thought no one would take his contract and they were going to have to pay him no matter what.
Surely if he wanted to be let go there was a buyout negotiated to save the Spurs some money.
Yeah, you would think.
If i were the lakers i would goble him up and release walton.
Remember how Panathinaikos paid 1 million euros to Spurs to get Spanoulis? Well they paid 1.5 million to them to get Haislip.
The salary of Haislip still counts on Spurs salary cap just like it did with Spanoulis because of NBA CBA rules. But Spurs pocket 1.5 million EUROS, not dollars cash from this. Already has been sent to Spurs bank account.
Popovich is very close personal friends with PAO coach Obradovic. Do not forget that.
Also 1.5 million euros = $2.12084 dollars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
