Is Mills tradable under his current contract?

[keywester]

What could the Spurs get for Mills if he's tradable under his current contract? What would it cost if the Spurs just released him? I only ask since TP's days may be numbered?

[SAGirl]

I am sure he's tradeable. He's a productive player in a cheap contract, but the Spurs won't be able to take that much back in salary. I doubt Mills (or anybody else in the team) is up for trade.

[dabom]

:lol

[keywester]

I am sure he's tradeable. He's a productive player in a cheap contract, but the Spurs won't be able to take that much back in salary. I doubt Mills (or anybody else in the team) is up for trade.

I'm not sure how trades work, but I'm surprised that Mills wouldn't want to get with a team for more $ like his Aussie teammate Delly on sub par team. After all, both have rings.

[Chris]

Quality thread. Will recommend to family and friends. Also bookmarking so I can use it as a muse down the road.

[Diego20]

You want to go with Murray as only PG? smh

[SAGirl]

I'm not sure how trades work, but I'm surprised that Mills wouldn't want to get with a team for more $ like his Aussie teammate Delly on sub par team. After all, both have rings.

He loves the team and they love him. He will want to get paid and he will get paid this summer, by the Spurs. With Manu likely retiring, the Spurs can afford to pay him, his role will increase, both in scoring and relevance, considering the rest of the bench is really young. He's not incompatible with Murray, who like Ginobili is a tall guard who likes to slash anyways. I don't think he's incompatible with the future Spurs. And the question of Murray won't be answered yet. I tend to think he will remain a Spur.

[Brian Windhorst]

Side note: will this be the first time in recent memory that the Spurs go into the season without a true third PG? I realize it is Murray's role by default right now, but usually our third PG (McCallum, Joseph, Quinn) has been someone that Pop relied on to start or play big minutes on Tony's nights off. I think Pop might actually have a stroke if Murray checked into an NBA game for important minutes.

[Mr. Body]

:sleep

[SAGirl]

Side note: will this be the first time in recent memory that the Spurs go into the season without a true third PG? I realize it is Murray's role by default right now, but usually our third PG (McCallum, Joseph, Quinn) has been someone that Pop relied on to start or play big minutes on Tony's nights off. I think Pop might actually have a stroke if Murray checked into an NBA game for important minutes.

I haven't been a Spur fan for that long a time, I started following the Spurs when the trusty CoJo was in the team. You are right, in fact when Ray showed that he needed more time to understand the offense, he was sent to the dleague. You know who was playing PG in garbage time? Kyle Anderson. I'll let everyone make piecemeal of that one.

[kaji157]

What could the Spurs get for Mills if he's tradable under his current contract? What would it cost if the Spurs just released him? I only ask since TP's days may be numbered?

I am sure he is very tradeable, just not for what the Spurs would need right now.

[cd98]

I believe he doesn't have a "no trade" clause in his contract, so yes he is trade able under his contract.

[tonight...you]

Side note: will this be the first time in recent memory that the Spurs go into the season without a true third PG? I realize it is Murray's role by default right now, but usually our third PG (McCallum, Joseph, Quinn) has been someone that Pop relied on to start or play big minutes on Tony's nights off. I think Pop might actually have a stroke if Murray checked into an NBA game for important minutes.
I believe Pop is going to throw Murray into the fire more than once this season. It depends on how he responds to coaching during TC and preseason, imo.

[Spurtacular]

Quality thread. Will recommend to family and friends. Also bookmarking so I can use it as a muse down the road.

This thread changed my life.

[Seventyniner]

I am sure he is very tradeable, just not for what the Spurs would need right now.

Pretty much this. If the Spurs were to trade Mills, it would have to involve bringing back a PG. In that case, why would the other team want Mills?

The only scenario I can see is if RC and Pop decide that Parker can't start anymore, and they package Mills with someone else (Duncan's contract perhaps) and a sweetener for an upgrade at PG. That would then take the Spurs out of the conversation for Chris Paul or Kyle Lowry next summer or Westbrook in 2018, assuming the player they get back isn't just a one-season rental.

I know this has been hashed over here before, but I'm having trouble coming up with PGs in the right salary range that the Spurs could actually get. Bledsoe and Knight in Phoenix are likely available, but their contracts severely limit the Spurs' upcoming flexibility

[benfti]

Plus why the fuck would you want to trade Patty when he is that cheap for what he brings?

