Random Thoughts: Spurs @ Timberwolves - Nov. 28. 2018

[timvp]

The Spurs got beat down so thoroughly by the Timberwolves on Wednesday night that assigning grades to the futility is pointless. The game was basically over midway through the second quarter. The blowout was even worse than the 128-89 final score indicates.

Some quick thoughts about the game:

The starters were bad to start the game and quickly fell into a 14-7 hole. Patty Mills came off the bench and almost single-handedly energized the team by pushing the pace, making slick passes and knocking down a couple difficult shots. At the end of the first quarter, the Spurs trailed only by three points, 28-25.

Then the wheels fell off.

DeMar DeRozan had four turnovers in the first quarter. Robert Covington is regarded as a top-flight defender and he showed why tonight with his defense on DeRozan. LaMarcus Aldridge missed some shots early, which seemed to impact his overall game. As the game progressed, he stopped battling for rebounds or defending the rim.

In garbage time, Jakob Poeltl continued his recent solid play; his per-minute production has been fantastic recently. Quincy Pondexter played really hard and exhibited more bounce in step than we’ve seen out of him so far this season.

Everyone else was bad. If you’re scoring at home, it’d be safe to pencil them all in with Ds or Fs.

Instead of reliving more of this contest’s dark minutiae, I’ll offer up some random thoughts one-quarter of the way into the 2018-19 season:

-Everything from the eye-test to advanced metrics say that Dante Cunningham shouldn’t be in the starting lineup. He really hurts the offense and isn’t an above average defender. He hustles, he rebounds a little bit and he’s more mobile than most power forwards. That’s the extent of his value.

-It should also be clarified that Cunningham can’t defend small forwards at all. There have been comparisons to Bruce Bowen and even Keith Bogans but those were three-and-D small forwards (Bogans was a disappointment but that was because he was Bowen on offense without being Bowen on defense). Cunningham is a mobile power forward who has no chance of staying in front of run of the mill small forwards (truth is most mobile power forwards can blow by him). Cunningham can only matchup against small forwards that don’t shoot well or those who you’d rather have shoot than drive (LeBron James and Greek Freak, for example).

-Speaking of three-and-D players, a lot has been made of the Spurs not having any such players on this year’s roster. However, that was by design. Last year, Dejounte Murray proved to be a one-man wrecking ball on the defensive end. When he was on the court, the Spurs were elite on defense regardless of who was around him. The issues with Murray are all on the offensive end . . . so the Spurs let go of their one-dimensional defensive players (Danny Green and Kyle Anderson, most notably) in an effort to put more well-rounded weapons around Murray. It was a gamble the Spurs took with the thought being that Murray would develop into a defensive juggernaut. When he was lost for the season with a torn ACL, that unfortunately scrambled the equation – and it was too late to change course.

-Going back to Cunningham, Pop actually made the move to take him out of the starting lineup tonight in Minnesota. He did so by replacing Cunningham with Derrick White. Obviously, how the game played out will have Pop rethinking whether or not Cunningham is the problem. (And, no, the lineup switch wasn’t a matchup issue. The Timberwolves started a big frontline in Karl-Anthony Towns, Taj Gibson and Covington, so Pop didn’t start the smaller lineup for defensive purposes.)

-I don’t know if White is the answer as a starter. Let’s ignore the fact that his play and production this season has been poor – the bigger issue is DeRozan is most useful when he’s handling the ball a ton. He’s useless off the ball because he’s not a three-point shooter; he even hesitates to shoot wide open corner threes. Starting Bryn Forbes as the point-guard-in-name-only but letting DeRozan run the show appears to be the way to go. The Spurs stumbled into that particularly alignment but it looks to be the best bet going forward.

-Speaking of White, Pop is coaching him as if he thinks White is a legit star (or at least a legit starter) in the making. When Murray went down, Pop didn’t hesitate to make White the starter. When White returned from injury, he immediately put him in the starting lineup. And even though all metrics point to White having a bad season thus far, Pop keeps trying to push the issue with him. Some Spurs fans say that Pop has been unfair with regard to White but I couldn’t disagree more. He’s giving him a long leash and showing a lot of confidence in a player who has a single digit PER and a net rating in the toilet.

-So, who should the fifth starter be next to Forbes, DeRozan, Rudy Gay and Aldridge. Cunningham isn’t the answer. I’d like it to be White since he has untapped upside but I don’t think it’s him, either. Even though Poeltl has played a lot better lately, I don’t think it can be him because Aldridge would struggle too much against modern day power forwards on defense. If someone isn’t brought in from the outside, I think Davis Bertans has to be given a shot. There’s really no other logical possibility.

