Reply With Quote
Sugus , look what you did. You made Chinook double down.
So I don't normally make a thread to post my thoughts if they can fit into an existing topic. I think, though, that this is a good time for an exception.
A lot of posters seem to think that Dieng's signing disproved the concern that came from the Chriss trade. This is not true. Most of the "cliff-jumping" started before the news broke that Chriss' insurance payments meant he had to stay on the roster. The points in that thread up to that point about selling salary space and opportunity cost strictly for the owners' profit remain. This is actually pretty obvious when you look at the Dieng signing.
According to timvp, the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. Let's say for argument sake that Dieng's contract is counting for $1 Million flat. That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day. If all the Spurs do is sign 10-days and eventually a guy for the rest of the season, this is enough money. However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. Remember that the Spurs sold $1.8 Million in salary space, not just the remain balance of his contract. If anything, it's almost worse that they sold it for almost a million bucks less than they originally were slated to get because of this waiving.
The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket. Kudos to the Spurs for landing Dieng, and kudos to them for getting LMA to still give back three times as much as he had to (wanted the buyout to be official before mentioning that, lest we find out the amount was even smaller). Without the Chriss trade, this would've been a coup. Rather, if the Chriss trade had included draft compensation like the needed to, it would've been a mega coup.
But as constructed, the Chriss trade looks even worse than it did 24 hours ago. The Spurs damaged their compe ive position for no reason now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived). It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day. The Spurs should still be able to get their roster filled. This didn't kill them this year, but it definitely restricted the leeway they have to build the best team they can.
So PATFO and Ownership: Sure, my opinion for them is more hopeful now than it was before. They have enough sway with ownership to be able to talk them out of a bit of cash. That's seriously important when trying to evaluate the state of the Spurs as an organization. Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. However, that this trade ever happened means folks should still be concerned between the relationship between PATFO and this new ownership coalition. This type of trade should've never come up for a team seriously looking to win games. The liquidation efficiency for this move, even had Chriss' full insurance payout occurred, was always bad. There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses. The Chriss trade is the same canary it was on Wednesday, even if the mine hasn't exploded yet.
Sugus , look what you did. You made Chinook double down.
We don't have insight into the machinations of PATFO, yet this reads like a conclusion based on every single fact.
If the Spurs really are getting the insurance payments, does this line of reasoning still stand?
I have yet to hear a definitive answer as to whether the Spurs had to keep Chriss on the roster to get the insurance payments.
(Interesting note that I guess I'll put in this thread: According to a very reliable source, the Spurs profited more than $1 million from the Chriss trade. If they would have kept him the rest of the season, the total profit would have been around $2 million.)
I mostly agree with Chinook. I view it slightly more optimistically though. My assumption of what happened:
-Spurs were seeking to take advantage of their extra roster spot and the limited amount of money they had under the luxury tax.
-They thought they had a deal for Melli, Iwundu and a second rounder for Lyles but that fell through at the very last second.
-With only seconds to spare, the Spurs went with one of their fallback plans that were still on the table.
-The Chriss trade would have profited $1 million or $2 million -- so it made use of the two assets (roster spot, lux tax room).
Now if the Spurs spend the trade deadline looking to make money, then that would be a different story. Maybe they did ... but the evidence gives me hope that they didn't.
I know a select few fans will pull the "This is a small market, of course every dollar matters during a pandemic" card to explain away the Chriss trade. But oldheads know that timvp doesn't care about the owners profiting. When Holt was holding up Tony Parker's extension ('04, I believe) and when the Spurs traded away Scola to get under the luxury tax, I was livid. I'm a fan of the team but my fandom doesn't extend to the pockets of the ownership group. I couldn't care less about that, especially since anyone with any understanding of accounting knows that ownership is profiting whether they want to admit it or not.
On it's face, the Chriss trade remains a money grab. Pop even admitted that. That's not good unless you're a fan of the owners' bank account for some reason. A financial move that has actual positive ramifications on the basketball team (like even the Scola trade) is understandable. A financial move that is only for profit that negatively impacts the flexibility of the basketball team is another matter. The Chriss trade was in the latter group -- and it's the first Spurs trade I can remember that is in that group since the Holts have been in charge.
As it turns out, I think it's close to a non-issue. It looks like the Spurs will round out their roster with Dieng and Reynolds. Cashing in could have cost the Spurs an opportunity ... but it apparently didn't. That's good news but I do agree with Chinook that the Chriss moves now makes it necessary to keep an eye on what ownership values the most going forward.
