jmmagicfan

I thought the "wiggle room" was only about $150K, the difference here is almost $4M?

How does that deal work? Don't the salaries have to match, since we are over the cap?

Nice

I don't see that unless they are trying to do a complete tank/re-build; which they say they aren't.

I feel for him too, but the possibility of continuing back issues was why I didn’t want us to draft him. Sorry for him, happy we passed on him.

Go B.I.G or go home??

I think there are a couple different scenarios at play here: 1) If he refuses to report to Toronto for the mandatory physical/medical check within a fairly short time (1 week?) they could void the trade. At that point, SA could either look for other trades or, potentially, void his contract; meaning he would not get paid and they would get nothing but cap relief for him. 2) He could report for the physical, not pass, and if he doesn't pass, Toronto could void the trade. Then he would be back to being San Antonio's problem, and the likelihood of anyone else trading for him becomes very small. SA loses out in this scenario as well, because now the continue to pay him (or insurance does) while he sits/rehabs; and doubtful they get an exception for him. 3) He could report for the physical, pass it; but then refuse to play/report for camp. This is where Toronto is screwed. If he refuses to play, they could potentially void his contract; and again, he would not get paid and they would have given up DeRozan, and get nothing but maybe cap relief. Realistically he doesn't have anything to gain, and much to lose by not reporting or refusing to play. That could result in his contract being voided, him losing out on this year's money, and open him up to a potential lawsuit from SA/their insurance company for last year's money. Also, I don't think LA has the cap room to sign him to a big money deal now if his contract is voided. I think the most likely scenario is that he goes to Toronto, has a reoccurring "injury" that keeps him on the bench/doing rehab through Feb/Mar, comes back just long enough at the end of the season to show everyone he is back, and then signs with LA next summer. This way he keeps this years money, he only has to play a limited time in Toronto, and he gets to go where he wants next year.

Any thoughts on if/who else we might want to add to this roster? I was thinking maybe a $3M/1 year offer to Quincy Acy? Or a $12.5M/2 year offer to Rodney Hood? Those would just about finish off our MLE and BAE, but should still keep us under the cap. I don't think Purvis is guaranteed yet, and after Iwundu's performance in Summer League, I'm not sure if he is worth keeping around. Figuring Isaac is going to swing between 3/4, and Frazier is probably going to spend a lot of time in Lakeland, I think this brings a little better balance to the team if we could get them. Augustin/Grant/Briscoe Ross/Hood/Simmons Fournier/Isaac/Simmons/Hood Gordon/Isaac/Acy Vucevic/Bamba/Birch/Mozgov (ease Bamba into starting - maybe January to "shake up" any mid-season doldrums)

Let me rephrase, I don't remember a large outcry saying we absolutely should pick it up. There was considerable discussion about whether he had done enough, whether extenuating circumstances (coaching changes, position changes, etc) contributed to his issues, and whether it was too early to give up on him. There might have been one person who came out strongly against not picking up the option; but it seemed like most people were in agreement that he wasn't worth the $5M plus option when the time came to make that decision.

They sort of can, but only from the second year on, as they have a larger % raise capability. The problem is that the "super-team" mentality also frequently comes with more marketing opportunities for those stars; and that is where they actually make up the difference. I don't think you can increase the base year for the current team sufficiently to offset the chance to chase a 'ship, and the additional marketing revenue opportunities. You might be able to offset one, but not both without crippling the existing teams cap/financial situation. Also, any change that restricts player movement has to be approved with the NBPA contract; which probably isn't going to happen.

I do agree with you about them trading away some of last years picks, instead of getting some of the players that were available. I can see how they might have wanted to limit the number of players that they were trying to evaluate. Getting playing time for those picks last year while still evaluating the entire current roster "could" have made that process more difficult. I still think it was a mistake, but I can see both sides on that.

20/20 hindsight - I don't recall a single posting on the board saying that Mario had done anything that made picking up his year 4 option worthwhile. Up to that point his "flashes" were few and far between, and didn't seem to be increasing in frequency, which might have given us a reason to pick it up. In point of fact, I wonder if the fact that we didn't pick up his option is what lit the fire and caused him to focus more and start producing. The idea that suddenly there was no guarantee and he could be out of the league if he didn't.

No, that was years 4 & 5 of the Hennigan plan. We're only in year 2 of the Weltham play; we have another year or two to go before we get to the trade away/desperation mode! Hopefully, with THIS rebuild plan we don't get to that desperation mode, I guess we'll see in a couple of years.

My wife's English, so had to down-vote you on that one! Nothing personal!

Which goes to show that scout knows nothing about ballerinas. They are phenomenal athletes and pure muscle.

We don't have one, so we're going to just play 4 on 5 to start each game.

Yeah, well my 1st grade teacher's best friend's nieces' husband said that his yard guy's brother works for Isaiah Thomas' father doing his yard, and he said that your uncle uses Roundup; so he doesn't know anything about yards.

Okay, there's our third-string, developmental PG; now for the real stuff!!

Exactly

B-, or maybe just an I(ncomplete)

This makes no sense. No one is going to promise that and put it in writing/contract; and if it is only verbal, who cares? My response is, we are offering you a contract because we believe that you can be our starter; we want you to succeed and recover to be able to take that role.

Certainly better than Payton/Augustin/Mack

Mack had a $1M guarantee, and there was talk of the team stretching that over 3 years instead of taking the full hit to this year’s cap.

No, he was waived last week

I don’t think Parker is talking with anyone besides SA. Jack and Harris are quality veteran backups, but probably not starters any more