Reply With Quote
Having Richard Jefferson on their team.
with the 20 th draft choice I think we'll go for a player capable of playng the role we desperatly lack...the famous (hopingly good defensively) 3/4.
Looks like there are some players in this draft that could be ideal for that role...my preference goes to Ebanks, that, at the moment, looks to be available at our number...but looks also to have some baggage (that could eliminate him from Spurs wiew).
The 3/4 is a role that RJ have shown he can't play...and I see regardin R.J. like the best option could be to let him exercise his option on his contract and then extend it for three years, at something like 6/8 millions for three years, so he can take at least a big part of the money he's searching for (and could not have) in the open market.
We need the MLE to sign Splitter, and if RJ goes out of his contract we go under the cap but with no money to spend...
I see RJ as a player that's gonne improve his confidence in our schemes time by time.
And, however, a decent contract could be of good use in the market.
Having Richard Jefferson on their team.
If RJ opts out, by consequence Spurs have to totally change the way to operate in the market...and having little chance to sign Splitter, maybe they could be forced to trrade his rights for a draft choice. By the way, looking at the draft, I see really no one of the first ten draft choices at the same level of Splitter (Cousins, Favors, Aldrich are really difficul to value like better players than him)...so a team willing to win now and needing a good - young big man at a fair price (MLE) could have his best convenience to trade a high draft pick for a good player already worth to be a starting center in the NBA.
In this case, the Scola outcome could be a clue for other teams...
Why would they have little chance to sign Splitter?
'cause if RJ doesn't exercise his option we are under the cap (little more than 50 million dollars) and no chance to sign Splitter if we want to sign someone else, and I'm talking also of our expired contract players (a la Bonner-Mahinmi-Bogans -Mason and the same Jefferson).
That's the reason, I think, why the Spurs have given to a lot of D League players (Hairston, Gee, Temple, Jerrels) a contract (also if not guaranteed contract) for next year...looks like, really, an emergency plan bacause of the chance that R.J. decide to not re-sign.
Not sure why people love the kid so much. Great shooter, but he's not an uber athletic wing like we need.
Salary cap logic fail.'cause if RJ doesn't exercise his option we are under the cap (little more than 50 million dollars) and no chance to sign Splitter if we want to sign someone else
James Anderson.
...while giving up something in order to get him. And it would mean the Spurs taking on likely a longer term, undesireable contract or a lesser player.
Longer yes, but not necessarily undesirable. I would TOTALLY be on board for Maggette if we can also pluck Anthony Randolph, who they're looking to move.
Preach to the choir; that's been something mountainballer and myself have been discussing since well before the deadline.
Hopefully it's something that has a chance and will be revisited over the Summer or at next year's deadline . . .
CDs premise was that RJ opted out and the Spurs did a sign-n-trade to another team for him. I don't think the Warriors would be willing to trade one big long-term deal for another.
If RJ opts in, I do see the logic in your scenario.
To add, a sign-and-trade seems even less likely when nearly a dozen teams will have enough cap space to sign him to a long-term deal outright, without having to surrender any players in return.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