[kaji157]

Plus why the fuck would you want to trade Patty when he is that cheap for what he brings?

You would trade him because you have 2 backup PG right now, and none of them can start.
But as said before, right now the marker doesn´t have the players we need for the right price.

[MaNu4Tres]

Pretty much this. If the Spurs were to trade Mills, it would have to involve bringing back a PG. In that case, why would the other team want Mills?

The only scenario I can see is if RC and Pop decide that Parker can't start anymore, and they package Mills with someone else (Duncan's contract perhaps) and a sweetener for an upgrade at PG. That would then take the Spurs out of the conversation for Chris Paul or Kyle Lowry next summer or Westbrook in 2018, assuming the player they get back isn't just a one-season rental.

I know this has been hashed over here before, but I'm having trouble coming up with PGs in the right salary range that the Spurs could actually get. Bledsoe and Knight in Phoenix are likely available, but their contracts severely limit the Spurs' upcoming flexibililty.

Not really.

The only way Spurs trade Mills is if Murray proves to be a solid player that's ready for 15-20 minutes this year. If Murray proves this by the trade deadline, I can see Spurs trading Mills to a playoff team out East like the Hawks for a 1st round pick.

Considering what Dellavedova got paid this past summer, Mills' market value next year should be around 9 million per after this season. Spurs wouldn't be wise allocating that much money to a back up PG since they'll have Murray playing for pennies for the next 4 years. If Murray is the real deal and deserves playing time, its better to get something in return for Mills, before letting him walk for nothing in the off-season.

[Obstructed_View]

Side note: will this be the first time in recent memory that the Spurs go into the season without a true third PG? I realize it is Murray's role by default right now, but usually our third PG (McCallum, Joseph, Quinn) has been someone that Pop relied on to start or play big minutes on Tony's nights off. I think Pop might actually have a stroke if Murray checked into an NBA game for important minutes.

I'm pretty sure McCallum and Quinn rarely if ever played an important minute as a Spur, and Joseph probably didn't until 2014 when the third unit was so good.

[140]

Why would you want to trade your best PG?

[sananspursfan21]

Y, y, and y u wan 2 trade him?

[Pocho La Pantera]

Trade your best PG? Very clever

[SASdynasty!]

Keep Mills. He is a solid backup SG.

[SASdynasty!]

Why would you want to trade your best PG?
Are you saying our best PG averages less than 2 APG for his career? Wow.

[140]

Are you saying our best PG averages less than 2 APG for his career? Wow.
That doesn't really mean much when he's never been given full reign of the offense tbh (I'm sure a certain selfish teammate of his has nothing to do with that :lol)

[SAGirl]

That doesn't really mean much when he's never been given full reign of the offense tbh (I'm sure a certain selfish teammate of his has nothing to do with that :lol)
That's a bit of trolling bc he's played for most of his career next to Ginobili and that partnership has been beneficial for both. He's a good scorer which makes him a good 6th man, but needs playmakers around him. Why do you think Pop has not just Anderson, but Simmons too in the bench? Both guys can pass the ball and find shooters.
---------------------
The issue can arise not this season but when the time comes that Pop or another coach wants to bench Tony if he's still playing. Mills (or someone else) could be traded then if they want. I don't think Murray will be ready for 20 minutes this season.(and that's what's needed bc Tony would be around 28-29 at most). He is a raw rook that needs to learn the NBA game. He will get a bit of burn but his inexperience will show. If Spurs doesn't want to contend this season and just develop their youth, fine I could see 20 minutes, but since that's not Pop, I doubt it.

[dabom]

Patty is a scorer by himself. He doesn't need a playmaker. He is actually the only scorer on that second unit.

[dabom]

He is more valuable than Manu at this point.

[Hoops Czar]

Mills is too valuable and on a team friendly contract so they won't trade him considering the team is in desperate need of shooters. However, they'll let him walk in the offseason because he's not worth even close to the $9-10M he'll command on the open market with what little he does on the court.

[SpursforSix]

:pop: I'm waiting for someone to sign Bonner. Then I'll trade Mills for him. Because I hate you guys.

[SAGirl]

Mills is too valuable and on a team friendly contract so they won't trade him considering the team is in desperate need of shooters. However, they'll let him walk in the offseason because he's not worth even close to the $9-10M he'll command in the offseason with what little he does on the court.

