General Trades Discussion

[DPG21920]

Lol Ty for #6. Ya right.

[raybies]

If his attitude weren't so bad, I'd do it if I was Sacramento. They are in win now mode. Longterm who's better Lawson or Mudiay? I've heard Mudiay has been bombing workouts, so if Sac doesn't pick him than who Payne? I mean Collison wasn't that bad was he? I do think they need a floor general that can hit the three since they have two ball dominant players. Mudiay might have a higher ceiling than Lawson but he can't shoot. Not a good match. If Faried is included that would make for a pretty decent roster.

Lawson
McLemore
Gay
Faried
Cousins

Assuming Nik Stauskas is traded and not Ben.

Fighting for an 8th spot maybe. What y'all think?

[DrunkTXLabrat]

i'd rather have the #6 than Lawson.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

i'd rather have the #6 than Lawson.

and i'd be looking to get the 2 or 4 from NYC or LA, just to be rid of Cousins.

[cd021]

Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA
(https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA)Sources: Hornets undecided about whether they'll keep Matt Barnes for next season, when he's due $3.5M in the final year of his contract.


Possible he heads back to L.A.C, then again he would go back to a team that traded him and probably wouldn't start.

[cd021]

If his attitude weren't so bad, I'd do it if I was Sacramento. They are in win now mode. Longterm who's better Lawson or Mudiay? I've heard Mudiay has been bombing workouts, so if Sac doesn't pick him than who Payne? I mean Collison wasn't that bad was he? I do think they need a floor general that can hit the three since they have two ball dominant players. Mudiay might have a higher ceiling than Lawson but he can't shoot. Not a good match. If Faried is included that would make for a pretty decent roster.

Lawson
McLemore
Gay
Faried
Cousins

Assuming Nik Stauskas is traded and not Ben.

Fighting for an 8th spot maybe. What y'all think?

Would really depend on Portland. OKC is making it next season, Utah is probably knocking on the door and Dallas could be on the outside looking in if it goes badly in F.A.

[Chinook]

Possible he heads back to L.A.C, then again he would go back to a team that traded him and probably wouldn't start.

Nah, he can't go back to LA until after next season.

[exstatic]

If his attitude weren't so bad, I'd do it if I was Sacramento. They are in win now mode. Longterm who's better Lawson or Mudiay? I've heard Mudiay has been bombing workouts, so if Sac doesn't pick him than who Payne? I mean Collison wasn't that bad was he? I do think they need a floor general that can hit the three since they have two ball dominant players. Mudiay might have a higher ceiling than Lawson but he can't shoot. Not a good match. If Faried is included that would make for a pretty decent roster.

Lawson
McLemore
Gay
Faried
Cousins

Assuming Nik Stauskas is traded and not Ben.

Fighting for an 8th spot maybe. What y'all think?

In the East, maybe. Count on OKC being back, and don't sleep on the Lakers, who, after injuries, will be adding essentially 2 lottery picks and Kobe back into the mix.

[exstatic]

Possible he heads back to L.A.C, then again he would go back to a team that traded him and probably wouldn't start.

They've changed the rules to avoid just this kind of scenario. He can't play for the LAC until July 2016, at the earliest. There is a one year moratorium on resigning your own traded and released player. To Matt Barnes, the NBA is essentially a 29 team league for the next 12 months

[cd021]

They've changed the rules to avoid just this kind of scenario. He can't play for the LAC until July 2016, at the earliest. There is a one year moratorium on resigning your own traded and released player. To Matt Barnes, the NBA is essentially a 29 team league for the next 12 months

I knew they changed it for players who got traded and brought out (like when Brent Barry got traded and brought out and then resigned) was unaware of that specific rule though.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

In the East, maybe. Count on OKC being back, and don't sleep on the Lakers, who, after injuries, will be adding essentially 2 lottery picks and Kobe back into the mix.

plus a happy to be there Rondo.

[DPG21920]

If Lawson can truly fetch the 6th pick, than the Spurs should be shopping TP.

[raybies]

Cavs looking to trade Haywood and first round pick.

[CGD]

Cavs looking to trade Haywood and first round pick.

That'd be one way to clear more cap space

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Cavs looking to trade Haywood and first round pick.

i'd take that deal.

[Chinook]

So I was on Real GM in a thread about Boston moving up from 16 to 12 to grab Miles Turner, when I suggested the following trade:


Could the Spurs help?

Jazz get 16 and Mills

Celtics get 12

Spurs get 28 and Booker (and maybe a future second)

Utah gets a strong locker-room presence and bench scoring.

Boston gets their guy with only giving up 28 (and maybe the aforementioned second)

Spurs get a mini dust-chip and another shot at the underrated talent pool in the middle of the draft. Or they get the ability move up in the draft by taking a bad contract from another team (21 and Felton for 28 and Booker, for example).

Is this equitable for all parties?

What do folks think about this trade? If Boston kicked in the 2016 Philly pick, I think it would be a no-brainer. Even if it were some awful pick, I'd be inclined to do it.

[Chinook]

Assuming that trade went through, how would folks feel about the Spurs using Booker and 28 to move up to 19 (taking on Webster) or 21 (taking on Felton)? Might allow the Spurs to grab Portis and Wright in the first and maybe Young in the second (with perhaps some cash to trade up).

Roster:

PG: Parker, Joseph, Wright
SG: Green, Ginobil, Webster
SF: Leonard, Anderson, LJC
PF: Duncan, Diaw, Portis
C: Splitter, Baynes, MLE guy

Would love that lineup, actually. Gives the Spurs a nice two-year window and a handful of guys to build around when it's all over.

[Richie]

So I was on Real GM in a thread about Boston moving up from 16 to 12 to grab Miles Turner, when I suggested the following trade:



What do folks think about this trade? If Boston kicked in the 2016 Philly pick, I think it would be a no-brainer. Even if it were some awful pick, I'd be inclined to do it.

In any other year I'd like the deal for the Spurs, but judging by how the front office have structured the contracts of players like Splitter, Diaw and Mills it's clear that they are targeting free agency. Maybe we'll strike out but we'll never have a better chance of landing an All-NBA player than we have this summer with Aldridge. For a similar reason, there's no way we're taking on a bad contract IMO.

I'm also not the enamored with the prospects from #26 onwards. If we could combine #26 and #28 to move up around 5 spots to grab one of Anderson or RJ Hunter I'd be much more interested.

It's a good proposal though, wouldn't be upset if it happens but I'm worried about our backup point guard next year if we trade Mills. It's very unlikely we can keep Joseph while also adding a free agent which is a priority for me.

[Richie]

Assuming that trade went through, how would folks feel about the Spurs using Booker and 28 to move up to 19 (taking on Webster) or 21 (taking on Felton)? Might allow the Spurs to grab Portis and Wright in the first and maybe Young in the second (with perhaps some cash to trade up).

Roster:

PG: Parker, Joseph, Wright
SG: Green, Ginobil, Webster
SF: Leonard, Anderson, LJC
PF: Duncan, Diaw, Portis
C: Splitter, Baynes, MLE guy

Would love that lineup, actually. Gives the Spurs a nice two-year window and a handful of guys to build around when it's all over.

I really like that lineup as I think Portis is gonna be a good player and would fit well here, but there's no way the Wizards move down 9 spots to dump Webster when it won't do anything to give them any serious cap room to play with. I also doubt the Mavericks would do it and don't think Portis will be there at #21 even if they did.

[TheGoldStandard]

So I was on Real GM in a thread about Boston moving up from 16 to 12 to grab Miles Turner, when I suggested the following trade:



What do folks think about this trade? If Boston kicked in the 2016 Philly pick, I think it would be a no-brainer. Even if it were some awful pick, I'd be inclined to do it.

Dont think Portis will be there but Anderson or grant could be at 19 or 21 and then pick up a big at 26 like Christmas, wood, harell

[99 Problems]

Fwiw I think Portis is going 12-16

[buttsR4rebounding]

I have no idea what CHA is doing there. Poor Al Jefferson. I bet he wishes he opted out.
Charlotte is dumping last season's big free agent mistake. They were fortunate to be able to get rid of it.

[ace3g]

The Clippers are also exploring trade options for Jamal Crawford, according to sources, and one possibility is trading Crawford and C.J. Wilcox, the team’s 2014 first round pick, to the Denver Nuggets for Wilson Chandler. The Clippers inquired about Chandler last season but nothing materialized.

“We’re going to be very creative,” Rivers said. “We have a pretty good plan in place. It started (Monday) and we feel comfortable with where we’re at.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/clippers/post/_/id/8010/rivers-eyes-reserve-role-for-stephenson-will-find-a-starting-sf

[Juan]

Personally I'm not that big on Portis after watching him quite a bit in college. Good kid but not sure his game is going to translate that well. I think he's going to have trouble shooting the NBA three with consistency and he's not that great a player in the post.

Id love For the Spurs to get their hands on Jerian Grant though. He's a playmaker and the spurs desperately need some of that. I really like his game.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

I don't understand the support for a Mills trade.

[benstanfield]

I don't understand the support for a Mills trade.

He and Splitter are basically our only tradeable assets that anyone would want. If we have our eyes on a mid-first rounder, one of those two is probably gonna have to go.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/13131159/los-angeles-lakers-actively-trying-acquire-demarcus-cousins-trade-sacramento-kings

Lakers trying to acquire DeMarcus Cousins.

[timtonymanu]

:lol Kirby and Cousins

[exstatic]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/13131159/los-angeles-lakers-actively-trying-acquire-demarcus-cousins-trade-sacramento-kings

Lakers trying to acquire DeMarcus Cousins.

Probably the only thing that could make me hate Cousins MORE...

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

613215873680207872

[Vic Petro]

613728199697125376

[Vic Petro]

613844655210430465

[raybies]

613844655210430465

doesn't make sense for Charlotte who already has a starting forward. As for Portland. They could be eyeing Justin Anderson at the 3 at that range.

[benstanfield]

Whoever runs the Hornets is smoking that good green. First trading Lance for less than nothing in Hawes' awful contract, then trading a 19 year old #9 pick who played decently last year for Batum, who was arguably the worst player in the Blazers rotation last year.

How can it be so hard to be a competent GM?

[ace3g]

Alex Kennedy @AlexKennedyNBA
(https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA)I hate to sound like a broken record, but ANOTHER league source just told me he expects a lot of trades in next 24 hours. This will be fun!

[Andthentherewas21]

YES! Off-season has come early this year.

[CGD]

After the playoffs this is the best time of year in the NBA

[Chinook]

I made this proposal in the massive LMA thread. But I think it'll get buried over there. But instead of making a separate thread, I'll just drop it here:


I wonder what it would take to combine Splitter's trade and Baynes' signing into a large S&T for Aldridge. The salaries match, so the Spurs could take back LMA while only committing $14.7 Million or so to their cap (if they were to still go that route). Portland would absorb no salary. I think Atlanta would be game for the trade, as it seems like they're getting too good of a deal as it is. Detroit has no incentive to do the S&T, so the Spurs would probably have to pay them (Bertans maybe?). Portland would be the hardest one to convince, I think. Would probably take a first and more to get them to agree, though the Spurs would have plenty of leverage.

That would actually allow the team to stay over the cap (the team should have Baynes' Bird rights despite not having tendered him), which means they can keep everyone can use the MLE on West. They could also look to move Joseph for a better wing for the bench. Dunno who'd bite at this point in the off-season, though.

[jyra]

With Biyombo going to TOR and with them having traded Vasquez earlier, maybe Nogueira could be available in a S&T for Cojo. Toronto also happens to be the current owners of the fully unguaranteed Luke Ridnour contract.

A package of Ridnour+Nogueira would allow Joseph's new salary to start at up to $7 million and enable the Raps to keep Lou Williams' cap hold on the books.

The Spurs would need to find a way to fit Nogueira's $1.8 million along with TD and Aldridge into cap space so a reportedly higher salary cap would really help here.

I think it would be a good deal for both teams.

[dbestpro]

Spurs cannot take salary back for CoJo trade. No money available for sign and trade.

[jyra]

Spurs cannot take salary back for CoJo trade. No money available for sign and trade.

It depends on Duncan's contract. Right now it's still unclear how big of a paycut he is willing to take.

[Chinook]

Spurs cannot take salary back for CoJo trade. No money available for sign and trade.

They have Cory's right at this point, so they don't need any more cap space. But you're right that Duncan has to be accounted for at some point. Maybe he's willing to take less to bring on Noguiera? Doubt it. Wright? Almost certainly.

[Baam]

Any capologist can tell me if they're gonna have to trade anyone? I'm getting scared for my man Boris with all the PF on the roster now...

[Chinook]

Any capologist can tell me if they're gonna have to trade anyone? I'm getting scared for my man Boris with all the PF on the roster now...

Nah. They certainly don't HAVE to trade anyone else. Depending on who else they sign, they may move some contracts midseason, though. Surprisingly enough, though, they're creeping toward the tax line.

[FireMicoHalili]

Random, but would a Kyle Anderson swap for Tim Hardaway Jr work? Both are equally terrible at defense, but at least Hardaway can shoot. Hawks owe the Spurs a solid for giving away virtually nothing for Splitter.

[Chinook]

Random, but would a Kyle Anderson swap for Tim Hardaway Jr work? Both are equally terrible at defense, but at least Hardaway can shoot. Hawks owe the Spurs a solid for giving away virtually nothing for Splitter.

I wouldn't even consider that trade if I were the Spurs. Would have traded Kyle for the 19th pick in the last draft, though. Justin Anderson, RHJ and especially Bobby Portis would have been nice to have right now.

[BD24]

I wouldn't even consider that trade if I were the Spurs. Would have traded Kyle for the 19th pick in the last draft, though. Justin Anderson, RHJ and especially Bobby Portis would have been nice to have right now.
RHJ and Justin Anderson have both looked pretty solid so far. Really wanted RHJ to be honest, was dissapointed we didn't trade up for him.

[TD 21]

I could see the Spurs trading Butler for Ellington.

Spurs perspective: Ellington is in the mold of Mason, Neal and Belinelli, which is to say, a more versatile shooter and better ball handler than Butler. He's also in his prime, inexpensive and makes sense as the fourth wing going forward.

Nets perspective: Lessen their luxury tax bill, open up more playing time for younger wings, plus a roster spot that can ultimately be used on a D-League standout.

[FireMicoHalili]

I wouldn't even consider that trade if I were the Spurs. Would have traded Kyle for the 19th pick in the last draft, though. Justin Anderson, RHJ and especially Bobby Portis would have been nice to have right now.
agreed, solid picks, but don't the Spurs lack shooting off the bench since Marco left? Kyle doesn't exactly shoot better even after a year training with Chip Engelland. Rasual Butler looks done after a solid preseason (though it's only six games into the season, so take my statement with a grain of salt). Kyle gives the Spurs rebounding and better court vision, but Diaw and Ginobili fill that need. I'm not worried the team relies on two-pointers to win games, but another shooter wouldn't hurt.

[Chinook]

agreed, solid picks, but don't the Spurs lack shooting off the bench since Marco left? Kyle doesn't exactly shoot better even after a year training with Chip Engelland. Rasual Butler looks done after a solid preseason (though it's only six games into the season, so take my statement with a grain of salt). Kyle gives the Spurs rebounding and better court vision, but Diaw and Ginobili fill that need. I'm not worried the team relies on two-pointers to win games, but another shooter wouldn't hurt.

THJ has not played a game for Atlanta. Just collecting DNP-CDs there. I don't consider him better than Butler. Anderson has a price on his roster spot, but THJ just doesn't meet it.

[FireMicoHalili]

THJ has not played a game for Atlanta. Just collecting DNP-CDs there. I don't consider him better than Butler. Anderson has a price on his roster spot, but THJ just doesn't meet it.
Him not playing doesn't address the issue he has a more fluid offensive game than Anderson. Might be character issues, but definitely not his offense. May I ask what player would one think is a fair exchange for Anderson?

[SAGirl]

THJ has not played a game for Atlanta. Just collecting DNP-CDs there. I don't consider him better than Butler. Anderson has a price on his roster spot, but THJ just doesn't meet it.


Random, but would a Kyle Anderson swap for Tim Hardaway Jr work? Both are equally terrible at defense, but at least Hardaway can shoot. Hawks owe the Spurs a solid for giving away virtually nothing for Splitter.


Him not playing doesn't address the issue he has a more fluid offensive game than Anderson. Might be character issues, but definitely not his offense. May I ask what player would one think is a fair exchange for Anderson?
I would not trade Kyle for TH bc you are underestimating Kyle's improvement on D, despite not shooting well teams don't go on runs when he plays. Hardaway has more experience, but played in a bad team and was very inefficient on top of being awful on D. He is now not even active in a good team that needs depth at the wing and which specifically traded for him. That is not good at all.

Perhaps ATL might even like that trade but I don't think SA gets a fair deal there and they like Kyle a lot. His passing skill might be redundant right now, but Manu is about to retire. I am not saying they won't trade Kyle, but he's like Cojo, being developed for a specific skill and they won't likely part with him lightly. If you want a better shooter that plays no D, you got Jarell Eddie in the dleague and Pop didn't go for it.

[FireMicoHalili]

I would not trade Kyle for TH bc you are underestimating Kyle's improvement on D, despite not shooting well teams don't go on runs when he plays. Hardaway has more experience, but played in a bad team and was very inefficient on top of being awful on D. He is now not even active in a good team that needs depth at the wing and which specifically traded for him. That is not good at all.

Perhaps ATL might even like that trade but I don't think SA gets a fair deal there and they like Kyle a lot. His passing skill might be redundant right now, but Manu is about to retire. I am not saying they won't trade Kyle, but he's like Cojo, being developed for a specific skill and they won't likely part with him lightly. If you want a better shooter that plays no D, you got Jarell Eddie in the dleague and Pop didn't go for it.
1. Not underestimating his defense. At the same time, improvement doesn't mean he's any better on an NBA level.
2. Reasons as to why he's not playing are mere conjecture at this point.
3. There's Ray Allen and Jarrell Eddie on the FA pool, but the Spurs are stacked with 15 men on the roster. Which one of them goes?
4. Teams don't go on runs = good defense?

[SAGirl]

1. Not underestimating his defense. At the same time, improvement doesn't mean he's any better on an NBA level.
2. Reasons as to why he's not playing are mere conjecture at this point.
3. There's Ray Allen and Jarrell Eddie on the FA pool, but the Spurs are stacked with 15 men on the roster. Which one of them goes?
4. Teams don't go on runs = good defense?
He just had a very good game last night. His defensive effort was noticeable in that game. What I meant about teams not going on runs you can deduce. Take a player like Austin Daye for example. Unless he is absolutely scorching hot, he doesn't help much and rather hurts it bc defensively despite having some tools in his size and length, he was always lost. You could not afford to play him unless you absolutely had to, and when he played even for a few minutes the other team went on a run. Whether it was because he was late on help defense or weak, and pushed over, or blown by, whatever the reason he was very inadequate. Kyle is not that. He's solid enough on team defense and on his own man that you can sustain a lead with him, or if someone is hot in the Spurs you will get a lead.

I don't think he will be traded, personally, but I could see where others would want to trade him. TH Jr. is not better than him though.

[FireMicoHalili]

He just had a very good game last night. His defensive effort was noticeable in that game. What I meant about teams not going on runs you can deduce. Take a player like Austin Daye for example. Unless he is absolutely scorching hot, he doesn't help much and rather hurts it bc defensively despite having some tools in his size and length, he was always lost. You could not afford to play him unless you absolutely had to, and when he played even for a few minutes the other team went on a run. Whether it was because he was late on help defense or weak, and pushed over, or blown by, whatever the reason he was very inadequate. Kyle is not that. He's solid enough on team defense and on his own man that you can sustain a lead with him, or if someone is hot in the Spurs you will get a lead.

I don't think he will be traded, personally, but I could see where others would want to trade him. TH Jr. is not better than him though.
I'll hold my breath on one good game. Even Austin Daye had a good game against the Sixers (22 pt outburst). Never a good thing when the new guy jumps over you in the rotation despite having one year of experience in that same system. Didn't say it was a straight up swap either. The Hawks have other assets to bundle with Hardaway.

[SAGirl]

I'll hold my breath on one good game. Even Austin Daye had a good game against the Sixers (22 pt outburst). Never a good thing when the new guy jumps over you in the rotation despite having one year of experience in that same system. Didn't say it was a straight up swap either. The Hawks have other assets to bundle with Hardaway.
It wasn't a fluky shooting night like Daye is capable of once or twice a year, while being a terrible defensive sieve. Anderson has been good defensively and brings other things to the team.

[FireMicoHalili]

It wasn't a fluky shooting night like Daye is capable of once or twice a year, while being a terrible defensive sieve. Anderson has been good defensively and brings other things to the team.
I'll agree to disagree on your nebulous talking points, but I will admit my mistake if he eventually pushes out a 36 year-old Rasual Butler in the pecking order. Until then, the skepticism is warranted.

[SAGirl]

I'll agree to disagree on your nebulous talking points, but I will admit my mistake if he eventually pushes out a 36 year-old Rasual Butler in the pecking order. Until then, the skepticism is warranted.
Fair enough.

I think he will eventually be a good player for what is worth. But he's a young player and hardly ready to contribute to a championship aspiring team. I agree he could theoretically be traded for someone who is more ready, but I guess what we disagree on is that I think TH jr is not a good candidate bc he's further along in his development, plays absolutely no D, and while you mention Kyle is aweful bc he has not been able to secure the 10th spot in the team, Hardaway has not even been able to play at all for the season, getting DNP-coach decision.

Other players might be out there that could be better than Hardaway Jr. Right now though, Rasual Butler has been good enough for the team to allow Kyle time to develop his game. If there is something happening mid-season that requires someone else be added to the team (injuries or something of that nature), then that is a different scenario.

I think for right now, the team is built well enough to allow Kyle to develop.

[Nathan89]

Forgot there was a trade thread so I'll comment again. Spurs should make a trade for Quincy Acy. I think he could help in some small-ball rotations. Probably wouldn't take much to get him either.

[Nathan89]

Not sure what it would take but Tyler Zeller would be a decent addition since West really isn't serviceable anymore. He's not getting minutes in Boston anymore but we don't have very intriguing assets. He scored frequently at the rim last year which is a quality that we lost in Splitter. I think that speaks to both athleticism and having a certain knack that many players don't have.

[Nathan89]

At this point the spurs will probably only make conservative moves to the roster. Which basically means the starters+Boris, Manu, and Patty are safe. Neither West or KA are good fits for the bench. Tyler Zeller would be a good possible big to replace West but short of that the team may have to stick it out and just eliminate his minutes in the playoffs which I always expected. For the wing I'd consider trading for Solomon Hill. Both these players have considerable playing time for at least one year so the learning curve is smaller for them. Although some are expecting some dleague tryouts I don't think the middle of the season is the time to integrate some no experienced player and expect anything worth a damn.

[MaNu4Tres]

Kyle Anderson and a 1st for Robert Covington.

Would give SA incredible defensive versatility that's needed if they were to play the Warriors in the playoffs.

[Chinook]

Kyle Anderson and a 1st for Robert Covington.

Would give SA incredible defensive versatility that's needed if they were to play the Warriors in the playoffs.

Would be interesting, but a first seems like a lot to add. I know a number of Sixers fans like Livio Jean-Charles, and it wouldn't be the worst thing to me to use him as incentive instead of the pick.

[MaNu4Tres]

Would be interesting, but a first seems like a lot to add. I know a number of Sixers fans like Livio Jean-Charles, and it wouldn't be the worst thing to me to use him as incentive instead of the pick.

It would be a late first and Covington has 2 years left on his deal after this year at the minimum. Well worth the late 1st imo.

[Kawhitstorm]

George Hill for Danny Green on line 1

[TD 21]

Butler, Simmons and a 1st for Bogdanovic.

He's having a bad season, but it's difficult to judge players in a situation that bad. He's signed through next season at approximately half of what the MLE will be by next summer and is somewhat similar to Belinelli, only bigger.

He makes sense now (to push Green, serve as the needed shooter/scorer fourth wing and as a small ball/stretch PF) and going forward (still youngish and can become the third wing when Ginobili retires).

[Chinook]

Wouldn't even think about that deal. Not giving up a first for Bogdanovic.

[TD 21]

Wouldn't even think about that deal. Not giving up a first for Bogdanovic.

I'm not even sure I would, but I'd at least consider it and it's the type of trade they need to look to make.

A month ago, I was thinking minimal fourth wing type, that's a better fit, but they should look for something bigger first and the 1st should be in play.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

the spurs should totally trade Simmons. young dunkin dude has no place in Pops roster.

[Kawhitstorm]

Kyle+Butler for Ben McLemore. Since Danny is struggling & Simmons has limited range, McLemore as Danny's backup & Manu's apprentice would be awesome. The Kings could use a vet like Butler & Kyle is the type of lanky wingplayer that George Karl likes to stockpile (Vlade might have an affinity for him too as a point center). McLemore was getting benched early in the season (Marco was eating up McLemore's minutes) but it seems like he's coming around so they might not have given up on him yet.

[TD 21]

the spurs should totally trade Simmons. young dunkin dude has no place in Pops roster.

Replace Simmons with Bonner. Though erratic, he's promising enough to not just be a throw in for salary purposes.

[SAGirl]

Are we going to get realistic here.
I like to brainstorm as much as anyone, but I can't see Pop trading anybody.
I see Pop as engaged as I have ever seen him coaching the young guys. I think he's secretly probably higher on Simmons than he'll say because he wants to keep the kid humble and working hard to raise his game, but I have seen Pop increase Simmons' stature and playing time in the team at increasing levels.

I don't think Pop has abandoned Anderson completely, and we possibly will see him again. He hasn't exactly been terrible. He's not a threat offensively and is too passive out there. . . maybe another dleague stint is in order, but I don't see Pop giving up on him.

Then you have Boban and Ray.

Pop is just too engaged this season with a new roster on top of younger guys that need coaching to contemplate a trade. I suspect we'll go as far as this team takes us, then we'll reassess at the end of the season, whether vets are retiring, which holes we have to patch, and which youngsters developed and those who didn't.

I seriously don't see us making a trade, unless it is Anderson for a relatively equally undeveloped youngster, and that is probably 80% unlikely.

[TD 21]

Are we going to get realistic here.
I like to brainstorm as much as anyone, but I can't see Pop trading anybody.
I see Pop as engaged as I have ever seen him coaching the young guys. I think he's secretly probably higher on Simmons than he'll say because he wants to keep the kid humble and working hard to raise his game, but I have seen Pop increase Simmons' stature and playing time in the team at increasing levels.

I don't think Pop has abandoned Anderson completely, and we possibly will see him again. He hasn't exactly been terrible. He's not a threat offensively and is too passive out there. . . maybe another dleague stint is in order, but I don't see Pop giving up on him.

Then you have Boban and Ray.

Pop is just too engaged this season with a new roster on top of younger guys that need coaching to contemplate a trade. I suspect we'll go as far as this team takes us, then we'll reassess at the end of the season, whether vets are retiring, which holes we have to patch, and which youngsters developed and those who didn't.

I seriously don't see us making a trade, unless it is Anderson for a relatively equally undeveloped youngster, and that is probably 80% unlikely.

I agree, that they won't trade Anderson or Simmons, but Butler's spot is probably going to remain up for grabs until the buyout period. Of course, it'll probably take a marked upgrade to usurp him though.

Even with Simmons showing promise, he doesn't solve the need for another high-percentage, volume three-point shooting wing.

[SAGirl]

I agree, that they won't trade Anderson or Simmons, but Butler's spot is probably going to remain up for grabs until the buyout period. Of course, it'll probably take a marked upgrade to usurp him though.

Even with Simmons showing promise, he doesn't solve the need for another high-percentage, volume three-point shooting wing.
I know your point about the 4th wing, but Pop is probably ready to roll with what he has.
If Danny were to get his shot back it is not that big of a deal. He shot well last game and Pop's pressure on him by promoting Simmons, has apparently put the fear on Danny to stop slacking off.

Both Kyle and Simmons have shown they can hit the corner 3. I think they are at 42% and 37% in corner 3s with limited attempts obviously as they both don't play too many minutes to get that many wide open corner 3s but they can hit that shot.

Rasual has been hitting lately, and I think Pop is so engaged developing the other two younger wings, that they have just pushed Rasual out of the rotation. As it should be, Pop is developing the team's future, Rasual is there for insurance in case they have a rough night, or there are injuries, and he's shown he can still play a few quality minutes.

I think we have a solid roster save a true backup center and nothing can be done about that.

[TD 21]

I know your point about the 4th wing, but Pop is probably ready to roll with what he has.
If Danny were to get his shot back it is not that big of a deal. He shot well last game and Pop's pressure on him by promoting Simmons, has apparently put the fear on Danny to stop slacking off.

Both Kyle and Simmons have shown they can hit the corner 3. I think they are at 42% and 37% in corner 3s with limited attempts obviously as they both don't play too many minutes to get that many wide open corner 3s but they can hit that shot.

Rasual has been hitting lately, and I think Pop is so engaged developing the other two younger wings, that they have just pushed Rasual out of the rotation. As it should be, Pop is developing the team's future, Rasual is there for insurance in case they have a rough night, or there are injuries, and he's shown he can still play a few quality minutes.

I think we have a solid roster save a true backup center and nothing can be done about that.

I don't think Green has been slacking off and him progressing to the mean would lessen the issue, but it would still be an issue.

Whether Anderson and Simmons can hit the occasional three is virtually irrelevant because defenses won't respect them either way and they're not a threat to shoot/hit them in volume.

Butler hit two in garbage time last night, but is still sub 30% on the season and has struggled shooting for the majority of the calendar year.

I'd rather another high-percentage, volume three-point shooting wing, than a true backup center.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Are we going to get realistic here.
I like to brainstorm as much as anyone, but I can't see Pop trading anybody.
I see Pop as engaged as I have ever seen him coaching the young guys. I think he's secretly probably higher on Simmons than he'll say because he wants to keep the kid humble and working hard to raise his game, but I have seen Pop increase Simmons' stature and playing time in the team at increasing levels.

I don't think Pop has abandoned Anderson completely, and we possibly will see him again. He hasn't exactly been terrible. He's not a threat offensively and is too passive out there. . . maybe another dleague stint is in order, but I don't see Pop giving up on him.

Then you have Boban and Ray.

Pop is just too engaged this season with a new roster on top of younger guys that need coaching to contemplate a trade. I suspect we'll go as far as this team takes us, then we'll reassess at the end of the season, whether vets are retiring, which holes we have to patch, and which youngsters developed and those who didn't.

I seriously don't see us making a trade, unless it is Anderson for a relatively equally undeveloped youngster, and that is probably 80% unlikely.

realistically, i can't believe Simmons is actually breaking through Pop's youth wall. I seriously can hardly stomach lame rocking the 12 jersey. i hate the spurs now. but i watch games like OKC, Portland, Atl, and i'm really excited for the Minny games coming up. From what i've seen, Pop won't be able to crotchety old man Simmons behind butler. i doubt there'll be any spurs trade this season. but i could totally see a Theo Ratliff style deal go down to ditch Butler. And i'm always optimistic about Bonner to Boston.

[Mel_13]

realistically, i can't believe Simmons is actually breaking through Pop's youth wall. I seriously can hardly stomach lame rocking the 12 jersey. i hate the spurs now. but i watch games like OKC, Portland, Atl, and i'm really excited for the Minny games coming up. From what i've seen, Pop won't be able to crotchety old man Simmons behind butler. i doubt there'll be any spurs trade this season. but i could totally see a Theo Ratliff style deal go down to ditch Butler. And i'm always optimistic about Bonner to Boston.

You mean the team that has the third oldest player in the league playing ahead of a rookie that was stashed in Europe for five years, as well as the oldest player in the league playing ahead of their rookie first round draft pick?

[DrunkTXLabrat]

You mean the team that has the third oldest player in the league playing ahead of a rookie that was stashed in Europe for five years, as well as the oldest player in the league playing ahead of their rookie first round draft pick?

do you think i'm being hypocritical, or what?

[DrunkTXLabrat]

it's one thing to be loyal to Timmy and KG. I even respect McDyess and Prince types getting theirs. I'll confess that i don't want a single minute of Andre Miller when Tyus Jones could be putting on his best Curry impression.

Dicking around with Bjelica is kinda before my Timberwolves time. Seems more like a Love/Timberwolves move than a Wiggins/Timberwolves move. I'm willing to take the hypocritical charge. I'm just glad Bjelica doesn't seem to be getting the rookie Splitter treatment. The Wolves actually do play him and seem to like him. There's no turd towers business going on there.

[BD24]

Kyle+Butler for Ben McLemore. Since Danny is struggling & Simmons has limited range, McLemore as Danny's backup & Manu's apprentice would be awesome. The Kings could use a vet like Butler & Kyle is the type of lanky wingplayer that George Karl likes to stockpile (Vlade might have an affinity for him too as a point center). McLemore was getting benched early in the season (Marco was eating up McLemore's minutes) but it seems like he's coming around so they might not have given up on him yet.
This would be a fantastic trade for us. I really don't see a good reason for the kings to do this trade though. We would have to throw in a 1st or a couple 2nds I would imagine. I think Mclemore would thrive in our system though and has a ton of upside.

[100%duncan]

Kyle+Butler for Ben McLemore. Since Danny is struggling & Simmons has limited range, McLemore as Danny's backup & Manu's apprentice would be awesome. The Kings could use a vet like Butler & Kyle is the type of lanky wingplayer that George Karl likes to stockpile (Vlade might have an affinity for him too as a point center). McLemore was getting benched early in the season (Marco was eating up McLemore's minutes) but it seems like he's coming around so they might not have given up on him yet.
They wont take that trade

[Kawhitstorm]

They wont take that trade

McLemore was getting benched in favor of none other former Spurs James Anderson a couple of week ago. Some folks in the local media were calling him a bust b/c he looked lost to start the season. Besides, he isn't necessarily a better overall player than Kyle, he's just a better shooter & more athletic. He's no better than Terrence Ross right now, tbh.

[Kawhitstorm]

This would be a fantastic trade for us. I really don't see a good reason for the kings to do this trade though. We would have to throw in a 1st or a couple 2nds I would imagine. I think Mclemore would thrive in our system though and has a ton of upside.

McLemore isn't worth throwing in anything more than a single 2nd rd pick. Dude isn't that much better than a decent late 1st rd pick let alone Fathead AND a late 1st. OKC traded Jeremy Lamb for Luke Ridnour (who is no longer in the league) and a 2016 second-round draft pick. Is McLemore a better player than Lamb?

[Chinook]

They wont take that trade

Mainly because it's not possible under the CBA.

[Mel_13]

McLemore was getting benched in favor of none other former Spurs James Anderson a couple of week ago. Some folks in the local media were calling him a bust b/c he looked lost to start the season. Besides, he isn't necessarily a better overall player than Kyle, he's just a better shooter & more athletic. He's no better than Terrence Ross right now, tbh.

If by a couple of weeks you mean more than 5 weeks ago. It was a 6 game stretch in which McLemore played more minutes than Anderson in 4 of the 6 games. Anderson has played about 25 total minutes since that 6 game experiment.


McLemore isn't worth throwing in anything more than a single 2nd rd pick. Dude isn't that much better than a decent late 1st rd pick let alone Fathead AND a late 1st. OKC traded Jeremy Lamb for Luke Ridnour (who is no longer in the league) and a 2016 second-round draft pick. Is McLemore a better player than Lamb?

As Chuck would, that's just turrible. The Lamb trade was a salary dump, plain and simple. The completely unguaranteed contract of Luke Ridnour was on the books of five different teams in less than a week at the end of June. The last team to hold his rights waived him before any money became guaranteed.


Then there's this:

Mainly because it's not possible under the CBA.

[100%duncan]

Mainly because it's not possible under the CBA.

Oh sorry im no expert on that one. I just think its delusional even for spursfan standard

[TD 21]

McLemore isn't worth throwing in anything more than a single 2nd rd pick. Dude isn't that much better than a decent late 1st rd pick let alone Fathead AND a late 1st. OKC traded Jeremy Lamb for Luke Ridnour (who is no longer in the league) and a 2016 second-round draft pick. Is McLemore a better player than Lamb?

It depends on the value of the 1st. As underwhelming as he's been and limited as he appears, there's still a better chance of him being a long term rotation player than a 27th-29th pick, even if the Spurs having said pick is different than the vast majority.

What incentive would the Kings have to trade him for Anderson and Butler? As poorly as they're run, it's difficult to imagine them even considering a move unless the Spurs' 1st was attached to Anderson.

Too many are too in love with late 1st round picks. Obviously, you don't hand it away, but this is about winning now and if they can pry a young wing, on an affordable contract, who they think has more upside than they've shown with their current team and would be a fit on this team, then it makes sense.

[Kawhitstorm]

It depends on the value of the 1st. As underwhelming as he's been and limited as he appears, there's still a better chance of him being a long term rotation player than a 27th-29th pick, even if the Spurs having said pick is different than the vast majority.

What incentive would the Kings have to trade him for Anderson and Butler? As poorly as they're run, it's difficult to imagine them even considering a move unless the Spurs' 1st was attached to Anderson.

Too many are too in love with late 1st round picks. Obviously, you don't hand it away, but this is about winning now and if they can pry a young wing, on an affordable contract, who they think has more upside than they've shown with their current team and would be a fit on this team, then it makes sense.

The Spurs are a small market team & not the most desirable destination for young players thus the PATFO can't afford handing out 1st rd picks on a multi year rookie contracts when average players are demanding 10+ mill b/c of the new CBA.

Look at OKC, they gave up Jeremy Lamb & Perry Jones for next to nothing then had to overpay Kanter & trot out Roberson as their starting wing b/c Singler is the other option:lol. Even the Clippers have no depth b/c they mortgaged off their picks & can't even execute trade without giving up a top rotation player b/c they have nothing else to offer. You can bait a rebuilding team like the Nets who have no 1st rd picks until 2019 to give up a proven vet such as Thad Young (as opposed to an unproven young player) by offering them Kyle or a future 1st rd pick. You can't be offering two 1st rd picks for an unproven player like McLemore, if Simmons can hit the corner 3 at a 40% rate then McLemore might not even be a need. Will Barton has turned out to be better than McLemore & Simmons game is similar to Barton's.

Kyle is a rotation player in the NBA but he's currently redundant b/c of Boris & not as valuable as he would be on other teams b/c he plays behind Kawhi along w/ the emergence of Simmons. I was intrigued by McLemore b/c of Manu's eminent retirement & the lack of shooters coming off the bench (hard to play Kyle/Simmons together b/c neither one is a shooter). Allen Crabbe is getting major playing time w/ the Blazers but he isn't better than Kyle based on college, rookie season & this past summer league.

Q6WLP5qw5O8

ptOmh5LdrBo

[TD 21]

The Spurs are a small market team & not the most desirable destination for young players thus the PATFO can't afford handing out 1st rd picks on a multi year rookie contracts when average players are demanding 10+ mill b/c of the new CBA.

Look at OKC, they gave up Jeremy Lamb & Perry Jones for next to nothing then had to overpay Kanter & trot out Roberson as their starting wing b/c Singler is the other option:lol. Even the Clippers have no depth b/c they mortgaged off their picks & can't even execute trade without giving up a top rotation player b/c they have nothing else to offer. You can bait a rebuilding team like the Nets who have no 1st rd picks until 2019 to give up a proven vet such as Thad Young (as opposed to an unproven young player) by offering them Kyle or a future 1st rd pick. You can't be offering two 1st rd picks for an unproven player like McLemore, if Simmons can hit the corner 3 at a 40% rate then McLemore might not even be a need. Will Barton has turned out to be better than McLemore & Simmons game is similar to Barton's.

Kyle is a rotation player in the NBA but he's currently redundant b/c of Boris & not as valuable as he would be on other teams b/c he plays behind Kawhi along w/ the emergence of Simmons. I was intrigued by McLemore b/c of Manu's eminent retirement & the lack of shooters coming off the bench (hard to play Kyle/Simmons together b/c neither one is a shooter).

There's no evidence to suggest that they're not a desirable destination for young players, nor should they not be, given that they've proven to be the best in the business at developing young players.

The wings that have been mentioned (Covington, Bogdanovic, McLemore) are all young and range from relatively inexpensive to extremely inexpensive, for multi-years. The Spurs can absolutely afford to give up a 1st for that type.

Add one of them to Anderson, Simmons, Marjanovic, Milutinov, Bertans, Jean-Charles and every other pick going forward, in the pipeline. It's not exactly a future dynasty, but they should be able to develop some into back end rotation players, which is all that's needed, as the majority of the rotation should remain intact.

[Kawhitstorm]

The wings that have been mentioned (Covington, Bogdanovic, McLemore) are all young and range from relatively inexpensive to extremely inexpensive, for multi-years. The Spurs can absolutely afford to give up a 1st for that type.

Add one of them to Anderson, Simmons, Marjanovic, Milutinov, Bertans, Jean-Charles and every other pick going forward, in the pipeline. It's not exactly a future dynasty, but they should be able to develop some into back end rotation players, which is all that's needed, as the majority of the rotation should remain intact.

My retort was about giving up Fathead AND a 1st for McLemore as YOU originally stated. Can't add them to Kyle if he is no long on the roster.

[Kawhitstorm]

If by a couple of weeks you mean more than 5 weeks ago. It was a 6 game stretch in which McLemore played more minutes than Anderson in 4 of the 6 games. Anderson has played about 25 total minutes since that 6 game experiment.

You can't have Marco/Casspi playing more minutes than your lotto pick when you are a lotto team nor bench him after the 1st week for a bench warmer like James Anderson just b/c he's struggling, he's supposed to learn on the job & it won't cost you a championship.:lol But then we are talking about the same franchise that used their lotto pick on Stauskus when they already had McLemore then showed their patience w/ young players when traded him for a sack of potatoes only after a season.:lmao



As Chuck would, that's just turrible. The Lamb trade was a salary dump, plain and simple. The completely unguaranteed contract of Luke Ridnour was on the books of five different teams in less than a week at the end of June. The last team to hold his rights waived him before any money became guaranteed.

Yes you fuckin' dumbass, they "dumped" Lamb's salary to only give Kyle Singler a 5yr/25 million contract. Singler currently has the worst PER in NBA History!:lmao Meanwhile Lamb currently has the 4th best PER amongst shooting guards. We are talking about the same franchise that just offered Dion Butters a multi year contract extension this summer (fortunately for them he turned it down b/c he wanted to bet on his scrubby talents, what a character guy w/ a championship pedigree :lol) .

[TD 21]

My retort was about giving up Fathead AND a 1st for McLemore as YOU originally stated. Can't add them to Kyle if he is no long on the roster.

I wasn't talking specifically about McLemore. As I've said, I don't believe they'll trade Anderson, but even in the highly unlikely event they did and added a 1st to him, they'd still have enough young assets leftover in the pipeline to likely develop a few back end rotation players.

[Kawhitstorm]

I wasn't talking specifically about McLemore. As I've said, I don't believe they'll trade Anderson, but even in the highly unlikely event they did and added a 1st to him, they'd still have enough young assets leftover in the pipeline to likely develop a few back end rotation players.

It doesn't make sense to trade for a young player midseason since Pop ain't going to trust him unless he has been through training camp. I made the suggestion in another post that a Kyle for McLemore swap be considering next summer if Kyle doesn't earn Pop's trust & the Kings put McLemore on the trading blocks like Stauskus.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Just fucking around with the trade machine, but who says no to this? http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=jy5b4bz

[TD 21]

It doesn't make sense to trade for a young player midseason since Pop ain't going to trust him unless he has been through training camp. I made the suggestion in another post that a Kyle for McLemore swap be considering next summer if Kyle doesn't earn Pop's trust & the Kings put McLemore on the trading blocks like Stauskus.

Anderson/Simmons are young themselves though. Sure, they've been through a training camp (2 in Anderson's case), but if they acquire what they deem to be a marked upgrade, they're not going to care enough about that to not play them.

[Kawhitstorm]

Just fucking around with the trade machine, but who says no to this? http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=jy5b4bz

Basically depends on whether the Nets want to take a chance on Rose or just clear their cap at the end of the season. We are talking about the same team that paid Deron Williams to START for the Mavs:lol. If I'm Billy King, I'm offering Joe Johnson for Melo if the Knicks are interested in clearing cap space to go after Durant/Whiteside.

[Robz4000]

Just fucking around with the trade machine, but who says no to this? http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=jy5b4bz

:lol no chance in hell the Bulls do that trade. Even though Rose is terrible and a cancer you don't give up arguably your best player to get rid of him for mediocre/declining players.

[Mel_13]

You can't have Marco/Casspi playing more minutes than your lotto pick when you are a lotto team nor bench him after the 1st week for a bench warmer like James Anderson just b/c he's struggling, he's supposed to learn on the job & it won't cost you a championship.:lol But then we are talking about the same franchise that used their lotto pick on Stauskus when they already had McLemore then showed their patience w/ young players when traded him for a sack of potatoes only after a season.:lmao



Yes you fuckin' dumbass, they "dumped" Lamb's salary to only give Kyle Singler a 5yr/25 million contract. Singler currently has the worst PER in NBA History!:lmao Meanwhile Lamb currently has the 4th best PER amongst shooting guards. We are talking about the same franchise that just offered Dion Butters a multi year contract extension this summer (fortunately for them he turned it down b/c he wanted to bet on his scrubby talents, what a character guy w/ a championship pedigree :lol) .

Wow. Lots of juvenile language and emoticons that don't address the faults in your previous posts.

[Kawhitstorm]

Wow. Lots of juvenile language and emoticons that don't address the faults in your previous posts.

:lmao:lol:lmao

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:lol no chance in hell the Bulls do that trade. Even though Rose is terrible and a cancer you don't give up arguably your best player to get rid of him for mediocre/declining players.

Conley >>>> Rose, no question. Getting rid of Rose clears up quite a bit of cap room for them in the summer. And Gasol's performance this year just makes things awkward for the frontcourt. You have to play him because of his numbers, but he's playing god awful defense and taking up space on the floor that limits Noah's performance. You also have to play Mirotic with Gasol cause he best complements Pau's game, but he's pretty overrated and hasn't made any leap of progress this year. Having Randolph can give Noah the space around the rim he needs and may work out even better than Gasol. They need to give Bobby Portis minutes as well. Guy has been awesome in his limited minutes. Also, Butler is easily their best player.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Basically depends on whether the Nets want to take a chance on Rose or just clear their cap at the end of the season. We are talking about the same team that paid Deron Williams to START for the Mavs:lol. If I'm Billy King, I'm offering Joe Johnson for Melo if the Knicks are interested in clearing cap space to go after Durant/Whiteside.

I can see them biting on that, but they'll need a third team to give New York assets. A deal that lopsided will require a few first rounders, and the Nets don't have any til like 2020. New York would be pretty awful after that trade, and they wouldn't even be able to find the bright side to that since they don't own their pick next year. If they don't get picks, it's a HUGE gamble.

[Kawhitstorm]

I can see them biting on that, but they'll need a third team to give New York assets. A deal that lopsided will require a few first rounders, and the Nets don't have any til like 2020. New York would be pretty awful after that trade, and they wouldn't even be able to find the bright side to that since they don't own their pick next year. If they don't get picks, it's a HUGE gamble.

Melo has a "no trade clause" thus the Knicks can't dump his salary unless he wants to play in Chicago or something & Phil is willing to take a chance on D-Rose's expiring contract next season.:lol Might happen if the Knicks can't land a top FA so they can clear cap space for the summer of 2017.

[Robz4000]

Conley >>>> Rose, no question. Getting rid of Rose clears up quite a bit of cap room for them in the summer. And Gasol's performance this year just makes things awkward for the frontcourt. You have to play him because of his numbers, but he's playing god awful defense and taking up space on the floor that limits Noah's performance. You also have to play Mirotic with Gasol cause he best complements Pau's game, but he's pretty overrated and hasn't made any leap of progress this year. Having Randolph can give Noah the space around the rim he needs and may work out even better than Gasol. They need to give Bobby Portis minutes as well. Guy has been awesome in his limited minutes. Also, Butler is easily their best player.

Conley's been pretty bad this season, so it's more like Conley > Rose. Also, your whole point about Gasol makes no sense when Zbo has less range and is just as nada defender, if not worse. Even then, Noah is declining, not underperforming; getting him "more space" won't change that especially when his offensive game is bad to begin with. As for Butler, his attitude lately makes me doubt him as their best player. He may be their best two way player, but with that attitude he's more like Cousins than a Paul George: most talented player on the roster, but not the best.

[SAGirl]

The Spurs are a small market team & not the most desirable destination for young players thus the PATFO can't afford handing out 1st rd picks on a multi year rookie contracts when average players are demanding 10+ mill b/c of the new CBA.

Look at OKC, they gave up Jeremy Lamb & Perry Jones for next to nothing then had to overpay Kanter & trot out Roberson as their starting wing b/c Singler is the other option:lol. Even the Clippers have no depth b/c they mortgaged off their picks & can't even execute trade without giving up a top rotation player b/c they have nothing else to offer. You can bait a rebuilding team like the Nets who have no 1st rd picks until 2019 to give up a proven vet such as Thad Young (as opposed to an unproven young player) by offering them Kyle or a future 1st rd pick. You can't be offering two 1st rd picks for an unproven player like McLemore, if Simmons can hit the corner 3 at a 40% rate then McLemore might not even be a need. Will Barton has turned out to be better than McLemore & Simmons game is similar to Barton's.

Kyle is a rotation player in the NBA but he's currently redundant b/c of Boris & not as valuable as he would be on other teams b/c he plays behind Kawhi along w/ the emergence of Simmons. I was intrigued by McLemore b/c of Manu's eminent retirement & the lack of shooters coming off the bench (hard to play Kyle/Simmons together b/c neither one is a shooter). Allen Crabbe is getting major playing time w/ the Blazers but he isn't better than Kyle based on college, rookie season & this past summer league.

Q6WLP5qw5O8

ptOmh5LdrBo

I agree with you, both on the value of 1st round picks, even late 1st round picks for the Spurs and your valuation of Kyle's trade interest.

Also, you are right that Kyle seems redundant for us right now bc of our current personnel, but he would be a rotation player for other teams. I doubt Spurs will part with both him and a 1st. Either he's intriguing enough to some team on his own or he won't be traded. As it stands, bc of our likely retiring vets and just the unknown composition of the team going forward, the Spurs are likely to just develop their young guys hoping they can in the future fill bigger roles, and if it seems like it won't work then consider a trade.

Right now Simmons is outplaying even a veteran NBA champ like Danny Green at times, so for him to surpass a young still developing player like Kyle is no big deal.

It remains to be seen whether Simmons can maintain his level of play, but other than his 3 cooling off a bit, what he's doing right now us repeatable. He gets a lot of shots at the basket in transition bc he's aggressive running the break and taking it to the rim. When he's slashed in the regular rotation, he blows by guys bc they close out aggressively and Simmons has an explosive first step. He can also pass the balk well if you don't have him trying to do too much. His TO have mostly been in garbage time when he is trying to impersonate Manu.

[Kawhitstorm]

I agree with you, both on the value of 1st round picks, even late 1st round picks for the Spurs and your valuation of Kyle's trade interest.

Also, you are right that Kyle seems redundant for us right now bc of our current personnel, but he would be a rotation player for other teams. I doubt Spurs will part with both him and a 1st. Either he's intriguing enough to some team on his own or he won't be traded. As it stands, bc of our likely retiring vets and just the unknown composition of the team going forward, the Spurs are likely to just develop their young guys hoping they can in the future fill bigger roles, and if it seems like it won't work then consider a trade.

Right now Simmons is outplaying even a veteran NBA champ like Danny Green at times, so for him to surpass a young still developing player like Kyle is no big deal.

It remains to be seen whether Simmons can maintain his level of play, but other than his 3 cooling off a bit, what he's doing right now us repeatable. He gets a lot of shots at the basket in transition bc he's aggressive running the break and taking it to the rim. When he's slashed in the regular rotation, he blows by guys bc they close out aggressively and Simmons has an explosive first step. He can also pass the balk well if you don't have him trying to do too much. His TO have mostly been in garbage time when he is trying to impersonate Manu.

