If Nazr is playing at that level, you'd have to pay him a lot more than was due on Rose's contract. And as of right now, him holding down any position on this team is a stretch. Even if Nazr didn't improve at all right now, he'd still command more than Rose was due. NBA centers who can walk and chew gum (*cough*Adonal Foyle*cough*) are more overpaid than any position in all of sport.
Even centers who put up stats on teams that were so bad that Dion freaking Glover averaged double figures.
And you believe that will happen? Nazr will play significant minutes and contribute for years to come?If they spend exactly the money on Nazr, it will be because he can play the minutes and role everyone thought Malik would when he signed the contract.
I pretty much agree on everything you said. The only point to the Barry comparrison was that people were all over Barry even though he had a long time to get into his grove. It seems everyone is ready to flush Nazr without giving him a reasonable amount of time to get in the flow. I'm not saying it's even possible at this point in the season for that to happen.
I believe it's just a combination of uneasyness over the Malik trade, and people beginning to sweat going into the playoffs with all of the nagging injuies we've been having.
I have no idea if Nazr will pan out or not.That doesn't make Malik's contract any more attractive, does it?If Nazr is playing at that level, you'd have to pay him a lot more than was due on Rose's contract.
Yes, they will. Did you read what I wrote? I said "the Spurs will have the ~$20 million (or ~$7 million a year) to use with the mid-level exception." Maybe you misinterpretted that "with" as "and." That's not what I meant. The salary intended for Rose can now go to a player that will have to be signed with the MLE. Yes, if they resign Nazr they won't have that money. But I seriously doubt they resign him.
I know you don't know. But take a guess. Based on what you've seen of him in Philly, Atlanta, NY, and here. I know you watch a lot of basketball. A year from now, do you think you'll be interested in signing him to a contract starting at the least $7M/year?I have no idea if Nazr will pan out or not.
I'm just curious as to your opinion. You are one of the brightest basketball minds in here.
It should. If Nazr plays like the Baby Hakeem that AHF predicted, he'd get a $60M+ offer. You know this.
Hopefully Scola is the saviour that you are convinced he will be.
The point being that more likely than not, there will be SOMEONE, ANYONE making the money that Malik was going to make. So in the long run, there will be no savings.
If you want to say they did it to spend the money on someone whom they plan on actually using, that's a different story.
it won't . But I bet the spurs where doing this knowing the following going into the deal
maliks trade value was only going down as he got older and his contract got bigger. With Nazr they have the opportunity to turn him into a solid player that might be worth a lot to another team. Simply, he gives the spurs more options.
1) if Nazr does not play well we can get rid of him and not pay him anything. Use our midlevel on devin and scola
2) if he does play well then a good center would be hot on the trade market perhaps a sign and trade for another great roll player that would fit the spurs system.
I could be, and proably am totally wrong, However that is how I would look at the deal.
Yes, I read your "with" to mean along with or and.Yes, they will. Did you read what I wrote? I said "the Spurs will have the ~$20 million (or ~$7 million a year) to use with the mid-level exception." Maybe you misinterpretted that "with" as "and." That's not what I meant. The salary intended for Rose can now go to a player that will have to be signed with the MLE. Yes, if they resign Nazr they won't have that money. But I seriously doubt they resign him.
But they would have had the MLE anyway. So basically they only gained luxury tax relief?
Even if they re-sign Nazr, they'll still have the MLE.Yes, if they resign Nazr they won't have that money.
The Spurs aren't going to pay 6.5 million a year for a backup center. That's what Nazr would be for the Spurs and 6.5 million is Malik's contract in 06-07 and the amount the Spurs will have available because of the trade. They will still be over the cap, of course, but they can use that money to sign a player with the MLE. The MLE will probably be about 5.5 million. You can get more than a "sucky player" for that money.
And hopefully that player would play the minutes and role to justify his contract.The point being that more likely than not, there will be SOMEONE, ANYONE making the money that Malik was going to make. So in the long run, there will be no savings.Honestly, I'm surpised he's looking this bad. It seems he might be at the point where he's trying to make the big impression every time he's on the court instead of concentrating on working in the system. I don't know if that can be fixed this season. Given the non-systems he worked in on other teams, it's difficult to say whether he's going to rise to a Rasho-level of understanding and effectiveness. If he does, the question becomes a choice of which pair from Rasho/Nazr/Scola you're going to keep, because there aren't enough minutes to justify paying them all.I know you don't know. But take a guess. Based on what you've seen of him in Philly, Atlanta, NY, and here. I know you watch a lot of basketball. A year from now, do you think you'll be interested in signing him to a contract starting at the least $7M/year?
