Reply With QuoteNo sh1t.
Pay attention.
The Spurs will have freed up money this summer to get a passable big and lots more money in 2006 after Payton's contract is up.
Your way with Kidd leaves no flexibility until about 2008.
I guess you want Rose starting.
Is it really that hard to understand?
No matter who they sign this summer they will still have to retain other players on the team. That's it.
Next.
No sh1t.
Pay attention.
The Spurs will have freed up money this summer to get a passable big and lots more money in 2006 after Payton's contract is up.
Your way with Kidd leaves no flexibility until about 2008.
I guess you want Rose starting.
Oh man you've lost it. So the Spurs are not going to sign anyone in 2004? 2005? ing figure it out you damn cap expert.
, I suppose I will have to spell it out for the ' :
The Spurs will not have cap room in 2006 should they sign a Payton to a 3 year deal this summer because they will be signing other players to contracts in the interim.
I don't care how long you have been posting you are a ing moron.
What is you point?
Payton = less money & less years.
Even if the Spurs are filling out a roster before 2006, they don't have to sign those players long term.
Money would be freed up in 2006 with Payton gone, whereas we'd be locked in to Kidd under your plan.
You're acting like it's a necessity to have Kidd here for the long term instead of Payton for the short term.
Why?
Doesn't matter. Are the Spurs going to let Ginobili and SJackson walk? Parker? If Parker is dealt then the Spurs will have to pay whoever the **** they received in return. Dammit learn something already.
Fine.
But all of that stuff has to be resolved whether we have Kidd here at $13 million for 5 years or Payton here for 3 years at $10 million.
The cost savings with Payton is evident.
Um, yeah. Again you miss the ing point. They will be capped out regardless if they sign Payton for 3 years or Kidd for 6. There's no benefit with respect to cap room with Payton's deal ending after 3 years.
Next.
$10 million off the books in 2006 would do nothing for the Spurs?
Incredible.
Um, yeah. What do you expect them to pay Ginobili, SJackson, and Parker?
Show us. Show us the salaries of them in 2006. If you think Parker will be dealt then show us the salary of whoever he is dealt for. Bring the substance. Now's your chance.
That's not my point.
My point is that Payton represents cost savings and less year at relatively the same value than Kidd.
You've doine nothing to refute that expect stray from the argument with an assumption that saving money won't matter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions