Reply With Quote
Holt is just doing whatever he needs to do to avoid the luxury tax.
Call it cheap or call it smart.
would he have paid Sean Elliott the non-guaranteed half of his contract after he had his transplant? There was language specificly put into his deal, because after the aborted Detroit/Houston trade it was known that Sean had kidney disease. Also, would the Spurs constantly run a 14 or 15 man roster/DL when they only need pay 12?
Cheap is Donald Sterling who asks why he has to buy socks for the players.
Holt is just doing whatever he needs to do to avoid the luxury tax.
Call it cheap or call it smart.
I completely agree with you. Everyone wants to call Holt cheap, but he stepped up with Manu, Parker (to an extent) and even Malik. There's a difference between being cheap (Sterling) and being financially responsible. There's about 28 teams that wish their teams management ran things like the Spurs management. Look at it this way, if the Spurs wanted to clean house and start from scratch in about 5-6 years they wouldn't have that far to go.
I'm not sure what the ticket prices in SA are, but, IMO, if the Spurs went into the luxury tax then you can almost guarantee a big increase in prices. Wizards games prices are outrageous, and they haven't won anything in 25 years.Holt is just doing whatever he needs to do to avoid the luxury tax.
As far as Sean Elliott's contract, there were two-years and $10M on the contract after the 1999 championship. So you are telling me that if Peter Holt were cheap he would have torn that contract up after the championship to save $5M? He would have been lynched
And also, Elliott hasn't seen much if any of that money. The only way the Spurs got Holt to build a practice facility was to have Elliott to pay for it and whoever owns the Spurs in like 20 years will pay back Elliott. Very nice thinking there Holt. It's not like every other team in the league has one or anything.
Regarding holding 14 or 15 players on the roster, that costs about $1M total ... considering that the NBA pays for most of the minimum contracts for non-rookies. Plus every team in the league carries more than 12 players so it's not like it's a luxury or anything.
There really isn't any argument to say Holt isn't cheap. He stole more than a $100M from Tim Duncan and the day that he eventually sells the team, he's going to profit something like $300M. Add that to the profit he's turning on a yearly basis, and you start to understand how cheap he is.
To not allow your team to compete at a financial level comparable to most teams in the league is a sign of a bad owner.
Period.
If the Spurs didn't have Tim Duncan, all this cap crap and playing the financial game would be out the window.
There would be no championships, no playoffs, only annual lottery appearances and the Spurs would still be playing in the alamodome or gone to another city.
Holt can play the game because he has had 1 or 2 of the better players in the NBA.
Lets give credit where credit is due.
Tim Duncan.
I call it premature. The luxury tax threshold will likely change with the new collective bargaining agreement. (The trade I have heard is players agree to reduce the maximum number of years on a contract in exchange to raising the luxury tax threshold.)
And if the threshhold doesn't change? It's probably better to bet against that at this point. Betting for it can get you stuck in contract jail for a LONG time.I call it premature. The luxury tax threshold will likely change with the new collective bargaining agreement. (The trade I have heard is players agree to reduce the maximum number of years on a contract in exchange to raising the luxury tax threshold.)
You've gotta be kidding me.
If you're not:
1. How did he talk Sean into it? "Gee, Sean I'm sorta strapped for cash, can you help a brotha out?"
2. Why doesn'c Sean charge rent?
3. How much did the damn thing cost, anyway?
As far as Sean Elliott's contract, there were two-years and $10M on the contract after the 1999 championship. So you are telling me that if Peter Holt were cheap he would have torn that contract up after the championship to save $5M? He would have been lynched
And also, Elliott hasn't seen much if any of that money. The only way the Spurs got Holt to build a practice facility was to have Elliott to pay for it and whoever owns the Spurs in like 20 years will pay back Elliott. Very nice thinking there Holt. It's not like every other team in the league has one or anything.
Regarding holding 14 or 15 players on the roster, that costs about $1M total ... considering that the NBA pays for most of the minimum contracts for non-rookies. Plus every team in the league carries more than 12 players so it's not like it's a luxury or anything.
There really isn't any argument to say Holt isn't cheap. He stole more than a $100M from Tim Duncan and the day that he eventually sells the team, he's going to profit something like $300M. Add that to the profit he's turning on a yearly basis, and you start to understand how cheap he is.
To not allow your team to compete at a financial level comparable to most teams in the league is a sign of a bad owner.
Period.
You've let your emotions take over your basketball sense in the last few days. Unbelievable.
Holt has given long-term contract to Duncan, Manu, Parker, Barry, and Rasho over the past couple of years or so. He's paid Bruce, he's paid Pop, and he kept an average bench player making a starter's salary for several years even though he could have unloaded him in the past.