-Yes, Bertans might be the worst rebounding forward in recorded human history. Yes, his defense usually amounts to him putting his arms straight up as he hurriedly backpedals while the opponent plows through him for a shot at the rim. But offensively, his ability to spread the floor meshes perfectly with the rest of the starting lineup. He’s the best floor spacer on the team and if there’s one thing the starting lineup needs, it’s improved spacing. And while he and his shoulderless frame will never be a plus on the defensive end, he’s usually mindful of his responsibilities on that end. His feet are also quick enough to stay in front of smaller players, which is useful when Gay is especially dragging and needs to stick to defending power forwards.

-A bench unit built around Mills, Poeltl and Marco Belinelli should be at least league average. Mills has played really well since a pathetic first four or five games of the season. Poeltl is improving by leaps and bounds lately. Belinelli literally can’t play much worse and is beyond due for a hot stretch of games. If White joins that threesome and is half as good as Pop apparently thinks he is, then the bench will be totally fine. Figuring out the starting lineup is the pressing need; the bench looks strong going forward.

-Big picture-wise, this latest four-game road trip was a win. Sure, Wednesday night was ugly but the Spurs went 2-2 on the road trip, which was the realistic goal heading into the trip. They also played better than expected in their loss in Milwaukee.

-Now the Spurs head into a stretch where they play eight of their next ten games at home. Through the uncharacteristic chaos in Spurs land, the good guys stand a game out of the playoffs. After this ten-game stretch, we’ll know a lot more about where the team stands. If they can win seven of the games, they will be feeling a lot better about themselves. If they win five-sh games, things will stay in the current limbo state. If they win less than that, it’d probably be time to shake up the roster.

-Welcome to real NBA fandom, Spurs fans. After thirty years in the sun, it's a bit disorienting to be dealing with existential-level question marks but I believe there might be a little bit of tread left on the wheels. We'll see.

[SAGirl]

:bobo Deserves a whine for all those of us who watched it. thanks for the review timvp appreciated.

[vander]

yeah it's so obvious that Bertans needs to be in the SL. and on defense, opposing players go at him the same way all the time, it's predictable, a little help D could go a long way.

Can't believe PATFO paid him 7 mil only to use him like this

[SpurPadre]

You keep giving Forbes a pass when his shot selection is horrible and even when he makes shots, his defense is the worst on the floor. Him as a starter is not justified.

[pad300]

yeah it's so obvious that Bertans needs to be in the SL. and on defense, opposing players go at him the same way all the time, it's predictable, a little help D could go a long way.

Can't believe PATFO paid him 7 mil only to use him like this

I can't believe PATFO paid him 7 Million. It's like the Mills deal - giving starter money to a guy who's a specialist, not a real starter level player...

[Spurs fever]

Legendary write up

[Das Texan]

Spurs fans are so incredibly spoiled.

Spurs build team basically around Murray. Murray goes down for the year. What the fuck did fans expect would happen?

This team has both Walker and Murray on it....

This team is tons more fun to watch and much more successful.

It is what it is.

[SpurPadre]

Spurs fans are so incredibly spoiled.

Spurs build team basically around Murray. Murray goes down for the year. What the fuck did fans expect would happen?

This team has both Walker and Murray on it....

This team is tons more fun to watch and much more successful.

It is what it is.

Doesn't mean we should be happy for being 10-11. No sense in that whatsoever.

[SAGirl]

This isn't only about Murray tbh. Last season they lost an MVP level player in Kawhi and were able to play better than was expected bc of the quality support players they had. Murray is good but he's not Kawhi. He's not going to carry this team the way people expect and I expected him to be MIP candidate.

[JeffDuncan]

Thanks, timvp, for taking the trouble. Good comments, as always.

One thing I've been noticing more about Bertans is his passing. He will sling a baseball type pass with good speed and accuracy, and he's fearless with it. He's also gotten braver and bolder in general the more he's played. I agree, start him (and cross our fingers he doesn't get crunched.)

[Spursfanfromafar]

Thanks LJ. Feels good to read up your articles when all is so bad with the Spurs ..it's frustrating to finally see the Spurs play like non contenders after years but I guess it's a plus that future ain't so bleak.

[sasaint]

You keep giving Forbes a pass when his shot selection is horrible and even when he makes shots, his defense is the worst on the floor. Him as a starter is not justified.

Forbes' shot selection is generally quite good. He gets a ton of open looks, and he should be shooting a much higher percentage than he is. If he were hitting his open shots like Pop expects from his "Curry", he would be a candidate for the league's MIP. But he only hits the good looks he gets at a fair clip, and that ain't nearly good enough to compensate for his no-D. I've been hoping he was going to become an elite 3-point shooter, and I will root for him as long as he is with the team, but we need an upgrade - as we do across the board.