I'm just curious as to your opinion. You are one of the brightest basketball minds in here.
OK, I understand the confusion. Should have phrased it better. And I understand that they would still have the MLE if they hadn't traded Malik. I also understand that they could sign Nazr using his Bird rights and then also use the MLE. But both of those scenarios assume the Spurs have an unlimited payroll.
No matter what the luxury tax level is, the Spurs are only going to spend X amount of money. Malik's contract was a sizeable portion of that X. They can now use his money to sign a more useful player assuming they don't resign Nazr. Someone to replace Horry and/or someone to fill Bowen's shoes (he'll be getting pretty old at that point).
It's hard for a team like the Spurs to succeed, with a limited payroll, when they are paying ~$7 million a year for a third string PF who's 33ish. Especially when you have Tim Duncan as your starting PF.
He was pretty consistent from the baseline and from the top of the key. I wasn't worried about him knocking down his shot. Especially if he was left all by himself off the pick and roll. The only time I didn't like him with the ball is when he'd get it and try to act like tim duncan. But if was flaring out from a pick and roll and took an open shot, I wasn't upset about him taking that shot. In fact, I'd feel a whole lot better with him taking that shot then Mohammad, Marks or Massenburg taking that shot.
I was conditioned like Pavlovs dog to cringe and yell "nooooo!" at the TV every time Malik squared up to shoot from outside about 8 feet...
Don't get me wrong, Horry would still be starting but he wouldn't have to play as many minutes as he's doing right now or we wouldn't have to worry about a drop in play when horry leaves the game. Malik would basically be taking up Mass/Marks/Mohammad minutes. That alone would be an improvement in the games TD has been out.
It would've been nice to have Malik taking up Massenburg's 17 minutes during the Phoenix game. And why can't I use the New York game? It's not like we have a large sample size to choose from since he's left. The New York game is a perfect example b/c he killed us doing what he could've been doing for us. And that's hitting the open jumper off the pick and roll. , the New York game wasn't even a great game for Malik. And I'm still confused as to why you think Malik would be taking so many of Horry's minutes. I'm think of Malik taking Mass/Marks/Mohammad's minutes. And that's a good thing. I'm tired of the defense jumping on Parker and leaving our bigs all by themselves to shoot jumpers they can't make.
He sure did make us pay when we played the knicks. It would be nice to have him shooting that shot than having Marks/Mohammad/Mass shooting that shot.
he was 6-18 against us. He really made us pay. He made us pay with put backs and rebounding.... The stuff he is good at. He does not have a rep for knocking down the jumper.
He hit several jumpers in the 2nd half which sealed the deal. Malik and Marbury were a very effective pick and roll combo that game.
I know, but like I said earlier he is streaky with the jumber. on and off. He also had some great offensive boards and put backs down the stretch. My only point is that you can count on him sealing the deal with the hustle play more than with his jumper, the jumper is not his strength. he also got to the Freethrow line a lot towards the end.
I am tired of all this talk. You guys have nothing to say so you still want to bash the organization for dealing Rose who flat out is undersized and tries to do much. He wasnt going to help us and was gonna make around 8 million to sit at the very end of the bench. Nazr is a better defender and is cheaper which allows us to bring Scola over, guys please get off Malik Rose, he'll probably be back when he gets waived in the near future. Who cares about the Knicks' players anyway, lets go win a championsip!
Nope.Nazr is a better defender and is cheaper which allows us to bring Scola
Oh ok, you're tired of all this talk. I guess that should be our signal to stop? What should be talk about then? How great you are?
The last few threads have not been about trashing the org it has been about how strategies have changed with the departure of Malik
And for the last time even if they kept Malik they still could have signed SCOLA.
I thought the talking was supposed to stop last page after this post:
Maybe I misunderstood though.I pesonally feel we are focussing so much on Nazr and malik that we forgot one important piece to the puzzle. Horry!!!! if he keeps playing like he has been then this is a mute point.
[QUOTE=Kori Ellis]I know you don't know. But take a guess. Based on what you've seen of him in Philly, Atlanta, NY, and here. I know you watch a lot of basketball. A year from now, do you think you'll be interested in signing him to a contract starting at the least $7M/year?
QUOTE]
Kori , Do you think the Spurs' staff is pretty much shocked that Nazr is sucking this bad? I know I am and I didn't expect that much from him to start with.
I know that financially wise, the trade doesn't make it easier to bring Scola. But in a basketball point of view, Scola seems like an argentinian copy of Malik. A PF little undersized with a big heart. If Malik was still here, we would have two bigs with the same qualities.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
