Speculation: Spurs interested in Dotson?

[TD 21]

Basically, he's a bargain basket, theoretical 3 and D type, who might be available because of politics . . .

https://nypost.com/2018/11/26/sparingly-used-damyean-dotson-could-be-knicks-trade-candidate/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons


According to a source, the Knicks have been approached by a couple of teams about Dotson’s availability because of his precarious contract status.

[r0drig0lac]

why not?

[SPURt]

Hopefully he’s cool with changing his jersey number

[SpurPadre]

He's better than a lot of our current players, tbh.

[Chinook]

It would be an awkward trade. At first glance, it looks like once 12/15 rolls around the team could use Pon to match salaries while letting the Knicks get out of paying some money. But Pon will only count for a few hundred thousand bucks by then, which is not enough to match. They'd have to guarantee most of if not all of Quincy's salary, which would probably make it harder to get a deal done (since SA doesn't have cash this year). And the min exception doesn't count here, since Dotson is technically not a min player. The team would have to send out actual salary to make it happen.

Also, I'm a little wary of giving up a second-rounder this year. I imagine it'll be the 40s, which is valuable enough to combine with the Raptors pick to move up for a certain player or could be used on a decent stash. I've gone on and on about the value of high-seconds. They've already lost possibly the best natural second-round pick they'll have for a long time to Utah. They certainly don't want to lose another just to take a flier.

[vavvi]

Watched quite a few Knicks games this season and last season. Dotson is raw but has Kent Bazemore potential. He had like 2 or 3 good games. His defense is uneven but already better than Belli and Forbes. Knicks would want a 2nd though.

[DAF86]

It would be an awkward trade. At first glance, it looks like once 12/15 rolls around the team could use Pon to match salaries while letting the Knicks get out of paying some money. But Pon will only count for a few hundred thousand bucks by then, which is not enough to match. They'd have to guarantee most of if not all of Quincy's salary, which would probably make it harder to get a deal done (since SA doesn't have cash this year). And the min exception doesn't count here, since Dotson is technically not a min player. The team would have to send out actual salary to make it happen.

Also, I'm a little wary of giving up a second-rounder this year. I imagine it'll be the 40s, which is valuable enough to combine with the Raptors pick to move up for a certain player or could be used on a decent stash. I've gone on and on about the value of high-seconds. They've already lost possibly the best natural second-round pick they'll have for a long time to Utah. They certainly don't want to lose another just to take a flier.

What are the chances of a second round pick becoming a 10 and 5 guy on his second year, like this Dotson guy is doing? I have to be honest, I've never heard of this guy before, but it sounds like he could be a decent option. If all it takes is a second round, I would do it, tbh. You don't pass up on the chance of getting a rotation player just to keep a second round pick than, most often that not, end up accounting for nothing.

[TD 21]

It would be an awkward trade. At first glance, it looks like once 12/15 rolls around the team could use Pon to match salaries while letting the Knicks get out of paying some money. But Pon will only count for a few hundred thousand bucks by then, which is not enough to match. They'd have to guarantee most of if not all of Quincy's salary, which would probably make it harder to get a deal done (since SA doesn't have cash this year). And the min exception doesn't count here, since Dotson is technically not a min player. The team would have to send out actual salary to make it happen.

Also, I'm a little wary of giving up a second-rounder this year. I imagine it'll be the 40s, which is valuable enough to combine with the Raptors pick to move up for a certain player or could be used on a decent stash. I've gone on and on about the value of high-seconds. They've already lost possibly the best natural second-round pick they'll have for a long time to Utah. They certainly don't want to lose another just to take a flier.

I can't remember the exact number off the top, but the league pays a base amount for veteran's minimum players, which means the team only pays a portion. If the draft pick is enticing enough, I doubt the Knicks let a relatively miniscule amount of money quash it, especially considering that barring a trade, they're going to have to waive a guaranteed contract when it's time to convert Trier's 2-way into a standard contract.

The bigger issue would probably be centered on the year/value of the 2nd, with the Knicks likely wanting the pick to convey in '19 and the Spurs likely wanting the pick to convey in '20. The compromise could be something like a top 40 or 45 protection on the '19 pick.

My sense would be the Pelicans are another team interested.

[Chinook]

What are the chances of a second round pick becoming a 10 and 5 guy on his second year, like this Dotson guy is doing? I have to be honest, I've never heard of this guy before, but it sounds like he could be a decent option. If all it takes is a second round, I would do it, tbh. You don't pass up on the chance of getting a rotation player just to keep a second round pick than, most often that not, end up accounting for nothing.

With the way the Spurs draft, there's actually a pretty decent chance that player is at least rotation caliber. Of course, Dotson may be highly regarded by RC and his staff. No idea. But a number of the players we're thinking about for the Toronto pick might end up as high-seconds (and vice-versa). We're talking about a team that's a LMA or DeRozan injury away from falling into the top-10. It's a risk, and one I'd only take if I were a believer in Dotson, because there are still guys like Moore they could use if they just need a body to try out.



I can't remember the exact number off the top, but the league pays a base amount for veteran's minimum players, which means the team only pays a portion. If the draft pick is enticing enough, I doubt the Knicks let a relatively miniscule amount of money quash it, especially considering that barring a trade, they're going to have to waive a guaranteed contract when it's time to convert Trier's 2-way into a standard contract.

The bigger issue would probably be centered on the year/value of the 2nd, with the Knicks likely wanting the pick to convey in '19 and the Spurs likely wanting the pick to convey in '20. The compromise could be something like a top 40 or 45 protection on the '19 pick.

My sense would be the Pelicans are another team interested.

Yeah, Pon's contract is actually paying him about a million bucks more than the salary sheets show. The league is paying the balance, and that's already factored into my original analysis. I agree that NYK could be persuaded to pay that money. My issue is more than I don't know if the Spurs should WANT to persuade them. In previous years, I'd totally consider second-rounders to be on the table. This is a very weird year in the West, though, when the team could fall as low as 14th in the conference without too much more going wrong. Sure, there'd be random East teams ahead of them still, but that works out to something like the 38th- or 39th-overall pick in the second round. That's really not far off from where the team has been picking in the first round recently.