[SpurPadre]

Forbes' shot selection is generally quite good. He gets a ton of open looks, and he should be shooting a much higher percentage than he is. If he were hitting his open shots like Pop expects from his "Curry", he would be a candidate for the league's MIP. But he only hits the good looks he gets at a fair clip, and that ain't nearly good enough to compensate for his no-D. I've been hoping he was going to become an elite 3-point shooter, and I will root for him as long as he is with the team, but we need an upgrade - as we do across the board.

He shouldn't be taking almost as many shots as DeRozan, Aldridge or Gay. I disagree that he's taking good shots, especially during crunch time.

[Das Texan]

Doesn't mean we should be happy for being 10-11. No sense in that whatsoever.

I mean what exactly did you expect realistically?

[John B]

Thanks for the review Timvp. While most of the time it’s defense (Spurs normally scores but can’t stop the opposing team from scoring and relinquishing the lead), tonight it’s both. It starts with the leader or lack thereof. LMA should put it on his shoulder every night. That’s why we brought him here originally (before Kawhi dramatic offensive improvement) to be heir apparent to Timmy. LMA is not. He’s too moody(?), complacent, not enough hunger. If the leader is like that, the rest will follow. There is no sense of urgency, of pride. Moreover, as good an offensive player Demar is, he sucks at defense (except for the block). There is no communication, albeit they haven’t played together long enough. Then we have Forbes getting burnt every time on defense, Belli chucking ill-advised shots. White cannot play alongside Demar. He takes the ball away from Demar who netplenty of touches to score. Cunningham is not a threat, and the list goes on. The only good about this is, they got a whack on the chin and should be extra motivated going home against Rockets. I can’t wait.

[Das Texan]

This isn't only about Murray tbh. Last season they lost an MVP level player in Kawhi and were able to play better than was expected bc of the quality support players they had. Murray is good but he's not Kawhi. He's not going to carry this team the way people expect and I expected him to be MIP candidate.


I mean factor in the Gasol injury who was actually playing decently off the bench providing some glue and its no wonder this team is god awful more or less.

I forgot about him.

Nobody said Murray would 'carry' this team. But Murray would be the glue that brings it all together. The spark he provided to this team is largely why they over achieved last year, even with his shot being basically non existent last year.

This team would somewhere between 3-5 in the playoffs with everyone healthy.

A couple breaks go right they could make the WCF. As it is, as with most teams, when you lose one of your most significant pieces nad then add in two important role players and you are going to struggle.

Spurs fans = spoiled.

[sasaint]

He shouldn't be taking almost as many shots as DeRozan, Aldridge or Gay. I disagree that he's taking good shots, especially during crunch time.

You just hate the guy. If you look at the tape, he gets a ton of WIDE open looks - probably more than any other player on the team. He just clanks too many great looks. But I still don't mind his taking more shots than LMA, who is worthless most games. DeMar and Rudy can't take every shot. The team has to get points somewhere else. Where? Marco, Davis and Patty? They haven't exactly set the woods on fire, either. And their D may actually be worse than Bryn's. That's the state of the team...

[therealtruth]

It takes Pop a season to figure it out with this much roster change/injuries. I won't bet on him figuring it out this season.

[JeffDuncan]

Brainstormimg.

Since Patty is doing better, go with it. Start him at the 1. Try beginning games at a faster pace, with him. Hell, could it hurt at this point? I don't see how.

Starting lineup:
1 Mills
2 DDR
3 Bertans
4 Gay
5 Aldridge

We're not going to find perfection within this roster, but that might at least be worth a look.

The bench, then:
1 White
2 Forbes
3 & 4 Pondexter, Cunninghan, Belinelli, whoever's wearing a Spurs uniform.
5 Poeltl

Another idea to kick around.

[superbigtime]

This team has 3 real starters. The rest is pure garbage.

[phxspurfan]

I think Davis Bertans has to be given a shot. There’s really no other logical possibility.

Been saying this for awhile, among others. The idea that we need more spacing isn't new. Might as well get better at what we are this year. The no defense San Antonio Suns (with far less talent).


A bench unit built around Mills, Poeltl and Marco Belinelli

What sucks about this is Pau made this unit much better as well. Too bad he's the latest Spur down for the count due to injury.


Welcome to real NBA fandom, Spurs fans. After thirty years in the sun.

Funny, Sean Elliott also during the broadcast was like "it ain't 1999 anymore".



