View Single Post
Old 02-06-13, 02:38 AM
tuncaboylu's Avatar
tuncaboylu tuncaboylu is offline
SpursReport Team Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Turkiye
Posts: 734

Originally Posted by Jose_TheGenius View Post
gosh no. no offense, but that's horrible general managing. we'd be keeping Manu until he's 38-39?

this is more feasible:

Manu: 2 years, $10 million total (2nd year not fully guaranteed)
Jackson: 2 years, $8 million

Splitter will most likely get offered $8-10 million a year for around 3-4 years in an offer sheet and he'll take it. no way SA keeps him.

if anyone thinks Splitter is a "for sure lock", then Aron Baynes must not exist. he's signed cheap for the next 1-2 years for the minimum. also, the "he's new" or "he hasn't proven himself yet", he'll probably do the same thing Splitter is doing and come out of his shell in his contract year to get his change.
Manu has still some gas on his tank in my opinion. And 3 years 18M is not overpaying for him too much, it will be a charity conract (3rd year may be team option). Yes he's injury prone and i'm always concerning to read his injury news after games. Remember Celtics offered 12M to 37 years old Ray Allen for 2 years last off-season. So why wouldn't we resign with 2 years old younger Manu for same price, for the sake of 3 rings.

I'm pretty sure that if Splitter sign 4 years 30M offer sheet elsewhere, we're going to match him. We've paid too many time to find a complimentary piece to Duncan after D-Rob since 10 years. Now, at last, it seems that we've found one and we shouldn't lose him for some money. We've paid too much money to Rasho in past, we can pay it for Splitter too.

I would prefer Jackson 3 years 10M instead of 2 years 8M.(Last year would be partially guaranteed) But we should see this year's play-offs to see how he can do. If he shows that he can still defend and shoot in clutch, we can lock him for 3 years.
Reply With Quote