It's a valid point and for a while I thought like that. I thought personally tiny shooters are relatively easy to find, but knowing Pop, Patty the person is valuable to the Spurs. Pop likes his continuity, his veterans, etc.

We are talking about the realm of speculation and any opinion is valid in that realm TBH. Just going by how Pop prizes his continuity and his veterans I think they will try to keep him... but then again, they wanted to keep Joseph too, just couldn't. Bottom line, it's really hard to say beyond this season, but trade him per se this season? It's unlikely. They will play their cards, see how players do in the postseason and go from there. Your scenario is not far from being a real possibility too.

[Hoops Czar]

It's a valid point and for a while I thought like that. I thought personally tiny shooters are relatively easy to find, but knowing Pop, Patty the person is valuable to the Spurs. Pop likes his continuity, his veterans, etc.

We are talking about the realm of speculation and any opinion is valid in that realm TBH. Just going by how Pop prizes his continuity and his veterans I think they will try to keep him... but then again, they wanted to keep Joseph too, just couldn't. Bottom line, it's really hard to say beyond this season, but trade him per se this season? It's unlikely. They will play their cards, see how players do in the postseason and go from there. Your scenario is not far from being a real possibility too.

The situation is this. If he plays well, he's going to get paid. If he plays poorly, I'm not sure the Spurs would want him back unless he was willing to come back on a cheap contract. I also don't see a single scenario where Patty would start in place of Parker because he's not a natural fit at pg. However, if another team offers him a starting gig at sg, he'd be foolish not to take it. I also don't see Patty as a guy the Spurs would be willing to go over the salary cap for. He's an asset in terms of his shooting ability but that's it.

[SAGirl]

The situation is this. If he plays well, he's going to get paid. If he plays poorly, I'm not sure the Spurs would want him back unless he was willing to comeback on a cheap contract. I also don't see a single scenario where Patty would start in place of Parker because he's not a natural fit at pg. However, if another team offers him a starting gig at sg, he'd be foolish not to take it. I also don't see Patty as a guy the Spurs would be willing to go over the salary cap for. He's an asset in terms of his shooting ability but that's it.

We shall see. Pop develops some extreme emotional attachments to players (Bonner?) so I tend to think they are already planning on re-signing him. What they do with the starting PG spot is something Pop is probably going to be wondering himself though, so it would not surprise me to see Patty with the starters at times, maybe when Tony rests. It could be a test for either him or Murray this season. If Patty doesn't start even once through the season and Pop gives that one to Murray every time, then we will know for sure that is not in the cards for Patty and 6th man at best is his ceiling in the Spurs. In that case, there can for sure be more appealing destinations for Patty in FA, and with his good pal Manu retiring, maybe he doesn't have the big attachment to the Spurs bench anymore either. CoJo is quite happy where he's at for example. He plays even more minutes than Patty and got further than Patty did in the postseason. Had he stayed, he would have been chained to the deep bench and not played in the postseason. That wasn't fair to him. Patty could see the situation with Tony and now Dijon and consider CoJo and just want to move on too. It's really hard to say.

[MaNu4Tres]

We shall see. Pop develops some extreme emotional attachments to players (Bonner?) so I tend to think they are already planning on re-signing him. What they do with the starting PG spot is something Pop is probably going to be wondering himself though, so it would not surprise me to see Patty with the starters at times, maybe when Tony rests. It could be a test for either him or Murray this season. If Patty doesn't start even once through the season and Pop gives that one to Murray every time, then we will know for sure that is not in the cards for Patty and 6th man at best is his ceiling in the Spurs. In that case, there can for sure be more appealing destinations for Patty in FA, and with his good pal Manu retiring, maybe he doesn't have the big attachment to the Spurs bench anymore either. CoJo is quite happy where he's at for example. He plays even more minutes than Patty and got further than Patty did in the postseason. Had he stayed, he would have been chained to the deep bench and not played in the postseason. That wasn't fair to him. Patty could see the situation with Tony and now Dijon and consider CoJo and just want to move on too. It's really hard to say.

Spurs won't pay 9-10 million for the back up PG spot. Makes absolutely no sense to do that from an economical perspective in relation to how smart R.C usually is with allocating the cap space efficiently.

You can book that. I'm even willing to say Mills won't be back next year, you can book that too. Murray will be the back-up PG next year.

[SAGirl]

Spurs won't pay 9-10 million for the back up PG spot. Makes absolutely no sense to do that from an economical perspective in relation to how smart R.C usually is with allocating the cap space efficiently.