Also, not sure why Lonnie Sky Walker isn't being thrown into the fire, or perhaps he will be soon. This team desperately needs a spark, and that spark isn't more Patty Mills.

[SpurPadre]

I mean what exactly did you expect realistically?

I didn't expect a washed up Cunningham to be a starter or a g leaguer Forbes to be starting when we have better options off the bench.

[phxspurfan]

This isn't only about Murray tbh. Last season they lost an MVP level player in Kawhi and were able to play better than was expected bc of the quality support players they had. Murray is good but he's not Kawhi. He's not going to carry this team the way people expect and I expected him to be MIP candidate.

We lost Tony and Manu. That was the heart of the Spurs TBH. This year it's random castoffs, non NBA level players and Aldridge. And a washed up Pop.


For example, one friend sent me the article today how the Jizz traded Alec Burks and 2 2nd rounders for Kyle Korver, and said the Spurs could have used him. I responded of course we could use him, but Alec Burks is way better than anything we could offer, and 2 2nd rounders + him is kind of overpaying for just one shooter.

[Keepin' it real]

Thanks for the grades. -- spurstalk

On a serious note, WTF Spurs?

Looks like a picked a good night to watch PBS.

[dbestpro]

Fans are not spoiled by expecting their team to at least be able to compete..............Just saying.

[Chinook]

-Speaking of three-and-D players, a lot has been made of the Spurs not having any such players on this year’s roster. However, that was by design. Last year, Dejounte Murray proved to be a one-man wrecking ball on the defensive end. When he was on the court, the Spurs were elite on defense regardless of who was around him. The issues with Murray are all on the offensive end . . . so the Spurs let go of their one-dimensional defensive players (Danny Green and Kyle Anderson, most notably) in an effort to put more well-rounded weapons around Murray. It was a gamble the Spurs took with the thought being that Murray would develop into a defensive juggernaut. When he was lost for the season with a torn ACL, that unfortunately scrambled the equation – and it was too late to change course.

This is bullshit, not necessarily in the sense that your analysis of PATFO's reasoning is wrong. But there's no justification for it. I REALLY don't want to get into a situation where I can be perceived as rooting against Murray or whatever, but the D was WAY more than just him last year. There's a reason why Green and Anderson are having great defensive years as starters for teams near the top of the standings. If Pop thought just Murray was going to make up for not just those guys leaving but for DeRozan and Beli replacing them, he's off his fucking rocker. As someone mentioned, Murray isn't Kawhi. You don't put yourself in a situation where he has to be the DPOY for your club not to be terrible on that end. I can't rationalize how "the plan" was to not have three-and-D wings when they had enjoyed so much success with those players. Like how is Murray, DeRozan, Green with Gay off the bench not better than Murray, DeRozan, Gay with someone like Cun coming off the bench?


-I don’t know if White is the answer as a starter. Let’s ignore the fact that his play and production this season has been poor – the bigger issue is DeRozan is most useful when he’s handling the ball a ton. He’s useless off the ball because he’s not a three-point shooter; he even hesitates to shoot wide open corner threes. Starting Bryn Forbes as the point-guard-in-name-only but letting DeRozan run the show appears to be the way to go. The Spurs stumbled into that particularly alignment but it looks to be the best bet going forward.

Yeah, DeRozan will need a shooter or two next to him to succeed so long as he has LMA on the team. He's just not a good enough off-ball player to deal with two other guys taking touches. The only reason it sort of works with Gay is Rudy taking and making more threes.


-So, who should the fifth starter be next to Forbes, DeRozan, Rudy Gay and Aldridge. Cunningham isn’t the answer. I’d like it to be White since he has untapped upside but I don’t think it’s him, either. Even though Poeltl has played a lot better lately, I don’t think it can be him because Aldridge would struggle too much against modern day power forwards on defense. If someone isn’t brought in from the outside, I think Davis Bertans has to be given a shot. There’s really no other logical possibility.

I think Pop's gotta stick with Cun. He made that switch back to him because Rudy showed no ability at all to check Gibson. This isn't rare for Gay either. You can say what you want about net ratings or whatever, but Pop's never going to go for a scheme where a guy is just being backed down relentlessly like Gay was. The way Rudy played Taj was not acceptable. Maybe Bertans would have done better, but he's had his share of failures there. Yes, the team needs someone better than Cun, but they don't have anyone better. Barring a trade, they have to go with someone who at least tries on D and on the boards.