He's from the tri-state area so the Nets might have interest in him since they don't have any 1st rd picks to rebuild. (Thad Young for Bobo+Kyle+salary filler could be an option if Boris let himself go in the offseason). Even the Knicks could use a guy like Kyle to run the triangle esp. Melo is shipped out to clear cap space (Kyle O'Quinn for Kyle+Salary filler if West opts out/retires).

[sasaint]

He's from the tri-state area so the Nets might have interest in him since they don't have any 1st rd picks to rebuild. (Thad Young for Bobo+Kyle+salary filler could be an option if Boris let himself go in the offseason). Even the Knicks could use a guy like Kyle to run the triangle esp. Melo is shipped out to clear cap space (Kyle O'Quinn for Kyle+Salary filler if West opts out/retires).

Absolutely not. I like Young a lot, and I would love to get him - but not at the expense of BOTH Boris and Kyle. Turrible.

[szkorhetz]

LMA for Cousins? :D
Just read what Barkley said about DeMarcus and I completely agree. I know he is a headache and shit, but playing next to Tim and with Pop, that might work. Righrt now we have 1 Center and 3 PF's, so that balance would be somewhat better and Karl & even the Kings FO had enough of Cousins, so win-win.

[sasaint]

The Lakers are rumored to be willing to get rid of combo guard and San Antonian, Jordan Clarkson. We could give them their choice of Butler or McCallum and a draft pick. Thoughts?

[SAGirl]

The Lakers are rumored to be willing to get rid of combo guard and San Antonian, Jordan Clarkson. We could give them their choice of Butler or McCallum and a draft pick. Thoughts?
I looked it up bc the rumor surprised me a little.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2673076/la-lakers-rumors-jordan-clarkson-may-not-be-in-los-angeles-much-longer/ (http://www.inquisitr.com/2673076/la-lakers-rumors-jordan-clarkson-may-not-be-in-los-angeles-much-longer/)

They are wondering whether Clarkson is a player to build around and that his contract could see a precipitous escalation after a couple of years. I don't understand the salary rules, and I haven't watched Clarkson enough to be gaga about him.

[sasaint]

I looked it up bc the rumor surprised me a little.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2673076/la-lakers-rumors-jordan-clarkson-may-not-be-in-los-angeles-much-longer/ (http://www.inquisitr.com/2673076/la-lakers-rumors-jordan-clarkson-may-not-be-in-los-angeles-much-longer/)

They are wondering whether Clarkson is a player to build around and that his contract could see a precipitous escalation after a couple of years. I don't understand the salary rules, and I haven't watched Clarkson enough to be gaga about him.

I haven't really seen the guy much, either. He interests me for the sentimental reason that he is from San Antonio, and for the practical reason that the Spurs need to find some guard help in the very near future. He has good size at 6'5", and he is only 23. His shooting is fair and would probably improve working with Chip.

In truth, I can't really imagine the Spurs making any move this season. I think everybody on our roster except Butler and McCallum is virtually untouchable, for one reason or another. Still I worry about life without Manu and (soon) Tony. Patty, Simmons, Danny and an aging Tony (counting Kyle as a front court player) don't seem to make for a championship backcourt.

[100%duncan]

Clarkso. Would be redundant with kyle and simmons already in the team. Like the dude tho

[Mel_13]

The Lakers are rumored to be willing to get rid of combo guard and San Antonian, Jordan Clarkson. We could give them their choice of Butler or McCallum and a draft pick. Thoughts?

He's going to get a huge raise this summer. Spurs would have to project him as an important part of their future to justify spending a pick on what could be a short term rental of a player who probably won't crack the rotation this season.

[sasaint]

He's going to get a huge raise this summer. Spurs would have to project him as an important part of their future to justify spending a pick on what could be a short term rental of a player who probably won't crack the rotation this season.

Don't know how much he will command this summer, but we need a reasonably young but experienced veteran for the backcourt very soon. I count both Danny and Kyle as "wings". Danny is not really a backcourt player in the sense of being a guy you want handling the ball (as this season has so convincingly demonstrated). And Kyle may be a good ball handler for his size; but I can't help but believe smaller, quicker guards would cause him fits on both ends of the court. I believe Kyle at best could become a 3/4 hybrid kind of like Boris - again not one of your primary ball handlers. So, after this season (also assuming Manu retires) we will have Patty, Simmons and the aging Tony, unless McCallum has some tricks up his (short) sleeves that he has not yet shown us. We will need a good regular rotation contributor.

[SAGirl]

Don't know how much he will command this summer, but we need a reasonably young but experienced veteran for the backcourt very soon. I count both Danny and Kyle as "wings". Danny is not really a backcourt player in the sense of being a guy you want handling the ball (as this season has so convincingly demonstrated). And Kyle may be a good ball handler for his size; but I can't help but believe smaller, quicker guards would cause him fits on both ends of the court. I believe Kyle at best could become a 3/4 hybrid kind of like Boris - again not one of your primary ball handlers. So, after this season (also assuming Manu retires) we will have Patty, Simmons and the aging Tony, unless McCallum has some tricks up his (short) sleeves that he has not yet shown us. We will need a good regular rotation contributor.

Pop is not playing Kyle as a 4 though. Limited minutes early in the season he did, but that was I think more by Pop to get into Bobo's mind. Bobo needed to up his game quite honestly, or Pop was going to roll with Kyle whenever he was loafing around. Fair enough the loafing around went on for two games (Grizzlies/Suns early season games saw Bobo benched in favor of Kyle), but Bobo turned the ship around in spectacular fashion and luckily for us, that was the right play by Pop.

I think Pop is still experimenting with Kyle. Some words from his high school coach Bob Hurley when he recruited him as a junior in high school:


"I felt good about how things would go, but it wasn’t until I coached him this past year that I realized what a unique talent he is,” Hurley says. “He challenges you to try to use his size, skill set, ability to pass the ball and understanding of the game effectively on the court. We wanted to put the ball in his hands as much as possible.” link here http://espn.go.com/blog/high-school/new-jersey/post/_/id/486/st-anthonys-kyle-anderson-takes-winning-to-a-different-level


“Until you actually coach him, and have him, you don’t know exactly how to utilize him,” Hurley told SI.com this week. “I’m coaching for 40 years. I’ve never had anyone like him.”
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/one-and-one/2014/01/09/ucla-bruins-kyle-anderson-steve-alford-arizona

His college coach his last season at UCLA, Bryce Alford:

“It’s not every day as a coach you get to coach a 6-foot-9 point guard. I’ve yet to do that in 23 years of coaching. They don’t come around very often. I think (the point) is his most natural position, that’s where he flourishes. He’s got great instincts, a great feel, he knows when to shoot, when to drive. He’s got to be the best rebounding point guard in the country. We’ve done it for the last nine months and haven’t wavered from it. He’s embraced it from Day 1 as we have.”

I think Kyle has challenged Pop as well to figure out how to use his skillset. It is a difficult package he has, but it is something this team will need with Manu retiring (although Diaw is such a high BBIQ player and leader himself, he's also older as well) and just the BBIQ and leadership part is rare in any player... at any position and it comes naturally for him. We just have to let him develop.

[Mel_13]

Don't know how much he will command this summer, but we need a reasonably young but experienced veteran for the backcourt very soon. I count both Danny and Kyle as "wings". Danny is not really a backcourt player in the sense of being a guy you want handling the ball (as this season has so convincingly demonstrated). And Kyle may be a good ball handler for his size; but I can't help but believe smaller, quicker guards would cause him fits on both ends of the court. I believe Kyle at best could become a 3/4 hybrid kind of like Boris - again not one of your primary ball handlers. So, after this season (also assuming Manu retires) we will have Patty, Simmons and the aging Tony, unless McCallum has some tricks up his (short) sleeves that he has not yet shown us. We will need a good regular rotation contributor.

I don't disagree with any of that except to say that I don't think we need that guy this summer and I believe they're much more likely to try to grow that guy in house. Any significant salary addition will have to wait until 2017.

[sasaint]

Pop is not playing Kyle as a 4 though. Limited minutes early in the season he did, but that was I think more by Pop to get into Bobo's mind. Bobo needed to up his game quite honestly, or Pop was going to roll with Kyle whenever he was loafing around. Fair enough the loafing around went on for two games (Grizzlies/Suns early season games saw Bobo benched in favor of Kyle), but Bobo turned the ship around in spectacular fashion and luckily for us, that was the right play by Pop.

I think Pop is still experimenting with Kyle. Some words from his high school coach Bob Hurley when he recruited him as a junior in high school:

link here http://espn.go.com/blog/high-school/new-jersey/post/_/id/486/st-anthonys-kyle-anderson-takes-winning-to-a-different-level


http://www.si.com/college-basketball/one-and-one/2014/01/09/ucla-bruins-kyle-anderson-steve-alford-arizona

His college coach his last season at UCLA, Bryce Alford:


I think Kyle has challenged Pop as well to figure out how to use his skillset. It is a difficult package he has, but it is something this team will need with Manu retiring (although Diaw is such a high BBIQ player and leader himself, he's also older as well) and just the BBIQ and leadership part is rare in any player... at any position and it comes naturally for him. We just have to let him develop.

Um, Okay... I called Kyle a "wing" and "a 3/4 hybrid." I didn't say I considered him a 4. (But as long as you bring it up here, I do believe he is likely to ultimately settle into a position I have called "a point 4", comparing him to Diaw.) But the focus of my comments was not Kyle, but the lack of ball-handling backcourt players we will have very soon. I do not think Kyle fits that mold really, but again my comments about Kyle were peripheral to my main point. I do wonder whether, even if Clarkson's value goes up, he would be a good addition and fit under an increased cap.

As for Kyle, no doubt Pop is still trying to figure out how to integrate his skill package into the team.

[sasaint]

I don't disagree with any of that except to say that I don't think we need that guy this summer and I believe they're much more likely to try to grow that guy in house. Any significant salary addition will have to wait until 2017.

I am afraid you are right. As a fan a little nervous about the thinning of our backcourt, I would like to get somebody sooner than it will likely take Pop to develop a good rotation player in-house.

[SAGirl]

Um, Okay... I called Kyle a "wing" and "a 3/4 hybrid." I didn't say I considered him a 4. (But as long as you bring it up here, I do believe he is likely to ultimately settle into a position I have called "a point 4", comparing him to Diaw.) But the focus of my comments was not Kyle, but the lack of ball-handling backcourt players we will have very soon. I do not think Kyle fits that mold really, but again my comments about Kyle were peripheral to my main point. I do wonder whether, even if Clarkson's value goes up, he would be a good addition and fit under an increased cap.

As for Kyle, no doubt Pop is still trying to figure out how to integrate his skill package into the team.

I see your point and I agree, an aging Tony, small SG Patty, shooter with no handles Danny, and project player Simmons are not a championship backcourt, the more Tony ages. He's already playing less minutes, and has been inconsistent and injury prone. I am not crazy over Clarkson though. He is more of a SG, has a scorer's mentality, and from what you can tell I like guys who can pass nicely and don't much care for wowing athleticism.

The Lakers will also want something valuable, Clarkson is basically their best young player, they are just apparently unsure whether they want to commit to him big time as a franchise player. I am not sure PATFO is ready for that either, but we'll need some upgrades that is for sure.

[TD 21]

He's going to get a huge raise this summer. Spurs would have to project him as an important part of their future to justify spending a pick on what could be a short term rental of a player who probably won't crack the rotation this season.

Though he's been over hyped, they'd obviously project him as an important part of their future. Post Ginobili, he'd clearly be the sixth man and sometimes finisher at SG. In the interim, he'd clearly be the fourth wing.

I don't buy that they'll move him, but I'd be willing to give up Simmons and the 1st for him. Since the Spurs' pick is going to fall between 27-29, they more than likely wouldn't do it though.

[SAGirl]

I am afraid you are right. As a fan a little nervous about the thinning of our backcourt, I would like to get somebody sooner than it will likely take Pop to develop a good rotation player in-house.
I think Spurs are trying to develop Simmons to fill that role at least immediately, therefore he's kind of being fastracked and his mistakes overlooked whenever Pop can spare them. He may plateau at some point or hit the rookie wall... when you basically continue to get better, but at some point that is it, you may go no further. We don't know, but he's likely to get a shot bc we are tied up money wise basically.

[SAGirl]

I'd be willing to give up Simmons and the 1st for him. Since the Spurs' pick is going to fall between 27-29, they more than likely wouldn't do it though.
and they won't take that probably, since those two things are not worth a potential franchise guy. I think ultimately Lakers keep him unless they are making a move for a star and it requires that they give him up. Lakers just can't afford to throw away young good players like that.

[TD 21]

and they won't take that probably, since those two things are not worth a potential franchise guy. I think ultimately Lakers keep him unless they are making a move for a star and it requires that they give him up. Lakers just can't afford to throw away young good players like that.

I know, that's why I said "they (Lakers) more than likely wouldn't do it though" and that "I don't buy that they'll move him".

He's nowhere near a potential franchise player. On a good team, I see him as the third guard in a three guard rotation, backing up both guard spots and playing roughly half a game.

[sasaint]

and they won't take that probably, since those two things are not worth a potential franchise guy. I think ultimately Lakers keep him unless they are making a move for a star and it requires that they give him up. Lakers just can't afford to throw away young good players like that.

The speculation I have seen is that they would possibly like to move Clarkson because they want to free up cap space to chase Durant at al. I don't think they expect a legit player in return. If they were even willing to deal with us, and they wanted a player, they would likely be more interested in Kyle - shades of Magic, UCLA guy - not Simmons. Then the question would be whether we would have any interest. I doubt it.

[Mel_13]

The speculation I have seen is that they would possibly like to move Clarkson because they want to free up cap space to chase Durant at al. I don't think they expect a legit player in return. If they were even willing to deal with us, and they wanted a player, they would likely be more interested in Kyle - shades of Magic, UCLA guy - not Simmons. Then the question would be whether we would have any interest. I doubt it.

They're projected to have about 60m in cap space. Clarkson's QO will be very small. If they are looking to unload him it would because they don't want to pay what they believe his market price will be. Which is precisely why I can't see the Spurs having much interest.

The amount of money chasing a limited number of quality FAs this summer is going to lead to some contracts that will have our heads spinning. The deals signed by LMA and Kawhi last summer will start to look like bargains.

[Chinook]

I think the idea that the Spurs wouldn't be in a position to pay Clarkson or any impeding FA is a little misguided, no offense. The Spurs won't have cap space next season, but they will have room under the tax. If they aren't planning on going for a big fish in the 2017 off-season, it makes a TON of sense to trade for a guy like Clarkson. In fact, due to the Arenas RFA status, it actually makes some financial sense to trade for/pay him even if the team wants to go for 2017 free agency. Clarkson would still be on the MLE-part of his new contract, and that is likely smaller than the salary it would take to keep Mills. So the Spurs could move on from Patty and run with Parker, Clarkson and Green as the main guards with Kawhi and Anderson filling out the perimeter rotation.

Using a late first on a young guard under team control for two seasons after this one is actually good asset management, since the Spurs already have wings and bigs in their pipeline. If they believe Jordan Clarkson can be a long-term piece with sixth-man potential, trading for him now would be the best move.

[Mel_13]

I think the idea that the Spurs wouldn't be in a position to pay Clarkson or any impeding FA is a little misguided, no offense. The Spurs won't have cap space next season, but they will have room under the tax. If they aren't planning on going for a big fish in the 2017 off-season, it makes a TON of sense to trade for a guy like Clarkson. In fact, due to the Arenas RFA status, it actually makes some financial sense to trade for/pay him even if the team wants to go for 2017 free agency. Clarkson would still be on the MLE-part of his new contract, and that is likely smaller than the salary it would take to keep Mills. So the Spurs could move on from Patty and run with Parker, Clarkson and Green as the main guards with Kawhi and Anderson filling out the perimeter rotation.

Using a late first on a young guard under team control for two seasons after this one is actually good asset management, since the Spurs already have wings and bigs in their pipeline. If they believe Jordan Clarkson can be a long-term piece with sixth-man potential, trading for him now would be the best move.

My assumption is that they will want to retain the possibility of pursuing a big FA in 2017.

[Chinook]

My assumption is that they will want to retain the possibility of pursuing a big FA in 2017.

Well then, as I said, it might make sense to money-ball Patty into Clarkson's second year MLE salary. That's even more true since Mills may be less effective without Manu anyway.

[Mel_13]

Well then, as I said, it might make sense to money-ball Patty into Clarkson's second year MLE salary. That's even more true since Mills may be less effective without Manu anyway.

You were right about the Kawhi extension in 2014 and pursuing LMA in 2015. I was wrong about both, so you've been much better at foreseeing the direction of the FO than I have. I still don't see Clarkson as a player worth the price he could very well command this summer.

[sasaint]

My assumption is that they will want to retain the possibility of pursuing a big FA in 2017.

The signing of LMA never struck me as the start of a new trend. It is such an outlier in the universe of Spurs FA signings that I don't really see us going after another big fish in 2017. Who do you think we want in 2017?

[Mel_13]

The signing of LMA never struck me as the start of a new trend. It is such an outlier in the universe of Spurs FA signings that I don't really see us going after another big fish in 2017. Who do you think we want in 2017?

I haven't looked at that year's class. While I would agree that the LMA signing doesn't necessarily signal a new trend, creating windows of substantial cap space is something that the Spurs have been doing for the better part of a decade. With the exception of 2015, they have opted to use that flexibility to retain their own players, but creating the possibility of cap space would be very much the Spurs way.