I don't think NYK would be willing to let SA protect that pick. To a team as bad as the Knicks, 40th is just a normal second, so they aren't likely to share the Spurs' perspective that it's too good to give up. Someone, like NOP will be willing to give up a pick. I could see something more complicated where the Spurs get a future pick in the exchange or where the Toronto first goes out as part of a larger deal where the Spurs get more value. It's really just awkward regardless.

[TheGreatYacht]

Another talented dude that was available when Drunkford was at the board. Shame we took White.

[dbestpro]

Dotson..........I don't think he ever got the dinosaur dna.

[TD 21]

Yeah, Pon's contract is actually paying him about a million bucks more than the salary sheets show. The league is paying the balance, and that's already factored into my original analysis. I agree that NYK could be persuaded to pay that money. My issue is more than I don't know if the Spurs should WANT to persuade them. In previous years, I'd totally consider second-rounders to be on the table. This is a very weird year in the West, though, when the team could fall as low as 14th in the conference without too much more going wrong. Sure, there'd be random East teams ahead of them still, but that works out to something like the 38th- or 39th-overall pick in the second round. That's really not far off from where the team has been picking in the first round recently.

I don't think NYK would be willing to let SA protect that pick. To a team as bad as the Knicks, 40th is just a normal second, so they aren't likely to share the Spurs' perspective that it's too good to give up. Someone, like NOP will be willing to give up a pick. I could see something more complicated where the Spurs get a future pick in the exchange or where the Toronto first goes out as part of a larger deal where the Spurs get more value. It's really just awkward regardless.

Good points.

DAF86 is right in that even in the late 30s/early 40s (I also always like the idea of having a pick in that range, because there's almost always still value to be had), you're unlikely to uncover a rotation caliber player, so if they view Dotson as that, then it could make sense.

On the other hand, even though there's a less than 1% chance of unearthing the next Ginobili, Jokic, etc., do you want to essentially throw that away a lottery ticket for a player who probably tops out as a poor man's Green? Or, as you said, throw away the possibility of packaging it with the Raptors 1st if a player they really like falls to the late 20s.

You generally don't give up legit 2nds for players like Dotson, but they're so bereft of 3 and D types (even with Walker returning, I doubt they want to count on a 20 year old rookie, who hasn't really played in a game since March and is coming off his 2nd torn meniscus) and any competent one could help swing some of these coin flip games, more for what they represent than their caliber.

This is why they should have had the sense to claim someone like Reed, when they Suns waived him.

[DPG21920]

Chinook makes some great points. Often, teams treat 2nd round picks as throw in’s (see CHI selling theirs to GS so that GS could get Bell despite no basketball reason for doing so on CHI’s part), but not the good teams.

These picks are valuable and not all teams are created equal; Spurs are excellent drafters.

[Chinook]

Chinook makes some great points. Often, teams treat 2nd round picks as throw in’s (see CHI selling theirs to GS so that GS could get Bell despite no basketball reason for doing so on CHI’s part), but not the good teams.

These picks are valuable and not all teams are created equal; Spurs are excellent drafters.

The Spurs are excellent drafters, which is why DAF's suggestion that Doston is likely to be better than anyone the Spurs would draft with their second-rounder is unwarranted. Like sure, he's better than Blossomgame and DeShaun Thomas. But he's not better than any 20s or 30s or 40s player the Spurs after drafted in a long time outside of Livio or Ryan Richards. For as much shit as guys like Anderson and Joseph are getting, and for how many people soured on Blair, Bertans or White, they are/were all easily better players than Dotson has been. I've seen nobody suggest trading Metu for Dotson (and that would be a legal trade that could be done tonight), and Chim currently sits near the bottom of Spurs draft picks in that aforementioned range, only above those exceptions and James Anderson until/unless Metu can demonstrate otherwise.

[TheGreatYacht]

:lol Excellent drafters

:lol Livio Jean-Charles, Nikola Milutinov, James Anderson, Fathead Anderson, 25yr old rookie White, ACLonnie

[K...]

AGain, fuck people who cite livio and Anderson as draft failures....Injuries suck and aren't part of draft grading. Both were good to great picks. Fathead will almost certainly get a third contract even if he never learns to shoot. even mahini went on to have a long career....cojo, etc.

[Chinook]

:lol Excellent drafters

:lol Livio Jean-Charles, Nikola Milutinov, James Anderson, Fathead Anderson, 25yr old rookie White, ACLonnie

I'm just waiting until you randomly become an Anderson fan when hating him stops being edgy.

[Chinook]

AGain, fuck people who cite livio and Anderson as draft failures....Injuries suck and aren't part of draft grading. Both were good to great picks. Fathead will almost certainly get a third contract even if he never learns to shoot. even mahini went on to have a long career....cojo, etc.

There's a difference between saying LJC was a draft failure and that he is not a very good player. He had upside that made his selection decent, and he may well have been a good or at least serviceable player had he been healthy. But he wasn't healthy, so he never got there as a player. Maybe you meant only to refer to TGY's trolling, but if you did mean me, I think you're off base. Moreover, I can't call either pick great without them having had some NBA success. Understandable? Yes. Picks that other teams may have wanted to make? Sure. Great? No. Jean-Charles never even played in the NBA for fuck's sake.

[Keepin' it real]

Spurs interested in Dodson?

They should talk to Newman.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AERwgNvgMmc

[K...]

There's a difference between saying LJC was a draft failure and that he is not a very good player. He had upside that made his selection decent, and he may well have been a good or at least serviceable player had he been healthy. But he wasn't healthy, so he never got there as a player. Maybe you meant only to refer to TGY's trolling, but if you did mean me, I think you're off base. Moreover, I can't call either pick great without them having had some NBA success. Understandable? Yes. Picks that other teams may have wanted to make? Sure. Great? No. Jean-Charles never even played in the NBA for fuck's sake.

pre injury JC was a raw athlete and probably would not have worked out. But he wasn't the trash player most people talk about.

No team has done better than the spurs with late draft picks. Some teams have done good with late lottery picks and lottery picks. Of all the things to shit on about the spurs, don't use draft picking because compared to all other teams the spurs are clearly good drafters and adjust to their need. Prior to 2012 they were looking at role players because they had the big three. Now they are looking for stars and may get into late lottery picks consistently.

[Kurgan]

AGain, fuck people who cite livio and Anderson as draft failures....Injuries suck and aren't part of draft grading. Both were good to great picks. Fathead will almost certainly get a third contract even if he never learns to shoot. even mahini went on to have a long career....cojo, etc.