The team is at a crossroads. Their personnel is just not good enough. DeRozan isn't a good enough player to be the ace on a Western contender. Aldridge isn't good enough anymore to be a top second option. Gay isn't good/healthy enough to be a consistent third option. Their role-players have too many obvious flaws and not enough obvious advantages. The young players are too raw/injured/Derrick White to expect them to make a difference this year. They have two weeks (and two days) until the trade window opens up for Gay and Beli (and guys like Cun and Pon). I'd give the team those two weeks to demonstrate who they are. If they pull out of their tailspin and are a solid playoff team by the time that window opens, then you look to make something happen with Gasol and other ballast. If they don't show that, then you start seeing what you can get for some of these guys, with an eye toward a power-tank into a reloading year. If the wheels completely fall off, you don't even worry about that and just fire sale guys. This team was built wrong and is coached wrong. It reminds me of the 2015 Heat in terms of an organization trying to show it was better than it's former star and just failing.

[r0drig0lac]

I believe we will still have many threads with no grades in this season




-Speaking of three-and-D players, a lot has been made of the Spurs not having any such players on this year’s roster. However, that was by design. Last year, Dejounte Murray proved to be a one-man wrecking ball on the defensive end. When he was on the court, the Spurs were elite on defense regardless of who was around him. The issues with Murray are all on the offensive end . . . so the Spurs let go of their one-dimensional defensive players (Danny Green and Kyle Anderson, most notably) in an effort to put more well-rounded weapons around Murray. It was a gamble the Spurs took with the thought being that Murray would develop into a defensive juggernaut. When he was lost for the season with a torn ACL, that unfortunately scrambled the equation – and it was too late to change course.

if the front office really believed that Murray without wings that could defend at the nba level without help, can really turn our defense to the elite level,is just one of the many mistakes they have made in recent years, actually that mistake could be the worst and more ridiculous of all, since it would be the guiding thread of the construction of this roster

[timvp]

You keep giving Forbes a pass when his shot selection is horrible and even when he makes shots, his defense is the worst on the floor. Him as a starter is not justified.I mean, we're going to have to agree to disagree. If anything, I think Forbes should shoot even more. His strength is shooting and I think he could and should shoot about 10-15% more than he does -- particularly from three-point range. As long as he keeps his percentage in the same neighborhood, Forbes shooting is more productive than Aldridge or DeRozan shooting.

Defensively, yes, Forbes hasn't been good but who on the Spurs has? Forbes has consistently played harder on defense than anyone on the team, in my estimation. Sure, the results are still lacking but it's not like the Spurs have better options. Maybe when White has shaken off the rookie rust (or whatever ails him) and Walker is up to speed, the situation will change. But for now, I can't see how Forbes is a liability compared to other options.


This isn't only about Murray tbh. Last season they lost an MVP level player in Kawhi and were able to play better than was expected bc of the quality support players they had. Murray is good but he's not Kawhi. He's not going to carry this team the way people expect and I expected him to be MIP candidate.Last season, the Spurs replaced an MVP level Kawhi with an MVP level Aldridge. This year, MVP Aldridge is missing in action, DeRozan's game isn't well-rounded enough to have an MVP level impact, the third banana was lost for the season and the fourth banana is playing on one leg when he can play at all.


If Pop thought just Murray was going to make up for not just those guys leaving but for DeRozan and Beli replacing them, he's off his fucking rocker. As someone mentioned, Murray isn't Kawhi. You don't put yourself in a situation where he has to be the DPOY for your club not to be terrible on that end.I really do think the front office swung for the fences with the roster construction. Rewinding to the offseason, the one way the Spurs could be legit title contenders was if Murray took a gigantic step forward. That step forward would include Murray turning into a Gary Payton with go go gadget arms who could make the Spurs strong defensively practically all by himself (some advanced stats showed that he did that for the most part last season, so it wasn't totally crazy -- the Spurs were damn good defensively no matter who Murray played with last season). The problem with relying on Murray so much, in theory, is the offense would suffer. Thus, you add offensive role players rather than defensive role players.

They were hoping for a miracle with that plan from the get-go but there is logic behind it. If there goal was simply make the playoffs, they could have gone a more conservative route. I think they wanted to contend ... and to do that, they had to push all their chips in front of Murray's development.


I can't rationalize how "the plan" was to not have three-and-D wings when they had enjoyed so much success with those players.But ... the Spurs didn't sign a three-and-D wing. I don't buy the way of thinking that the Spurs ended up without a three-and-D wing on accident. It was obviously part of the plan, was it not?

