Reply With Quote
I made a freaking donation to Breast cancer research for TPark instead of buying him beer all night at a Spurs game because he does not drink.
I pay my real bets, Chump.
But not what you call bets...which are in jest, and everyone knew it.
Why tell us that he would send it if he had no intention of doing so? I told him I would pay him for it, I have money to buy a jersey. My son wanted a TD jersey when we were in SA in March, I told him that I had a Manu jersey coming in the mail from a guy that was going to send one, so he should just wait for it rather than get a TD jersey. He was excited about it, and now, I am glad he forgot about it because I will have to go back to SA and get it for him....
That is why I am pissed at Tpark.
I made a freaking donation to Breast cancer research for TPark instead of buying him beer all night at a Spurs game because he does not drink.
I pay my real bets, Chump.
But not what you call bets...which are in jest, and everyone knew it.
I suppose that son part does change the picture somewhat. On my part, I hold no grudge against TPark
Who said anything about you?I pay my real bets, Chump.
But not what you call bets...which are in jest, and everyone knew it.
Yes, I wish we had Malik. He could give us 2 inspirational games out of 5. 2 games where he was a non factor, and 1 DNP coaches decision. Was that going to drastically improve all of a sudden?
Nazr may be playing like crap right now. There was many reasons for that trade. I happen to believe it was the right thing to do. I see more upside than down. Mabye Nazr won't even be a small contributer this year, but it's not like we trade Shaq for Odom and change.
I saw right through your little post there, don't play coy with me.
I am holding no grudge, I just like to bust his balls any chance I can.
It's an epidemic. If you include yourself, you're only one of many. Being defensive about it makes it funnier though.
who me, defensive?
Doc didn't suck.
And this trade had everything to do with money, and not a lot to do with much else. I'm sure the Spurs were hoping Nazr would be playing better right now, but the truth is that this trade saved the team $22million, plain and simple.
Rose was not going to have any more impact on the Spurs than Nazr based upon the opportunities Pop afforded him.
The Spurs did net out losing 1 first round pick (counting the extra pick from Phoenix) but the Spurs would have just figured out some way to get rid of that on draft day anyway. So right there we saved some front office guys a lot of time researching a way to trade that pick. Basically the team's given some lucky guy an extra week's vacation.
Simply put, the Spurs are $22 million richer and no worse off based upon personnel who actually see the court during a game.
The Spurs aren't $22M richer. They don't pay Malik the $22M, but will have to pay Nazr money to re-sign or another big to sign. Unless the Spurs are planning on just signing people to the minimum from here on out.
There is some shady math going on in this thread. People act like you don't have to re-sign Nazr. If he shows ANYTHING, the going rate for a decent center is way more than the money that was owed to Rose. To say this is an economic move means that the Spurs have no plans of re-signing Nazr or Nazr is going to continue playing like a scrub.
P.S.
I was a fan of Doc Rivers, but he was pretty much washed up by the time he was in San Antonio. He was a master flopper, but shot 36% from the field in his first half season with the team and 37.2% the next year. That sucks pretty much however you slice it.
So how would keeping Rose help the Spurs in the big man department?
Sorry on the $$$.
I was just using the numbers from the ESPN article on the trade at the very beginning of the thread.
Seems like every time I use an ESPN article as a source of knowledge I've got someone telling me the info is incorrect. WTF?!
Or it means the Spurs didn't want to pay Malik his salary for the minutes and role he was playing.To say this is an economic move means that the Spurs have no plans of re-signing Nazr or Nazr is going to continue playing like a scrub.
So you are admitting it wasn't a financial move?
Finally.
So then what was the move for?
... here we go again..................GO!
Who knows. But I'm tired of the BS that it was a financial move.
It most certainly WAS a financial move. If Malik didn't have the huge contract that didn't fit the role and minutes he ended up playing every year, he'd still be here.So you are admitting it wasn't a financial move?
This is ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter what the trade was for at this point. Malik wasn't getting playing time to justify his salary (whether he deserved playing time or not is a whole other story). Now they have Nazr making similar money this year and next year (and probably playing even less?) and they'll have to make a choice -- re-sign him to a contract of similar money, or lose him to free agency and not have another big.
Unless they can trade Nazr for something next season, the Spurs didn't gain much but luxury tax relief in this trade.
So for this trade to be worth much at all -- Scola better really pan out. Because when Nazr's contract is up, the only bigs on the roster will be Duncan, Rasho and perhaps Scola.
So you are banking on Nazr playing better than Rose but costing the same or less money?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
What did Santa get you for Christmas?
I'm banking on signing Scola signing for half what Malik was making and seeing if Nazr catches on. Then go from there.So you are banking on Nazr playing better than Rose but costing the same or less money?
You still haven't explained how paying $7 million a year for a 15mpg guy is the best course of action.
I don't get why your saying it's not a financial move. Even if it's only supposed relieve the team for the short term, it's still based on lowering salary. Isn't it? Enlighten me.
The bottomline is this and I think ChumpDumper and timvp can agree on this point:
This move was not about dumping salary to get under some imaginary cap figure. It was about the Spurs using the money they had tied up in Rose in a different manner. If that be Nazr, Scola or whoever, the money that was going to Rose will be put to use elsewhere. Simply, it was a reconstruction of the long term salary outlook of the team by taking the Rose money and making it available in other areas.
Truce?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
