I'm just as confused now that I've read the thread, tbh. Nevermind the White extension - if Spurs ownership were as cash-strapped as Chino suggests, and wanted so badly to cut operational costs that they'd do the Chriss trade in the lens that Chino paints it - why get Dieng at all? The cost of his contract will surely be more than whatever the Spurs got for Chriss, and with bringing him before his contract is up, there's also the expectation that they'll try to resign him next season, further adding up the cost of this move.
The Spurs had no reason whatsoever, beyond well, basketball reasons, to go out of their way to sign Dieng - it would've been perfectly easy to let the hole at backup C carry on for another half season and pocket that money as well. So maybe I'm not understanding this right? But I don't see why Dieng's contract is a direct contraposition to the idea that ownership wants to spend as little as possible, despite understanding that it's an after-move to the Chriss trade (like, I guess Dieng would be "face-saving" over the backlash for the Chriss trade or something? In which case, Occam's Razor...).