Holt doesn't dish out money like Mark Cuban, but he's an owner with a successful team in a small market. Cheap is Donald Sterling, and owner who salivates at the thought of putting together a roster of players collectively making the CBA minimum.
You're talking about an owner in San Antonio. And he's given out recent long-term deals to several players. And many of those contracts extend many years and involve a lot of money.
I think he's been pretty responsible with his money. The team has competed at a high level, kept it's best players, and has not gotten stuck with many bad contracts. The Spurs are going to be over the cap for years. That's right - Holt has given the O.K. to management to put the team over the cap for years.
I simply can't imagine what you want. If you are hoping for Holt to spend like Mark Cuban, you're rooting for the wrong team. It's not ever going to happen. But when you consider that the Spurs are a small market team, I simply cannot imagine how you can expect him to do more than s out several long-term contracts and commit his team to being over the salary cap for years. That's not being cheap. It's not being freewheeling, either.
It's being reasonable. If you expect more, you'll be complaining for a very long time.
If there's one common thread amongst every professional sports team in the world, it's that all of them have fans who think their owner is a cheapskate.
Not kidding. It's the truth.
1. Story goes the front office was desperate for Holt to build a practice facility. He refused to spend his own dime so someone asked around and found that Elliott was willing to defer payment in order for the team to build the practice facility. That's why when it was open, Pop joked that it should be called the "Sean Elliott Center" ... seeing as he paid for it.
2. Good question. His thumb print doesn't even allow him access, if you can believe that.
3. The estimated costs at the beginning was $6M and I believe it ran a little over that, IIRC.
Unbelievable.
Really bottoms out my opinion of Holt.
I wish we had a team like Portland, New York, or Dallas who has owners willing to spend the big bucks on their team!
Brodels...don't forget Holt almost let Parker walk go unsigned over 2 million...this after Parker already went halfway on the difference.
Pop and Duncan had to make a public plea to get that deal done.
I don't think he's as tight as TimVP does...but IMO as successful as the Spurs have been...with the support they have...he's getting a lot more out of this team than he is putting back into it...
Be glad we got a couple of small market geniuses(who are also lucky) like Pop and RC, and a lot of players who place an emphasis on winning...or else he would like Sterling...if the team were even still in SA.
I'm not emotional at all. I'm happy Rose finally got traded and is free to do what he can do. I think Nazr has a chance to do good things in SA, but I'm far from convinced at this point.
You've let your emotions take over your basketball sense in the last few days. Unbelievable.
Wow. He did all that while staying in the lower third of NBA salaries. Big deal.Holt has given long-term contract to Duncan, Manu, Parker, Barry, and Rasho over the past couple of years or so. He's paid Bruce, he's paid Pop, and he kept an average bench player making a starter's salary for several years even though he could have unloaded him in the past.
I never compared Holt to Sterling. Sterling is another creature.Holt doesn't dish out money like Mark Cuban, but he's an owner with a successful team in a small market. Cheap is Donald Sterling, and owner who salivates at the thought of putting together a roster of players collectively making the CBA minimum.
So? He's paying right at the cap like he has the last five years or whatever. No change.You're talking about an owner in San Antonio. And he's given out recent long-term deals to several players. And many of those contracts extend many years and involve a lot of money.
First off, being responsible has to do with the management. Pop and RC have done a great job of not sticking the team with any bad contracts.I think he's been pretty responsible with his money. The team has competed at a high level, kept it's best players, and has not gotten stuck with many bad contracts. The Spurs are going to be over the cap for years. That's right - Holt has given the O.K. to management to put the team over the cap for years.
Secondly, the Spurs will be right at the cap or right over the cap ... but rest assured it will be below the luxury tax threshold. That's been the plan and will continue to be the plan.
All I ask is the Spurs play to win. If they made the Rose trade for any other reason than to get better, that is BS. As I've said countless times, the only way this trade lowers the salary numbers in coming years is if:I simply can't imagine what you want. If you are hoping for Holt to spend like Mark Cuban, you're rooting for the wrong team. It's not ever going to happen. But when you consider that the Spurs are a small market team, I simply cannot imagine how you can expect him to do more than s out several long-term contracts and commit his team to being over the salary cap for years. That's not being cheap. It's not being freewheeling, either.
A) Nazr sucks so bad that the Spurs don't re-sign him.
B) Nazr is good enough that some other team signs him to more than the Spurs are willing to pay.
Even if Mohammed is average or shows any sign of potential, believe you me he'll get offers FAR surpassing what the Spurs owed Malik. You are kidding yourself if you do not accept this as truth.