You can book that. I'm even willing to say Mills won't be back next year, you can book that too. Murray will be the back-up PG next year.

I could see you being right TBH. I am not convinced either way. I think they will try to retain him, but they wanted to retain CoJo too right? So it could not work out like they hoped. In fact they could not retain guys they wanted to retain this past season like Boban (one of the reasons Chinook was suggesting a trade during the season as he thought Boban wasn't going to be a part of the Spurs future, but Spurs wanted to try to retain him and we saw how it went). They will have to prioritize guys, and it could be a good thing for Mills too as I said above.

[dabom]

Chinook first said Boban wasn't good. Then he changed his tune to" he gonna get paid".

[MaNu4Tres]

I could see you being right TBH. I am not convinced either way. I think they will try to retain him, but they wanted to retain CoJo too right? So it could not work out like they hoped. In fact they could not retain guys they wanted to retain this past season like Boban (one of the reasons Chinook was suggesting a trade during the season as he thought Boban wasn't going to be a part of the Spurs future, but Spurs wanted to try to retain him and we saw how it went). They will have to prioritize guys, and it could be a good thing for Mills too as I said above.


The situation made sense to try to bring back Boban for a reasonable price ( they lost all but one front court player -- Duncan, West, Diaw). On the other hand, the situation doesn't make sense to bring back Mills. Mills is a specialty player, a one way player who is a liability on defense from the PG or the SG spot and is limited offensively. He can shoot well, move without the ball well and hustle on D well and that's about it (but he's still a net negative defender). When asked to do too much from a play-maker role, he falls flat on his face -- he's proved it time and time again. The role can't be too big for him for him to be a net positive offensively.

After this season, the Spurs will be much better off moving forward with Murray at back up point guard and trying to upgrade from Tony at the starting point guard position ( Mills isn't that answer). They will be better off w/ Murray at back up PG moving forward because he is a better play-maker than Mills, he'll be dirt cheap for another 3 years after this year (he'll be 10% of Mills' market value next year), and he has an edge on the defensive end with his length guarding back up PGs. Having Murray defend PGs, and having a shooting guard like Simmons or Hanga or a FA or rookie legitimate SG defend back up SG's will give the Spurs an edge defensively.

[dabom]

When has Patty been asked to playmake? I don't think I ever have. So why say he has fallen flat on his face on that regard?

[MaNu4Tres]

When has Patty been asked to playmake? I don't think I ever have. So why say he has fallen flat on his face on that regard?

Last year you saw a lot of it vs. tough competition when Manu needed a play or two off (Manu doesn't take on full responsibility with second unit like he used to).

See the Thunder series last year. At times when Mills had the ball in PnRs or in play-making situations, he forced rushed off-balanced shots. He just can't collect himself confidently to make the right play and he can't create the separation consistently off the dribble to be able to create for his teammates. The work-load for a play-maker or a part-time play-maker in this regard is too much for him. He's a shooter, that's it -- when asked to do more, his efficiency as a player on the offensive end nosedives.

[dabom]

He was the only shooter on the floor at times and the other team knew it. Fathead west Manu and diaw not gonna help Patty for fucks sake. He still shot the ball at a high clip. He did a great job and was the best pg on the team. For 2 fucking MIL. :lol

[SAGirl]

The situation made sense to try to bring back Boban for a reasonable price ( they lost all but one front court player -- Duncan, West, Diaw). On the other hand, the situation doesn't make sense to bring back Mills. Mills is a specialty player, a one way player who is a liability on defense from the PG or the SG spot and is limited offensively. He can shoot well, move without the ball well and hustle on D well and that's about it (but he's still a net negative defender). When asked to do too much from a play-maker role, he falls flat on his face -- he's proved it time and time again. The role can't be too big for him for him to be a net positive offensively.
Agree completely with your evaluation. Murray projects to be a potential star even, if he puts it together with improving his shooting, but he's very young and I doubt he will make Mills expendable this season which is what you originally suggested. It won't happen, he's still learning how to play the NBA game. Next season is different.

