RJ watch is over. He'll re-sign tomorrow

[EricB]

@ starting Hairston


Good god...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

All I have to say is that all of you who seem so desperate to sign RJ for 8-10mil better not complain when he doesn't improve this season and his contract becomes an albatross around our necks.

I will happily admit I was wrong if he exceeds expectations and plays well, and consistently, at both ends, but I really think he's not going to help this team to improve next year, and that tells me we should go another direction - even if it is a scrub like Simmons playing 24 mins, and the youngsters accounting for the rest.

We are not going to magically become relevant again by signing declining vets to bloated contracts ($8mil/yr is a bit rich, but essentially okay for a proven versatile mid-career swingman like Salmons, but for a 30 year old who we already know doesn't fit our team it's a sham). It's time for youth.

[EricB]

an albatross in two years when they are a lottery team? Oh noes!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

an albatross in two years when they are a lottery team? Oh noes!

What if it is an albatross that gets in the way of a big signing? Come on, consider the bigger picture here.

If we re-sign him for his value, which is around the MLE, I have no problem, but RJ is simply not worth anywhere near 8-10mil/yr.

[EricB]

What if it is an albatross that gets in the way of a big signing? Come on, consider the bigger picture here.

If we re-sign him for his value, which is around the MLE, I have no problem, but RJ is simply not worth anywhere near 8-10mil/yr.

What big signing?

When this team goes into lottery territory no big prize FA is coming.

they didn't come in 2003 when Duncan was at his peak and they had budding studs in Parker and Manu and huge capspace.


Smell the coffee and come back to reality, the contract he gets doesn't mean squat.

The only one it matters to are people who for some reason think this matters when it all reality, it really doesn't.

They have nothing better on the bench, fact, there isn't a FA available better, fact.

[MaNu4Tres]

What if it is an albatross that gets in the way of a big signing? Come on, consider the bigger picture here.

The only big signing the Spurs can afford the next two off-seasons is Parker because of his bird rights.

With Splitter, Bonner and Anderson signed, the Spurs will only have around 7-8 million in cap space next summer and the following, which is without Jefferson and without Parker signed (with the current CBA; which is most likely to reduce with the new CBA).

Jefferson's new contract won't be the reason why Spurs can't afford a big signing the next two seasons.

The only way they will be able to add players is via MLE.

If R.J gets a 3 year deal worth around 24-27 million with a team option for the fourth year, it won't be an " albatross" around the Spurs' neck and it won't prevent the Spurs from signing a significant free agent because even before his signing they wouldn't be able to afford a player of great ability anyway.

After the first two years is up, (whether if its a 3 year deal strictly or a 4 yr deal with a team option for the 4th yr.) a 7-9 million dollar expiring contract is nothing to gripe about and is relatively easy to move to a team trying to shave off cap space or to a team trying to add a piece for a potential le run (since it's only a one year expiring).

And if for some crazy reason no team is interested in his expiring contract, the Spurs will only have Manu, R.J, Splitter, Bonner, Hill, Anderson, Blair under contract (as of now) worth a total of 38-39 million. Add in the 2011 1st rounder and the MLE for 2011 (if they use it) the Spurs will be left with around 15-17 million in cap space to be a significant player in the free agent market in the summer of 2012.

And in the following summer in 2013, Manu and R.J's (if its a 3 year deal or 3 yr deal + team option for the 4th) will come off the books and Spurs will have even more money to splurge.

As you can see Jefferson's new contract doesn't exactly hand-cuff or become an albatross to the Spurs by any means.

[mountainballer]

I think a lot of people don't realize how bad the situation was for the Spurs before RJ opted out. He was owned $15.2m plus the luxury tax, which would probably have been around $7m. I'm sure he told the Spurs "give me the $22m I would have cost you last year but spread over 2 years, then $5m per year for 2 more years for a total of $32m over 4 years".

I don't understand why people would prefer RJ for 1 year for $22m rather than RJ for 4 years for $32m total, with a nice trade chip at the end. Wiht that kind of contract the Spurs basically get RJ for 3.5m/y for 3 years...

very good post. little hope that there isn't a chance this facts won't be ignored, even by people with knowledge. IMO Spurs just did an unemotional evaluation of the options along the line you described.
if RJ in fact signs for 4 years and 32 million, it was a good deal for the Spurs in the first place! period. this goes for this year and the next year and I assume it is common knowledge that this will be the years Spurs try to stay compe ive. year 3 might be a wash and in years 4 his expiring contract might even become a valuable asset in a rebuilding process.

[Obstructed_View]

I think a lot of people don't realize how bad the situation was for the Spurs before RJ opted out. He was owned $15.2m plus the luxury tax, which would probably have been around $7m. I'm sure he told the Spurs "give me the $22m I would have cost you last year but spread over 2 years, then $5m per year for 2 more years for a total of $32m over 4 years".

