I see Marc Stein has lashed out again at Spree and Sam-I-am at ESPN.com... Granted, the T-wolves are mess but i just don't see how Taylor comes out of this smelling like roses. Spree and Sam took the team to the WC finals, that's a fact. You gotta reward your employees when they perform. Sam should have gotten an extension. Now, about Spree...$21M for three years was definetely a lowball and Taylor and McHale admitted it. Just look at the type of loot that scrubs like Mark Blount and Memo Okur were getting. Their whole point was "yeah, it's a low offer but I am kind of short on cash here and I need to pay other (aside from KG) folks like Trenton Hassell in order to field a competetive team. So why don't you make a sacrifice here for the chance to win a championship" , which prompted the "feed the family" thing and the whole media turning on him. Well, the same dude is now talking about making a $600M bid for the Vikings. How on Earth, did Spree come out looking like a bad greedy guy and Taylor comes out a victim? Granted after this season neither Sam nor Spree improved their marketability, but Taylor got what he deserved IMO. When you play cheap tricks on your employees and don't reward them for performance, don't expect them to die on the floor for you. These are proven players, Sam has the rings to show it, Spree took the Ewing-less Knicks to the Finals. if you are paying the Scherbiaks and the Hassells and the Olowakandis, you gotta pay your top performers top dough and not pretend like you are running out of money...
Would you have payed them that money? If your a responsible GM and not a knee jerk reactionary type you offer what they are worth. To be honest we all know Spree and Sam are on the decline and I bet those guys know that as well and want to make sure they will have enough money to retire on. 27mil over 3 years is 7mil/yr which is still good money and probably what Spree deserves right now based on his play and production. When you start rewarding players based on last years production without looking at the teams long term goals, vision you end up with a bunch of overpaid, old, unproductive players. I think the Wolves decided they need to invest in their future and lock in some younger players and let the old guys (right now Spree and Sam) move on. Thats my opinion.. I love their games and in their prime might be worth the money but their games are definately on the decline and whoever signs them to max/near max money would be an idiot. J
IIRC Sammy, my man BTW, is not eligible for an extension prior to this off-season. Spree low-balled? No one, as is no team will offer him 3/21mm. It was a grand offer, one extremely unlikely tgo be seen by him again.
If Spree continues his current production he is probably looking at a 3yr 10mill contract. He should have taken the money and said thank you. J
As of last offseason their games were not in decline by any mean. They have just gotten the team to the WC finals and Sam was selected as an All-Star for the first time. This season you can't say if it is decline, or they are just not playing hard because they are pissed off... Are they old? Yes they are old, but they were not in decline. When I hear an argument like this, I always remember the Houston Astros in 1998. They were offering Randy Johnson a three-year deal, saying again that he was old. Arizona offered same money but for 5 years. The Unit won the Cy Young in each one of them... Here's what bugs me: it's seems that it's a lower risk to sign a Memo Okur for 7 years than Spreewell for 5 years? That's insane. You don't know if Okur will ever be good, at least you know that Spree is good now. You don't know how long he can keep it up, but at least he is good now.
The guy put up 16\3\3 round about last year, is 34yrs and has got about 2-3yrs left in him. With his immature actions so far this season he'll be lucky to get anything close to 3yrs\21M Comparing Spree to Randy Johnson is an insult, I shouldn't have to go into details...
I think we'd all agree that Taylor can spend his money where he pleases - if he wants to buy the Vikings then he is more than welcome to! And I say good on him for not offering Spree any more than $21mill over 3 years! That's a pretty hefty contract - you're talking about a guy who is not anywhere near all-star level, and is just not worth handcuffing yourself to! If Spree gets a longer contract, then the Wolves are stuck with him when he's old and past the age of being a contributor. If they give him a bigger contract, then they are stuck with him and may well end up losing other peices of the puzzle, then find themselve scratching around to find a league minimum vet to join the squad! What year was it that Spree "took' the Knicks to the Finals? (I'd hate to give Houston, LJ or Camby any credit for that performance...) Just because Mark Blount gets a ridiculous contract doesn't mean that everyone else should too - if more GM's had more sense there'd be less "albatross contracts" hanging around clubs!
Absolutely! And the media should give him the same rap as Sterling gets in L.A. and not make it look like his players are greedy and irresponsible... Players were sleepwalking for the Clippers for many years, because they knew they werent getting paid, why is it different with Sam and Spree and Taylor?
Taylor didn't say that giving Spree a big extension would make him unable to feed his family, that's why. Spree wasn't villainized for wanting more money, but for saying something idiotic. Now it turns out that he will wish that he had taken that contract, because he is not getting close to that on the FA market.