Another thing to note is it looks like Pop was expecting huge things out of White this season. Going back to the preseason, he was usually the first player off the bench and was heavily involved in all the sets. White isn't exactly three-and-D but it's pretty easy to imagine him as being a lockdown defender off the bench who also provides extra penetration ... as is needed in today's NBA. So I think White was actually the replacement for traditional three-and-D personnel in "the plan." That he got injured and is now struggling is more detrimental to the team's success than most realize, IMO. It also explains why Pop is so desperate to jumpstart White's season (starting him right away, forcing him back into the starting lineup tonight, etc.).


I think Pop's gotta stick with Cun.


This team was built wrong and is coached wrong.

Tough to say if the team was built wrong when the team's one-man defense was lost for the season in the preseason. I mean, yeah, the Spurs 99% weren't winning a championship regardless but we never even got to see a test run of what could have been. Murray wasn't the team's best player when he got hurt but I'd say he was in line to be the team's most impactful.

I do agree Pop has made mistakes. Number one on that list is leaning on Cunningham too much, IMO. It's Chucky Brown all over again.

[vavvi]

Thanks Timvp. As always I agree with most of your comments.

This was the first game this season which I stopped watching at the half, and I don't usually do it even in case of blowouts. Actually I generally even enjoy rooting for the loosing underdog team but only if the team tries hard. But unfortunately this unit is not only frustrating defensively and offensively but also not feisty enough and not fun to watch.

We are lacking energy guys, especially in the starting line-up. Everybody is low energy. That's why I think we should try starting Mills even for a couple of games because he seems to be the only energy guy on the roster. You can start him instead of Forbes or instead of Cun. It's like Celtics having a low energy problem with their "supposed to be all-star good" line-up of Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayword & Horford; they seem to turn it around with starting Smart.

[SouthTexasRancher]

Thanks for taking the time to do a write-up on such a shitty game by the Spurs.

[vavvi]

Brainstormimg.

Since Patty is doing better, go with it. Start him at the 1. Try beginning games at a faster pace, with him. Hell, could it hurt at this point? I don't see how.

Starting lineup:
1 Mills
2 DDR
3 Bertans
4 Gay
5 Aldridge

We're not going to find perfection within this roster, but that might at least be worth a look.

The bench, then:
1 White
2 Forbes
3 & 4 Pondexter, Cunninghan, Belinelli, whoever's wearing a Spurs uniform.
5 Poeltl

Another idea to kick around.

I would definitely try it after a blowout like this one

[Chinook]

They were hoping for a miracle with that plan from the get-go but there is logic behind it. If there goal was simply make the playoffs, they could have gone a more conservative route. I think they wanted to contend ... and to do that, they had to push all their chips in front of Murray's development.

If they wanted to contend, they should have kept Kawhi and made that apparent trade for a third star. Hell, even if they should have made a Kawhi trade that complimented their plan. Hoping Murray can over up everyone else is just weird, especially if the goal was to legit contend. The Spurs held onto Walker and didn't parlay Poe and 18 into win-now talent. I don't really think they were all-in.


But ... the Spurs didn't sign a three-and-D wing. I don't buy the way of thinking that the Spurs ended up without a three-and-D wing on accident. It was obviously part of the plan, was it not?

Another thing to note is it looks like Pop was expecting huge things out of White this season. Going back to the preseason, he was usually the first player off the bench and was heavily involved in all the sets. White isn't exactly three-and-D but it's pretty easy to imagine him as being a lockdown defender off the bench who also provides extra penetration ... as is needed in today's NBA. So I think White was actually the replacement for traditional three-and-D personnel in "the plan." That he got injured and is now struggling is more detrimental to the team's success than most realize, IMO. It also explains why Pop is so desperate to jumpstart White's season (starting him right away, forcing him back into the starting lineup tonight, etc.).

Again, I'm trying to avoid making controversial statements, but I can't go with the idea that Murray can carry a defense in the way a guy like Gobert can. I don't disagree that PATFO didn't prioritize three-and-D wings in the off-season. They definitely preferred spacing for their stars. But Murray and a bunch of bad defenders doesn't seem better than a more balanced approach. The Spurs won 47 games pretty much be being an elite defense. Simply keeping that together while turning Kawhi into a scoring player that can fit with the defensive nucleus. If you're already hoping Murray is a legit offensive player, then going for a player like Bradley Beal makes more sense. Then you can keep Anderson over Bertans and pick up one of the many decent cheap bigs on the market rather than having Poeltl thrown in (though Kawhi and Gasol would combine for so much more than Beal's salary that Washington probably has to send back Jason Smith to make the numbers work anyway).