[SAGirl]

The speculation I have seen is that they would possibly like to move Clarkson because they want to free up cap space to chase Durant at al. I don't think they expect a legit player in return. If they were even willing to deal with us, and they wanted a player, they would likely be more interested in Kyle - shades of Magic, UCLA guy - not Simmons. Then the question would be whether we would have any interest. I doubt it.

Who knows with Pop, they are not completely averse to trades, but they don't let go of players they like lightly. It would have to be a need, which we don't have right now, since we have a nice record and all, and our guys are healthy.

Say next season though. Without Manu, its a whole other ballgame and a completely different scenario and a bit of a worry bc our two young guys are kind of reluctant 3 pt. shooters. I think our bench has a contingency plan that includes other bench players stepping up and Boban (is he projected for the bench I don't know, but he sure can score and make a difference). Only the 3 pt shooting really worries me with this group but we might have Bertans and/or Cady joining. It's really all speculation at this point.

The starters are different since if Tony/Danny decay for whatever reason, we are in trouble. I don't think there are any contingencies there and that might be some red alert stuff. There is also the possibility Tim is retiring. From one season to the next we could have so many holes that we really might not for at least a season be able to plug them all or afford a guy on an inflated contract, so we probably have to do our best to keep our guys, develop the ones who have upside, and see where we stand.

If there are trades they are likely to be next season.

[SAGirl]

I think the idea that the Spurs wouldn't be in a position to pay Clarkson or any impeding FA is a little misguided, no offense. The Spurs won't have cap space next season, but they will have room under the tax. If they aren't planning on going for a big fish in the 2017 off-season, it makes a TON of sense to trade for a guy like Clarkson. In fact, due to the Arenas RFA status, it actually makes some financial sense to trade for/pay him even if the team wants to go for 2017 free agency. Clarkson would still be on the MLE-part of his new contract, and that is likely smaller than the salary it would take to keep Mills. So the Spurs could move on from Patty and run with Parker, Clarkson and Green as the main guards with Kawhi and Anderson filling out the perimeter rotation.

Using a late first on a young guard under team control for two seasons after this one is actually good asset management, since the Spurs already have wings and bigs in their pipeline. If they believe Jordan Clarkson can be a long-term piece with sixth-man potential, trading for him now would be the best move.
I had not seen things from this perspective. thank you. always enlightening from an angle I overlooked.
Who knows what it would take to get it done. I think that is the question mainly.

[Chinook]

I haven't looked at that year's class. While I would agree that the LMA signing doesn't necessarily signal a new trend, creating windows of substantial cap space is something that the Spurs have been doing for the better part of a decade. With the exception of 2015, they have opted to use that flexibility to retain their own players, but creating the possibility of cap space would be very much the Spurs way.

It's not a great class, but it's a decent one for what the Spurs can expect to get. There are some big names like Griffin, Paul and Westbrook, but the most realistic top player would be Ibaka if OKC blows it up. Then, you have guys like Millsap and Randolph who would be old. And potential 2016 one-and-one guys like Durant and Horford. Finally, there is George Hill and Splitter as potential reunion signings.

The issue with going all in for a 2017 free agent is that the Spurs will almost certainly not have Duncan, Ginobili or West to take massive discounts to balance out the roster talent. The Spurs would be giving up Mills and Diaw, and potentially Simmons if that's a factor. They might also be reluctant to bring over some of their prospects/stash picks. That's why it might be preferable for them to get a guy on an Arenas deal, as it would allow them to essentially borrow 2018 cap for the 2017 off-season.

I don't disagree that Clarkson may not be worth his next contract. Looking at his stats, there's certainly a number that would be too high for my preferences. I was more talking about the financial aspect of trading for someone the Spurs have to pay this summer. I find it wiser than trying to replace up to four key rotation players with just cap space and the room exception.

[Mel_13]

It's not a great class, but it's a decent one for what the Spurs can expect to get. There are some big names like Griffin, Paul and Westbrook, but the most realistic top player would be Ibaka if OKC blows it up. Then, you have guys like Millsap and Randolph who would be old. And potential 2016 one-and-one guys like Durant and Horford. Finally, there is George Hill and Splitter as potential reunion signings.

The issue with going all in for a 2017 free agent is that the Spurs will almost certainly not have Duncan, Ginobili or West to take massive discounts to balance out the roster talent. The Spurs would be giving up Mills and Diaw, and potentially Simmons if that's a factor. They might also be reluctant to bring over some of their prospects/stash picks. That's why it might be preferable for them to get a guy on an Arenas deal, as it would allow them to essentially borrow 2018 cap for the 2017 off-season.

I don't disagree that Clarkson may not be worth his next contract. Looking at his stats, there's certainly a number that would be too high for my preferences. I was more talking about the financial aspect of trading for someone the Spurs have to pay this summer. I find it wiser than trying to replace up to four key rotation players with just cap space and the room exception.

I was only talking about Clarkson. Trades are likely to be part of transitioning the roster.

[Chinook]

The other avenue for a trade this season would be if Anderson requests one. I think that could be a possibility, since his demeanor prior to getting drafted seemed to suggest that he has bit of a diva trait. He may not be willing to stomach being behind Simmons in the rotation. I think it would be Pop's preference to keep him anyway, but if they could turn him into a future sixth-man like Clarkson might be, I could see them pulling the trigger. That's a remote possibility, but I guess it's out there.

[sasaint]

Who knows with Pop, they are not completely averse to trades, but they don't let go of players they like lightly. It would have to be a need, which we don't have right now, since we have a nice record and all, and our guys are healthy.

Say next season though. Without Manu, its a whole other ballgame and a completely different scenario and a bit of a worry bc our two young guys are kind of reluctant 3 pt. shooters. I think our bench has a contingency plan that includes other bench players stepping up and Boban (is he projected for the bench I don't know, but he sure can score and make a difference). Only the 3 pt shooting really worries me with this group but we might have Bertans and/or Cady joining.

Once Manu goes out to pasture I am even more concerned about backcourt ball-handlers than I am 3-point shooting. Right now, Kawhi brings the ball up court some.

[SAGirl]

The other avenue for a trade this season would be if Anderson requests one. I think that could be a possibility, since his demeanor prior to getting drafted seemed to suggest that he has bit of a diva trait. He may not be willing to stomach being behind Simmons in the rotation. I think it would be Pop's preference to keep him anyway, but if they could turn him into a future sixth-man like Clarkson might be, I could see them pulling the trigger. That's a remote possibility, but I guess it's out there.
He was almost unquestionably the best player in that team at UCLA and when they gave him the ball finally in his sophomore year they exploded from 50th to 20th in offensive efficiency despite loosing Shabazz Mohammed who was arguably the best college prospect of that class in 2012. He also took UCLA and won the PAC 12 tournament for the first time in like over 6 years (since maybe the westbrook/love days--but don't quote me on that I might be incorrect), and went up against none other than Aaron Gordon. He was a highly regarded player while in HS. All those guys are divas and need to have an ego. He should take this benching like a man and step it up big time when he gets an opportunity.

Long term though I can see him being traded although I like him a lot precisely bc his best assets are not being used currently and it may take more until his 4th season before they really need him if Manu returns next season. He was very humble in all interviews preseason, concerning expectations in role or what not. I think he's bought in... and beyond that, character wise, he's always been a team guy. Was not even the best scorer his years at UCLA, that was Adams, bc he really enjoys setting others up. Doesn't strike me as a stats guy, but he will want to play for sure. If he's not playing next season, I could see him request a trade.

[100%duncan]

I would do kyle plus 1st rounder for clarkson in a heartbeat

[SAGirl]

I would do kyle plus 1st rounder for clarkson in a heartbeat

I'm sure you'd trade him fir a pack of peanuts. Would you trade Simmons and a 1st for him though. We speculated Kyle would be the most interesting prospect due to youth and resume, but with dangelo russell they already have someone similar and a better shooter and younger. Simmons could be a better project for the since he'd be a partner fir those passes as he's a great cutter and finisher. Kyle doesn't make sense for them. Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?

By the way I don't think Lakers take either or our low 1st.

[100%duncan]

I'm sure you'd trade him fir a pack of peanuts. Would you trade Simmons and a 1st for him though. We speculated Kyle would be the most interesting prospect due to youth and resume, but with dangelo russell they already have someone similar and a better shooter and younger. Simmons could be a better project for the since he'd be a partner fir those passes as he's a great cutter and finisher. Kyle doesn't make sense for them. Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?

By the way I don't think Lakers take either or our low 1st.

:lol Im sure you kind of see me as a KA hater but I just say what I see, and tbh, Kyle is very overhyped. I was high on him when we got him but no one can really say he has done anything special during his time here. Simmons hasnt done anything of importance as well but he's impressed a lot of people, including Pop obviously, and has taken the 4th wing spot in marquee matchups.

Lakers are rebuilding, having 2 first round draft picks wont hurt them. Dangelo is tradable as they said, they are only sure of randle in terms of the long term.

And if it comes to that, Id rather have 2 simmons (in your words) than a slot for someone who is unlikely to materialize.

[SAGirl]

:lol Im sure you kind of see me as a KA hater but I just say what I see, and tbh, Kyle is very overhyped. I was high on him when we got him but no one can really say he has done anything special during his time here. Simmons hasnt done anything of importance as well but he's impressed a lot of people, including Pop obviously, and has taken the 4th wing spot in marquee matchups.

Lakers are rebuilding, having 2 first round draft picks wont hurt them. Dangelo is tradable as they said, they are only sure of randle in terms of the long term.

And if it comes to that, Id rather have 2 simmons (in your words) than a slot for someone who is unlikely to materialize.
lol ok, but you didn't answer the question. Kyle may not gather the interest we are speculating he might (bc UCLA guy, had an impressive resume up until this point, and is in a very good team with many playmakers that don't need his kind of skill right this moment, but he's played well and helped win some games, and has better defense than previously thought, still has untapped potential). He's still a niche guy, you kind of have to like what he can bring, and even among Spurs fans he's divisive. Simmons has more of a role, is athletic and has also helped win games in a good team. Same as you are picking him, so would the Lakers, since they could have a cheap Clarkson facsimile in him. That was the question.

By the way, I have only watched a few minutes of Clarkson. He didn't play last time we played the Lakers, and I am not gaga about him. I would not trade a first and Simmons for him (or Kyle) but that may just be because I am not hyped up about Clarkson.

[100%duncan]

lol ok, but you didn't answer the question. Kyle may not gather the interest we are speculating he might (bc UCLA guy, had an impressive resume up until this point, and is in a very good team with many playmakers that don't need his kind of skill right this moment, but he's played well and helped win some games, and has better defense than previously thought, still has untapped potential). He's still a niche guy, you kind of have to like what he can bring, and even among Spurs fans he's divisive. Simmons has more of a role, is athletic and has also helped win games in a good team. Same as you are picking him, so would the Lakers, since they could have a cheap Clarkson facsimile in him. That was the question.

By the way, I have only watched a few minutes of Clarkson. He didn't play last time we played the Lakers, and I am not gaga about him. I would not trade a first and Simmons for him (or Kyle) but that may just be because I am not hyped up about Clarkson.

I answered. Id rather be redundant having 2 simmons type player than wasting a spot on a player who were basing on a potential that isnt even that high.

Id trade kyle and a first for clarkson, because its hard to find a player who already has the 6moty potential that deep in the draft

[SAGirl]

I answered. Id rather be redundant having 2 simmons type player than wasting a spot on a player who were basing on a potential that isnt even that high.

Id trade kyle and a first for clarkson, because its hard to find a player who already has the 6moty potential that deep in the draft
The question was to trade Clarkson for Simmons +1st. If you valued Clarkson enough it would be good enough for you. YOu obviously don't value Kyle at all, so you are only giving up a 1st and that would be ok to you. He may not generate interest is what I said... but Simmons +1 may get it done. That was my question, but you want to go in circles so fine. disregarded.

[sasaint]

The question was to trade Clarkson for Simmons +1st. If you valued Clarkson enough it would be good enough for you. YOu obviously don't value Kyle at all, so you are only giving up a 1st and that would be ok to you. He may not generate interest is what I said... but Simmons +1 may get it done. That was my question, but you want to go in circles so fine. disregarded.

Let me rejoin the fray. Having seen very little of Clarkson, I am kind of basing my uninformed opinion on stats and the write-ups I read about the possibility of the Laker's moving him. So, with those disclaimers, I must say I am rather ambivalent. I like the potential of both Simmons and Kyle (even though we seem to be seeing less and less of Kyle). That said, I like the current level of play of Clarkson better. As for draft picks, I am even more ambivalent. I tend to think the pick we have in the late twenties (at best) is pretty worthless. On the other hand, I am kind of amazed when I look around the league at the guys who we have drafted late who went on to have journeyman careers. So the pick isn't as worthless as I imagine. That said, I suggested in a comment above that I doubt PATFO would be willing to part with both Kyle and our #1 pick (leaving us with potentially zero picks, iirc) for Clarkson. I am not certain we would even part with our #1 and Simmons, who Pop is really trying to push into a reliable rotation spot. (Frankly, I suspect Pop is about as nervous about the looming loss of Ginobili as some of us fans are!) Personally, as much as I like Simmons, I would rather see him depart in any deal for Clarkson. Kyle has so much fascinating potential. But ultimately Simmons seems like a raw (probably more athletic) Clarkson, but neither has a game or skill set remotely like Kyle's. Simmons and Clarkson would be rather redundant.

I would probably do our #1 plus Simmons for Clarkson. I would have to think a little longer on our #1 plus Kyle for Clarkson. But this is all probably fantasy league musing, anyway.

[Mel_13]

Clarkson will be a restricted free agent this summer, but the Lakers have significant leverage to bring him back.

"It's going to be virtually impossible for him to leave us," said Kupchak.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-kupchak-lakers-may-retire-8-24-kobe-bryant-20160103-story.html

[SAGirl]

On the other hand, I am kind of amazed when I look around the league at the guys who we have drafted late who went on to have journeyman careers. So the pick isn't as worthless as I imagine.

The picks are more valuable than ever with the steep salary increases. There have also been a number of very nice players picked late, Middleton, Parsons, Butler, Draymond, etc. It's not guaranteed of course that you will get a guy like that late, but even the one pick we traded to GSW for Stephen Jackson turned out to be 30 and at that spot GSW got Festus Ezeli, an important roleplayer for their bench. Late round picks are not usually going to net you a star (although Jimmy Butler right? you never know), but they can get you useful roleployers in cheap 4 year contracts which you kind of need to balance out a roster with some young legs and not just vets over the hill a the end of their careers (35+ guys like we have picked up cheap is not going to get it done with just Kawhi/Aldridge).

The picks should be doubly valuable for the spurs bc if the team falls down and stumbles without our vets when they retire, we'll want to have a pick to replenish talent.

Spurs have drafted a lot of overseas talent recently that didn't pan out, but they also were looking to not add salary and possibly skipped other guys they would have gotten. This season for example they could not afford at all to draft someone, even when R.J Hunter was there for the taking (a good candidate for the 4th wing spot if TD 21 had his way, since he is a dangerous 3 pt shooter). It tells you how high they were on Kyle that they picked him up a year they really didn't need anyone and were just going to slowly develop him to what they wanted. In a future where our TD/Manu are retiring soon and Tony may fall steeply all of a sudden, I want to keep my pick. Kyle/Simmons are actually kind of redundant in this trade, I actually personally value the pick more. I posited earlier that I would only see a trade for Kyle straight up, not with +1 attached and obviously either guy by themselves should not net much, both in salary and also established production.

[TD 21]

If they were even willing to deal with us, and they wanted a player, they would likely be more interested in Kyle - shades of Magic, UCLA guy - not Simmons. Then the question would be whether we would have any interest. I doubt it.

Agreed.

I only used Simmons instead of Anderson, because I looked it from the Spurs perspective and since Clarkson would essentially be replacing Simmons, it would make more sense to offer him. I wouldn't be opposed to Anderson and a 1st though.

[sasaint]

Agreed.

I only used Simmons instead of Anderson, because I looked it from the Spurs perspective and since Clarkson would essentially be replacing Simmons, it would make more sense to offer him. I wouldn't be opposed to Anderson and a 1st though.

Have you seen Clarkson play much, because I admit that I haven't.

[100%duncan]

The question was to trade Clarkson for Simmons +1st. If you valued Clarkson enough it would be good enough for you. YOu obviously don't value Kyle at all, so you are only giving up a 1st and that would be ok to you. He may not generate interest is what I said... but Simmons +1 may get it done. That was my question, but you want to go in circles so fine. disregarded.

This was your question :lol " Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?"

I answered it by saying Id prefer both same type of players than a scrub. But if your question is would I trade Simmons plus a first for Clarkson, then that would be interesting, hard to answer.

[SAGirl]

This was your question :lol " Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?"

I answered it by saying Id prefer both same type of players than a scrub. But if your question is would I trade Simmons plus a first for Clarkson, then that would be interesting, hard to answer.
Just going to take you for a troll sorry. NOt that you care anyways.

[100%duncan]

Just going to take you for a troll sorry. NOt that you care anyways.

Talk to me when your definition of a question actually ends in a question mark.

[SAGirl]

Talk to me when your definition of a question actually ends in a question mark.
We are way past that, but not that it matters like I said. This whole thread is hypothetical anyways.

[100%duncan]

We are way past that, but not that it matters like I said. This whole thread is hypothetical anyways.

I answered your 2 questions already, aint a troll but whatever IMHO

[ceperez]

This was your question :lol " Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?"

I answered it by saying Id prefer both same type of players than a scrub. But if your question is would I trade Simmons plus a first for Clarkson, then that would be interesting, hard to answer.