Injuries didn't derail Livio's career. He's just a bad basketball player. You can maybe make that argument for Anderson. He looked decent in the few games he played in his rookie season but Livio was never good. He had one fluke performance at the Nike Hoops Summit, which prompted the Spurs to draft him unfortunately.

[Chinook]

pre injury JC was a raw athlete and probably would not have worked out. But he wasn't the trash player most people talk about.

No team has done better than the spurs with late draft picks. Some teams have done good with late lottery picks and lottery picks. Of all the things to shit on about the spurs, don't use draft picking because compared to all other teams the spurs are clearly good drafters and adjust to their need. Prior to 2012 they were looking at role players because they had the big three. Now they are looking for stars and may get into late lottery picks consistently.

This is true and was sort of the point I was making in post #14. I don't think DAF was pissing on PATFO either, though. I think he was just playing the odds that those picks don't often turn out to be very good. My critique was that in the Spurs' hands, they could well draft a legit player with their second-rounder. By and large, I think we all agree that PATFO can draft well. TGY is trolling, but he agrees too. There are times when he drops the act and shows he's a decent poster who knows what's going on with the team and can give them props for what they do well.

[Chinook]

Injuries didn't derail Livio's career. He's just a bad basketball player. You can maybe make that argument for Anderson. He looked decent in the few games he played in his rookie season but Livio was never good. He had one fluke performance at the Nike Hoops Summit, which prompted the Spurs to draft him unfortunately.

Eh, I think LJC would have been a pretty good player in today's league, especially if he learned to shoot. You're talking about a guy with a pretty similar physical profile to Pascal Siakam (shit, Livio is only five months older than Pascal; god that dude was young). I don't think he would have developed as well, especially in 2013, but I do think he'd still be in the NBA had he not lost a chunk of his mobility. Shot-blockers who can switch everything and board are only becoming more valuable.

[SAGirl]

I'm just waiting until you randomly become an Anderson fan when hating him stops being edgy.
I do remember TGY trolling Kawhi calling him Shawn Marion...

[vy65]

Spurs picks since 2006:

2018 NBA 1 18 Lonnie Walker University of Miami
2018 NBA 2 49 Chimezie Metu University of Southern California
2017 NBA 1 29 Derrick White University of Colorado
2017 NBA 2 59 Jaron Blossomgame Clemson University
2016 NBA 1 29 Dejounte Murray University of Washington
2015 NBA 1 26 Nikola Milutinov Partizan Belgrade (Serbia)
2015 NBA 2 55 Cady Lalanne University of Massachusetts Amherst
2014 NBA 1 30 Kyle Anderson University of California, Los Angeles
2014 NBA 2 58 Jordan McRae University of Tennessee
2013 NBA 1 28 Livio Jean-Charles ASVEL Basket (France)
2013 NBA 2 58 Deshaun Thomas Ohio State University
2012 NBA 2 59 Marcus Denmon University of Missouri
2011 NBA 1 29 Cory Joseph University of Texas at Austin
2011 NBA 2 59 Adam Hanga Alba Fehérvár (Hungary)
2010 NBA 1 20 James Anderson Oklahoma State University
2010 NBA 2 49 Ryan Richards CB Gran Canaria (Spain)
2009 NBA 2 37 DeJuan Blair University of Pittsburgh
2009 NBA 2 51 Jack McClinton University of Miami
2009 NBA 2 53 Nando de Colo Cholet Basket (France)
2008 NBA 1 26 George Hill Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
2008 NBA 2 45 Goran Dragic KK Union Olimpija (Slovenia)
2008 NBA 2 57 James Gist University of Maryland
2007 NBA 1 28 Tiago Splitter Saski Baskonia (Spain)
2007 NBA 2 33 Marcus Williams University of Arizona
2007 NBA 2 58 Giorgos Printezis Olympiacos BC (Greece)
2006 NBA 2 59 Damir Markota

Outside of Dragic, who never played for the spurs, there’s just no history to claim that the spurs would be successful or not in the 30-40 range. Yes, they’ve had success in the late 1st. But when Nando de fucking Colo is your second round succes story, you can’t act like the spurs have some kind of storied success in the second.

[BackHome]

Sorry Livio was decent until he got hurt and then he started to suck. I will say I was at a couple of Austin games last season and I can tell you he has improved greatly was kinda surprised they didn’t offer a two way or maybe they did but he took the Europe contract. For some reason I don’t think we have heard the last of Livio.

Drafting players has luck involved just ask Philly about the First Pick in the draft trying to be traded for late first or second round. Lol

[DAF86]

Dotson played tonight and dropped 17.

[TimDunkem]

Livio always sucked. Love the revisionist history around here to justify slurping every PATFO decision.

[TheGreatYacht]

Livio always sucked. Love the revisionist history around here to justify slurping every PATFO decision.
:lol it's pathetic. Livio was about as average as one could be prior to the draft. PATFO fluffers justifying spending a first round pick based off a meaningless Nike Hoops summit game.

[San Antonio Slayer]

The Spurs are certainly good drafters but eventually those nice picks play for other teams getting paid much more PATFO could afford. So what's in it for the Spurs?

[Chinook]

Spurs picks since 2006:

2018 NBA 1 18 Lonnie Walker University of Miami
2018 NBA 2 49 Chimezie Metu University of Southern California
2017 NBA 1 29 Derrick White University of Colorado
2017 NBA 2 59 Jaron Blossomgame Clemson University
2016 NBA 1 29 Dejounte Murray University of Washington
2015 NBA 1 26 Nikola Milutinov Partizan Belgrade (Serbia)
2015 NBA 2 55 Cady Lalanne University of Massachusetts Amherst
2014 NBA 1 30 Kyle Anderson University of California, Los Angeles
2014 NBA 2 58 Jordan McRae University of Tennessee
2013 NBA 1 28 Livio Jean-Charles ASVEL Basket (France)
2013 NBA 2 58 Deshaun Thomas Ohio State University
2012 NBA 2 59 Marcus Denmon University of Missouri
2011 NBA 1 29 Cory Joseph University of Texas at Austin
2011 NBA 2 59 Adam Hanga Alba Fehérvár (Hungary)
2010 NBA 1 20 James Anderson Oklahoma State University
2010 NBA 2 49 Ryan Richards CB Gran Canaria (Spain)
2009 NBA 2 37 DeJuan Blair University of Pittsburgh
2009 NBA 2 51 Jack McClinton University of Miami
2009 NBA 2 53 Nando de Colo Cholet Basket (France)
2008 NBA 1 26 George Hill Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
2008 NBA 2 45 Goran Dragic KK Union Olimpija (Slovenia)
2008 NBA 2 57 James Gist University of Maryland
2007 NBA 1 28 Tiago Splitter Saski Baskonia (Spain)
2007 NBA 2 33 Marcus Williams University of Arizona
2007 NBA 2 58 Giorgos Printezis Olympiacos BC (Greece)
2006 NBA 2 59 Damir Markota

Outside of Dragic, who never played for the spurs, there’s just no history to claim that the spurs would be successful or not in the 30-40 range. Yes, they’ve had success in the late 1st. But when Nando de fucking Colo is your second round succes story, you can’t act like the spurs have some kind of storied success in the second.