I think Pop sees White as the realization of Danny Green more than he does as a true PG. I would call him a lockdown defender at all, but I would say he could hold his own there while helping the D out in other areas. And Walker may garner similar expectations. But the team totally seemed to think that Gay and Cun could adequately defend forwards, with Rudy even starting on threes. That's more the problem than defensive guards. Green, Leonard and Anderson all defend SFs in addition to other positions. White doesn't have the same profile to do that. Walker might be better at it, but any bigger SF and most PFs are likely well out of his range.


Tough to say if the team was built wrong when the team's one-man defense was lost for the season in the preseason.

I don't think so. Going from a team with multiple great defenders (regardless of what some advanced stats say) to a team completely dependent on one player certainly seems to be an issue with a team's construction. No one forced them to make these exact moves to become so vulnerable. No one forced Pop to not take fliers on young wings for camp deals.

Obviously, I'm as sick over DJM going down as everyone else. But I also think there was more downside to his starting than folks want to admit. DeRozan and White don't fit together. I shudder to think how DeMar would have down with Murray, especially if that also meant Gay and Cun starting. Could be an offense as bad as 17-18

[SpursDynasty85]

White came back from injury and yes was thrown into the starting pg lineup. He had a short leash from there. Belli has the longest leash of any Spurs player I have ever seen.

[MoSpur02]

Why not bring in someone like Ty Lawson to run the point? Low risk. Also maybe someone like Corey Brewer and let Cunningham or Pointdexter go? Couldn't hurt.

[Ragamuffin]

Brainstormimg.

Since Patty is doing better, go with it. Start him at the 1. Try beginning games at a faster pace, with him. Hell, could it hurt at this point? I don't see how.

Starting lineup:
1 Mills
2 DDR
3 Bertans
4 Gay
5 Aldridge

We're not going to find perfection within this roster, but that might at least be worth a look.

The bench, then:
1 White
2 Forbes
3 & 4 Pondexter, Cunninghan, Belinelli, whoever's wearing a Spurs uniform.
5 Poeltl

Another idea to kick around.

I agree with mills DeRozan bertans gay la team play better and run...

[Mugen]

If the front office really thought their shot at "contending" was putting all their eggs in the Dejounte Murray basket, then we need a change up top quicker than I thought.

Just wow.

[MoSpur02]

White came back from injury and yes was thrown into the starting pg lineup. He had a short leash from there. Belli has the longest leash of any Spurs player I have ever seen.

I agree with the Marco take. He's trash and jacks up way too many shots and can't stay in front of anyone.

[Mugen]

Why not bring in someone like Ty Lawson to run the point? Low risk. Also maybe someone like Corey Brewer and let Cunningham or Pointdexter go? Couldn't hurt.

C'mon Mo, you know the answer. Those guys haven't gotten over themselves yet.

[MoSpur02]

C'mon Mo, you know the answer. Those guys haven't gotten over themselves yet. this is true

[SAGirl]

This is bullshit, not necessarily in the sense that your analysis of PATFO's reasoning is wrong. But there's no justification for it. I REALLY don't want to get into a situation where I can be perceived as rooting against Murray or whatever, but the D was WAY more than just him last year. There's a reason why Green and Anderson are having great defensive years as starters for teams near the top of the standings. If Pop thought just Murray was going to make up for not just those guys leaving but for DeRozan and Beli replacing them, he's off his fucking rocker. As someone mentioned, Murray isn't Kawhi. You don't put yourself in a situation where he has to be the DPOY for your club not to be terrible on that end. I can't rationalize how "the plan" was to not have three-and-D wings when they had enjoyed so much success with those players. Like how is Murray, DeRozan, Green with Gay off the bench not better than Murray, DeRozan, Gay with someone like Cun coming off the bench?



Yeah, DeRozan will need a shooter or two next to him to succeed so long as he has LMA on the team. He's just not a good enough off-ball player to deal with two other guys taking touches. The only reason it sort of works with Gay is Rudy taking and making more threes.



I think Pop's gotta stick with Cun. He made that switch back to him because Rudy showed no ability at all to check Gibson. This isn't rare for Gay either. You can say what you want about net ratings or whatever, but Pop's never going to go for a scheme where a guy is just being backed down relentlessly like Gay was. The way Rudy played Taj was not acceptable. Maybe Bertans would have done better, but he's had his share of failures there. Yes, the team needs someone better than Cun, but they don't have anyone better. Barring a trade, they have to go with someone who at least tries on D and on the boards.

