Trade for Jared Jeffries?

[objective]

The one big thing we couldn't offer is strikeout insurance. If NY completely swings and misses in FA next summer, they still have TMac's Bird rights, instead of some Bonner/Mase/Finley combo. While he isn't an elite player anymore, he's a of a lot better than that sorry lot.

There is no strikeout insurance.

There is no way in they don't renounce McGrady, and thereby lose his birdrights. There's no major caproom without renouncing him.

They aren't going to pay McGrady anything first. They'll renounce him. Then end up having to sign 2nd tier guys like Joe Johnson and Amare to team with D'Antoni for another team of playoff losers.

IF they can't get anything other than one max, they might sign him to a small deal. But they could have done that anyway because they won't be signing him with bird rights, they could have done it with him being a straight free agent this summer. But they can't sign him to a small deal before renouncing because whatever that amount is could screw up signing 2 MAX guys, they won't take that chance.

So . . .

1. The idea that the Spurs couldn't match 23 in salary has been buried because of the expirings that NYK traded away

2. The idea that the Knicks want McGrady for birdrights seems very unlikely. A tryout this year for a post-renounce look next season, maybe. But they could have had that after Sacramento bought him out.

3. The only real objection would be the additional year on the Jeffries deal. Weighted against the return of Bogans on a minimum next year because the roster will be filled with vet mins, and with 1 first rounder outside the lottery plus swapping a pick that could get the Spurs maybe 1-5 spots higher, it's not so clear cut.

[exstatic]

There is no strikeout insurance.

There is no way in they don't renounce McGrady, and thereby lose his birdrights. There's no major caproom without renouncing him.

They aren't going to pay McGrady anything first. They'll renounce him. Then end up having to sign 2nd tier guys like Joe Johnson and Amare to team with D'Antoni for another team of playoff losers.

IF they can't get anything other than one max, they might sign him to a small deal. But they could have done that anyway because they won't be signing him with bird rights, they could have done it with him being a straight free agent this summer. But they can't sign him to a small deal before renouncing because whatever that amount is could screw up signing 2 MAX guys, they won't take that chance.

So . . .

1. The idea that the Spurs couldn't match 23 in salary has been buried because of the expirings that NYK traded away

2. The idea that the Knicks want McGrady for birdrights seems very unlikely. A tryout this year for a post-renounce look next season, maybe. But they could have had that after Sacramento bought him out.

3. The only real objection would be the additional year on the Jeffries deal. Weighted against the return of Bogans on a minimum next year because the roster will be filled with vet mins, and with 1 first rounder outside the lottery plus swapping a pick that could get the Spurs maybe 1-5 spots higher, it's not so clear cut.

Why do you think his agent forced the new trade with NY after the initial HOU/SAC trade was all but set in stone?

NY doesn't have to renounce him to have players come in and visit and negotiate with their agents. In fact, until they have someone ready to sign, I'll go out on a limb and say they WON'T renounce him.

Even if they strike out with the big three, signing Amare and Johnson vaults them into the top half of the EC playoff draw, and makes that 2012 first rounder a pile of steaming . That leaves you stuck with that other steaming pile of : the $6.8M contract and meager toolbox of NBA skills of Jared Jeffries.

[objective]

so T-Mac's agent forced New York to sacrifice 1 first rounder and positioning with the second first rounder + a lottery pick like Hill?

[objective]

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with an anti-Jeffries-contract compared to picks in context perspective.

It's reasonable enough. Up for debate, but very reasonable.

No need for other reasons like birdrights or erroneous things like 23 million from Spurs.

----------------------------

elsewhere

The deal wasn't just for Jeffries, it included Jordan Hill. Spurs could have absorbed him as well with Bonner-Mason-Finley as the primaries.

It also adds more to the cap/tax next season. But Hill is a legit bigman prospect who had lottery talent and is locked into a fairly cheap contract. He would have been useful insurance if Splitter pulled a Splitter and McDyess regressed further.

Sure, he's done nothing this year. But that doesn't surprise me when it comes to D'Antoni. D'Antoni was fully behind the selling of first round picks in Phoenix and publicly declared to the media that it 'wasn't his job to develop players' if I remember the gist of it.

Hill might have been a better reason to do the deal than non-lottery first round picks.

[ChumpDumper]

The deal wasn't just for Jeffries

But he's still in there and would still be on the books next season. The salaries in that trade would take up almost all the money the Spurs would reasonably be expected to spend next season.

[Agloco]

Jeffries is only getting paid 7 mil next year also.

That's about 6 to 6.5 million too much......