I don't understand why people would prefer RJ for 1 year for $22m rather than RJ for 4 years for $32m total, with a nice trade chip at the end. Wiht that kind of contract the Spurs basically get RJ for 3.5m/y for 3 years...

To be honest, I think people would prefer RJ for zero years rather than for four years. He's already opted out, so the 1 year for 22 million thing doesn't apply. Also, while it's nice that the organization saves lux tax money, turning around and reinvesting it in Jefferson is pretty stupid. The Spurs still end up with a guy that is being overpaid relative to his contribution.

People like TPark like to on Hairston as a potential starter, which doesn't really make sense. He can't possibly be much worse can than Jefferson was last season.

[Chieflion]

very good post. little hope that there isn't a chance this facts won't be ignored, even by people with knowledge. IMO Spurs just did an unemotional evaluation of the options along the line you described.
if RJ in fact signs for 4 years and 32 million, it was a good deal for the Spurs in the first place! period. this goes for this year and the next year and I assume it is common knowledge that this will be the years Spurs try to stay compe ive. year 3 might be a wash and in years 4 his expiring contract might even become a valuable asset in a rebuilding process.

I hope the Spurs pull a Dampier like contract on Jefferson. Although the DUST chip didn't work as planned, it still got a valuable return.

[will_spurs]

To be honest, I think people would prefer RJ for zero years rather than for four years. He's already opted out, so the 1 year for 22 million thing doesn't apply. Also, while it's nice that the organization saves lux tax money, turning around and reinvesting it in Jefferson is pretty stupid. The Spurs still end up with a guy that is being overpaid relative to his contribution.

That's because you believe (and are one of the only ones, by the way) that Jefferson opted out on a whim when all the signs point towards the fact that he had some kind of agreement with the Spurs before he did so.

If you believe RJ left on a whim then it "could" make sense to believe the Spurs would be better off without him at all. Unfortunately that path leads to questionable calls re: the quality of players such as Hairston.

If you believe RJ agreed beforehand with the Spurs then signing him for 4y and $32m makes a lot more sense than spending $22m on him for just one year.

Also, 4y/$32m is a good move by the Spurs because RJ will have gotten what he wanted and will feel he came out on top and got what he was "due", which I think will lead to better play and improved commitment on his part, especially if the Spurs ask him to have a dirty or at least less flashy role than he's used to and that he could (without the benefit a long term deal) see as ruining his market value (which has already happened).

Lowballing him after he opted out, or him not opting out at all, would be much worse for the Spurs, with either the player or the organization being disgruntled, and maybe even both.

[ElNono]

What's this nonsense now? We're throwing money at people so they look less dumb from overvaluing themselves and walking away from $16m guaranteed?

Let's look at the terms. I think the amount of money/years will be indicative if there was a previous deal in place or not, as timvp said.

[ceperez]

My instincts say $32m/4 years is a bit on the low side. $36m/4 years seems fair and anything below that is a bargain.

Let's wait and see what the numbers really are. I hope it is not $40m/4 years!

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

People like TPark like to on Hairston as a potential starter, which doesn't really make sense. He can't possibly be much worse can than Jefferson was last season.

You can't really watch basketball and actually believe that, can you?

I mean, it's all good that people like to on RJ, most of it is well deserved, but saying that Hairston/Gee or whatever scrub the Spurs could eventually get for $2.3 mil would be just as good as RJ is outright nonsense.

RJ is easily worth MLE type of money, in fact, compared to some deals from the past month, he's worth even more.He's also the best available player for the SF job right now and likely for the next two seasons.This is the window the Spurs have to contend - 2 years - and for that period neither Hairston, nor Gee, Barnes, Butler, Simmons or whoever else is realistically available for the Spurs, gives a better chance to contend than RJ.

The key is having the best chance for a le run in the next 2 years, not whether or not RJ's eventual new contract would or would not be a cap killer for the begining of the rebuilding period, because it won't be and it doesn't really matter, especially right now. Maybe only to Holt but not from a basketball point of view.

[TJastal]

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.

+1

I'm with you DPG, the spurs should have just let RJ opt out and go his own way and signed someone like Barnes for the LLE

This move actually makes the Bonner signing look good in comparison.

[JonNOKC]

It is suprising how bad people make RJ out to be - in his worse year of his career he still posted 12pts, 5rebs a game while shooting a repectable pct from the field - if RJ can come back and shoot 36-38% and alittle better effort on defense then at 7-9 million a year he is not a bargain but look around the league and he no where close to being overpaid

I think RJ will make small improvements and average about 13-14pts, 5-6 rebs, shoot 48% FG, 36 3PT, and ultimately if he can bring decent defenseive minutes and show a better feel/chemistry with the offense then I consider it a successful season

[JonNOKC]

+1

I'm with you DPG, the spurs should have just let RJ opt out and go his own way and signed someone like Barnes for the LLE

This move actually makes the Bonner signing look good in comparison.