I am not sure on J.Simms staying himself either. It will really depend on his own performance. Mills is an NBA champion, a veteran, elite shooter, an olympian. J.Simms got nothing on him at this point but just being an athlete. I know you are a J.Simms fan, but if he is still the same player he was last season, he's a no go for the future and he's likely to be overpriced too. In fact, everyone but the real stars are probably getting overpriced at this point. The middle of the road roleplayers are going to be overpriced. J.Simms is going to be 28 by the time of his next contract next season starts with a game that makes him ball dominant and extremely dependent on athleticism. I would pass on that unless he shows improvement. Mills' game will age better.

[dabom]

That's not falling on his face at all. :lmao

[MaNu4Tres]

Agree completely with your evaluation. Murray projects to be a potential star even, if he puts it together with improving his shooting, but he's very young and I doubt he will make Mills expendable this season which is what you originally suggested. It won't happen, he's still learning how to play the NBA game. Next season is different.

I am not sure on J.Simms staying himself either. It will really depend on his own performance. Mills is an NBA champion, a veteran, elite shooter, an olympian. J.Simms got nothing on him at this point but just being an athlete. I know you are a J.Simms fan, but if he is still the same player he was last season, he's a no go for the future and he's likely to be overpriced too. In fact, everyone but the real stars are probably getting overpriced at this point. The middle of the road roleplayers are going to be overpriced. J.Simms is going to be 28 by the time of his next contract next season starts with a game that makes him ball dominant and extremely dependent on athleticism. I would pass on that unless he shows improvement. Mills' game will age better.

I never said anything in my last comment to suggest I'm favoring Simmons. I'm just saying Simmons, Hanga or a Free Agent SG or a Rookie SG is a better option defensively and dollar for dollar than 5'10 Mills for 10 million at SG. Yes, Mills would defend PGs and Murray would have to defend SG's -- but in that scenario, neither will have an edge defensively as both will have a size mismatch and that in itself is very important on the perimeter. I prefer the scenario where there's no areas of vulnerability on the defensive end -- no areas where the offense can exploit.

Also, I previously said, there's a chance Mills gets traded at the deadline but only if Murray earns a significant role by February -- which isn't likely to happen but still remains a small possibility. That's all I said. Didn't say it was going to happen.

[MaNu4Tres]

That's not falling on his face at all. :lmao

Not literally.

Mills struggles when he's in scenarios dribbling with the ball. That's it.

[SAGirl]

Last year you saw a lot of it vs. tough competition when Manu needed a play or two off (Manu doesn't take on full responsibility with second unit like he used to).

See the Thunder series last year. At times when Mills had the ball in PnRs or in play-making situations, he forced rushed off-balanced shots. He just can't collect himself confidently to make the right play and he can't create the separation consistently off the dribble to be able to create for his teammates. The work-load for a play-maker or a part-time play-maker in this regard is too much for him. He's a shooter, that's it -- when asked to do more, his efficiency as a player on the offensive end nosedives.

He can get in straight up chucker mode at times, definitely and the jumpshot isn't always on. Arguing that with daboom is pointless though he has some serious homer glasses.

[SAGirl]

I never said anything in my last comment to suggest I'm favoring Simmons. I'm just saying Simmons, Hanga or a Free Agent SG or a Rookie SG is a better option defensively and dollar for dollar than 5'10 Mills for 10 million at SG. Yes, Mills would defend PGs and Murray would have to defend SG's -- but in that scenario, neither will have an edge defensively as both will have a size mismatch and that in itself is very important on the perimeter. I prefer the scenario where there's no areas of vulnerability on the defensive end -- no areas where the offense can exploit.

Also, I previously said, there's a chance Mills gets traded at the deadline but only if Murray earns a significant role by February -- which isn't likely to happen but still remains a small possibility. That's all I said. Didn't say it was going to happen.

Roger that. :toast

[dabom]

Not literally.

Mills struggles when he's in scenarios dribbling with the ball. That's it.

I never see him struggle.

Per 36 minutes. Bolded is Turnovers. RS


4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
72 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
72
1980
6.4
12.9
.493
0.5
1.2
.415
5.9
11.7
.501
2.4
3.1
.760
0.3
2.9
3.2
6.9
1.0
0.2
2.4
2.1
15.6


5
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
81 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
3
1662
5.6
13.3
.425
2.7
6.9
.384
3.0
6.3
.469
1.0
1.3
.810
0.6
2.8
3.4
4.9
1.3
0.1
1.6
2.2
14.9



Turnover % RS



4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
72 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
1980
16.2
.546
.092
.241
1.0
8.8
5.1
29.1
1.4
0.4
14.3
21.2

