Reply With Quote
no...
I didn't realize that the Spurs were on the hook for 57M next year. With that in mind, the writing is officially on the wall...Nazr or Rasho must go. No way Spurs can resign Nazr if Rasho is still on the roster. I realize that the Spurs could drag this on through the middle of next season, but the longer we wait to lock up Nazr, the more money we might have to s out...that's right, I said WE, since we will all be helping to pay these salaries with ticket price increases. I was never in favor of releasing Rasho outright, but with the acquisition of Oberto, that might not be so far-fetched. The question is, if you realized you could get Nazr to sign now, but you had to release Rasho...would you do it?
no...
I would think if the Spurs could get relatively the same amount of production out of Oberto as they could with Nazr, Nazr would be gone. He was initially attractive from a trade standpoint because of his expiring contract (also we were short on bigs from injury at the time, which now we are not). If the Spurs release him, they will just be carrying out one of the primary reasons he was drafted in the first place.
guy you are beating a dead horse. randomly select a thread and it's probably on the same topic
Really simple, Spanky...don't read it. Randomly STFU.
First off, the writing's been on the wall for two months now. Glad you came to that conclusion and posted the 48,238th thread on that fact that one of those two is probably gone.With that in mind, the writing is officially on the wall...Nazr or Rasho must go. No way Spurs can resign Nazr if Rasho is still on the roster. I realize that the Spurs could drag this on through the middle of next season, but the longer we wait to lock up Nazr, the more money we might have to s out...that's right, I said WE, since we will all be helping to pay these salaries with ticket price increases. I was never in favor of releasing Rasho outright, but with the acquisition of Oberto, that might not be so far-fetched. The question is, if you realized you could get Nazr to sign now, but you had to release Rasho...would you do it?
As for the rest of your realization (also covered ad nauseum in other threads)...
1. We're not ever the lux tax and unless we are by Aug. 15, we can't cut anyone
2. As tight as the Spurs are financially, they sure as aren't going to be on the hook for Rasho's salary for the next 4 years on top of everything else.
You do realize that if the Spurs (if they could hypothetically could) waive Rasho, then turned around and paid Nazr, they'd in essence be paying a luxury tax (monetarily speaking) on Rasho's salary anyway, right? I mean they'd still be right up against the cap, but be paying 6+ million for Rasho to play somewhere else.
Does that make any sense to you at all?
You should look in the mirror. I found three threads on the front page pertaining to Rasho and this scenario, a fourth really isn't needed. I know you might have had to scroll a whole 1/8th of the front page to find one, but come on now - put some effort into it.Really simple, Spanky...don't read it. Randomly STFU.
No matter what happens, Holt has to realize that trying to stay under the cap is hard. He must also realize that staying under and winning a championship is even harder. The dude has lots of money. The Spurs are selling mechandise all over the freaking planet. They sell out a lot of games. National TV exposure is growing more and more. He needs to quit being frugal and dish out some money.
Spurs are probably going to be stuck with Rasho, he is really one of the only bad decisions the team has made in the last 5 years or so. They way overpaid for him he is due over 32 mil in the next 4 years, i can not see any team based on his production trading for him and paying that out to him. It makes no sense to just realese him and pay the full amount to him just for luxury cap relief, might as well keep him at least you'll have depth at the center spot.
Thanks for the part of your reply that addressed my topic. However, your opinion about what I post, or what I should do...stick that up your a##, Aggie. You people who about how many times a topic has been posted, etc., need to worry about their own business...including you. We don't all live on this web site every day, some of us have J-O-B-S. Give your advice to someone who wants it...follow?
Incorrect.1. We're not over the lux tax and unless we are by Aug. 15, we can't cut anyone
AHF - when you are talking down to other posters, at least get your facts straight. Any team can waive someone using the Amnesty Clause. They don't need to be over the Luxury Tax. They don't even need to be over the Cap.
Glad I refreshed. I was just about to post that.
Just for the sake of argument I'm going to propose this idea. Since I'm not well versed in the CBA is it very possible I'm incorrect but I just wanted to see if the situation applies.
After next year, if we were to sign Nazr to a new contract and were for some reason unable to trade Rasho (everyone calm down, I'm speaking hypothetically) because of depressed trade value or too many years/money on his contract for example. Technically, wouldn't it yield a potential savings? I understand the "in essence paying the lux tax" but the following year, if Rasho is glued to the bench, and we are likely over the salary cap, aren't we looking at
Nazr's new contract (ex. $7mil) + lux tax on his contract ($7 mil) = $14 mil
Rasho's contract (~$6mil) = lux tax on his contract ($6mil) = $12 mil
For a total of $26mil for one starting center and a possible 3rd string?
And before I get the usual flamejob on the "lux tax is based on team instead of individuals), I'll argue that if the Spurs sign Nazr and they know if will put them significantly over the lux tax, they have to figure the lux tax they will be paying in addition to his salary. Otherwise, they could let him walk and they could possibly squeeze out another year without paying the tax. And if Rasho isn't being utilized and you could terminate the contract and just pay the salary and not the lux tax on it instead of keeping him and paying salary + lux tax, isn't it a possibility that you might do it? Theoretically?
