Reply With Quote
Actually the best expiring contract ( McGrady's) netted the Rockets Kevin Martin and two 1st round picks from the Knicks.Exactly. The best expiring contract in the NBA got Tyson Chandler.
Fully non-guaranteed. 13M off the books like magic.
Actually the best expiring contract ( McGrady's) netted the Rockets Kevin Martin and two 1st round picks from the Knicks.
Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, but that was the Knicks. Unfortunately the other teams have so depleted them of their assets that we can't rob them blind for Tony Parker.
Not all expiring contracts are tradeable. How do you know someone will want RJ? Not too mention, usually teams only want an expiring if they are giving up a bad contract (like Spurs getting RJ). If the Spurs are rebuilding, I can't see them taking on a bad contract. That is not what they do normally. Before RJ, there were really not very many moves like that from the Spurs.
I think a 4 year deal, even if partially guaranteed is dumb. Any thing beyond 3 years is dumb imo and the only thing I think is not completely dumb is a 3 year deal w/ the last year partially guaranteed.A three year deal or four year deal (last year partially guaranteed; essentially a 3 year deal) isn't exactly a dumb mistake. Now if they give him a 5 year deal then I'd agree with you. Three years isn't that big of an investment or risk (imo).
I don't think the numbers posted so far are a dumb deal. I just think he could have had for less than $7m-$9m. And if you're paying that much, then you would be trying to get a 3 year deal max. It's debatable, I wouldn't call the other deal dumb though. Maybe a bit expensive, but not dumb.
Kevin Martin. Not that impressive tbh. Decent though. I think Damp's was more valuable because the savings were instant.
Teams will want his expiring contract for 8-9 million more so than R.J.
If the Spurs are in rebuilding mode and if R.J doesn't fit in their plan going into his third year, I can see the Spurs trading R.J's expiring for 8-9 million to a team for an expiring worth 4-6 million and for a player for the future worth 2.5- 4 million. A 1 for 2 deal where Spurs still net one respectable expiring (saving the other team roughly 4-6 million the following season).
I can see it too, I just don't put as much value in it as you do I guess.
I just don't think 3/27 or 4/30 million (partially guaranteed) is such of a dumb mistake as you are implying.
Worst comes to worst, R.J's respectable 7-9 million salary will be reasonably tradeable after his first 2 seasons when it becomes expiring.
I think worst comes to worst is you have RJ for 3-4 years because no one wants his expiring and/or you do not want what is being offered.
3 year is the max I give RJ under any cir stance, unless the 4th year is fully non-guaranteed or a team option.
Hopefully, it is a 3 year partially guaranteed contract.
My 2 cents...
4 yrs./$25 million
4th year is partially guaranteed w/ a team option.
Last edited by E-RockWill; 07-20-2010 at 07:11 PM. Reason: player can't have an ETO unless 5 contracxt is 5 seasons or more
Understood & fixed. Thank you, sir.
@ least it was only 2 cents.......
Other proven starting caliber small forwards no longer on rookie scale contracts
Luol Deng (4yr/51.31 mil) $11,345,000/ $12,325,000/$13,365,000/$14,275,000
Andre Iguodala(4yr/56 mil) $12,345,250/$13,531,750/$14,718,250/$15,904,750
Rashard Lewis (3yr/63.4 mil)$19,573,711/$21,136,631/$22,699,551
Hidayet Turkoglu(4yr/43 mil)$9,800,000/$10,600,000/$11,400,000/$12,000,000
Most Spurs would possible spend on R.J's new deal (Worse case scenario;imo)
Richard Jefferson (3yr/27-30 mil) or (4yr/ 30-35 mil) = Still good value
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 07-20-2010 at 07:18 PM.
Sure, but the Spurs having Bird Rights are not competing with any of those contracts, just against whatever RJ gets offered, if he got offered anything at all (something we're most likely never to hear about).
Exactly. With as high profiled RJ is this off season (relatively big name, surprising opt out, under the microscope...) we have not heard a peep about any team making an offer.
He might be a good value, but that does not make it a smart move.
I compare this to going to Wal*Mart to shop for food and you see a flat screen for 700 dollars that is a steal. That does not mean you buy it.
I'm reading a lot of comments that suggest the most positive aspect of this new contract is that we can trade him for expiring contracts...what's the point of even signing him then if that's the biggest advantage in signing him in the first place. Yeah, I know we're "screwed" if RJ doesn't come back to save us with another underwhelming season.
More than $6 million/year is not worth it. More than 2 years guaranteed isn't worth it either in my opinion.
Expectations will be lower and Jefferson might actually end up playing BETTER than last year.
I'm happy that the spurs no longer have a hole at SF.
I can't wait for the melt-down when he receives a 4 year $35-$40 million contract. There had to be an agreement when he opted out of a guaranteed $15 million.
this is ST. someone will always be adamant about trading a player for something. it's an obsession in this board.
Except that you don't have to have that flat screen...the Spurs, on the other hand, have to have a small forward--and can't really afford (or won't) much more than that $700 price tag...Exactly. With as high profiled RJ is this off season (relatively big name, surprising opt out, under the microscope...) we have not heard a peep about any team making an offer.
He might be a good value, but that does not make it a smart move.
I compare this to going to Wal*Mart to shop for food and you see a flat screen for 700 dollars that is a steal. That does not mean you buy it.
RJ: From overrated to underrated in one year flat
By Jeff McDonald
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblog...-saved-th.html
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