Again, I just don't accept an owner who isn't trying to win. If you trade a player to cut costs in the middle of the season when you are the best team in the league because you MIGHT face luxury tax problems THREE years down the road, that is silly. And if you are that worried about a luxury tax penalty, why not wait until the CBA is extended this summer to see what the rules are?It's being reasonable. If you expect more, you'll be complaining for a very long time.
Think Spurs fans, think.
Please.I wasn't advocating adding 10 million a year in payroll.
We'll know for sure what the threshold will be this summer; possibly even before the end of this season. It is not unreasonable to decide to wait and see what it will be set at BEFORE trading Rose; especially since it won't be until the start of next season, when Parker's contract extension kicks in, that we'll start getting close to bumping up against the current threshold.
What this move tells me is that either:
1. Pop and RC really believed they needed a more legit center to compete for a championship this year, or
2. Holt decided that to him, Malik wasn't worth the money he was being paid anymore.
Excellent point.All I ask is the Spurs play to win. If they made the Rose trade for any other reason than to get better, that is BS. As I've said countless times, the only way this trade lowers the salary numbers in coming years is if:
A) Nazr sucks so bad that the Spurs don't re-sign him.
B) Nazr is good enough that some other team signs him to more than the Spurs are willing to pay.
Even if Mohammed is average or shows any sign of potential, believe you me he'll get offers FAR surpassing what the Spurs owed Malik. You are kidding yourself if you do not accept this as truth.
Since when is breaking the tax threshold "right at the cap."So? He's paying right at the cap like he has the last five years or whatever.
You're too smart to misrepresent that way.
When someone can tell me exactly how much money the Spurs lost in the dome and how much real profit they stand to make in the next 25 years, I might join in on all this bashing.
Remember how much money some of us thought Sarunas Jasikevicius was making in Europe? It's easy to say one thing or another about money when you don't actually use numbers.
If it were only about Nazr, that would be all there is to it.
Whatever you think about Scola (I've seid numerous times I don't know how he'll pan out), the Spurs have already made up their minds about him. To think the Spurs expected to do anything but bring Scola in and play Malik even fewer minutes for even more money if he stayed is not realistic.
Since when have the Spurs broke the tax threshold? When I said right at the cap I should have said that the Spurs stay right below the luxury tax threshold. And they've been doing it for years.
The Spurs lost some at the Dome, but Holt has probably made up that money by now. And if he hasn't, he's bound to profit hundreds of millions of dollars once he decides to sell the team. He's not doing charity work here. He's a rich man who is getting richer by the year.
The real value in owning a franchise is how much you can sell it for, not how much profit it makes on a yearly basis. The handful of millions you do or don't profit in any given year is dwarfed by the eventually selling price.
That's the nature of the business.
Then say it. They've see-sawed between cap and tax thresholds because that's the way the contracts were arranged. It's all up from here.When I said right at the cap I should have said that the Spurs stay right below the luxury tax threshold.As I said, it's easy to say.The Spurs lost some at the Dome, but Holt has probably made up that money by now.And? If he doesn't plan to sell anytime soon, what model is he supposed to work on? The "lose money every year and hope to sell at a price to make it all up" model?The real value in owning a franchise is how much you can sell it for, not how much profit it makes on a yearly basis. The handful of millions you do or don't profit in any given year is dwarfed by the eventually selling price.
If money were the sole issue, we'd all be cheering on our Anaheim Spurs. That's the nature of the business.
From what I remember Elliot only deferred 2M of his salary, which was to be paid back over 3 years. Do you remember the main reason for building the practice facility was....ding ding ding....to keep Tim Duncan from joining the Magic.
As for going over the luxury tax, the Spurs have been over the past two years. But because they were only over it by a few hundred thousand dollars they received a rebate check.
No, they were over the salary cap. They weren't over the luxury tax threshhold.As for going over the luxury tax, the Spurs have been over the past two years. But because they were only over it by a few hundred thousand dollars they received a rebate check.
I did say it. If you would have looked at the rest of that post, you would've seen what I meant. Sorry I didn't spell it out in ever sentence.
Yeah, it is. I'm not Peter Holt. I'm not privy to his financial records. What other way can I "prove" how much he makes or doesn't make. Most reasonable people can look at facts and deduce good guesses. I have done that.As I said, it's easy to say.
He's making money every year. If he keeps the team, he'll make tons of money over the next 20 years. If he sells the team, he'll make tons of money.And? If he doesn't plan to sell anytime soon, what model is he supposed to work on? The "lose money every year and hope to sell at a price to make it all up" model?
I don't see how you are defending a guy who pinches pennies to the point that Pop and Duncan had to call him out in the press to s out two million dollars to lockup the franchise point guard. A guy who wouldn't build the practice facility on his own dime. A guy who might have forced the Spurs to trade a player so that three years from now they might go over the luxury threshold.
The Spurs should play to win.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
