Reply With Quote
Spurs made an offer. He turned it down. You failed. Try again.
Writing checks isn't that big of a deal when it comes to the actual personnel decisions that built those le teams. We're supposed to applaud Holt because he didn't those up too?
Spurs made an offer. He turned it down. You failed. Try again.
Not really. They also let Brown walk without compensation because of Holt. Pop even tried to move the great Barry to keep him within the limits set by Holt.
Spurs couldn't make an offer to land him because of Holt. Try again.
Read the le of this thread.
You wanna make a "Why didn't the Spurs resign Devin Brown?" thread, go ahead.
You were owned in this one.
ing Evans in his own words said he was given an offer.
I wasn't "owned" (I think that loses its significance once one passes the age of 15, but I digress) at all. The Spurs couldn't make a compe ive offer for Evans' services. Same difference.
Compe ive or not compe ve, they made an offer.
I'm done with this thread. You are a sad human being.
ing Evans in his own words said he was given an offer.
You'll note that the le of this thread was "Why'd the Spurs not sign Maurice Evans again?", not 'why didn't they make him an offer?'
Funny, I'm not the depressed little obsessing about new Burger Kings in San Antonio.
I think that I may have lost I.Q. points by reading this thread. Forget $4.5 million. $4.50 towards the cap would be a waste on Evans.
Developing mediocre players into respectable players becomes a low priority when you have legitimate starts willing to sign for MLE.
I simply can't believe anyone would complain about the Evans decision. It defies credulity. This isn't baseball; you can't just keep stockpiling players at the same position in AA and AAA.
Yeah, because there will always be amnesty clause casualties like Finley to sign. The Spurs have signed guys for IR before to greater than minimum contracts to develop.
Fully guaranteed 3 year, $4.5 million contracts which double when taxed? Name any team that made that kind of a non-rookie signing.The Spurs have signed guys for IR before to greater than minimum contracts to develop.
Believe.
That's the thing. At least we know that times are good. When the biggest thing you can find to complain about is the Spurs inability to offer an undersized, end-of-the-bench player who would have never seen court time a contract worth more than the minimum, things must be going pretty well.
Seriously. You're ing about the Spurs not signing Maurice Evans.
Having those roster spots occupied is one thing. And I one could make a good argument that the Spurs should fill them. But not offering an undersized bottom-rung player a more-than-the-minimum contract? Find a hobby.
The Spurs committed more that to Ron Mercer using Ferry's non-guaranteed deal. Then they waived him.
Once Mohammed walks the Spurs won't have to worry about the lux tax again.
And, again, why pinch pennies at a time like this? If you have the opportunity to land the talent, do so. If not Evans, then Brown. Brown was good enough to be your primary swing backup over Barry last season. I mean, let's be happy because ownership is forcing management into giving up players they want who cost relatively little? That's not a good sign.
and Brown and Haslem and everyone else they could've had if they had.
It's not a good thing to hamstring one of the best talent evaluation staffs in the NBA when they find a player they like, is it? Spin that.
Read or scroll.Having those roster spots occupied is one thing. And I one could make a good argument that the Spurs should fill them. But not offering an undersized bottom-rung player a more-than-the-minimum contract? Find a hobby.
Irrelevant. Is it that much different when the Spurs took on a player who they put on IR and then waived? Not really.
I'm not going to dig through the rosters tonight, but I'm sure Evans wouldn't have been the first.
Sure it is relevant. Just find another signing like that for $4.5 million guaranteed. Should be simple for you.Irrelevant.Except it costs $9 million.Is it that much different when the Spurs took on a player who they put on IR and then waived? Not really.When would be a convenient time for you?I'm not going to dig through the rosters tonight, but I'm sure Evans wouldn't have been the first.
Doesn't matter when had they waived Ferry he would've cost them nothing.
Not necessarily, as it's unlikely they will face a reduction in tax distributions next season.Should be simple for you.Except it costs $9 million.
They didn't use a guy they paid $6.7 mil to for one season and they let him ride IR.
When I feel like it. What are you going to do about that?When would be a convenient time for you?
Do you not understand English? Do I need to post ir again?Doesn't matter when had they waived Ferry he would've cost them nothing.Pretty sure that would put them over again -- to say nothing of any other potential signings.Not necessarily, as it's unlikely they will face a reduction in tax distributions next season.So you're saying they signed a guy for $6.7 million as a free agent with no other consideratioons whatsoever. Nice spin attempt, but unsuccessful.They didn't use a guy they paid $6.7 mil to for one season and they let him ride IR.Remind you about it when you "forget."When I feel like it. What are you going to do about that?
They committed $6.7 mil to a player who they let ride IR and didn't even let finish the season. You can argue the Ghostian point of whether it matters as a trade or a free agent signing.
Look, it's the principle of the matter. It's this same line of thinking that led them to miss out on Haslem. Now, hey, that was only Udonis Haslem. When ownership starts limiting the basketball peeps, especially the group in the front office, that's a red flag.
It's a key point, especially when you try to exclude the real point of that trade.They committed $6.7 mil to a player who they let ride IR and didn't even let finish the season. You can argue the Ghostian point of whether it was a trade or a free agent signing.I never saw a story saying Pop was interested in signing him. If there's a link, I'd appreciate it. For the record, I thought he'd be a good signing though he'd have completely duplicated Malik.Look, it's the principle of the matter. It's this same line of thinking that led them to miss out on Haslem. Now, hey, that was only Udonis Haslem. When ownership starts limiting the basketball peeps, especially the group in the front office, that's a red flag.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