It's a problem if you don't think guys like Blair are good picks. DeJuan was a fantastic pick and would have been fine even it he had been drafted 25 picks earlier. I'm just going to assume you missed him and Anderson as picks in your range, though. The point is that if the Spurs are good at finding really good players after the lottery, and good players are often found in the early second, why would not think the Spurs are likely to mess up that range? Like sure, maybe they don't know guys like Jokic or Brogdon will be impact players before they break out. But even the guys GS and Phillly drafted there (with not a one of them becoming a star besides Draymond) are way better than Dotson.

[Chinook]

The Spurs are certainly good drafters but eventually those nice picks play for other teams getting paid much more PATFO could afford. So what's in it for the Spurs?

What's the logic there? Why would it make more sense to trade those couple of cheap years for even fewer cheap years for Dotson?

[Chinook]

Livio always sucked. Love the revisionist history around here to justify slurping every PATFO decision.

It's not revisionist history. That would imply folks didn't like LJC and then changed their minds just to protect PATFO. In reality, folks liked him just fine back then, and some just refused to let go of that affinity. Hell, even I held a candle for Livio until the end of last season.


:lol it's pathetic. Livio was about as average as one could be prior to the draft. PATFO fluffers justifying spending a first round pick based off a meaningless Nike Hoops summit game.

There'd be nothing wrong with drafting an average player at 30. That you think he was already average at 18 suggests a pretty high ceiling or at least enough possibility of one that it would make sense to be excited.

[San Antonio Slayer]

What's the logic there? Why would it make more sense to trade those couple of cheap years for even fewer cheap years for Dotson?

I don't know much about Dotson but if we do have cheap years at good draft prospects' expense why haven't we used the rest of the budget getting medium tier free agents or high tier euro players? I don't see much difference between 2nd rounder and a young undrafted euro player with euroleague experience.

[SouthTexasRancher]

:lol Excellent drafters

:lol Livio Jean-Charles, Nikola Milutinov, James Anderson, Fathead Anderson, 25yr old rookie White, ACLonnie


:blah The Not So Great Yacht aka The Little Row Boat. :spin

[Chinook]

I don't know much about Dotson but if we do have cheap years at good draft prospects' expense why haven't we used the rest of the budget getting medium tier free agents or high tier euro players? I don't see much difference between 2nd rounder and a young undrafted euro player with euroleague experience.

Bryn is the only player on the Spurs 15 that wasn't drafted. That compares to four second-rounders and seven total players drafted after 25 (but still drafted). UDFAs can obviously still come in and do well, but the Spurs have a long history of second-rounders doing well, whether PATFO were the ones picking or not. It's just much harder to find great UDFAs, because teams are just more likely to pick up all the stray talent once they have 30 more picks to do it. Obviously it happens somewhat every year, but I'd say most of the breakout former scrubs, especially those in the US, are former second-rounders more often than former UDFAs.

I don't think it makes sense to call out SA for not having mid-tier contracts when they currently have more than they have had in a long time. Mills, Gay, Bertans and Beli are all signed to such deals. They compliment the four guys on rookie deals (Murray, Poeltl, White and Walker) and Metu's contract. The Spurs may have a problem in what types of players they want in their system, but they don't have a problem in managing their contracts. If Pau wasn't getting $16 Million, someone else should have been. Hell, there should be a third player making near $20 Million on the roster as it is. Having a system like Miami were they have five players in the $10M-$15M range next year is crazy.

[San Antonio Slayer]

I don't think it makes sense to call out SA for not having mid-tier contracts when they currently have more than they have had in a long time. Mills, Gay, Bertans and Beli are all signed to such deals. They compliment the four guys on rookie deals (Murray, Poeltl, White and Walker) and Metu's contract. The Spurs may have a problem in what types of players they want in their system, but they don't have a problem in managing their contracts. If Pau wasn't getting $16 Million, someone else should have been. Hell, there should be a third player making near $20 Million on the roster as it is. Having a system like Miami were they have five players in the $10M-$15M range next year is crazy.
I am pretyy much ok with Bryn, Mills, Belli, Gay and Bertans. I just don't get why we didn't try to get Len, Chandler, McGee or Beasley (if we couldn't get Randle) to help LMA. And I don't understand why we signed Pondexter and Cunningham for 4.3 and refused to pay Kyle Anderson 8.6. I am sure Gasol would have taken less than 16 and it still would look like classic loyalty contract.

[vy65]

It's a problem if you don't think guys like Blair are good picks. DeJuan was a fantastic pick and would have been fine even it he had been drafted 25 picks earlier. I'm just going to assume you missed him and Anderson as picks in your range, though. The point is that if the Spurs are good at finding really good players after the lottery, and good players are often found in the early second, why would not think the Spurs are likely to mess up that range? Like sure, maybe they don't know guys like Jokic or Brogdon will be impact players before they break out. But even the guys GS and Phillly drafted there (with not a one of them becoming a star besides Draymond) are way better than Dotson.

Almost 100% nonsequitur. The question is whether trading a mid-30s second rounder for a known quantity is a good idea. The overwhelming majority of responses say no because the Spurs have some storied history of drafting in that range. I say let’s look at the past decade or so and see whether it’s worth it or not.

The truth is they’ve had two mid-30s picks in the past 12 years. One sucked (Williams). And one panned our for a few years (I never was a Blair fan and he was part of the 2008-2012 dark ages, but reasonable minds can differ). Notably, both those picks are from over a decade ago, so it’s not exactly fresh evidence.

