Reply With Quote
This is an opinion I agree with and I think is the one the Spurs are pursuing.
That said, they could have done the same thing by offering RJ a 3/30 deal, and seeing if he would accept that. I mean, it's not unfathomable.
Sure, but it's a stretch to think "anyone with an opinion" takes all criteria into account.
Nah, if it's that important to him, he'll do it without prompting.Seeing that he called you out for inferring on what he thinks, maybe you should start to ask.
Not about basketball anymore. We're all arguing about the way we argue now.Unless there's another DPG21920 posting right now, I'm pretty sure he indeed is.
This is an opinion I agree with and I think is the one the Spurs are pursuing.
That said, they could have done the same thing by offering RJ a 3/30 deal, and seeing if he would accept that. I mean, it's not unfathomable.
It's possible, and it's possible that was offered and rejected. Seeing as the last year of the deal isn't fully guaranteed, it could effectively be that kind of a deal.
It seems RJ had a fair amount of leverage over the Spurs provided he agreed to opt out.
LOL Awesome picture.
Ok, so we established that all those criteria affect the business. Good.
Now, do you think NBA teams do their due diligence taking all criteria into account?
The last year of the deal is fully guaranteed.
Sure, and I believe the RJ deal might have criteria that those who have an opinion about it may not have taken into account.
Here's the breakdown of the deal, according to timvp:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=856
Really?
Last I saw, the last year was partially guaranteed and had a player option.
Was that updated in this thread at some point?
That doesn't read like all the salary was guaranteed in the first place. I'll believe it if it was all guaranteed. Doesn't change things much.
Such as? I believe the tax implication was thoroughly discussed in this thread many times. Discerning from his posts, that's certainly not what's DPG is upset about.
I can play this game. So you are saying the Spurs have not officially not paid the luxury tax. Ok.
It's a 4/$38.8m fully guaranteed contract. There's an extra $1.2m in incentives, so it can end up being 4/$40m after all is said and done.
Really? I thought he said was upset about the Spurs' walking back from the "all in" mentality and the spending that results from such a mentality. The RJ deal is clearly a part of that.
So you are saying you are arguing about something and you don't know all the details. Ok.
I'll take your word for it. The quoted post doesn't exactly say that, but I guess it's somewhere else.
Still doesn't change much.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
I'm saying that your quote didn't support your contention and I had already read that quote and therefore had as much information as you claim to have. OK.
I believe he also stated he didn't like the 4/$40m contract, and you claimed that under his criteria Manu's contract was also bad.
I am going to infer from your post that it indeed changes something. So how can one quantify how much is "much"?
I sure did.
I suppose you want to argue more about how I argue.
Fine.
I don't think he considered everything that the Spurs did.
I don't think many do.
Sure it does if you think saving money, trade value and market value are valid criteria.
Nope. You did not have as much as me, because when arguing about a players contract, I know the details. Ok.
Not really. That remains to be seen. I already said it might just be kicking the can down the road, but it might not. The time gained to act has its own value and was one of the criteria considered in the decision. I already said this.
But I had already read that post long ago and it didn't support your claim. If you have some other post that actually supports it, fine. It still doesn't change much.
So not only do you argue when you don't have the facts, you fail to observe every point in the argument.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