I haven't seen Clarkson play, but just by looking at the measurements and his stats, I would take Simmons. They both have a high vertical but Simmons has 3" reach advantage. Furthermore, Clarksons stats, specifically the 3 point shooting at 33% this season isn't really great.

[TD 21]

Have you seen Clarkson play much, because I admit that I haven't.

Enough to make the assessment of him that I made. Get's to the rim well, is an improved shooter, but not much of a play maker. He'd be best playing alongside another guard or wing that can handle lead play making duties, similar to Hill.

Still, he'd be a nice fit next to Mills, for the simple fact that he can defend SG's and at least act as a co-PG offensively. It's all moot anyway though.

[sasaint]

Enough to make the assessment of him that I made. Get's to the rim well, is an improved shooter, but not much of a play maker. He'd be best playing alongside another guard or wing that can handle lead play making duties, similar to Hill.

Still, he'd be a nice fit next to Mills, for the simple fact that he can defend SG's and at least act as a co-PG offensively. It's all moot anyway though.

Watching Clarkson play the point against the Dubs right now. Really a game of a pawn versus a queen, Clarkson looks like the Lakers' best player by a good margin. Kobe and Russell are out. The Lakers are a train wreck, painful to watch. Their D looks like a Chinese fire drill.

[100%duncan]

Watching Clarkson play the point against the Dubs right now. Really a game of a pawn versus a queen, Clarkson looks like the Lakers' best player by a good margin. Kobe and Russell are out. The Lakers are a train wreck, painful to watch. Their D looks like a Chinese fire drill.

Imho he was their best player last year aswell, making all rookie first of course it doesnt say much but the potential and the materialization is atleast there.

[CGD]

Any reclamation projects/bad fits on current team out there that may have the right combination of compelling skill, salary, and favorable team control?

Ben McLemore comes to mind.

[SAGirl]

After reading Manu's article in La Nacion and how happy all bench guys are in their roles, even the diminished one's, how surprisingly good and useful Simmons ha been, how well Boban is doing every chance he get to play and how much they love Anderson (me encanta means they love him) and how they find it hard to even get these guys minutes, a trade this season is out the window. Butler and Bonner also had the rest of the year just guaranteed and it seems like this is the group that we are staying put with.

[Chinook]

After reading Manu's article in La Nacion and how happy all bench guys are in their roles, even the diminished one's, how surprisingly good and useful Simmons ha been, how well Boban is doing every chance he get to play and how much they love Anderson (me encanta means they love him) and how they find it hard to even get these guys minutes, a trade this season is out the window. Butler and Bonner also had the rest of the year just guaranteed and it seems like this is the group that we are staying put with.

Between Simmons looking good and Green gaining form, the Spurs don't have a need for a veteran fourth wing. The bigs are in great shape too. The only reason to cut anyone would be to protect a d-league prospect (like they did with Daye/JMG), but the best Toro prospect is Lalanne, and he's already protected.

I think you're reaching with the Spanish semantics, though. I'm sure Manu and the Spurs like Anderson just fine, but there's little functional difference between "me gusta" and "me encanta", at least not enough to code meaning into Manu's usage. Not to mention that "me encanta" literally means "he enchants me", while "me gusta" literally means "he tastes good to me". If Manu were really thinking about subtle meanings, it's no wonder he went with the former.

[SAGirl]

Between Simmons looking good and Green gaining form, the Spurs don't have a need for a veteran fourth wing. The bigs are in great shape too. The only reason to cut anyone would be to protect a d-league prospect (like they did with Daye/JMG), but the best Toro prospect is Lalanne, and he's already protected.

I think you're reaching with the Spanish semantics, though. I'm sure Manu and the Spurs like Anderson just fine, but there's little functional difference between "me gusta" and "me encanta", at least not enough to code meaning into Manu's usage. Not to mention that "me encanta" literally means "he enchants me", while "me gusta" literally means "he tastes good to me". If Manu were really thinking about subtle meanings, it's no wonder he went with the former.
I am native in Spanish. Me encanta is a lot stronger than me gusta. It's ok if you don't infer that Manu loves playing with him, but it's actually a good translation. Certainly stronger than I like playing with him.

Only way I see him traded is if the Spurs don't have a plan for him next season and plan on leaving him out of the rotation. Even then they probably still want him for depth, but hes good enough to get minutes somewhere and he might eventually grow dissatisfied like Nando was. But considering how Pop has gone out if his way to find him minutes and play time despite the win now mode and the serious depth of the rotation, I don't think they plan on giving him up.

[Chinook]

I am native in Spanish. Me encanta is a lot stronger than me gusta. It's ok if you don't infer that Manu loves playing with him, but it's actually a good translation. Certainly stronger than I like playing with him.

Only way I see him traded is if the Spurs don't have a plan for him next season and plan on leaving him out of the rotation. Even then they probably still want him for depth, but hes good enough to get minutes somewhere and he might eventually grow dissatisfied like Nando was. But considering how Pop has gone out if his way to find him minutes and play time despite the win now mode and the serious depth of the rotation, I don't think they plan on giving him up.

I am not suggesting that Anderson is going to get traded. I don't think the team needs anything this year, and PATFO don't really trade for the future. Anyway, I know what the colloquial translation of "me encanta" is. I never questioned what it denotes, only what it connotes. People use "love" in a lot of contexts where it doesn't really have a lot of strengths. It's like people putting exclamation points when they're not really shouting. If you google "I love playing with/for", you'll get a ton of responses from situations where it's clear they don't mean it very strongly (like Murray and the Eagles). I simply think that Manu was saying "It's cool to play with Kyle" and not "Playing with Kyle is the most awesomest thing in the whole universe".

[SAGirl]

I am not suggesting that Anderson is going to get traded. I don't think the team needs anything this year, and PATFO don't really trade for the future. Anyway, I know what the colloquial translation of "me encanta" is. I never questioned what it denotes, only what it connotes. People use "love" in a lot of contexts where it doesn't really have a lot of strengths. It's like people putting exclamation points when they're not really shouting. If you google "I love playing with/for", you'll get a ton of responses from situations where it's clear they don't mean it very strongly (like Murray and the Eagles). I simply think that Manu was saying "It's cool to play with Kyle" and not "Playing with Kyle is the most awesomest thing in the whole universe".
I disagree with you bc me encanta is not the same as ahh it's cool. Personally, me encanta goes right next to really liking someone, really enjoying playing with someone and if you say you love playing with someone you don't have to emphasize "really".

I used the translation that Manu loves playing with him, but Nono translated it as "really like him". You add the adverb "really" to emphasize that it's beyond your casual ahh it's cool like say playing with Ayers was cool. (Was it?) That was a bit of sarcasm by me to spin a bit of humor here, but for sure me encanta causes the inference that Manu enjoys playing with him a whole lot, which is just a tad above ahh it's cool.

[sasaint]

I disagree with you bc me encanta is not the same as ahh it's cool. Personally, me encanta goes right next to really liking someone, really enjoying playing with someone and if you say you love playing with someone you don't have to emphasize "really".

I used the translation that Manu loves playing with him, but Nono translated it as "really like him". You add the adverb "really" to emphasize that it's beyond your casual ahh it's cool like say playing with Ayers was cool. (Was it?) That was a bit of sarcasm by me to spin a bit of humor here, but for sure me encanta causes the inference that Manu enjoys playing with him a whole lot, which is just a tad above ahh it's cool.

You are talking semantics when you should be talking inflection. I didn't hear the quote from Manu, so I don't know.

[SAGirl]

You are talking semantics when you should be talking inflection. I didn't hear the quote from Manu, so I don't know.
Its on that post from ElNono, about the article from LaNacion.
If you didn't read the article its a good one.

Edit: for future reference and anyone who didn't read that article. Its referenced here: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256057&page=2&p=8365849#post8365849
and here is the original in Spanish http://canchallena.lanacion.com.ar/1860949-tenemos-mucho-personal-y-eso-marca-la-diferencia

[sasaint]

Its on that post from ElNono, about the article from LaNacion.
If you didn't read the article its a good one.

Edit: for future reference and anyone who didn't read that article. Its referenced here: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256057&page=2&p=8365849#post8365849
and here is the original in Spanish http://canchallena.lanacion.com.ar/1860949-tenemos-mucho-personal-y-eso-marca-la-diferencia

I thought the quote was from a spoken interview. Expressions like that are best understood if spoken. In print it could be anything, as it could in English. Since Manu spends more ink on Simmons in the article, he could intend the expression, "me encanta" to mean literally anything from,"I also love playing with Kyle" to something more glowing. A real nada IMHO.

[SAGirl]

I thought the quote was from a spoken interview. Expressions like that are best understood if spoken. In print it could be anything, as it could in English. Since Manu spends more ink on Simmons in the article, he could intend the expression, "me encanta" to mean literally anything from,"I also love playing with Kyle" to something more glowing. A real nada IMHO.
He didn't say "also". He stated he really liked him, or liked him very much, or loved him take your pick. A lot is said about others in that essay including how special his relationship on and off the court is with Patty and Boris. And he made comments specifically referencing other players.

I take his words to mean exactly what he said concerning Kyle. If you value what he stated about others to mean what he said, then this is also true. He really likes the player.

[sasaint]

He didn't say "also". He stated he really liked him, or liked him very much, or loved him take your pick. A lot is said about others in that essay including how special his relationship on and off the court is with Patty and Boris. And he made comments specifically referencing other players.

I take his words to mean exactly what he said concerning Kyle. If you value what he stated about others to mean what he said, then this is also true. He really likes the player.

Just for the record, I didn't say that he said "also". I said that might reasonably have been his intent in the context. It is just too uncertain. And I was not intending to offer a synopsis of the entire article - just saying that in that paragraph of the article and in the context of our Simmons/Kyle discussion, Manu started with Simmons and devoted more ink to him. In the final analysis I have no reason to doubt that he is high on Kyle. I just wish his comments had been spoken not written. We could certainly discern more that way.

[SAGirl]

Just for the record, I didn't say that he said "also". I said that might reasonably have been his intent in the context. It is just too uncertain. And I was not intending to offer a synopsis of the entire article - just saying that in that paragraph of the article and in the context of our Simmons/Kyle discussion, Manu started with Simmons and devoted more ink to him. In the final analysis I have no reason to doubt that he is high on Kyle. I just wish his comments had been spoken not written. We could certainly discern more that way.

Oh ok. Not wanting to enter a debate bc all of this came from just my estimation based on Manu's essay that everyone is really satisfied with their roles and that despite Anderson's relative lack of playing time they really like him (love him was my translation). I referenced him specifically bc he's been the subject of most trade ideas here in this thread, but also if you read the article and have watched the team recently you would know the other guys are contributing more, and Anderson seems to have lost minutes and also seems to need more development. Within that context it was revealing to me that Manu specifically said they love him over there, or really like him, or whatever is the expression the reader wants to infer on their own.

Then Chinook and I started a debate on the meaning of Manu's expression, but it was limited to that. Chinook saying he didn't think it meant as much as I thought but he still didn't see a trade happening. I posted the article for casual visitors who had missed it(like yourself) and would want to draw their own conclusions or were confused by my debate of sorts with Chinook over the expression. It also gives a broader context as you noted. I limited my initial comment to Kyle, but there was more there about the whole bench.

Anyone who is interested in the debate can also read it and make their own inferences. I never mentioned Simmons in all of this or Boban, until you brought them up specifically, bc initially it was obvious they are contributing, and their games are more developed or established at this point and save the rare comment on Simmons, most of the trade discussion centered on Anderson.

But I did specify I don't see any trades happening anyway. Despite limited roles this season fir these 3, they may need to step into larger roles next season or the one after if they are still here.

[sasaint]

Oh ok. Not wanting to enter a debate bc all of this came from just my estimation based on Manu's essay that everyone is really satisfied with their roles and that despite Anderson's relative lack of playing time they really like him (love him was my translation). I referenced him specifically bc he's been the subject of most trade ideas here in this thread, but also if you read the article and have watched the team recently you would know the other guys are contributing more, and Anderson seems to have lost minutes and also seems to need more development. Within that context it was revealing to me that Manu specifically said they love him over there, or really like him, or whatever is the expression the reader wants to infer on their own.

Then Chinook and I started a debate on the meaning of Manu's expression, but it was limited to that. Chinook saying he didn't think it meant as much as I thought but he still didn't see a trade happening. I posted the article for casual visitors who had missed it(like yourself) and would want to draw their own conclusions or were confused by my debate of sorts with Chinook over the expression. It also gives a broader context as you noted. I limited my initial comment to Kyle, but there was more there about the whole bench.

Anyone who is interested in the debate can also read it and make their own inferences. I never mentioned Simmons in all of this or Boban, until you brought them up specifically, bc initially it was obvious they are contributing, and their games are more developed or established at this point and save the rare comment on Simmons, most of the trade discussion centered on Anderson.

But I did specify I don't see any trades happening anyway. Despite limited roles this season fir these 3, they may need to step into larger roles next season or the one after if they are still here.

I said weeks ago that I would be stunned if the Spurs made any moves this season - even more so now that Rocket and Rasual are guaranteed for the duration. I also said weeks ago that I hope that Kyle and Simmons represent the Spurs TNG. I think Pop has hopes/expectations that mirror my own. I made those comments before Boban was seeing the court much except in garbage time. I would add him to those hopes/expectations now. My whole point about Manu that you have either missed or ignored is that we would be in a better position to know what Manu meant if he had spoken the words for us to hear rather than written them for us to read. Inflection can make all the difference.

[SAGirl]

I apologize. We had indeed a misunderstanding. My initial comment was very narrow to the trades ideas. My discussion with Chinook was also very narrow (at least from my point of view, can't say Chinook's) to a translation. You were the first I suppose to bring context, and inflection into it from the perspective of how things were said. (Maybe Chinook went into inflection a bit, but I was more literal in sticking to a translation bc from reading the essay, any smart person can come to their own conclusions concerning context and I was not going to dispute what Chinook concluded on his own, but I could argue a translation). When you stated you didn't hear the comment and could not infer more, I provided the text. I was still being very literal, and I thought you simply didn't know that the expression we were discussing was in an essay... so that caused some confusion. I was still talking translation and you meant something else. It was figuratively talking apples and oranges. Before I talk oranges with you, I have one last apple to share. Jesus Gomez from Pounding the Rock translated the quote:

Even Kyle Anderson, whose game I love, has helped us a lot
This translation also supports that my original translation was good as far as what was written and accurately translating it to English.

Now to talk oranges. I guess I now understand why you inferred Manu meant:
,"I also love playing with Kyle" referencing Simmons. Originally that threw me off. I quite honestly didn't understand why you had to talk about Simmons or other guys, when the discussion had been limited to the statement quoted concerning one guy, but now I guess I do. You can discern some things from context for sure, and word selection. The context of the statement I quoted came right after Manu had given a very approving review of Simmons and Boban's recent games. In Simmons' case, it was a gratifying surprise for him that he was playing so well after being so raw in preseason and he acknowledged that he's helped the team out a lot and brings some unique things that perhaps no one else has (not even Kawhi... that is glowing!!). In Boban's case, they knew he was a good player but it was questionable whether or not he could adapt to the NBA speed, therefore it was a pleasant surprise as well to see him come around so quickly and contribute to wins. In that context, Manu devoted less words to Kyle, but he might have felt the need to be more explicit in how much he likes playing with him because otherwise Kyle's contributions would go unnoticed and he would be overlooked as an important contributor in the bench. Someone would infer that he is a guy that is not in the level of the other two because he had lost playing time. To do the guy justice, he had to be explicit in stating that he has helped out a lot when he's played, he loves his game, and the reason he hasn't played is because they have a deep bench rotation and go with matches.

Yes I agree with you that Manu didn't mean he loved Kyle's game more than anyone else's, or that he was more special than anyone (Maybe this is what Chinook meant as well, now that I think about it). I think it simply meant what he said, that he loves playing with him and his contributions have helped. Considering that Kyle has not played much outside of garbage time or against weak teams recently, I was happy to find out that they have him in high esteem, regardless of how he's ranked with anyone. Just independently of other guys, you could say, they really like him. (It is like selecting your favorite children... do you need to? Can you not appreciate anyone individually? It will be unfair to compare them, as they are different and someone is bound to be on the losing end.)

If anything for the wing position I think Pop indeed prefers Simmons because he's more athletic and can certainly bring some things to the team that no one else has. Kyle's skillset is repetitive in this current bench. Some people have taken the issues of fit too far to criticize Kyle, as if all of a sudden he's a guy who can't play. He's still a developing kid, much younger than Simmons/Boban, who is still in the formative stages of his game at this level, but what he can really bring to the team will probably not flourish yet, as he needs more confidence, better outside shooting, and possibly also more opportunities. His game, like Manu's requires chemistry and rhythm with guys to make adequate/timely passes. He's not a guy who is going to suck in the help regularly like Tony, Manu, Simmons (even they don't suck in the help regularly and sometimes if they attack the basket have to be prepared to finish vs a big guy, as they are not necessarily getting doubled, with opportunities for passing). Kyle's passing is more based on an understanding of angles, and having good court vision, spotting things, guys open for a moment. It's what Becky and Pop have stated essentially, and from seeing him find cutters and guys moving off the ball in other leagues, I know that he creates for others in ways that are unorthodox. He wasn't a PnR heavy kind of PG even in college. He was just a master of finding guys in transition, cutting, curling, coming off screens, alley oops, a whole lot of other kinds of passes. He's been unable to develop much of that with all the yanking early in the season, Pop's super strict coaching and now he's getting less chances and this season was not going to be about his development anyways.

