Originally Posted by tabspur
I'll say this again. Giving that contract to Manu, ALLOWS us to spend more. A lesser contract, we are under the cap, by a little, and we have no more available $. So, if Holt is ok with spending a few extra (under luxury tax for sure), and we can still add a player of need, this all makes sense. And for all of the complaining on this particular board, if the Spurs had let Manu sign elsewhere, for slightly more, they would have had a fan mutiny on their hands.
This needs to be emblazoned across the first message in this thread.
Giving this contract to Manu means we can sign another player. A smaller contract means that we could not. Does it make any sense? No, not at all, but that's the way it works under the NBA's bizarre cap rules.
Next person to say "We should've given Manu less and then signed AK/Ellis/Korver/Smith/whoever!" gets a