Reply With Quote
*takes down names of Richard Jefferson supporters so he can make them eat crow when RJ splooges all over this franchise if he resigns*
According to hoopshype, spurs currently have 52million on book, and the cap is projected to be 56, and so spurs 4million under cap. I dont know how does it works, can they sign some one using the 4mililion cap and then sign another one using MLE?
*takes down names of Richard Jefferson supporters so he can make them eat crow when RJ splooges all over this franchise if he resigns*
Lakers won because of length this year, and they will likely win it next year because of it. If we don't stick a decent 7 footer alongside Duncan, the Spurs have no chance.
RJs gonna take more than MLE so teams over the cap interested would need a S&T.
That is a valid point, I just think once January rolls around he won't be traded either way because he will be playing good enough for us to keep or bad enough that no teams will want his fresh 4 year $30m salary or whatever he gets...
Last season I thought was a little difference because Pop wasn't going to trade Bonner, Finley, Mason in a package three for one because he liked Bonner and its hard to find a team that you can dump three players on and they dont go over the player maximum. If the team waives players to make room it costs them a lot of extra money. RJ was arguably the biggest trade chip in the NBA besides Troy Murphy
I could see this happening too. A contract loaded on the back-end, which would make him a trade asset in 3/4 years. The thing is, by then the Spurs are going to be rebuilding, most likely. So, does a financial commitment like that makes sense?
all you ing re s suddenly caring for Richard Jefferson because you valued his CONTRACT have now morphed into you wanting him here long term!? WTF unbelievable
Ron Artest is 6-7.
Splitter is the key to getting more length and we don't run the same system as the Lakers so who gives a .
In 3/4 years, he'd be worthless on the market.
Exactly. Trades are no guarantee for big expirings, and there have been plenty that have evaporated without a return. Raef Lafrentz and Wally Szczerbiak were huge expirings that couldn't get their teams anything, and they were on teams whose owners were willing to spend whatever it took. Those guys combined for about 26 million.
You again?! I must say I admire your hard-headed persistence in the face of all that is logical and sensible.
Please take down my name. Im not a "Hairston for starter" supporter or "[unnamed d-leaguer] for starter" supporter...so by default I'm a HUGE jefferson supporter. Have you ever looked around and wondered why everyone thinks you're an idiot?
you think bringing back RJ long term is a GOOD thing?
Lakers won because they had length on every team.
If we restructure his salary, sure.
We can gloss over this later, but yeah, it had more to do with what Pop considered to be the team he was going to roll with than anything else.
Ultimately that's the other thing. I rather have some development of players that are going to be here for the whole season than a guy that might leave before the stretch run, basically wasting the time you gave him for half a season.
You want the Spurs to pay Jefferson $8M/yr until he's 34? Look, RJ leaving the Spurs with limited resources to backfill definitely hurts...but I think I'd rather have that than RJ in his 30s with declining athleticism and suspect skill.
Nobody "valued his contract", dummy. If we sign him to a long-term we can make his contract more appealing and trade him. Is it pointless to even try to explain anything to you?
If the spurs had another Bruce Bowen your point would be valid.
i don't think ANYONE can explain why a long term deal for an aged Richard Jefferson is a GOOD thing. you're ing re ed if you think so.
It's probably going to be similar to the McDyess deal. Probably a 4th year non guaranteed or partially guaranteed, so that it's worthwhile for him to have done this, but doesn't leave the team too hamstrung a few years from now and makes him a valuable trade asset in the last year of his deal.
ohmwrecker
everyone just 5 hrs ago valued his expiring contract, idiot. read the thread.
At this point, the best scenario is RJ in a sign-and-trade to a team that misses out on the big FAs...take back a player and maybe even a trade exception for the difference.
Like it or not, Jefferson coming back is probably the best option.
As it stands, the Spurs have to fill the void at SF. They can do that four ways:
1) Offer Jefferson a new contract for a few years, at a slightly lower rate. Spurs can offer as much as they want because of RJs Bird Rights, so this is probably the best value the Spurs can get.
2) Use the LLE to sign a FA small forward. This is a possibility, but with the MLE already committed to Splitter, this would leave no money left for the Spurs to address any other needs such as another big or point guard (outside of minimum contracts, of course)
3) Sign some scrubs or bring in a groomer from the DLeague, and then distribute Jeffersons minutes between the wings. I think this works in theory for guys like Hairston, but other guys like Ginobili and Andersen don't really have the tools for SF.
4) Some unforeseeable sign and/or trade.
I'm sure the Spurs FO will be pulling the strings. But out of those options, I think the Spurs are probably going to get the most production out of Jefferson returning. I don't think they are necessarily rewarding Jefferson with a long contract, as much as Jefferson is putting them in a tough situation, but they still may need to bite the bullet.
just ignore him, hes a full time re .
a sign and trade IS the best option but who would want RJ long term? he was more valuable as an expiring deal then a long-term.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