Regardless, data is not the plural of anecdote. That one - one - pick in your mind was a good choice does not create some rich draft history in the 30s (Anderson was a first rounder and bringing him up is dishonest given we’re talkingg about a second round pick). So, actually, no, there’s not enough evidence to make the claim that the spurs are *really good* at finding players in the 30s and beyond, which is what the whole issue is in the first place.

[SAGirl]

I don't know Dotson at all, but I do not think the Spurs would go into next season with 3-4 rooks in their team.

I suspect one of the picks is traded, I don't know for who or with what strategy. It could be to move up, could be to package it with a current Spur to get someone else in a trade, it could be for a current young player they like, etc. There's many ways that asset can be used. Should it be used for Dotson? Honestly I don't know. I don't know this player at all. But I hope they are currently looking around for ways to get better this current season though. I wouldn't advocate that if it wasn't bc of Pop wanting to "stay competitive" this year, which is clearly what they want to do.

[Chinook]

Almost 100% nonsequitur. The question is whether trading a mid-30s second rounder for a known quantity is a good idea. The overwhelming majority of responses say no because the Spurs have some storied history of drafting in that range. I say let’s look at the past decade or so and see whether it’s worth it or not.

The truth is they’ve had two mid-30s picks in the past 12 years. One sucked (Williams). And one panned our for a few years (I never was a Blair fan and he was part of the 2008-2012 dark ages, but reasonable minds can differ). Notably, both those picks are from over a decade ago, so it’s not exactly fresh evidence.

Regardless, data is not the plural of anecdote. That one - one - pick in your mind was a good choice does not create some rich draft history in the 30s (Anderson was a first rounder and bringing him up is dishonest given we’re talkingg about a second round pick). So, actually, no, there’s not enough evidence to make the claim that the spurs are *really good* at finding players in the 30s and beyond, which is what the whole issue is in the first place.

Just seems like you don't want to admit you were wrong. YOU were the one who set the limit specifically from 30 to 40, so don't call others dishonest for bringing up a 30th pick, Anyway, no, 30 and 31 have much more in common than 31 and 55 do. The point I was making is that Blair was objectively a great pick when you look at his production in relation to his draft class. If you're of the "opinion" that he was a poor pick, it says more about your ability to judge picks than it does about the Spurs did.

Your whole framing of this issue has been wrong. Nobody but you set this limit where only 30(31) to 40 count. Everyone else just argued the Spurs were good at drafting. Secondly, yeah, nailing pick after pick in the late-20s is legit reason to believe they could do well with a 30s pick. Like what's your argument even trying to be here: That because PATFO wouldn't be drafting a first-round pick that they won't put scouting resources into players taken in this range? Or is it that you believe that PATFO just happened to have that last good guy fall to them at the end of the first and that they have no more board left by the time we're in the 30s?

Ultimately, one doesn't need a lot to go on to argue that they shouldn't trade a high-second for a random player. Sure, arguing for Dotson can be persuasive, but you didn't do that. You're making no claim that he's any good at all, just that SA should trade the pick because they have only drafted Blair in that range. That's "data" in your mind? I can't see that. To me, it's just an attempt to make an argument that has a lot of problems.

[Chinook]

I am pretyy much ok with Bryn, Mills, Belli, Gay and Bertans. I just don't get why we didn't try to get Len, Chandler, McGee or Beasley (if we couldn't get Randle) to help LMA. And I don't understand why we signed Pondexter and Cunningham for 4.3 and refused to pay Kyle Anderson 8.6. I am sure Gasol would have taken less than 16 and it still would look like classic loyalty contract.

There was no reason to get Len or McGee after the Poeltl trade. The Spurs have a good center rotation now that LMA plays the five full time. Len hasn't been very good compared to the other centers. Javale is a very underrated player, but his problems are still there. I also don't think there was much of an option to sign him for cheap anyway. Beasley hasn't played well this year and also gave LAL a ring-chaser discount. Last year it was a better question in my opinion, because he outplayed Gay while making a lot less. That's no longer the case. I don't think it makes sense to lament either Chandler. Wilson was traded for pure cap space, which SA didn't and should have had lying around. Tyson doesn't fit in a healthy center rotation. He's a good defensive center even now, but his marginal value there has diminished with his mobility, and the team again has a good enough center rotation.

Pondexter is a placeholder. His roster spot costs almost a million bucks a year just to lie fallow. Subtracting that cost from everyone's contracts, you get Pon and Cun for $2,4 Million versus $7.7 for Anderson. It's actually a much bigger financial difference that your post suggests, and it gets worse when you subtract a vet-min instead of a rookie min like I did. A lot of your criticisms ignore that cap building is complicated and that not every dollar is equal. Paying Gasol less doesn't necessarily make it better to sign Anderson, Bertans, Forbes and Beli all to big contracts. I mean, nobody likes the Gasol deal for what it is, but I do feel it's better for the team to have one $17-Million contract than two more $8-9-Million contracts. The more players in that range you sign, the more you have to hope you can find trades for them when the time comes to change your roster. I've already mentioned the Heat who are locked into a below-average team for years because they have kept all their free agents. They aren't alone historically. Both Denver and Memphis went through stretches of locking their ceilings in a bunch of middle role-players. If the Spurs wanted to sign Andeson, I feel like they should have done so at the expense of one of their other mid-sized contracts, not in addition to them.

[exstatic]

Dotson..........I don't think he ever got the dinosaur dna.