I still can't tell what the LMA discount was? That will tell me more than anything because I'm sure they had it negotiated before the deadline and therfore knew how much room they'd have after the buyout. Paul Garcia is still adamant that he gave back over $7M... I'm hoping in a couple days we'll know for sure. If he really did give us that much room I'm not as concerned with the Chriss trade...if it was as small as Chinook used in his post then I'd tend to agree with his assessment and be more concerned.
This is what we have gotten to. The disrespect for David Robinson, Tim Duncan and to a lesser extent Tony/Manu is at an all time high. Fair amount of luck involved in both Pop and ownership’s success the last 20 years. Pay homage to those guys and realize there is no lotto ticket waiting for the next dynasty and we certainly are not positioned to build it ourselves with the current management and coaching staff. Another few years of the garbage we have been dealing with from a front office stand point and this team will have earned their Vegas residency. As an out of towner i’ll miss visiting SA but also I enjoy sinning so keep up the good work PATFO.
This is ing pathetic. You all need to give it up. Just sad, dreary, pathetic idiotic wankery. Jesus Christ.
OP dropping truth nukes tbh.
I'm reminded of when all you candyasses were sobbing that we didn't pick up Corey Maggette or the trade for J.R. Smith fell through.
The fact of the matter is, none of you know even remotely about basketball as much as you think you do. The FO made a trade to pick up some cash and it's like Thanos nutted on your mother.
Holy is this board hilarious.
I guess we’re supposed to be mad that ownership choose easy money over wasting money for the sake of wasting money because the optics of using the last roster spot on a guy that will ultimately mean nothing by the end of the season is somehow “better”.
Enlighten us with your basketball knowledge, got.
Calling someone a got certainly shows your intellectual superiority. Everyone knows you can’t argue against a phobic slur.
Is there truly a concern with the owners struggling with money when they're the first NBA organization to deploy robot tech for disinfecting the stadium?
It does show however that going forward we are screwed. Ownership is willing to interfere a lot. They pulled back for Pop. But what about when he retires? Does anyone there actually respect Brian Wrong once Pop leaves? Having a cheap meddlesome ownership is bad news. Ask the Phoenix Suns when they could’ve won a le if not for a cheap owner.
All this does is exasperate what I said before, our organization management is a show and the fact that everything hinges on a 73 year old coach who may call it quits does nothing to make me feel better. Who is our next coach? What top assistants can we get? Is Brian Wrong a good GM? Are the Holt kids going to be good owners? It’s looking bleak as the answers here are all “we have no idea.”
that is also our new stretch 4. He/Him is quiet, efficient and anti trump. Total Spurs culture guy.
And you being a whiny got shows your emotional insecurity.
Geez give it a rest man.
Yeah but also Vegas Baby!!!
Do the Spurs have to buy their own cokes like in Moneyball? That's a good sign if they are cash strapped. Maybe GSW promised to stock their fridge for a year.
This is a great look for you. A true Spurs fan we can all be proud of.
...and to think, so courageous being all that you can be from behind the comfort of your keyboard.
While I don't particularly care about ownerships money, if you told me a family that owned an nba team made a purely financial nba roster decision during a pandemic when there at the gate revenue has been slashed by somewhere between 85 and 93% for a full nba season my reaction would be "they only did it once?"
Don't very much care about this because for this season there is no one roster spot move that is going to be major for the spurs. Now once free agency comes and we start doing like the 76ers and mavs were doing just trying to hoover around the salary floor then yeah I am going to be livid.
I understand how this Chriss trade seems like new territory—trading for a guy with a broken leg to save money. But the talk about protecting the brand seems off. After suffering through the Forbes/Belinelli experiment, it feels difficult for me to see how the Chriss trade is worse for the brand. I understand, to a degree, how the optics look worse in trading for Chriss. But the damage to the brand has already been done, and arguably worse by playing such horrible players in Forbes and Belinelli above younger players that were, if not better, at least could be understood in a rebuilding project that would have been understood as rational.
Sure, the Chriss trade may feel like a betrayal to some, but what the was the Forbes/Belinelli experiment? Delusional. Not about winning. Saving face. Protecting egos.
I definitely don't want to see some hedgefund weeds take control of ownership because the hipster Holt kids are partying in NYC and too disinterested to get involved in the nuts and bolts of running a business. But if anything, after the Bubble, I would argue the team and franchise are trending in a better direction. To me, the nadir has already passed.
Not gonna lie, I'm giving this post the TL;DR for the time being, just because I got myself sick and bored of the topic after today's banter. No more cliffjumping for me, I'm full... But knowing I'm closer to pushing Chino over the edge is satisfactory
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