[sasaint]

:toast No need to apologize - we just weren't connecting. However, you were not being too literal when I was using words like "inflection," "hear" and "spoken." :lol I don't know how you missed my meaning (although it kind of reinforces my point), nonetheless I appreciated the opportunity to read Manu's article. Thanks for posting the link. I don't know how often Manu writes his article, but I never think of just pulling up La Nacion online. I think that foreign players sometimes feel like they can express themselves more freely in their native countries (not just in the linguistic sense, but also in the political sense of not being under the microscope of the NBA's and individual team's press coverage). I think Manu (and Becky and Pop et al) do really "love" the guy. As to whether or not he is the "favored child," I cannot tell from the article (nor should I be able to, as you said). Again as I have said many times, I believe we are looking at a few of the parts of the Spurs TNG. I expect/hope Simmons and Anderson are Spurs lifers, and it would be very interesting to read all the current comments on ST in about 4 years, when I believe they will be playing along side each other.

[NickiRasgo]

Covington!

[CGD]

Can the Spurs even be players in waiver market this year? i forget how that process works.

I assume Bonner would have to be cut first.

[CGD]

Also does the Duncan knee thing make it more likely the Spurs do a small trade for a 4/5 big?

[SD126]

Can the Spurs even be players in waiver market this year? i forget how that process works.

I assume Bonner would have to be cut first.

Need to clear a roster spot first.

[Chinook]

Just saw these two trades on RealGM (Courtesy of Texas Chuck): http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1447281


Pacers trade: George Hill, Monta Ellis, #20
Pacers get: Jeff Teague, #29

Hawks trade: Jeff Teague
Hawks get: Patty Mills, Nick Stauskas #20, #26

Sixers trade: pick #24, #26, Nick Stauskas
Sixers get: Tony Parker

Spurs trade: Tony Parker, Patty Mills, , #29
Spurs get: Monta Ellis, George Hill, , #24

Pacers get a new PG and dump one of their combo guards as they look to play faster--plus they gain more cap space
Hawks get a nice affordable backup PG who can really shoot, take a look at Stauskas, get a couple late 1sts and add cap space to help them keep/replace Bazemore
Sixers trade a couple late 1sts to get a veteran PG leader.
Spurs bring back an old friend, and in a move that might shock people bring in what looks on the surface like an anti-Spur in Monta Ellis. More on that later.


Then the Spurs package pick #24 with Kyle Anderson and a 2018 Spurs 2nd and trade with Chicago for #14 and Tony Snell. Bulls add a skilled forward prospect in exchange for dropping 10 spots.

I think he's off his rocker if he thinks Parker is worth two firsts and a prospect. But shit, if he isn't...

I wouldn't want to move up to 14 just to get Valentine. Would rather keep the better defender in Anderson. While using 24 on a guy like Beasley. However, if Deyonta Davis falls that far, then I'd totally reconsider.

[MaNu4Tres]

Just saw these two trades on RealGM (Courtesy of Texas Chuck): http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1447281





I think he's off his rocker if he thinks Parker is worth two firsts and a prospect. But shit, if he isn't...

I wouldn't want to move up to 14 just to get Valentine. Would rather keep the better defender in Anderson. While using 24 on a guy like Beasley. However, if Deyonta Davis falls that far, then I'd totally reconsider.


Why on earth would the Sixers want Tony Parker? And don't say leadership. If they want leadership, they can get leadership much cheaper than giving up two first round picks and taking on 30 million for 2 years.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Chinook]

Why on earth would the Sixers want Tony Parker? And don't say leadership. If they want leadership, they can get leadership much cheaper than giving up two first round picks and taking on 30 million for 2 years.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

People make too much of Parker's contract. It's totally fine. It just wouldn't be for the Spurs if they wanted to sign Conley or Durant, as he wouldn't have much use. I could totally see Philly wanting him with their lack or guard and them having bigs who need someone to pass to them. And that ignores that Parker would help sell the team to other potential free agents. Parker, Noel, Oak, Simmons/Ingram and Embiid is a lot more attractive to vets than those guys without Tony by with some nameless rookies.

[palangi]

Why on earth would the Sixers want Tony Parker? And don't say leadership. If they want leadership, they can get leadership much cheaper than giving up two first round picks and taking on 30 million for 2 years.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.
Because philly doesn't have a PG. because philly has a real young team. Because philly could use Parker experience both on and off the court. Because Parker knows the system.

[MaNu4Tres]

People make too much of Parker's contract. It's totally fine. It just wouldn't be for the Spurs if they wanted to sign Conley or Durant, as he wouldn't have much use. I could totally see Philly wanting him with their lack or guard and them having bigs who need someone to pass to them. And that ignores that Parker would help sell the team to other potential free agents. Parker, Noel, Oak, Simmons/Ingram and Embiid is a lot more attractive to vets than those guys without Tony by with some nameless rookies.


I couldn't disagree more.

No way Sixers would give up assets ( two first round picks or hell even 1 first round pick) to take on 34 year old declining Tony Parker who has 2 years left worth 30 million -- makes absolutely no sense.


Lol at Parker being able to sell the team to other potential free agents. My goodness.

[MaNu4Tres]

Because philly doesn't have a PG. because philly has a real young team. Because philly could use Parker experience both on and off the court. Because Parker knows the system.


Sixers can attain a point guard with experience much cheaper in free agency than having to get rid of two first round picks ( like the proposed deal says) and much cheaper than having to pay 30 million over 2 years.

I have no idea how some of you guys on here come up with this stuff or how you think it makes sense.

[Chinook]

I couldn't disagree more.

Is this like a sig that shows up in front of your post instead of after it?


No way Sixers would give up assets ( two first round picks or hell even 1 first round pick) to take on 34 year old declining Tony Parker who has 2 years left worth 30 million -- makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about Conley making twice that much per year this summer. This seems hard for some people to understand, but Parker isn't going to be particularly highly paid after this summer's frenzy.

And you can obviously disagree more, because I never said the Sixers should move picks for Parker. But he totally fits what they want to do. They need a bridge player to get their core to make the next step, in the same way Perkins was for OKC and Iggy was for GS.


Lol at Parker being able to sell the team to other potential free agents. My goodness.

Yeah, because he's never done that before...

[MaNu4Tres]

Is this like a sig that shows up in front of your post instead of after it?



We are talking about Conley making twice that much per year this summer. This seems hard for some people to understand, but Parker isn't going to be particularly highly paid after this summer's frenzy.

And you can obviously disagree more, because I never said the Sixers should move picks for Parker. But he totally fits what they want to do. They need a bridge player to get their core to make the next step, in the same way Perkins was for OKC and Iggy was for GS.



Yeah, because he's never done that before...



If Sixers want a veteran at point-guard, they can get one that can manage the offense just as well as 34 yr old declining Tony for a fraction of the price in free agency -- without giving up assets. (Rondo, Lin, Chalmers, Jennings, Deron Williams, Felton, Dellavedova to name a few unrestricted FA this summer that will be less than 15 mil per.)


And laugh out loud at Parker being able to sell the team to other potential free agents. Yeah Parker did it before alright, only when he sold his best friend since grade school to join the Spurs -- this was when Tony Parker was relevant in the league and a MVP candidate -- now he's not even top 15 at his position. That ship has sailed.

Some of your takes are very surprising Chinook -- expect much better.

[Chinook]

If Sixers want a veteran at point-guard, they can get one that can manage the offense just as well as 34 yr old declining Tony for a fraction of the price in free agency -- without giving up assets. (Rondo, Lin, Chalmers, Jennings, Deron Williams, Felton, Dellavedova to name a few unrestricted FA this summer that will be less than 15 mil per.)

So your solution is that they get worse players? They just gave up two high seconds for Ish Smith. They aren't going to try to be cheap. And you'll be surprised, apparently, because most of those guys will be making within 70 percent of what Parker is making and may well not choose the Sixers.


And laugh out loud at Parker being able to sell the team to other potential free agents. Yeah Parker did it before alright, only when he sold his best friend since grade school to join the Spurs -- this was when Tony Parker was relevant in the league and a MVP candidate -- now he's not even top 15 at his position. That ship has sailed.

You don't have to be an MVP candidate to sell your team well. He was there at the LMA meeting, as was broken-axle Tim. Hell, LMA even called Danny Green for advice during the recruiting process. That ignores that he also was really intrigued by broken-down Tyson Chandler being brought on by the Suns.

When you have guys like Batum or Fournier looking for landing spots, a max contract from Philly with your nation's idol trying to get you to join him is very compelling. Do I think the players will flock to the Sixers? No. Do I think having Parker makes them a more attractive destination than having just what they have now plus a couple more rookies? Yes.


Some of your takes are very surprising Chinook -- expect much better.

You lost me once you started acting like coaching staffs don't matter.

[palangi]

If Sixers want a veteran at point-guard, they can get one that can manage the offense just as well as 34 yr old declining Tony for a fraction of the price in free agency -- without giving up assets. (Rondo, Lin, Chalmers, Jennings, Deron Williams, Felton, Dellavedova to name a few unrestricted FA this summer that will be less than 15 mil per.)


And laugh out loud at Parker being able to sell the team to other potential free agents. Yeah Parker did it before alright, only when he sold his best friend since grade school to join the Spurs -- this was when Tony Parker was relevant in the league and a MVP candidate -- now he's not even top 15 at his position. That ship has sailed.

Some of your takes are very surprising Chinook -- expect much better.
But they get a veteran in tony that knows the system, that is a big deal whether you want to admit it or not. Philly is very far under the cap. They need to spend some money. Why not get a guy the coach is familiar with and comfortable with? Like chinook has said he is a bridge for a younger guy. and 2 years is a good time to do this also.

[MaNu4Tres]

But they get a veteran in tony that knows the system, that is a big deal whether you want to admit it or not. Philly is very far under the cap. They need to spend some money. Why not get a guy the coach is familiar with and comfortable with? Like chinook has said he is a bridge for a younger guy. and 2 years is a good time to do this also.

I couldn't disagree more.

Makes no sense for Sixers to trade for Tony in my opinion.

People think differently its okay to disagree. Its all subjective right now anyway.

[Kawhitstorm]

Just saw these two trades on RealGM (Courtesy of Texas Chuck): http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1447281

McMillan is a defensive minded coach so it doesn't make sense to trade G.Hill's reasonable contract for Porker especially considering Paul George handles the ball a lot thus he would have to play off the ball.:lol

Again, the only teams I could see trading for Porker are the Jazz or the Hawks since both have links to the Spurs & could use a veteran point guard. Most likely that Jazz since nobody wants to play there & they have a bunch of 3rd string PGs.:lol (The Hawks trading Teague to the Jazz for Alec Burks makes more sense since they might lose Bazemore & Hood/Hayward/Exum can eat up the wing minutes)

[Chinook]

McMillan is a defensive minded coach so it doesn't make sense to trade G.Hill's reasonable contract for Porker especially considering Paul George handles the ball a lot thus he would have to play off the ball.:lol

Again, the only teams I could see trading for Porker are the Jazz or the Hawks since both have links to the Spurs & could use a veteran point guard. Most likely that Jazz since nobody wants to play there & they have a bunch of 3rd string PGs.:lol (The Hawks trading Teague to the Jazz for Alec Burks makes more sense since they might lose Bazemore & Hood/Hayward/Exum can eat up the wing minutes)

That was actually long five-team trade where the Spurs end up with Snell, 14, Hill and Eliis by giving up Parker, Mills and Anderson and 29.

[objective]

I've actually thought about a Parker to Philly trade recently and think it might make sense for Philly.

Of course the Spurs would have to be willing to part with Parker (maybe for little or nothing) but it they were I could see it.

He has the relationship with Brett Brown. They need a point. The price trade wise wouldn't be high, maybe some late first or the like.

Colangelo is about winning now and vindicating his hire by differentiating himself from Hinkie. They have so much room that Parker's ridiculous contract doesn't hurt them while it's in effect, and will be over before it can hurt their ability to extend any young players.

And getting a tired vet point for a young team is not without precedent. Hell, the Spurs did it with No Cheeks for Robinson, and Cheeks was even more finished than Parker and about to retire. But he allegedly was going to be a great leader who would teach the young players with his title experience. Instead he didn't lead anything and wasn't even willing to move out of his airport hotel room iirc.

Getting Parker would be the most anti-Hinkie move Philly can do, and with a high lotto pick the year, and Saric, and signing nba-level free agents, they could be a playoff team. And colangelo would be celebrated and up for executive of the year.

[SAGirl]

Both trades are too generous to the Spurs to be realistic.

I could see the 76ers trading for Tony but not attaching 2 picks and a young prospect, specially very early in FA (which is when it would be worth it for us, so we can go after a premium FA ourselves) which means Philly is doing us a favor. 2 picks and a young prospect is too much in that scenario. I could see 76ers getting cheap and not wanting to give up that much.

The Snell-Anderson trade/pick swap is puzzling bc it is also too much in the Spurs favor. I could see Snell for Anderson straight up, and that is not worth it for us, as Snell IMO is a worse player, has regressed and is not versatile or a good defender. He's the epitome of 3 and D but with average to below average D and average 3. Still that's a type favored by the Spurs, and I am sure a lot of guys would love that trade here, but we would likely be made worse by it and I doubt Spurs go for it bc Anderson has a higher ceiling. On the other hand, adding the picks is like saying KA is worth pick 14 and Snell is pick 29. I don't think KA is worth pick 14 right now. Bulls could possibly get a better player at that spot in the draft themselves or a better player in a trade with another team than KA. That trade assumes that KA is the prize for the Bulls and he's not in the category to be a prize player in a trade yet. He's better than Snell but he may not be better than pick 14.

[CGD]

Interesting thought but that's a lot of years of Monta...

The basic structure of that Kyle Anderson trade should be there without having to maneuver to move up 5 spots. For example, if the guy the Spurs are targeting drops to 16 Boston might be willing to do that trade.

[objective]

I didn't have any specific picks for a Parker trade, and don't usually like to guess at 3+ team deals which are so unwieldy even as hypotheticals that they're a waste of brainstorming time.

But a pick for Parker? I could see it. If SA were willing to move on.

[Kawhitstorm]

Getting Parker would be the most anti-Hinkie move Philly can do, and with a high lotto pick the year, and Saric, and signing nba-level free agents, they could be a playoff team. And colangelo would be celebrated and up for executive of the year.

Porker might end up as an MVP candidate if they make the playoffs.:lol

[DPG21920]

Look, for a team like PHI, two late, late 1sts aren't really that valuable. They already have too many young players to look at. They also are ready to stop losing as much. They know they aren't a playoff team, but with the number 1 pick, they want to take steps forward.

They, more than anyone, will be willing to "overpay" to marginally improve as long as it's not a major sacrifice. They need vets and stars more than role players and with the odds of late firsts ever panning out let alone becoming rotation players I can totally see them "overpaying". Even if it's not for TP.

Heck, look at what BOS offered last year to try and get Winslow. An unproven and bad offensive player. When teams have too many draft picks and need talent, they are willing to overpay to get what they need IMO.

[Kawhitstorm]

Look, for a team like PHI, two late, late 1sts aren't really that valuable. They already have too many young players to look at. They also are ready to stop losing as much. They know they aren't a playoff team, but with the number 1 pick, they want to take steps forward.

They, more than anyone, will be willing to "overpay" to marginally improve as long as it's not a major sacrifice. They need vets and stars more than role players and with the odds of late firsts ever panning out let alone becoming rotation players I can totally see them "overpaying". Even if it's not for TP.

Heck, look at what BOS offered last year to try and get Winslow. An unproven and bad offensive player. When teams have too many draft picks and need talent, they are willing to overpay to get what they need IMO.

You also have idiotic teams like the Nets mortgaging their future for washed up All-Stars.:lol (Sean Marks on Line 1)

[Taking it to the Hole]

Unfortunately all this discussion of trading Parker is a moot point as PATFO will not even think about doing it out of loyalty to the Big 3 but it is nice to fantasize. The only way we get a point guard at this point is thru the draft or free agency. No team is going to want to commit to his contract for the next few years and not get something more in return. Right now, the Spurs don't have anything other than Bobo to dangle as bait.

[lmbebo]

Phi and Bos are two teams with a lot of assets, so would make sense to target them if a player that interests us is still available. I would be very surprised if spurs looked to dump Parker. He's def over the hill, but can't see the Spurs sending him out the door. Plus, who would replace him?

Spurs have work to do this off season, I doubt we do all we need to this summer. But if a way to use Boris to get a draft pick this summer, I'm up for it.

[intlspurshk]

Any interest to trade Boris to Kings for Marco +Omini. Marco expressed his bad feelings against Kings to public and paved his way to be traded.

[Kawhitstorm]

Any interest to trade Boris to Kings for Marco +Omini. Marco expressed his bad feelings against Kings to public and paved his way to be traded.

Why would the Kings trade Casspi when he's on a dirty cheap contract & better than Diaw.:lol (To dump Marco?)

[objective]

Marco was one of the worst players in the league last season and his absence played a big role in the spurs having a better defense.

[SAGirl]

Marco was one of the worst players in the league last season and his absence played a big role in the spurs having a better defense.
ppl still claim for him here as if he was going to be some savior.
Listen all (not you objective)... even shooting red hot, as he's unlikely to ever shoot in a playoff series again, he was soooo bad on defense that he was unable to swing it our way with the Clippers. He might have been another player made better by Ginobili. With a bad Manu, he would be no better than Mills, likely worse bc Mills make hustle plays at least, coming up with a rebound or a loose ball or steal occasionally, Marco does none of that. Do not want Marco back.
I would rather take a flyer on Bertans for a shooter.