ISWYDT

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Spurs picks since 2006:

2018 NBA 1 18 Lonnie Walker University of Miami
2018 NBA 2 49 Chimezie Metu University of Southern California
2017 NBA 1 29 Derrick White University of Colorado
2017 NBA 2 59 Jaron Blossomgame Clemson University
2016 NBA 1 29 Dejounte Murray University of Washington
2015 NBA 1 26 Nikola Milutinov Partizan Belgrade (Serbia)
2015 NBA 2 55 Cady Lalanne University of Massachusetts Amherst
2014 NBA 1 30 Kyle Anderson University of California, Los Angeles
2014 NBA 2 58 Jordan McRae University of Tennessee
2013 NBA 1 28 Livio Jean-Charles ASVEL Basket (France)
2013 NBA 2 58 Deshaun Thomas Ohio State University
2012 NBA 2 59 Marcus Denmon University of Missouri
2011 NBA 1 29 Cory Joseph University of Texas at Austin
2011 NBA 2 59 Adam Hanga Alba Fehérvár (Hungary)
2010 NBA 1 20 James Anderson Oklahoma State University
2010 NBA 2 49 Ryan Richards CB Gran Canaria (Spain)
2009 NBA 2 37 DeJuan Blair University of Pittsburgh
2009 NBA 2 51 Jack McClinton University of Miami
2009 NBA 2 53 Nando de Colo Cholet Basket (France)
2008 NBA 1 26 George Hill Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
2008 NBA 2 45 Goran Dragic KK Union Olimpija (Slovenia)
2008 NBA 2 57 James Gist University of Maryland
2007 NBA 1 28 Tiago Splitter Saski Baskonia (Spain)
2007 NBA 2 33 Marcus Williams University of Arizona
2007 NBA 2 58 Giorgos Printezis Olympiacos BC (Greece)
2006 NBA 2 59 Damir Markota

Outside of Dragic, who never played for the spurs, there’s just no history to claim that the spurs would be successful or not in the 30-40 range. Yes, they’ve had success in the late 1st. But when Nando de fucking Colo is your second round succes story, you can’t act like the spurs have some kind of storied success in the second.


There's only 3 picks on that list in the 30-40 range, Kyle Anderson, Dejuan Blair, and Marcus Williams. Two of those three had some success in the NBA. I'd say that's pretty successful. Second round picks have mostly been a speculative crapshoot for the Spurs historically, but that's usually because they're picking at the end of round 2.

[TimDunkem]

It's not revisionist history. That would imply folks didn't like LJC and then changed their minds just to protect PATFO. In reality, folks liked him just fine back then, and some just refused to let go of that affinity. Hell, even I held a candle for Livio until the end of last season.



There'd be nothing wrong with drafting an average player at 30. That you think he was already average at 18 suggests a pretty high ceiling or at least enough possibility of one that it would make sense to be excited.

The revisionist history is the slurpers claiming now that he was ever good. I don't know what games they were watching when it was clear he couldn't do literally anything well.

[vy65]

Just seems like you don't want to admit you were wrong. YOU were the one who set the limit specifically from 30 to 40, so don't call others dishonest for bringing up a 30th pick, Anyway, no, 30 and 31 have much more in common than 31 and 55 do. The point I was making is that Blair was objectively a great pick when you look at his production in relation to his draft class. If you're of the "opinion" that he was a poor pick, it says more about your ability to judge picks than it does about the Spurs did.

Your whole framing of this issue has been wrong. Nobody but you set this limit where only 30(31) to 40 count. Everyone else just argued the Spurs were good at drafting. Secondly, yeah, nailing pick after pick in the late-20s is legit reason to believe they could do well with a 30s pick. Like what's your argument even trying to be here: That because PATFO wouldn't be drafting a first-round pick that they won't put scouting resources into players taken in this range? Or is it that you believe that PATFO just happened to have that last good guy fall to them at the end of the first and that they have no more board left by the time we're in the 30s?

Ultimately, one doesn't need a lot to go on to argue that they shouldn't trade a high-second for a random player. Sure, arguing for Dotson can be persuasive, but you didn't do that. You're making no claim that he's any good at all, just that SA should trade the pick because they have only drafted Blair in that range. That's "data" in your mind? I can't see that. To me, it's just an attempt to make an argument that has a lot of problems.


Dotson’s contract for next season is non-guaranteed, meaning the Knicks have to make a decision on guaranteeing the pact this summer. That could complicate matters. Hence, they may have to think about a trade by February’s deadline — perhaps for a 2019 second-rounder — if they don’t intend to guarantee it for next season.

Second round pick. Not something in the 20's. Not #30. A second rounder. I was being generous saying something in the 30's. If you want to look at their drafting history in the 40s and 50s, its upthread.

But this is par for the course: a lot of words that have nothing to do with the point being made. Show me the evidence that the Spurs have a solid track record of picking in the 30s. This should be really simple - it's like you don't want to admit you were wrong.

There simply is no evidence to suggest that the type of pick contemplated in a trade for Dotson would reveal the sort of value you're talking about. Again, this is not my framing, nor does this have to do with the late 20s. The point very simply is that there is no evidence to suggest that the front office would hit a home run for the type of pick suggested as what it would take to get Dotson.

You can put words in people's mouths and try to characterize what they're saying in a way to fit your narrative all you want. But that's dishonest. A lot like the suggestion that the spurs history in the second round hasn't been a storied success over the past decade. Which is the sole point I was making.

[vy65]

DP

[Chinook]

there’s just no history to claim that the spurs would be successful or not in the 30-40 range.

That's you. You set 30-40 as a limit, not me, not another poster, not the article you think save your point. You chose to make a post with the history of the Spurs drafting in both rounds. Let's ignore that you one claimed "success" wasn't even drafted in that prescribed range. You're the one who's been off-message this whole debate while acting like the discussion before and after your post is a nonsequiter.


Not #30.

...

But this is par for the course: a lot of words that have nothing to do with the point being made. Show me the evidence that the Spurs have a solid track record of picking in the 30s. This should be really simple - it's like you don't want to admit you were wrong.

30th is a pick in the 30s. You can't even go one post without contradicting yourself. If the Spurs can nail the 30th pick, it makes sense to believe they have a good chance to do something with the 34th pick. Guys like George Hill and DeJounte Murray can be high-seconds just as easily as they were low-firsts.


There simply is no evidence to suggest that the type of pick contemplated in a trade for Dotson would reveal the sort of value you're talking about. Again, this is not my framing, nor does this have to do with the late 20s. The point very simply is that there is no evidence to suggest that the front office would hit a home run for the type of pick suggested as what it would take to get Dotson.

This is another problem. They don't have to hit a home run. They don't need to draft a star. A simple rotation player like Bell or a guy with potential like Bolden is plenty good enough to not want to trade it away. You keep not advocating for Dotson, but because you refuse to measure the other side of the trade, your judgment of the picks is point.


You can put words in people's mouths and try to characterize what they're saying in a way to fit your narrative all you want. But that's dishonest. A lot like the suggestion that the spurs history in the second round hasn't been a storied success over the past decade. Which is the sole point I was making.

