-
-
I'm not seeing how the Thunder's owner can be ahead of San Antonio's. They are only in the first stage of their plan and still need to hand multiple extensions out/add other peices around the talent already in place. The Spurs built a dynasty through good drafting and excellent pickups in the foreign market
One Jefferson move doesn't cancel all that out imo.Last edited by Archer; 07-26-2010, 12:00 PM. -
And the Jefferson deal wasn't even that bad
Jefferson's opt-out and lower-salaried return means the Spurs will save about $17 million in salary, luxury tax and tax distributions this year (if one presumes Splitter was coming regardless). Jefferson's new deal cost $31 million after this season, which is all we care about since the Spurs were paying him in 2010-11 either way. Subtract $17 million from $31 million and you end up with Jefferson's deal as a three-year, $14 million extension, which seems eminently reasonable … if you were going to prearrange such a thing.
So the Spurs ended up with both the best and worst contracts of this offseason. But on balance, they're paying $13 million a year for the next three years for a Splitter-Jefferson combination. I'd take that deal any day, and between it and drafting James Anderson, I think the Spurs are in much better shape for next season than many people realize.Comment
-
Comment
-
Bryan Colangelo at 27.... that even sounds too high.
Leafs offseason training!Comment
-
I have trouble with David Kahn being only #26, he's far worse than Colangelo.
Dude just replaced Al Jefferson with Darko.
The one beef I have with this list are a few of the "top" GMs haven't really done anything with their teams. Yeah the Jazz have stayed competitive, but they've never truly contended for an NBA title which is largely because their GM always puts them in too good of a spot. If they don't get a lottery pick or add a superstar via FA (which is tough to do when you build a well-balanced team) you're likely never going to win an NBA title.
Good enough to make the playoffs every year, but not good enough to win a title but not bad enough to ever improve via a superstar.
It's tough to say I guess. Yeah those guys are good GMs because they keep their teams competitive every single year, but what's the real end game, especially in the NBA? Are the Jazz content just being a really good, hard working 3-6 seed?Last edited by FedEx227; 07-26-2010, 12:33 PM.Comment
-
Mitch at #13?
Behind of guys like the Mav's GM who's strategy seems to be, spend a ton of money on old guys and win nothing? And one spot above e the Knicks? Yeah that makes sense.Comment
-
Kings top 10 :happy:
Comment
-
Joe Dumars way too low. Too much "what have you done for me lately" on this list, and exhibit A is Larry Bird being last. Rod Thorn too low, too.
Too many GM's ranked high from places like POR, DEN, HOU, etc who's teams have done nothing.Comment
Tweet
Comment