[objective]

Bertans if healthy would be a much better option as a shooter.

Even without guaranteed health, I'd take him over the aging and declining Marco

[SD126]

ppl still claim for him here as if he was going to be some savior.
Listen all (not you objective)... even shooting red hot, as he's unlikely to ever shoot in a playoff series again, he was soooo bad on defense that he was unable to swing it our way with the Clippers. He might have been another player made better by Ginobili. With a bad Manu, he would be no better than Mills, likely worse bc Mills make hustle plays at least, coming up with a rebound or a loose ball or steal occasionally, Marco does none of that. Do not want Marco back.
I would rather take a flyer on Bertans for a shooter.

Thank you

[intlspurshk]

Yes casspi is the sweetener of the deal. Otherwise what team will trade for Marco when he criticized his own team in public. Only Spurs may have interest and Marco's contract has 2 years left and combining the payroll for casspi, it is still a reasonable package.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

738488558701318144

[CGD]

That's a good haul for Teague.

[SD126]

Good trade for both

[Kawhitstorm]

738488558701318144

....so much for the Diaw/Patty swap & Collison just got arrest so the pickings are slim as far as backup PG upgrades.:lol

[SD126]

....so much for the Diaw/Patty swap & Collison just got arrest so the pickings are slim as far as backup PG upgrades.:lol

Chances were already slim as it is. Just got even slimmer.

[pad300]

As far as offseason trades goes, there are 2 players who are in the last year of their contracts (and therefore somewhat cheaper), either of whom I would be very interested in trading for:

George Hill (30 years old, $8,000,000 this year = Boris)
Tyreke Evans (26 years old, $10,203,755 this year = Boris + filler ($1,163,004.00 of salaries...))

Both are creative combo guards with very strong assist rates. Both have the ability to drive, and have become above average 3 pt shoots ( .408 and .388 3fg% last year). Both are long (6'9" and 6'11" wingspans) and relatively athletic, allowing them to guard 2 or 3 positions with some success.

The question of course, is what we would have to include as enticements? This years first? Next years first? LJC?

[objective]

I can't imagine LJC having any value.

[cd021]

738488558701318144

I would consider moving Mills to Phily for one of their late 1st rounders. This draft has some prospects that could be at rotation level in a couple years.

Spurs would have a hole at PG but the end of roster would possibly be filled with prospects as opposed to guys in their mid 30's. Makes most since if Duncan and Manu both come back, in that event the Spurs would not really be able to improve the roster much anyway but for 2017 we would have five players likely making less than $1.5 million ( 2 1st rounders, Simmons, Anderson, and Bertans). Spurs would have LMA, Green, Leonard, Parker, and possibly Boban that would mean 10 players under would already be under contract

I would take Tauren Prince and Petr Corneille/ Stephen Zimmerman assuming they are available at 24th/ 26th and the 29th pick

PG-Parker
SG-Green, Manu, Simmons
SF-Leonard, Prince, Bertans
PF-LMA, Diaw, Anderson
C- Duncan, West, Boban

[Kawhitstorm]

George Hill (30 years old, $8,000,000 this year = Boris)
Tyreke Evans (26 years old, $10,203,755 this year = Boris + filler ($1,163,004.00 of salaries...))

Both are creative combo guards with very strong assist rates. Both have the ability to drive, and have become above average 3 pt shoots ( .408 and .388 3fg% last year). Both are long (6'9" and 6'11" wingspans) and relatively athletic, allowing them to guard 2 or 3 positions with some success.

:lmao

Nobody has associated "creativity" w/ G.Hill & Tyreke's 38% three point shooting is as legit as Simmons.:lol

Hill has turned into the Klay Thompson of point guards who is basically a glorified 3 & D player.


Hill was a consistent off-ball threat. So much so that the now 30-year-old shot 44.9 percent on catch-and-shoot three-pointers (http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#%21/player/catchshoot/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=CATCH_SHOOT_FG3_PCT&dir=1&PerMode=Totals&CF=CATCH_SHOOT_PTS*GE*300) this season, which trailed only Stephen Curry (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/71907/stephen-curry), J.J. Redick (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/21613/j-j-redick), Kawhi Leonard (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/132534/kawhi-leonard), and Kyle Lowry (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/152220/kyle-lowry) (minimum 300 points scored off the pass).

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gKYmAKYo3cKbnZUTkAlLERWLRro=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6522363/Shotchart_1463775754347.0.png

Tyreke is an injury prone, low IQ player who would make Turnobili proud.:lol (He's a bigger version of Lance Stephenson)


Tyreke Evans' coach drew up a game-winning play and Evans forgot about it 10 seconds later

#1: https://vine.co/v/iAw9YjwivH9

#2: https://vine.co/v/iAwEwA3LgJm

[SAGirl]

:lol but he's an athlete though! :toast

[Chinook]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1453761&p=47880765#p47880765

The same group of people who act like the Spurs should be grateful if they can dump Green for 26 think Parker for 14 would be non-optimal offer. I'm not going to bash them, because I hope they're right.

[tav1]

I assumed the Utah rumor was related to Danny Green. Green for 12 and Burke seems fair. But the rumor is more interesting if Parker in in view.

Relative to the Philly discussion in this thread: Parker to Philly for 24 and 26 also seems fair. Parker makes a lot of sense for Philly, especially if they land both Simmons and Dunn in the draft. Each player will need a veteran mentor. Because of their abundance of cap space and the likely move of Okafor, I wonder if Philly would look at Parker + Diaw for 24, 26, and Covington.

(The 76ers could come out of this offseason with a strong team. Odds are always against trades, but deals like 24 and 26 for Parker, or Okafor to NO for 6 (Dunn), or Noel + next year's lottery pick(s) for Jimmy Butler would quickly improve the team.)

Curious to see if Spurs push all in for Durant + Boban + Gasol by moving both Parker and Green, which, combined with loss of Boris and Duncan would give them enough space to sign all three free agents.

There are problems with the above scenarios, obviously. Four first round draft picks, for example. Although using 12 on a quality player and getting at least two players to stash between 24, 26, and 29 isn't terrible. Or moving two or more of the late firsts for another pick in the teens....there are worse problems to have than too many first round draft picks.

[palangi]

I assumed the Utah rumor was related to Danny Green. Green for 12 and Burke seems fair. But the rumor is more interesting if Parker in in view.

Relative to the Philly discussion in this thread: Parker to Philly for 24 and 26 also seems fair. Parker makes a lot of sense for Philly, especially if they land both Simmons and Dunn in the draft. Each player will need a veteran mentor. Because of their abundance of cap space and the likely move of Okafor, I wonder if Philly would look at Parker + Diaw for 24, 26, and Covington.

(The 76ers could come out of this offseason with a strong team. Odds are always against trades, but deals like 24 and 26 for Parker, or Okafor to NO for 6 (Dunn), or Noel + next year's lottery pick(s) for Jimmy Butler would quickly improve the team.)

Curious to see if Spurs push all in for Durant + Boban + Gasol by moving both Parker and Green, which, combined with loss of Boris and Duncan would give them enough space to sign all three free agents.

There are problems with the above scenarios, obviously. Four first round draft picks, for example. Although using 12 on a quality player and getting at least two players to stash between 24, 26, and 29 isn't terrible. Or moving two or more of the late firsts for another pick in the teens....there are worse problems to have than too many first round draft picks.
very interesting write up. I like it and it does sound plausible from all angles. I don't like the addition of the aging pau gasol though. But in this scenario Philly definitely would upgrade their team.

[CGD]

Chicago as a TP landing spot is interesting especially if the Bulls are looking to part with Rose. I can't get a read on that organization, but i imagine they're trying to show Butler they're serious about building around him.

I don't think a package around 14 and TP is unreasonable from either side. Or they could skip the pick route and trade Parker for a Taj rental and McDermott.

[Trueblood]

In an effort to avoid the trolls and go nowhere name calling on the forum I'd like to discuss some realistic trade possibilities for the spurs if they do decide to trade Lamarcus.

I think New York is in a win now mode with Carmelo getting older. We could get Porzingis looking toward the future. We would have to take Rose to make the salary work but if Pop could limit his minutes he might avoid injury. Bring Parker off the bench and it might work out.

New York would probably like this because Carmelo and Aldridge can both shoot. They could ride the hot hand either night and Carmelo wouldn't have to play the 4.

Thoughts?

[szkorhetz]

In an effort to avoid the trolls and go nowhere name calling on the forum I'd like to discuss some realistic trade possibilities for the spurs if they do decide to trade Lamarcus.

I think New York is in a win now mode with Carmelo getting older. We could get Porzingis looking toward the future. We would have to take Rose to make the salary work but if Pop could limit his minutes he might avoid injury. Bring Parker off the bench and it might work out.

New York would probably like this because Carmelo and Aldridge can both shoot. They could ride the hot hand either night and Carmelo wouldn't have to play the 4.

Thoughts?
LMA is not going anywhere.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

In an effort to avoid the trolls and go nowhere name calling on the forum I'd like to discuss some realistic trade possibilities for the spurs if they do decide to trade Lamarcus.

I think New York is in a win now mode with Carmelo getting older. We could get Porzingis looking toward the future. We would have to take Rose to make the salary work but if Pop could limit his minutes he might avoid injury. Bring Parker off the bench and it might work out.

New York would probably like this because Carmelo and Aldridge can both shoot. They could ride the hot hand either night and Carmelo wouldn't have to play the 4.

Thoughts?

No chance :lol

[Trueblood]

LMA is not going anywhere.

I agree. I'm talking hypothetical.

[Trueblood]

No chance :lol

What do you think we could get?

[CGD]

Hypothetical of course, but here are some thoughts if things go south this season:

1. Boston: Nets 2017 1st round pick + Jaylen Brown + Amir Johnson
2. Suns: Miami 2018 1st + Eric Bledsoe
3. Chicago: kings 2017 1st round pick + Bulls 2017 1st + robin Lopez+ Valentine
4. Chicago: jimmy straight up + filler
5. Philly: all sorts of fun possibilities but philly at different place
6. Denver: Memphis 2017 1st + jokic + Wilson chandler + filler

[UNT Eagles 2016]

trade parkey for a 1st rounder straight up

[DrunkTXLabrat]

i think Jalil Okafor looks kinda like Tim Duncan. it'd be cool to see the spurs trade for him, on that alone.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=opvf8kx

Vince Carter and Danny Green to the Twolves. A kid from Toronto named Wiggins gets to play with Carter. The Tarheel triple gets to play with Carter. And Carter gets to mentor that stacked Wolves roster for a shot at going out with a ring.

Rubio and Marc Gasol to the Spurs. Espana en San Antonio. Pop loves chemistry. Bonus, i think Manu would be a great mentor for Rubio.

Lame, Kyle Anderson, and Shabazz Muhammad to the Grizz. Not the greatest deal for the Grizz. Lost probably their main locker room glue guy in Carter, and lost their main man Gasol. Not a bad rebuild move, if they can get a Minny or post-Timmy 1st from either team. Lame aint far from Dallas. Anderson and Shabazz have a UCLA connection. and they are young depth behind Parsons.

[szkorhetz]

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=opvf8kx

Vince Carter and Danny Green to the Twolves. A kid from Toronto named Wiggins gets to play with Carter. The Tarheel triple gets to play with Carter. And Carter gets to mentor that stacked Wolves roster for a shot at going out with a ring.

Rubio and Marc Gasol to the Spurs. Espana en San Antonio. Pop loves chemistry. Bonus, i think Manu would be a great mentor for Rubio.

Lame, Kyle Anderson, and Shabazz Muhammad to the Grizz. Not the greatest deal for the Grizz. Lost probably their main locker room glue guy in Carter, and lost their main man Gasol. Not a bad rebuild move, if they can get a Minny or post-Timmy 1st from either team. Lame aint far from Dallas. Anderson and Shabazz have a UCLA connection. and they are young depth behind Parsons.
One of the worst trades ever. Every team would be worse.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

lol, i think that's a sign of how balanced it is and how pessimistic you are.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Honestly, think about this. A spurs roster that features Parker, Manu, Mills, the Gasol bros, Rubio, and Kawhi could basically be renamed the international allstars. Complete with Pop coaching. The refs would probably stop calling goaltends.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

And don't sleep on what Carter and Green would do for that stacked young Minny roster. The only team that possibly gets worse is the Grizz. And with the head scratching Conley deal, I think they would actually agree to a deal for Lame and prospects.

[szkorhetz]

Honestly, think about this. A spurs roster that features Parker, Manu, Mills, the Gasol bros, Rubio, and Kawhi could basically be renamed the international allstars. Complete with Pop coaching. The refs would probably stop calling goaltends.
It's not the 90's anymore. The Gasol brothers would be unplayable together against every fucking team in the current NBA. Pick and roll defense would be non existent, offense would terribly slow down, with huge and unsolvable spacing issues.
Would be great in the 90's, but not in todays NBA.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

I don't have much faith in lame, Dedmon, Pau. I'd much rather see Gasol bros and Livio. Also, Rubio isn't a great one on one defender. But he's an excellent pick pocket. Rubio, Kawhi, Simmons would really help out the Gasols with pick pocket help defense.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Also, if the Gasols and Rubio defense failed, the passing ability would turn Simmons and Kawhi into dunk contest competitors.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Gasol bros, Kawhi, Simmons, Rubio
Dedmon, Lee, Manu, Mills, Parker
Livio, Bertans, Murray

[szkorhetz]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/243957/Kings-Open-To-Trading-Willie-Cauley-Stein

WCS+Gay for LMA.

We would get a defensive stopper for the future, while Gay could still give valuable offense and D, while would help us to match-up GSW much better.
Kings would be a nightmare for opponents with their big man, and DJ is only capable to work with traditional big man.

I think it's a win-win, but I am higher on Gay than most people on this board, and haven't checked the salaries.

[Chinook]

That's not enough, if you ask me. They'd need to be able to trade their pick this year

[mo7888]

I would want more than that for LA as well. I'd think a smaller trade if we go after WCS. Dedmon + a 1st + one of our younger guys like KA, Simmons etc

I'd only move LA if we got a real game changer or if the season tanks. I think AD in New Orleans will ask for a trade soon. I was at the game against the Lakers Saturday night and his body language towards his teammates was very negative. There aren't many teams that make a lot of sense for him. Boston in the east does and we do in the West. Something like LA to Phx with Knight + Bender or Chriss + their 1st + our 1st + KA to NO might work. At any rate, that's the kind of deal I'd be looking for if I moved LA unless we tank the season...

[Baam]

One "hidden value" guy in the nba I'd trade for right now : Rashad Vaughn from the Bucks. He's somehow only playing a few minutes every other game to accomodate the corpse of Jason Terry who must be Kidd's great buddy. But his stats went way up this year albeit in a small sample size, including blocks and steal and he's still only 20. Not 100% sure about his form, when he misses he misses very badly, it's weird, but I like him. I've liked plenty of scrubs before so be warned.

Got his career high a few days ago : https://youtu.be/O5L-HK7ounc

Milwaukee has lost trades before, especially when they let Kidd make the decision (MCW, Vasquez...) so if he doesn't like him, who knows what it'd take to get him.

[CGD]

WCS would barely fetch a late 1st right now. Our late first + Kyle or Simmons is not unreasonable.

[CGD]

I'm excited about the two way contracts coming online. I think it'll lead to more transfers of players in that 11-15 roster range since teams can afford to be experimental knowing they're cultivating prospects in the d-league.

For example, if the Spurs were to move Kyle the drop off to Garino isnt THAT big right now if the return is a flop or the players needs more time to adjust to the system.

[MaNu4Tres]

Aldridge to PHX

Noel/ Bledsoe to SA

Bender to Philly.

:wakeup

[sasaint]

Aldridge to PHX

Noel/ Bledsoe to SA

Bender to Philly.

:wakeup

From the Spurs' perspective I like it, but I am not sure Bender fits in with Philly. He seems pretty redundant for Philly...

[CGD]

Aldridge to PHX

Noel/ Bledsoe to SA

Bender to Philly.

:wakeup

Or just cut out Philly and take Bender back?

[MaNu4Tres]

Or just cut out Philly and take Bender back?

Prefer Noel -- he's more established and you know what you're getting.

With Bender the returns are further away and are unknown. He could be another Nikoloz Tskitishvili for all we know.

[Chinook]

Or just cut out Philly and take Bender back?

Indeed, I'd prefer that. Noel is about to be paid and doesn't fit with Gasol, Lee or Dedmon. If the trade sent out Pau instead and got Noel plus something back, then that's a different issue.

[TD 21]

Not bad, but from Spurs perspective:

- Bledsoe and Parker couldn't really co-exist and they'd probably only move on from Parker for an elite point guard.

- By all accounts, Noel is not Spurs material.

- You're right about Bender, but I'd rather the higher ceiling than floor, especially considering even if ends up a bust, they'd at least still have Bledsoe to show for it.

- Bender could also conceivably fill the gaping long term (short term, Gasol on offense and Noel on defense, could do so in tandem) hole at power forward.

From 76ers perspective:

- Bender is probably better value than whatever they can get for Noel at this point, but it would make sense for them to re-route him for a guard.

From Suns perspective:

- Since Aldridge would be a win now move, it would make sense to retain their current best player.

[CGD]

It's a good point above about whoever would trade for LMA making the move as a win now mode move. It's another reason Boston makes sense. Toronto is another team (who is desperate for a PF) but I don't really care for their assets.

[mo7888]

I don't like the Toronto assets as much either. Boston makes more sense and Orlando does as well. The Phoenix trade for Bender makes more sense in the offseason.