Personally I'd like to hold onto Rasho to see if he can come back strong or see what the market will give for him. But if a trade doesn't work out, I think if Oberto lives up to potential and with Rasho regaining some of his form, we could get by without Nazr and can possibly trade him for a piece we might need for the championship run at midseason. It should be an interesting battle for positioning at the 5 and I don't think the outcome is obvious.
Holt actually is either last, tied for last or second to last in total net worth as far as NBA owners are concerned. He'll also be getting a smaller cut of the lux tax now but that won't matter too much because once we go over, the new rule might help him down the line.
Also, what is his total ownership stake? It's not always just a case of Holt's ability to dish more cash. I'm sure the ownership group lets him make most decisions but I sure some of the larger corporations that own the Spurs can raise objections if the Spurs make moves that reduce the team profit or put the team in a situation where they have to make a cash call to the team shareholders.
That doesn't seem too likely, IMO. If Rasho is still around by next summer, Nazr is gone.After next year, if we were to sign Nazr to a new contract and were for some reason unable to trade Rasho
I think people are foolish to believe we can sign Nazr to a Rasho like salary
Nazr is going to command a contract that begins at 8 to 9M unless he gets hurt
This is the kind of intelligent response I was looking for. I was wondering if there would be some kind of off-set between waiving Rasho and paying his salary, or signing Nazr and going over the luxury cap...this kind of clears it up. Thanks.
Dear Red McCombs,
You made that big payday in the NFL. So please be a hero and buy the Spurs back. You know you want to take Holt's place in the winner's circle for several more times during the Duncan era. And you can resolve our "luxury tax" problem better than cheapo Peter Holt, who had to be strong-armed to extending Tony Parker's contract -- or we would have been up a creek.
Look, the whole Peter Holt is a poor man bit is just a PR play that works on naive San Antonio Spurs fans.
Here are just two of the other owners of the Spurs that aren't exactly hurting for funds:
1. USAA
2. Bank of America
There is a management group, of which Peter Holt is a part, that owns this team. Money is not a problem, it's just a popular myth that the writers at the Express-News do a good job of perpetuating.
Yeah, Holt Cat isn't making the team payroll at the end of the month by moving plows at cut rate prices. He's the figurehead for a rather sizable ownership group...and a rather effective one at that.
This lux tax ruse is lame. The vast majority of NBA team owner(s) would love to have the Spurs' problem. Yet so many Spurs fans are happy when the Spurs are cheap. Well, enjoy it.
You know what!!! I am pissed off!!! I am sick and tired of the cheap ass Spurs!! When we won in 2003 we only had the 17th highest payroll in the NBA!! What the is that!! Why can't we be more like the Portland Trailblazers or New York Knicks of that year and spend 100M and be real winners!! Then 2004 rolls around and we are 22nd highest!! We sucked!! We only made it to the Conference Championships!! Look at Detroit!! They went all out! They had like.. the uhh... ummm.. 14th highest payroll!! Then along comes the freaking 2005 season, my season ticket prices STILL haven't gone up a dime (what the ?!??) and we go and win it all again!! This time with the 21st highest payroll!! How is anybody supposed to take the Champs seriously if they don't spend more money!! The Spurs are so freaking cheap that they only have the core of the team locked up until.. until.. 2010!! Thats only enough time for 5 more championships!!
I have decided to start a pe ion website along with Patriots because all they have managed to do is win the 2001,2003, and 2004 Super Bowls with a payroll ranked 23rd, 9th, and 24th.
If you have one of the two model franchises in your respective sports then dammit spend like one!!
Holt.. if you are reading this... because of your insistence on not raising ticket prices I was able to move to a better section this year and I wont be having any of that. Start recklessly throwing some money around!!
.
.
.
Or… I suppose I could wait until the Spurs suck before I start complaining about the team exercising fiscal responsibility... nah... that’s far to rational
This is funny how so many on this board mock the Suns with the JoJo deal and not wanting to over pay for him. Seems to me the Spurs are in the same boat.
When it comes to the lux. tax and paying $ for $ very few teams can afford that. Ask Mr. Cuban bout that one. Dumping Rasho is possible, but his salary will still count against the SALARY cap. The Spurs will not be able to make any trades and will be stuck, which is essentially where they are now.
Do they have any trade exceptions??
I think they would rather pay the lux tax instead of paying Rasho's contract and him play for another team.
So they'd rather pay a player $6-7mill to sit on the bench AND pay the $ for $ lux tax rather than have him play for another team? Crazy.
Isn't all they have left is the MLE? After that it's bench fodder.
If they were smart they'd find a team with a trade exception close to his salary.
No, they would rather dump him off to another team that doesn't have a ctr (the Suns for ex) than cut him and get nothing in return.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