[objective]

But he's still in there and would still be on the books next season. The salaries in that trade would take up almost all the money the Spurs would reasonably be expected to spend next season.

okay, let's look at Jeffries, maybe he does cost the Spurs Manu.

That <7 million represents all the Spurs would be reasonably expected to spend.

So without Jeffries, that's about enough to re-sign Manu, and means no Splitter, unless Manu is playing for 4 million a year so they can hope Splitter takes 3. I doubt that.

This roster keeping Manu as it is constructed means next year is more boned than this one. Because next year they'll be filling the roster with veteran minimums like Keith Bogans.

Which means no le, window closed heading into the lockout.

If that's the case, loading up on draft picks, however low in the first, + a young cheap big prospect to move into Ian's doghouse, isn't that bad a proposition.

[ChumpDumper]

okay, let's look at Jeffries, maybe he does cost the Spurs Manu.

That <7 million represents all the Spurs would be reasonably expected to spend.

I said almost -- and it's great that you just stipulated that Jordan hill will be a bust and renounced to make the money not look as bad. I would put the number at whatever the tax threshold turns out to be. It could be as much as $10 million. That kind of money could indeed make it possible to sign both Manu and Splitter.

So without Jeffries, that's about enough to re-sign Manu, and means no Splitter, unless Manu is playing for 4 million a year so they can hope Splitter takes 3. I doubt that.

So with Jeffries, there's a good chance the Spurs wouldn't be able to sign anyone else. Great thinking.

This roster keeping Manu as it is constructed means next year is more boned than this one. Because next year they'll be filling the roster with veteran minimums like Keith Bogans.

So we should have traded Manu. OK. We could've gotten more than Jeffries in that case.

Which means no le, window closed heading into the lockout.

It's already closed. It's just about making some money back now. Keeping Manu works for that plan if the price is right.

If that's the case, loading up on draft picks, however low in the first, + a young cheap big prospect to move into Ian's doghouse, isn't that bad a proposition.

It sucks.

[objective]

I said almost -- and it's great that you just stipulated that Jordan hill will be a bust and renounced to make the money not look as bad. I would put the number at whatever the tax threshold turns out to be. It could be as much as $10 million. That kind of money could indeed make it possible to sign both Manu and Splitter.

Actually I'm playing down Hill for people who didn't even include him in the original discussion. I never said he would be a bust, in fact I said he would be kept. Him being in the doghouse is a joke.

So with Jeffries, there's a good chance the Spurs wouldn't be able to sign anyone else. Great thinking.

No . That's what I posited. The point was to get the picks.

So we should have traded Manu. OK. We could've gotten more than Jeffries in that case.

Maybe so.

It's already closed. It's just about making some money back now. Keeping Manu works for that plan if the price is right.

Sure, it's closed. People still act like it's open. That's why a deal to get picks that doesn't carry salary past the work stoppage isn't that crazy.

It sucks.

No.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I'm playing down Hill for people who didn't even include him in the original discussion. I never said he would be a bust, in fact I said he would be kept. Him being in the doghouse is a joke.

But you tried to hide him and his $2.7 million salary from your cap figure next year, which is hilarious.

No . That's what I posited. The point was to get the picks.

As the 2009 draft showed, people on this board overrate draft picks to an amazing degree. People pimping anything but early lottery draft picks should be ashamed of themselves.

Maybe so.

If it was just a basketball decision, it might have already happened.

Sure, it's closed. People still act like it's open. That's why a deal to get picks that doesn't carry salary past the work stoppage isn't that crazy.

In that case, you can start talking about trading Duncan. There would be no need to take a $7 million scrub back.

No.

Oh yes.

[objective]

But you tried to hide him and his $2.7 million salary from your cap figure next year, which is hilarious.

I wasn't hiding him, I was disregarding him because nobody on this thread was knocking him, but Jeffries' deal. People keep bringing up the 7 million this, 7 million that. I addressed that. But if you need to pretend that I would want to hide the contract of a young lottery big playing for less than Matt Bonner to satisfy your trolling, go ahead.

In that case, you can start talking about trading Duncan. There would be no need to take a $7 million scrub back.

Nah, he's already under contract and would be nice to see his final years. A long goodbye.

[pad300]

However, looking at it now we probably would've had to of given up Blair to get both unprotected first round draft picks, and we would've taken back Jordan Hill, so it would've probably looked like this:

Mason/Finley/Blair for Jeffries/Jordan Hill/Knicks 2011/2012 unprotected first round draft picks.

Anyone who wouldn't do that in a heartbeat is out of their minds.