2.9
2.9
5.8
.142

0.4
-0.3
0.1
1.0


5
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
81 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
1662
14.6
.541
.523
.095
1.9
8.7
5.4
20.1
1.8
0.3
10.7
19.7

2.2
2.6
4.8
.139

2.1
-0.4
1.7
1.6



Playoffs per 36


4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
10
264
6.0
13.4
.449
0.5
2.2
.250
5.5
11.2
.488
1.6
1.9
.857
0.1
2.9
3.0
7.2
0.8
0.3
2.5
2.0
14.2




8
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
0
167
5.0
11.4
.434
2.8
7.8
.361
2.2
3.7
.588
1.5
2.4
.636
0.0
3.0
3.0
4.3
1.5
0.0
1.7
0.6
14.2



Playoffs %



4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
264
14.3
.499
.163
.143
0.5
8.7
4.8
31.4
1.2
0.6
14.7
21.6

0.2
0.3
0.4
.079

0.7
-1.5
-0.9
0.1




8
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
167
15.2
.571
.679
.208
0.0
9.1
4.8
17.9
2.2
0.0
12.2
18.4

0.2
0.2
0.4
.124

3.7
-1.1
2.6
0.2




Seems like he turns it over less than Tony. Guess there goes playmaking and securing the ball. But he shouldn't be in there instead of Tony because Tony keeps the ball safe right? :lmao

[dabom]

Time to take the L on this one dude. Any more arguing, and I'm just going to have to assume you don't accept reality when it's right on your desk.

[140]

:wow

[Hoops Czar]

That's not falling on his face at all. :lmao

Keep in mind, wherever Paddy ends up next year, Manu won't be around to make him look good.

[MaNu4Tres]

I never see him struggle.

Per 36 minutes. Bolded is Turnovers. RS


4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
72 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
72
1980
6.4
12.9
.493
0.5
1.2
.415
5.9
11.7
.501
2.4
3.1
.760
0.3
2.9
3.2
6.9
1.0
0.2
2.4
2.1
15.6


5
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
81 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
3
1662
5.6
13.3
.425
2.7
6.9
.384
3.0
6.3
.469
1.0
1.3
.810
0.6
2.8
3.4
4.9
1.3
0.1
1.6
2.2
14.9



Turnover % RS



4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
72 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
1980
16.2
.546
.092
.241
1.0
8.8
5.1
29.1
1.4
0.4
14.3
21.2

2.9
2.9
5.8
.142

0.4
-0.3
0.1
1.0


5
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
81 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
1662
14.6
.541
.523
.095
1.9
8.7
5.4
20.1
1.8
0.3
10.7
19.7

2.2
2.6
4.8
.139

2.1
-0.4
1.7
1.6



Playoffs per 36


4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
10
264
6.0
13.4
.449
0.5
2.2
.250
5.5
11.2
.488
1.6
1.9
.857
0.1
2.9
3.0
7.2
0.8
0.3
2.5
2.0
14.2




8
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
0
167
5.0
11.4
.434
2.8
7.8
.361
2.2
3.7
.588
1.5
2.4
.636
0.0
3.0
3.0
4.3
1.5
0.0
1.7
0.6
14.2



Playoffs %



4
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
33
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2016/)
264
14.3
.499
.163
.143
0.5
8.7
4.8
31.4
1.2
0.6
14.7
21.6

0.2
0.3
0.4
.079

0.7
-1.5
-0.9
0.1




8
Patrick Mills (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02.html)
27
10 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millspa02/gamelog/2016/)
167
15.2
.571
.679
.208
0.0
9.1
4.8
17.9
2.2
0.0
12.2
18.4

0.2
0.2
0.4
.124

3.7
-1.1
2.6
0.2




Seems like he turns it over less than Tony. Guess there goes playmaking and securing the ball. But he shouldn't be in there instead of Tony because Tony keeps the ball safe right? :lmao

When players have the ball less and have less play-making responsibilities, assists and turnovers will go down because of common sense. Do you have common sense? Not sure if you do.

[dabom]

When players have the ball less and have less play-making responsibilities, assists and turnovers will go down because of common sense. Do you have common sense? Not sure if you do.

They had similar usage and play making responsibilities stupid. Where was Tony doing all this supposed "playmaking" I didn't see? :lmao

[TD 21]

Mills probably isn't going anywhere. He's not only well liked and provides much need bench scoring/volume three-point shooting, but with various culture carriers either gone or about to be, they'll likely place a premium on that.