I wouldn't of had a problem with Barnes - he especially would of offered good value, but he never mentioned the Spurs as a option at any time in FA and never heard him as being targeted by Spurs FO - the advantage of RJ over Barnes is if someone is injured RJ shown the ability to be 2nd or 3rd scoring option - also some on this board vastly overrate Barnes 3pt ability which is no better and statistically worse than RJ - now is that worth 5-6 million more a year - probably not but on the landscape of free agency and contracts of SF around the league RJ's contract is hardly the travesty some on this board seem to think it is

[Obstructed_View]

That's because you believe (and are one of the only ones, by the way) that Jefferson opted out on a whim when all the signs point towards the fact that he had some kind of agreement with the Spurs before he did so.

I do believe that. Howevah, if there had been some kind of secret deal, then the Spurs would have no choice but to follow through with that deal. There are reports that the Spurs were looking elsewhere for a small forward, and it's unlikely that they would have done so if they'd committed to RJ. In fact, the way the Spurs operate, they would have just signed him for whatever this amount is the first day they could, right? I don't know for sure, but I think having a handshake agreement like that to cir vent the luxury tax is against the rules. If that's the case, then there's another reason I don't think the Spurs would have done it.

If you believe RJ left on a whim then it "could" make sense to believe the Spurs would be better off without him at all.

Exacly the case I was making. Some people don't think it's such a good deal to overpay RJ for several more years when they had this season as such a gigantic trade chip to potentially use before Tony Parker becomes a free agent and before Tim Duncan gets two or three years older. In other words, Jefferson had far more value to the team before he opted out, and it's not impossible that the Spurs might have thought so too.

If you believe RJ agreed beforehand with the Spurs then signing him for 4y and $32m makes a lot more sense than spending $22m on him for just one year.

I understand your position, and the math works, but if you believe RJ agreed beforehand with the Spurs then they had to pay him no matter what, because they committed to it. Saving some luxury tax money is great and all, but it doesn't mean much when the same player is on the floor after Tim Duncan's retired.

Also, 4y/$32m is a good move by the Spurs because RJ will have gotten what he wanted and will feel he came out on top and got what he was "due", which I think will lead to better play and improved commitment on his part, especially if the Spurs ask him to have a dirty or at least less flashy role than he's used to and that he could (without the benefit a long term deal) see as ruining his market value (which has already happened).

Again, if you believe this was agreed on beforehand, all this is moot. This sentiment that you'd better pay RJ or he will pout and suddenly suck even more is completely ridiculous. If you thought he was that kind of player, why sign him for four more years? He was horribly overpaid, and you don't continue to horribly overpay someone for fear that they'll stop trying.

Lowballing him after he opted out, or him not opting out at all, would be much worse for the Spurs, with either the player or the organization being disgruntled, and maybe even both.

I disagree. The only way he's even close to worth that kind of commitment is if all of the Spurs' young players wash out in the NBA. I'm sure TPark is crossing his fingers that it happens. If the RJ of last season is as good as he gets with the Spurs, then they're going to need to look elsewhere for someone at that position if they want to contend.

[tuncaboylu]

+1

I'm with you DPG, the spurs should have just let RJ opt out and go his own way and signed someone like Barnes for the LLE

This move actually makes the Bonner signing look good in comparison.

Someone like Barnes for the LLE? Barnes was going to sign 2 year 10M contract if Toronto did'nt use their trade exception.

Can you tell me who else like Barnes in free agent at the moment? And tell me which of them would prefer to play in Spurs for LLE? Rasual Butler? Will he accept to sign with Spurs for LLE while there are many teams are waiting to use their MLE? Who else? Bobby Simmons? Despite i love that guy, I don't think that he can be our starting SF? Do you think he can?

We went to Wallmart to get TV, not food. We are looking for LCD TV for a reasonable price. But there is no LCD TV in Wallmart and only 3D TV exist. It's also very cheap, not much more than LCD. So why don't we get 3D TV?

[Chieflion]

Someone like Barnes for the LLE? Barnes was going to sign 2 year 10M contract if Toronto did'nt use their trade exception.

Can you tell me who else like Barnes in free agent at the moment? And tell me which of them would prefer to play in Spurs for LLE? Rasual Butler? Will he accept to sign with Spurs for LLE while there are many teams are waiting to use their MLE? Who else? Bobby Simmons? Despite i love that guy, I don't think that he can be our starting SF? Do you think he can?