Well, I'm out of my mind, because while I did propose a Jeffries trade myself, I wouldn't do that. I also think your an idiot to do propose it. Blair is really potentially very good. What we should have done to trump the Houston involvement in the Kings/Knicks trade was offer the Knicks this:

Mason, Finley & Mahinmi for Jeffries, Exchange rights with the knicks in 2011, and their 2012 1st round pick

That they would have bitten on, and we would be improved this year as well as in the future.

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't hiding him, I was disregarding him because nobody on this thread was knocking him, but Jeffries' deal. People keep bringing up the 7 million this, 7 million that. I addressed that. But if you need to pretend that I would want to hide the contract of a young lottery big playing for less than Matt Bonner to satisfy your trolling, go ahead.

Then don't be disingenuous and include him in your cap number.

Jeffries and what's-his-face will add up to just short of $10 million. Which means the Spurs won't be spending any more than the minimum on any additional players.

No Manu.

No Splitter.

No possible sign and trades for players like Mason.

That's why this trade is so horrible. It's not that good on it's face, and it takes away every option the Spurs have in the summer of 2010.

Nah, he's already under contract and would be nice to see his final years. A long goodbye.

Then why even worry about rebuilding? You aren't serious about it.

[objective]

Then don't be disingenuous and include him in your cap number.

Jeffries and what's-his-face will add up to just short of $10 million. Which means the Spurs won't be spending any more than the minimum on any additional players.

No Manu.

No Splitter.

No possible sign and trades for players like Mason.

That's why this trade is so horrible. It's not that good on it's face, and it takes away every option the Spurs have in the summer of 2010.

I wasn't being disingenuous, you're being obtuse.

Jordan Hill is like a trade for Michael Finley salary-wise. You wouldn't trade Finley for Jordan Hill straight up? Troll away and say no.

The obstacle then is Jeffries and his 7 million and what that contract would cost the Spurs.

Then why even worry about rebuilding? You aren't serious about it.

The picks.

By the time those players and presumably Jordan Hill are ready to be real contributors Duncan will be retired.

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't being disingenuous, you're being obtuse.

Jordan Hill is like a trade for Michael Finley salary-wise. You wouldn't trade Finley for Jordan Hill straight up? Troll away and say no.

It's not Finley for Jordan straight up. No need to lie and pretend that it is.

The obstacle then is Jeffries and his 7 million and what that contract would cost the Spurs.

It's the combination of Jeffries' and Hill's money that completely destroys the ability of the Spurs to do anything else this summer. What part of that do you not understand? You are being obtuse and disingenuous and a liar.

The picks.

By the time those players and presumably Jordan Hill are ready to be real contributors Duncan will be retired.

Yes, your overrated picks. I'm sure you have them all penciled in as solid starters. Picks always work out.

[objective]

It's not Finley for Jordan straight up. No need to lie and pretend that it is.

It's the combination of Jeffries' and Hill's money that completely destroys the ability of the Spurs to do anything else this summer. What part of that do you not understand? You are being obtuse and disingenuous and a liar.

Yes, your overrated picks. I'm sure you have them all penciled in as solid starters. Picks always work out.

I conceded the consequences of Jeffries, that it could mean no Manu.

So I acknoweledged fully that the deal could destroy every plan for this summer, when you yourself are saying the window is closed and the only plans are to make money off Manu.

Final thoughts:

1. I wouldn't do the deal. I was just explaining how it wasn't crazy.

2. All you do is troll with the exception of d-league related posts. Keep up the good work.

[ChumpDumper]

I conceded the consequences of Jeffries, that it could mean no Manu.

So I acknoweledged fully that the deal could destroy every plan for this summer, when you yourself are saying the window is closed and the only plans are to make money off Manu.

Final thoughts:

1. I wouldn't do the deal. I was just explaining how it wasn't crazy.

It's crazy.

2. All you do is troll with the exception of d-league related posts. Keep up the good work.

The trade sucked ass for the Spurs.

I explained why.

You agreed, and now you are ing about that.

[exstatic]

so T-Mac's agent forced New York to sacrifice 1 first rounder and positioning with the second first rounder + a lottery pick like Hill?

He forced Houston to bring NY to the table, instead of a straight up deal with Sacto, which was basically done at the time. Do you know who his agent is? His name is Arn Tellem, and if this were baseball, he'd be Scott Boras. He's got a lot of pull, a lot of high profile clients, and you defy him at your own peril.

[chazley]

Glad to see someone with a good sense of things is posting in my defense.

Jeffries would've been a good asset for this team. So would of Jordan Hill. So would a 2011/2012 first round draft pick. And Jefferson's expiring contract+ 2011 draft pick could've potentially gotten us a star.

I'm not convinced Blair can be a starter on a championship team. In fact, Blair will never win a championship as a starter. Definitely can win one as a 6th man. I think his value is super high right now.