Murray is probably more than a year away from being in the rotation. Him and/or his agent will probably complain by midway through year 2, but the front office probably won't care.

Unless Simmons turns into a high percentage, volume three-point shooter, him and Murray would be a terrible fit offensively. If he gets a massive raise next summer, it probably won't be from the Spurs.

At this writing, I'd guess that 5 of the 6 back court spots in '17-'18 are as follows: Parker, Green, Mills, Teodosic, Murray.

[dabom]

Keep in mind, wherever Paddy ends up next year, Manu won't be around to make him look good.

Patty is straight cash offense. In fact he should have taken more shots but he elected to pass to his bench teammates while also being labeled a chucker on here. Although you take 58TS% anytime of the day in the playoffs.

[MaNu4Tres]

They had similar usage and play making responsibilities stupid. Where was Tony doing all this supposed "playmaking" I didn't see? :lmao

Parker had a higher usage rate than Mills. Always has. But even if Mills had a higher usage or the same, usage gives no indication on how a player was utilized to get off a shot. Field goals and field goal attempts are two of the three important variables when computing usage. Those variables don't tell the whole story. In this case, with Mills and Parker, Parker gets his shots more from his own play-making. Mills has and always will get off most his field goals off someone else's playmaking. Now go get your shinebox again and shine my shoes please.

[MaNu4Tres]

Mills probably isn't going anywhere. He's not only well liked and provides much need bench scoring/volume three-point shooting, but with various culture carriers either gone or about to be, they'll likely place a premium on that.

Murray is probably more than a year away from being in the rotation. Him and/or his agent will probably complain by midway through year 2, but the front office probably won't care.

Unless Simmons turns into a high percentage, volume three-point shooter, him and Murray would be a terrible fit offensively. If he gets a massive raise next summer, it probably won't be from the Spurs.

At this writing, I'd guess that 5 of the 6 back court spots in '17-'18 are as follows: Parker, Green, Mills, Teodosic, Murray.

I'm allowed to disagree. So I'll disagree.

At this writing, I'm guessing the 5 of 6 back court spots will be: Parker, Green, Murray, Hanga, A Free agent or a Rookie.

[dabom]

Parker had a higher usage rate than Mills. Always has. But even if Mills had a higher usage or the same, usage gives no indication on how a player was utilized to get off a shot. Field goals and field goal attempts are two of the three important variables when computing usage. Those variables don't tell the whole story. In this case, with Mills and Parker, Parker gets his shots more from his own play-making. Mills has and always will get off most his field goals off someone else's playmaking. Now go get your shinebox again and shine my shoes please.

Yeah Patty actually is the one that can get his shot off more effortless without a teammate. Do you watch the Spurs at all? :lmao

[dabom]

Mills probably isn't going anywhere. He's not only well liked and provides much need bench scoring/volume three-point shooting, but with various culture carriers either gone or about to be, they'll likely place a premium on that.

Murray is probably more than a year away from being in the rotation. Him and/or his agent will probably complain by midway through year 2, but the front office probably won't care.

Unless Simmons turns into a high percentage, volume three-point shooter, him and Murray would be a terrible fit offensively. If he gets a massive raise next summer, it probably won't be from the Spurs.

At this writing, I'd guess that 5 of the 6 back court spots in '17-'18 are as follows: Parker, Green, Mills, Teodosic, Murray.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/24223424.jpg

[Hoops Czar]

Patty is straight cash offense. In fact he should have taken more shots but he elected to pass to his bench teammates while also being labeled a chucker on here. Although you take 58TS% anytime of the day in the playoffs.

Except, posters are arguing that he's not a playmaker in the sense that he doesn't make the players around him better and your only counterpoint is to bring up his shooting ability which nobody here is questioning. And while Paddy is straight up cash on offense, he's straight up spin cycle on defense. He's not worth the 8-10 million investment it will probably take to keep him in a Spurs uniform. Shooters are a dime a dozen and if you're going to pay that kind of price tag, you might as well find somebody a little more well-rounded.

[TD 21]

I'm allowed to disagree. So I'll disagree.

At this writing, I'm guessing the 5 of 6 back court spots will be: Parker, Green, Murray, Hanga, A Free agent or a Rookie.

Is that what you think will happen, want to happen or both? The biggest mistake people make with predictions, is conflating one with the other.