Your "sole" point isn't well-reasoned. As mentioned, the Spurs nailed two of their three picks in the 30s. They're good at finding guys in the late-20s. Every year there are good players drafted in the 30s. Those three things make it reasonable to believe they'll do a good job with the pick. Listing guys drafted in the 50s is horrible counter evidence. Ignoring guys drafted in the 20s is even worse. Continuing to pretend like drafting a guy like Blair is not a great haul or that a player needs to be Dragic-good to be worth not trading demonstrates a lack of perspective. We aren't talking about withholding the pick in a trade for an established starter here. We're talking about not trading it for a warm body. Making a move like this would be closer to Ray McCallum trade than any other move we've been discussing.

[timvp]

Anyone who doesn't think the Spurs are outstanding drafters either doesn't understand how the NBA works or doesn't realize how low the odds are of picking a player in the late first round who sticks in the league. The odds are even lower in the second round.

Murray, KA, Joseph, Hill, Blair, Splitter, etc. were all great picks. Hell, even De Colo and Hanga were quality picks (getting NBA talent in the second round is rare). White looks like another good to great pick. Walker already looks like a really good pick. Milutinov looks like he'll be able to play in the NBA, so that's another good pick.

LJC was a pure athlete who tore his ACL a couple months after the draft and never regained his quickness. James Anderson looked really good to begin his rookie season but then suffered a career-altering injury (as I detailed at the time, the specific type of broken foot he suffered was difficult to recover from). Even if you want to classify those as bad picks, the Spurs can put their drafting ability up against any team in the NBA and they'd come out on top. Off the top of my head, the Thunder would be second ... but they've had the luxury of having lottery picks and they've missed a bunch too.

Edgelords trying to claim the Spurs can't draft enter straight into trolling territory if they're actually serious.

[SAGirl]

Anyone who doesn't think the Spurs are outstanding drafters either doesn't understand how the NBA works or doesn't realize how low the odds are of picking a player in the late first round who sticks in the league. The odds are even lower in the second round.

Murray, KA, Joseph, Hill, Blair, Splitter, etc. were all great picks. Hell, even De Colo and Hanga were quality picks (getting NBA talent in the second round is rare). White looks like another good to great pick. Walker already looks like a really good pick. Milutinov looks like he'll be able to play in the NBA, so that's another good pick.

LJC was a pure athlete who tore his ACL a couple months after the draft and never regained his quickness. James Anderson looked really good to begin his rookie season but then suffered a career-altering injury (as I detailed at the time, the specific type of broken foot he suffered was difficult to recover from). Even if you want to classify those as bad picks, the Spurs can put their drafting ability up against any team in the NBA and they'd come out on top. Off the top of my head, the Thunder would be second ... but they've had the luxury of having lottery picks and they've missed a bunch too.

Edgelords trying to claim the Spurs can't draft enter straight into trolling territory if they're actually serious.

I agree. Think its sometimes not worth it to even argue this point. They have hit on rotation players in the late round more often than not. Of course most posters (oh I am sorry, I meant trolls) consider those guys scrubs. But they don't realize the fact they got roleplayers at very cheap late round rookie deals for a few years in a row allowed thme to fill out the roster and pay other guys up that they wanted to pay up. Now you can criticize them paying up X vs Y, or trying a different strategy here or there, liberating cap for someone vrs not doing that. There is a lot one can argue about players they have signed recently and for how much... but complaining about that while also whining about Kyle in a rookie scale deal, that was troll territory and still is... bc dude is playing in another franchise and still has a troll brigade following him. CoJo is a quality roleplayer in a playoff team that got paid after his rook deal, the Spurs had him at a bargain, etc. Even if they sign elsewhere after their rook deals are over, the rookie scale contracts are such a bargain in the NBA that if you get a player that is productive 3 out of those 4 (bc Pop sends them their rook season to the Gleague invariably), then that is a great value.

Of course I want a better draft pick. I want better chances at a better player. You got to draft higher though consistently and have more picks... that means a little bit of tanking... so here we are. Spurs may end up not being all that great anyways and add another good pick to the one they made this past summer. I do hope Walker's knees hold up and don't become glass.

[ECOV]

Another talented dude that was available when Drunkford was at the board. Shame we took White.

The "NBA EXPERT" with more amazing takes great job

[vy65]

That's you. You set 30-40 as a limit, not me, not another poster, not the article you think save your point. You chose to make a post with the history of the Spurs drafting in both rounds. Let's ignore that you one claimed "success" wasn't even drafted in that prescribed range. You're the one who's been off-message this whole debate while acting like the discussion before and after your post is a nonsequiter.

It's kind of mindblowing that you'd dig your heels on this point. Especially since you were the first one to mention the potential for the 2nd rounder to fall in the late 30s. It's a simple fact that there isn't enough history of Spurs picking in the 30's - meaning second round thirties since that's the whole point of this conversation - to say that they have success. No evidence meaning no evidence to the good, or the bad. Just no evidence. I honestly don't understand why this is hard point to understand.

But regardless of that point, I'm more than happy to expand the list of second rounders beyond the 30s:

2018 NBA 2 49 Chimezie Metu University of Southern California
2017 NBA 2 59 Jaron Blossomgame Clemson University
2015 NBA 1 26 Nikola Milutinov Partizan Belgrade (Serbia)
2015 NBA 2 55 Cady Lalanne University of Massachusetts Amherst
2014 NBA 2 58 Jordan McRae University of Tennessee
2013 NBA 2 58 Deshaun Thomas Ohio State University
2012 NBA 2 59 Marcus Denmon University of Missouri
2011 NBA 2 59 Adam Hanga Alba Fehérvár (Hungary)
2010 NBA 2 49 Ryan Richards CB Gran Canaria (Spain)
2009 NBA 2 37 DeJuan Blair University of Pittsburgh
2009 NBA 2 51 Jack McClinton University of Miami
2009 NBA 2 53 Nando de Colo Cholet Basket (France)
2008 NBA 2 45 Goran Dragic KK Union Olimpija (Slovenia)
2008 NBA 2 57 James Gist University of Maryland
2007 NBA 2 33 Marcus Williams University of Arizona
2007 NBA 2 58 Giorgos Printezis Olympiacos BC (Greece)
2006 NBA 2 59 Damir Markota

If you're claiming that the above picks illustrate some strong track record of success, then by all means go for it.


30th is a pick in the 30s. You can't even go one post without contradicting yourself. If the Spurs can nail the 30th pick, it makes sense to believe they have a good chance to do something with the 34th pick. Guys like George Hill and DeJounte Murray can be high-seconds just as easily as they were low-firsts.

