Reply With Quote
FWIW
Born: Dec 8, 1985
Height: 6-11 / 2.11
Weight: 265 lbs. / 120.2 kg.
Prior to NBA / Country: SW Atlanta Christian Academy (GA) / USA
Info
FWIW
Very long shot, but... . I can't stand the guy, but that keeps the championship run very alive and well for the next few years.
LOL @ this clown using San Antonio's name. If they weren't playing the Finals, I doubt SA would come up as one of his destinations.
Everyone knows this clown will stay in LA because he is an attention . Not to mention the full 5y max contract that only LA can give him.
I despise Howard seriously.
He would lower the basketball IQ of the whole Spurs if he came.
Just out of curiosity: how much salary would the Spurs have to send out to do a sign-and-trade for Howard? Could a deal hypothetically be done involving the Spurs sign-and-trading Splitter to the Lakers (along with whatever other salary is required, like Bonner) for Howard? Or can the Lakers not receive a signed-and-traded player because they're over the tax?
Any free agent/trade rumor that involves the Spurs never happens. Even though Howard is not a Spurs character kind of guy the thought of a future core of Parker/Leonard/Howard sounds great.
Only enough to get within 100k of the cap. So if the Spurs renounced everyone, they could get away with trading Splitter and Mills/De Colo for Howard. If the Spurs amnesty Bonner, they should have enough money to do the trade without the guard.
The bigger issue is that the Lakers can't really take back Splitter unless they're under the apron. Even if they move Howard for a Splitter making considerably less, they'd have to amnesty World Peace or Gasol to make that happen. However, they'd then have to stay under the apron for the rest of the season, which wouldn't be really easy to do, as they still have to fill out their roster.
Another option would be for the Spurs, Lakers and a third team (Hawks?) to do a three-way deal, in which the Spurs get Howard, the third team gets Splitter and the Lakers get Mills and some better assets from the third team (Lou Williams or Al Horford, some draft picks and an eight-figure trade exception, for example).
Spurs don't need to do some kind of sign and trade to get Howard. They can simply sign him with their cap space to a max contract. The biggest obstacle to get that max cap space would be that Manu will need to be fine with taking a big paycut and sign for the room exception ($5.4M/2 years).
At the end, Spurs would end up with a Parker/Green/Leonard/Duncan/Howard starting lineup with players like Joseph, Neal, Ginobili and Diaw on the bench.
What is the max offer the spurs could give?
I had two reasons for asking about a sign-and-trade Splitter for Howard:
1) Could the Spurs do it without renouncing Manu and staying under the tax? Salaries only have to match within 125%, right?
2) The Spurs could offer a 5th year if they were willing to; Howard might make the fifth year a condition of agreeing to a sign-and-trade.
I'm confused by this. By your initial estimate, the Spurs had $22.8 Million with a $62 Million cap, so with a $58.5 Million cap, the Spurs should have $19.3 Million, which is less than Howard's max deal (about $20.5 Million). They sure do not seem to be able to afford Neal's cap hold. If they signed-and-traded for Howard, then they could fit him under the cap, but they shouldn't be able to sign him straight up.
1-The Spurs could trade Splitter while keeping all cap holds and the MLE provided they send out at least at most $5 Million less than the salary Howard wants. That's at least about $15.5 Million. Splitter isn't going to command that much, so they have to find some way to make up the difference. Bonner's deal could work for some of it if he agrees to extend his deadline. De Colo's deal could work for more of it. So it's possible for the Spurs to get the salary together to do a straight-up sign-and-trade, but as I said before, the Lakers can't actually take Splitter back without having do deal with the new apron restrictions. So they'd have to clear even more salary, or Splitter himself would have to go somewhere else.
2-The Spurs can't offer a fifth year to Howard under any scenario. The CBA stopped players from getting Bird benefits through sign-and-trades.
ya its dum to think of it
No Bird benefits at all? Does that mean the Lakers can't sign-and-trade him even to a team with enough space for the whole salary, because they couldn't resign him themselves if they didn't have his Bird rights?
The apron extends out to $4M into the luxury tax. So long as they are $4M or more over/into the luxury tax, they can not take back a player in a sign and trade, if I recall that provision correctly.
The Lakers can use a Bird exception to re-sign him, but that's not the same thing as him getting the full Bird contract (extra year, 7.5-percent increases). So the Lakers can re-sign him to a Bird contract, but they can't sign-and-trade him with those benefits. Just like the Spurs could've signed-and-trade Diaw using their MLE even though they didn't have his Bird rights.
I'm curious if the Spurs have a legit chance at getting a top free agent soon...like Dwight Howard or LeBron James?
Is that because the Lakers are over the tax, or have all teams lost the ability to do a sign-and-trade with the extra year and bigger increases?
All teams have that restriction. The Lakers just can't get back a player in a sign-and-trade because they are over the apron.
Spurs will likely need to do some move with the end of their roster (De Colo, Mills and Baynes) to get that $20.5M in cap space. It really shouldn't be that hard to do. After these moves, they would be able to just sign Howard to a max contract.
Neal cap hold will only take $0.6M in cap space by counting the roster cap hold. If Spurs go tricky by not making a QO or by withdrawing it while keeping Neal's bird rights, he will only eat $0.4M in cap space. But I agree that it will make a little harder to reach the $20.5M target.
No it doesn't. He's mentally weak, and wants to be carried like a little baby.
Why not?
The D Howard rumor sounds pretty good right about now. If we lose this series I'm pretty sure all you howard haters would reconsider.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
