This is all done to clear cap space to make a run at Kidd next summer. .... Plus Daniels was their back up 2 for the most part, not their point. He was far too wild for that. I think this means that the Argentinian guy is better than some people think & that Bonzi Wells is indeed gone from Portland.
Not really. All 3 players the Spurs were sending to Por, had contracts that expire after this season. Kerr's contract expires this summer, but Barkley's lasts for another few years at 1.5 mill or so per year. Barkley's contract does not help them clear space for Kidd.
Parker, Claxton, Barkley IT'S OBVIOUS PEOPLE they are gearing up to stop the POWERFUL LINEUP OF . . . . MOOCHIE, MOBLEY AND FRANCIS With Ming and Griffen . . . They think RObinson and Duncan maybe matched. . . so they need to fight the dreaded three guard lineup Rocket River
The only logigal reason I can see in this trade from the Spurs' standpoint is that Daniels just allegedly beat the sh*t out of a junior college kid in a pickup game back in June (Adara Davis?). Maybe they're one of those wholesome family organizations that doesn't tolerate that kinda stuff. You know, the Anti-76ers.
I think Portland's looking at McInnis pretty strongly, so I'm not sure why they got McDaniels. I don't understand this trade being much help to either team, but I'm not going to complain about the Spurs making a bad trade...
Deal reduces payroll by $1 mil. SA wants to add another big without increasing their likelihood of paying the lux tax. Daniels and CSmith were going to be the 5th and 6th guards had they been retained. SA did not want contracts back that extend past 2003. If the Spurs were willing to take on contracts with more than one year remaining then they certainly could have received better talent in return (ie Murray). If this deal was made on the playground, then yeah, bad deal. But this is a business. SA wants to retain its cap flexibility in 2003. Knowing the cap situation for SA...if they had made the AD for Murray deal then they most likely would not have the cap room to sign a player with more than 7 years of NBA experience to a max deal outright in 2003 (30% for 7 to 9 yrs, 35% for more). In addition, if the cap stays at $40 mil or so then SA would have been in a tough spot to offer a player with less than 7 years of experience a max deal (25% of cap). Passing on Murray sucks, but doing so keeps them in the hunt for adding a 2nd star in 2003 instead of just a "good" free agent. Spurs are apparently rather confident in Ginobili. Until I see how 2003 goes down, the jury is still out on this deal.
Well yes & no. The real cap space they are gonna get is when Robinson retires. They would have to pay Daniels & Smith (both of whom deserve some $) now they don't have to pay anyone. The contract I'm surprised they aren't trying to ditch is Steve Smith's. When is his contract up anyway?
It doesn't hurt their cap space either. Barkley was drafted in 2000. If the Spurs do not extend a qualifying offer to him then he becomes an unrestricted free agent. All they would have to do is renounce him. They would not have done this deal otherwise.
This is not exactly right. This is not a qualifying offer situation. They first have to exercise their Team Option for the 4th season (meaing two more as a Spur), before restriction and qualifying offers ever become an issue. It is all about whether they exercise the Team Option or not. for Rockets fans keeping score, this is the same as Collier. If we exercise the option, we are stuck with him for 2 more yrs. If we don't, he becomes an unrestricted free agent next summer.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#35 "The exact percentage increase for the fourth (option) year varies by the player's draft position. It is 26.1% for the first pick, scaling up (almost evenly) to 80.5% for the 29th pick. There are also restrictions to the contract length. Under the previous CBA, these contracts must be for three years, after which the player was a free agent. With the current CBA, contracts were changed from three years to three with a team option for a fourth year (this option must be exercised by October 31 after the player's second season). After the fourth year, players are now restricted free agents rather than unrestricted (provided the team picked up the fourth-year option). These contracts can also be extended between August 1 and October 31 after the player's third season." ------------------------------ If a team exercises the option then that only makes the player a restricted free agent after the 4th season. It does not constitute an additional guaranteed year (the 5th season). Anyways, SA is not on the hook for Barkley's contract past 2002-03 as of now, so this does not hurt their cap flexibility for 2003-04.
Maybe Tony Parker is being traded? Bringing in another PG just doesn't make sense, when the future at that position is the 2nd most secure on the team. At least Daniels could slide over to the two if ever required. Silly me, trade Jesus? Yeah right.
That's not exactly correct either, HP. If you exercise the option, he remains for the following season (his 4th year in the NBA). After that time, he becomes a restricted free agent such that the Rockets can match other teams' offers to him. Yet, as we've seen, that requires giving him a qualifying offer at the end of the 4th season; otherwise, he becomes an unrestricted free agent and the Rockets are not bound to keep him in any way.
LOL. Funniest thing I've read all day. You forgot to mention that they signed Ginobili to battle against Nachbar, and washed-up Steve Smith to go stop washed-up Glen Rice.
MrSpur, I know that. You are not following me. If they want to "renounce" him at the earliest possible date, like you said, they should not take the Team Option on the 4th yr....they don't want to be put into a position concerning restricted free agency. They just want the 3 yr commitment to end--no 4th year, and thus no 5th. The decision to end the contract after 3yrs is made before this season starts. You can end his contract before all this 5yr restricted FA mumbo jumbo. I was merely correcting your description of how to end a rookie scale contract at the earliest possible date. You said, "don't make an offer sheet." That's not it. It is "don't exercise your Team Option on the 4th year." Your way implies renouncing Summer 2004. My way allows renouncing Summer 2003.
My first explanation was "exactly correct." The team option must be exercised by Oct 31st after the second year of the contract. That is this summer. Don't you remember both Kenny and Francis having theirs exercised last summer? This is Collier's year. If we do not exercise Collier team option this Summer, he becomes an unrestricted FA next year. If we do exercise Collier's team option this sumer, he is committed for 2 more years, the 3rd and 4th. What did I say, that you are disagreeing with.