We went to Wallmart to get TV, not food. We are looking for LCD TV for a reasonable price. But there is no LCD TV in Wallmart and only 3D TV exist. It's also very cheap, not much more than LCD. So why don't we get 3D TV?

Because the 3D TV doesn't fit the design of the house. I don't care how good it is. It is a bad fit.

[tuncaboylu]

Because the 3D TV doesn't fit the design of the house. I don't care how good it is. It is a bad fit.

But it's better than staying without TV at home.

[will_spurs]

Howevah, if there had been some kind of secret deal, then the Spurs would have no choice but to follow through with that deal.

We don't know what kind of "deal" it could be, and there's no special reason to believe it was a straightforward "we will sign you back no matter what" kind of deal. I think something along the lines of: RJ agrees to opt out (big gift to the Spurs in terms of $$$) to check out the FA market, Spurs check on other possibilities, let's all meet back in a couple of weeks and see what's up, would be totally reasonable.

I don't know for sure, but I think having a handshake agreement like that to cir vent the luxury tax is against the rules. If that's the case, then there's another reason I don't think the Spurs would have done it.

You mean, like the secret agreements some teams have to trade a player knowing that he will be waived, and sign him up again 30 days later. Not like the Spurs have done that in the past either, of course. Now that we've got that little "there are no secret deals" fantasy out of the way we can go back to the real world of the NBA.

I understand your position, and the math works, but if you believe RJ agreed beforehand with the Spurs then they had to pay him no matter what, because they committed to it. Saving some luxury tax money is great and all, but it doesn't mean much when the same player is on the floor after Tim Duncan's retired.

Not at all, because at that point and according to my estimate, the Spurs will be effectively paying him $3-4 million per year, and if you don't think RJ is worth even that then we sure should stop talking.

Again, if you believe this was agreed on beforehand, all this is moot. This sentiment that you'd better pay RJ or he will pout and suddenly suck even more is completely ridiculous. If you thought he was that kind of player, why sign him for four more years? He was horribly overpaid, and you don't continue to horribly overpay someone for fear that they'll stop trying.

Angels might agree to get paid half of what they think they are worth and still give 100% effort. Human beings... not so much.

I fully believe that you will get the best out of people when they are happy with the terms. And regardless of some secret handshake or not, I still think it's a much better deal for the Spurs to get a happy player for 32/4 than a disgruntled player for 22/1.

If the RJ of last season is as good as he gets with the Spurs, then they're going to need to look elsewhere for someone at that position if they want to contend.

I really don't know where that comes from either. The Spurs have a history of SF not contributing significantly to raw statistics. We have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but I'll offer you a likely scenario: Pop knows RJ can be a good defender (fact - this was touted a lot when RJ got traded to the Spurs last year) and we know Pop wants RJ to go back to that defensive speciailst role (fact - appeared very often in Pop's interviews at the time). Now the side effect of that, as we have seen with e.g. Bowen, is that being a defensive specialist instead of a stat machine will suddenly make you ineligible for a variety of things, including: a large contract; consideration from the media; consideration from the large part of fans who think box score = basketball; consideration for achievements; etc. Regardless of the amount of money he was paid ni the short term, I can easily imagine RJ not being that hot about killing his statistical production for a team that hadn't contributed to him on the long term. With a new contract this situation could change drastically.

[buttsR4rebounding]

Agree with this. The overreaction as to what RJs contract could look like is premature. If it aligns with Manu's contract in terms of years and isn't large enough in terms of dollars to prevent a Parker extension, then it's probably a good value that gives this team the best chance of winning going forward.

I'm in wait-and-see mode at this point.

A bit of sanity in this thread. Thank you. For all of the RJ haters out there I'd like to know what they expected out of him last year? What would have made you happy? Afterall he DID do the following:

1. Had the highest scoring average of any 4th option in the Duncan era.
2. Had the highest rebounding average of any SF in the Duncan era except for Hedo Turkolu.
3. Shot his career percentage average.
4. Improved his defense noticeably the last quarter of the season.

So once again, what would have made you happy? The only thing that I can see is that he shot 3% below his career average from the 3 point line.

[Chieflion]

But it's better than staying without TV at home.

I already have a computer and the internet is cheap. I can watch my TV programmes on my laptop.

[benefactor]

There's a good chance Spurs may be getting away with robbery with this new deal, considering Jefferson's stock is at an all-time low.

C'mon now...this is seriously reaching. Yes, this will save the Spurs money. Yes, the Spurs don't have many other options. But this is done out of need...nothing more and nothing less. There is very little upside to keeping Jefferson.

[ploto]

If you believe RJ agreed beforehand with the Spurs then signing him for 4y and $32m makes a lot more sense than spending $22m on him for just one year.

No because with option two: he is an expiring contract possibly to trade and no matter what he is gone at the end of the year.