100% dishonest. The whole point of this conversation is a 2nd rounder for Dotson. 30th is in the first round. It's only a contradiction if you haven't been paying attention to shit like what's said in the article, which seems to be the case.


This is another problem. They don't have to hit a home run. They don't need to draft a star. A simple rotation player like Bell or a guy with potential like Bolden is plenty good enough to not want to trade it away. You keep not advocating for Dotson, but because you refuse to measure the other side of the trade, your judgment of the picks is point.

In context, hitting a home run = finding a simple rotation player. Not another Manu. Again, the context of this conversation is value for Dwayne Dotson.

And again, I've never advocated for Dotson. The only thing I've focused on are the Spurs' second round picks. I am fascinated why you can't seem to understand this?


Your "sole" point isn't well-reasoned. As mentioned, the Spurs nailed two of their three picks in the 30s. They're good at finding guys in the late-20s. Every year there are good players drafted in the 30s. Those three things make it reasonable to believe they'll do a good job with the pick. Listing guys drafted in the 50s is horrible counter evidence. Ignoring guys drafted in the 20s is even worse. Continuing to pretend like drafting a guy like Blair is not a great haul or that a player needs to be Dragic-good to be worth not trading demonstrates a lack of perspective. We aren't talking about withholding the pick in a trade for an established starter here. We're talking about not trading it for a warm body. Making a move like this would be closer to Ray McCallum trade than any other move we've been discussing.

See above. Not talking about 1st round picks. Not talking about the 30th pick. We're talking about what the article upthread suggested it would take to get a player - a second round pick. You might want to talk about picks in the 20s because the front office has had success in that range. But again, that's not been the point I've made because that's not what the article suggested it would take for Dotson.

You can throw out counter-examples to points I've not made (i.e., I never claimed the Spurs have failed in their picks or not found value late in the first round). But what you can't do is suggest that the Spurs have a strong track record for second round picks over the past 10 years. Why are you not following this?

[TheGreatYacht]

The "NBA EXPERT" with more amazing takes great job
Thanks, I know.

[Chinook]

It's kind of mindblowing that you'd dig your heels on this point. Especially since you were the first one to mention the potential for the 2nd rounder to fall in the late 30s. It's a simple fact that there isn't enough history of Spurs picking in the 30's - meaning second round thirties since that's the whole point of this conversation - to say that they have success. No evidence meaning no evidence to the good, or the bad. Just no evidence. I honestly don't understand why this is hard point to understand.

It's "hard to understand" because it's ridiculous. You're whole critique is based off reasoning like the 30th pick and 31st pick are less similar than the 31st pick and the 55th pick. That's not a defensible position, and you keep beating your head against that wall. When you specifically say a range of 30-40, it's your fault that people list 30 when if you didn't want that. You could have just written 31-40. Instead of just going "Yeah, I meant 31", you just pretend like 30 isn't in the 30-40 range. Like yeah, I can understand what you mean, but it's a blatant contradiction that underlines the issues with your point.

There's a difference between having examples of them drafting well in the 31-40 range and having reasons/evidence to believe they would draft well in that range. Saying, "Because the Spurs do so well in the late 20s, I believe they'll do well in the early 30s," is reasonable. Saying, "They haven't done well in the 50s, so there's no reason to believe they'd do well in the 30s," isn't. Even if you DQ Anderson and dismiss Blair, there are reasons to believe they'll do okay. You can disagree with those reasons, but you seem to completely fail to understand that those reasons exist. You just keep hiding behind the idea of the Spurs not having a long history of drafting well in the 30s, but literally only you care about that. No one else was using that as a basis for their arguments. No one besides you thinks that's a standard that had to be met. Even if I grant you Anderson and Blair not counting, what does that change? Nothing. It doesn't move the needle one way or the other. It does't redefine the debate. It would just be there.

[vy65]

Article speculates Dotson May be had for a second rounder
VY: spurs have no history in the 30s and their picks in the 40s and 50s haven’t returned value
Chinook: automatically fixated on irrelevance
VY: no bro, Spurs don’t have the track record or great picks in the second round over the past decade
Chinook: (autistic screeching intensifies)

I can safely say that your last post is irrelevant to the point I made and the larger context of this thread. Cue the wall of text that will have shit to do about dick ...

[vy65]

Also, I pretty much did say “I meant 31,” given that every post I’ve made itt has been about the second round.

As for the rest, you’ve failed to show that their late first round track record translates into second round success especially since it hasn’t over the past 10 years.

[vy65]

Also also, my point is and has been, there’s no track record of them performiing well in the mid 30s one way or another. That a bunch of front office slurpers don’t hold the same standard is utterly fucking irrelevant to the past 10 years worth of actual picks.

[phxspurfan]

Who wouldn't be?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6pQXeVNsg4k/maxresdefault.jpg

[SAGirl]

shooting the 3 well for NYC. Has started to get minutes, presumably to get showcased.
1069026931549634567
1069032118859296768
1069017513822949377
1069030454769184768

[r0drig0lac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImYp6b-vqis

[SAGirl]

^ thanks was looking for highlights of that game and couldn't find them, thus the tweets. I'd want him in this team... looks like an interesting player to keep beyond this season too.

[ace3g]

https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1128738604824563712

[TD 21]

JD Shaw on Twitter: "The Spurs are signing guard Damyean Dotson to an Exhibit 10 contract, league source tells HoopsRumors. Dotson most recently played for the Cavaliers." / Twitter (https://twitter.com/JShawNBA/status/1448383419608612870)

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

good call OP :toast

[Degoat]

Spurs going for the g league championship?! Lol

[Chinook]

good call OP :toast

Glad you're being fair to him by giving him credit.

[TD 21]

There goes the resident amateur psychologist again attemping to interpret the thoughts of others . . . shouldn't you be knee deep in some CBA minutia to make yourself feel important and intelligent?

[Chinook]

There goes the resident amateur psychologist again attemping to interpret the thoughts of others . . . shouldn't you be knee deep in some CBA minutia to make yourself feel important and intelligent?

Are you gonna ruin your own thread trying to diss me?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Who wouldn't be?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6pQXeVNsg4k/maxresdefault.jpg

The 280Z was a nice car. Seems like that lineage has fallen off since then.