The cap goes up again one final time next year, but using Augustin (4/$29M) and Moore (4/$34.6M) as a baseline, I'll say Mills gets something in that neighborhood. I wouldn't even be surprised if he takes a slight discount to stay.

[dabom]

Except, posters are arguing that he's not a playmaker in the sense that he doesn't make the players around him better and your only counterpoint is to bring up his shooting ability which nobody here is questioning. And while Paddy is straight up cash on offense, he's straight up spin cycle on defense. He's not worth the 8-10 million investment it will probably take to keep him in a Spurs uniform. Shooters are a dime a dozen and if you're going to pay that kind of price tag, you might as well find somebody a little more well-rounded.

I still laugh every time you reply to me. Do you still remember the shit you used to post?

[Hoops Czar]

I still laugh every time you reply to me. Do you still remember the shit you used to post?

The feeling is mutual. It's so impressive watching a poster come up with answers to questions nobody asked. Also, I don't think I've ever witnessed another user come into a thread and misuse stats as spectacularly as you have on a regular basis. It's quite uncanny.

Have you ever been so bored with yourself that you end up watching a show on television that is so unfunny and laughably bad that you can't take your eyes off it? That's kind of how I feel about a dabom post. I know it's going to be unfunny, unoriginal, mostly stereotypical and regurgitated with grammatical and syntax errors as far as the eye can see. However, I can't help but take my eyes off of them because they're so bad, they're good. And sometimes it's funny watching someone talk about something of which he knows very little about, argue with forumers for hours about it and then claims victory after everybody gives up trying to knock some sense into him.

[rastaspur]

You should trade oxygen for carbon monoxide.

[MaNu4Tres]

Not really.

The only way Spurs trade Mills is if Murray proves to be a solid player that's ready for 15-20 minutes this year. If Murray proves this by the trade deadline, I can see Spurs trading Mills to a playoff team out East like the Hawks for a 1st round pick.

Considering what Dellavedova got paid this past summer, Mills' market value next year should be around 9 million per after this season. Spurs wouldn't be wise allocating that much money to a back up PG since they'll have Murray playing for pennies for the next 4 years. If Murray is the real deal and deserves playing time, its better to get something in return for Mills, before letting him walk for nothing in the off-season.

Hey, SAgirl


From 8/25/16.. 1st page.. tbh

[SAGirl]

Hey, SAgirl

From 8/25/16.. 1st page.. tbh
Roger that!
Pop not playing Murray once he got Tony back is telling. It doesn't make sense to reup Mills if they want to open up playing time for Murray though. I tend to think they stand pat this season... though who knows? RC can be taking up calls about trade offers and nothing come out of it. I don't think he's untradeable, but do tend to think they value him for this season and are getting ready to let him go over the summer if they can't keep him.

[dabom]

Hey, SAgirl

From 8/25/16.. 1st page.. tbh

You don't get rep for posting a "what if" scenario. :lol

You get rep saying something like "Start Murray" as soon as he is drafted. :tu

[SAGirl]

You don't get rep for posting a "what if" scenario. :lol

You get rep saying something like "Start Murray" as soon as he is drafted. :tu
Nobody cares about your rep except you ...
does anybody care?

[dabom]

"If fathead proves to be a good backup to Kawhi..." I can keep playing that game. :lol

[dabom]

Nobody cares about your rep except you ...
does anybody care?

You look like a headless chicken if you're never right.

[SpursforSix]

You don't get rep for posting a "what if" scenario. :lol

You get rep saying something like "Start Murray" as soon as he is drafted. :tu

Dude...anytime any point guard walks through the door, you start him.

[dabom]

Dude...anytime any point guard walks through the door, you start him.

I ain't starting forbes. :lol

[Strategic]

Looking at one, maybe two more years of Tony and Manu. If Paddy is sent packing then who will be left to run the offense other than an untested kid? Better plan on George Hill or Cojo returning and don't reallly see that happening.

[cjw]

Looking at one, maybe two more years of Tony and Manu. If Paddy is sent packing then who will be left to run the offense other than an untested kid? Better plan on George Hill or Cojo returning and don't reallly see that happening.

Patty doesn't run the offense. He feeds off of Manu when he's out there. He's a shooting guard in a PG's body.

[DPG21920]

Nobody cares about your rep except you ...
does anybody care?

:lmao Got em