Duncan, Trade Market Implications
Yesterday I ran a piece that attempted to point out an obvious development that some have missed: Tim Duncan is playing very well this season. Some want to qualify this by saying Duncan is receiving less double-teams, to which my response is “so what?” and “is he really?” Honestly, I’m not sure that assertion is true. And even if it is, it’s because teams need to stay home on Richard Jefferson (at least more so than Bruce Bowen) and Duncan is shooting more often on mid-range face ups, not the sort of shot opposing teams double. On this last point, consider that Duncan is attempting 2.7 shots per game from 10 to 15 feet, up from 2.3 the previous two seasons. His FG% from that range is currently 53%, up from 34% and 46% over his ’08 and ’09 numbers.
Still, some insist that Duncan is playing worse this season, which is mind-boggling. I can’t find a single shred of statistical evidence to support the claim. Amazingly, most statistics indicate just the opposite. So until someone shows me otherwise, I’m operating under the assumption that Duncan still has MVP-level basketball in his bones. And that assumption is interesting now that we’ve entered into NBA trade season.
When the Spurs traded for Richard Jefferson, everyone, including the team, indicated the the remaining two years on Jefferson’s contract corresponded with the remaining championship window on Duncan’s knees. Duncan, we were told, had two years of good basketball left. And the Spurs were pushing all in.
But with Duncan playing so well this season, San Antonio has to wonder if that 2 year window is actually a 3 year window. Does the Spurs championship window extend beyond Jefferson’s deal and into the final year of Duncan’s contract, especially if one assumes gradual improvement from George Hill and DeJuan Blair? Why is this consideration important?
Simply put, the Spurs may have opportunity to cash in on another salary dump between now and the deadline. If they can reasonably assume that Duncan will give them decent production in 2011/12, Buford and company might consider a deal (it would have to be a good deal, obviously) which took back someone’s bloated contract in exchange for a dynamic roster through 2012. You follow? Let me explain.
I’ll use the Sacramento Kings and Andres Nocioni as an example. (Note: this is strictly an example. I’m not passing it off as inside information. It doesn’t even rise to the dignity of being a rumor.) Nocioni’s contract runs through 2013, but the final year is not guaranteed, so his contract effectively expires after the 2011/12 season. His contract is not horrible, but most would describe it as bad, especially when one considers the Kings’ roster and Nocioni’s current production. There is no question the Kings, who are losing money, would gladly deal Nocioni for an expiring contract or two.
The problem for the Kings is that few teams, if any, would take back Nocioni without some sort of trade sweetener. Would San Antonio consider taking back Andres Nocioni and Donte Greene in exchange for Mike Finley, Matt Bonner, Marcus Haislip and Ian Mahinmi? This summer, that sort of deal would not fly because of the long term cap implications. Now, with Duncan playing as well as he is, it’s the sort of thing that might at least make the front office pause.
Obviously, there are drawbacks to such scenarios.
- Peter Holt committed himself to two ugly seasons of high taxes by approving the Jefferson deal, and another trade such as the Nocioni example would likely tack a third season onto his tax headache. It might be too much to ask.
- The Spurs will receive offers for Manu Ginobili and his expiring contract; some of those offers might make them think, too. Yet, it’s safe to assume San Antonio is interested in keeping Manu Ginobili in San Antonio. But if San Antonio moves for another sizable multi-year contract, they are greatly limiting their ability to resign Manu Ginobili this offseason. No one, including the Spurs and Ginobili, are sure if he’ll resign with San Antonio this summer, but these sort of trade scenarios are tantamount to saying “This is it.” The team has Ginobili’s Bird Rights, but does it matter if resigning him pushes their payroll even higher into tax territory?
- The Spurs’ early season struggles have come, in part, from a lack of “corporate knowledge.” That is, from having so many guys in their first year of the system. Trading a productive, system-smart player like Matt Bonner or Mike Finley comes at more of a cost than raw statistics indicate.
- It’s worth noting that San Antonio does not have Bird Rights on Roger Mason Jr. If the Spurs resign Mason this summer, it will come out of the MLE. The problem there, of course, is that the Spurs will presumably use a large chunk of the MLE on a Tiago Splitter offer, limiting their ability to resign Mason. If the Spurs trade for a contract that greatly reduces their ability to resign Ginobili and are unlikely to resign Mason Jr, they leave themselves with a long term hole at shooting guard with no obvious way to fill it. Update:Â While this last point is technically correct, San Antonio will have “Early Bird Rights” on Mason. They can resign him for up to 175% of his current contract-so unless another team offers Mason more than 6.5 million, San Antonio should have a decent chance of resigning him. Thanks to CGD for catching the error.
Factor in those considerations, and Tim Duncan’s strong play might not change a thing about the operating game plan.
Pingback: Whether All-Star or Role Player, Ginobili Key to Spurs Success | 48 Minutes of Hell()
Pingback: Detroit Pistons 92, San Antonio Spurs 112()
Pingback: Whether All-Star or Role Player, Ginobili Key to Spurs Success()