The team is at a crossroads. Their personnel is just not good enough. DeRozan isn't a good enough player to be the ace on a Western contender. Aldridge isn't good enough anymore to be a top second option. Gay isn't good/healthy enough to be a consistent third option. Their role-players have too many obvious flaws and not enough obvious advantages. The young players are too raw/injured/Derrick White to expect them to make a difference this year. They have two weeks (and two days) until the trade window opens up for Gay and Beli (and guys like Cun and Pon). I'd give the team those two weeks to demonstrate who they are. If they pull out of their tailspin and are a solid playoff team by the time that window opens, then you look to make something happen with Gasol and other ballast. If they don't show that, then you start seeing what you can get for some of these guys, with an eye toward a power-tank into a reloading year. If the wheels completely fall off, you don't even worry about that and just fire sale guys. This team was built wrong and is coached wrong. It reminds me of the 2015 Heat in terms of an organization trying to show it was better than it's former star and just failing.
Great post Chinook. 100% agree and endorse. I also don’t want to be critical of Murray and this isn’t about criticizing him. It’s just really about the roster. People expect Murray to be the answer to everything, but he’d have to be a DPOY/MVP caliber player to fix this up. That’s unrealistic to expect. Even Kawhi didn’t play with a roster this challenged. His teams were much better and his Raptors team was already very good and got Danny Green to boot. Last season’s team had simply better support players than this team does (Murray himself being a support player). Murray would walk in to a very different situation this season than last year and that’s without even touching the tip of the iceberg of his fit next to Derozan.

I liked your your last paragraph. I have thought about trades and come up empty bc there’s a lot of areas to address and I think you really only should trade picks to improve when you are thinking of making a real run in the playoffs and have an area of deficiency that you can fix. If you find one guy that can put you over the top you pull the trigger. That’s a win now move, but to trade picks to improve a team that’s mediocre doesn’t make sense in hindsight. You put this thought into words more eloquently than I did but we think alike on that point. The current team has a few games to show they are worthy of more investing on.

Lastly, the West isn’t mediocre this year (sorry HarlemHeat37). If anything former juggernauts like the Spurs and Rockets are mediocre and the Jazz regressed for whatever reason, but the rest of the teams improved quite significantly. Only the Suns are truly tanking. Some teams got internal development, others finally got healthy, others added FA or really good draft picks. You have to bring effort every night. You can’t coast, you can’t take quarters or plays off, you get injuries you will fall behind.

I was spoiled but as the great coach Steve Kerr said after GSW stumbled into a losing skid. We have had a charmed existence and a dream run. This is the real NBA. That could easily apply to Spurs fan as well. We had a charmed existence and a dream and incredible long run, but now we are getting welcomed to the Real NBA...

[UZER]

C'mon Mo, you know the answer. Those guys haven't gotten over themselves yet.

Yeah. Like I have.

:pop:

[bklynspursfan]

Been saying this for awhile, among others. The idea that we need more spacing isn't new. Might as well get better at what we are this year. The no defense San Antonio Suns (with far less talent).



What sucks about this is Pau made this unit much better as well. Too bad he's the latest Spur down for the count due to injury.



Funny, Sean Elliott also during the broadcast was like "it ain't 1999 anymore".



Also, not sure why Lonnie Sky Walker isn't being thrown into the fire, or perhaps he will be soon. This team desperately needs a spark, and that spark isn't more Patty Mills.

I think Walker will be eventually, I don't know if he'll spend a ton of time in Austin, especially if he starts tearing it up early. Also, re: Patty, he's been the spark many times this season. He's knocking down the 3 ball again, finishing in the paint, and making those hustle plays that Manu used to make, whether it's diving on the ground, taking charges, basically whatever it takes. Obviously having multiple guys like that will be a huge plus, so I'm hoping Walker when he gets in there can provide that spark too. But definitely wish more guys played with Patty's energy

[sasaint]

Brainstormimg.

Since Patty is doing better, go with it. Start him at the 1. Try beginning games at a faster pace, with him. Hell, could it hurt at this point? I don't see how.

Starting lineup:
1 Mills
2 DDR
3 Bertans
4 Gay
5 Aldridge

We're not going to find perfection within this roster, but that might at least be worth a look.

The bench, then:
1 White
2 Forbes
3 & 4 Pondexter, Cunninghan, Belinelli, whoever's wearing a Spurs uniform.
5 Poeltl

Another idea to kick around.

Hell, I would hire you to replace Pop... if I ruled the world. Those lineups are worth a good look. It is imperative that we find a starting lineup that can avoid digging itself into a double-digit hole to start every game.

[Das Texan]

I do agree Pop has made mistakes. Number one on that list is leaning on Cunningham too much, IMO. It's Chucky Brown all over again.


Fuck thats like a thought I had tried to erase from memory. That was so much worse than the whole Bogans thing.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Chucky!!!

[Das Texan]

Also, not sure why Lonnie Sky Walker isn't being thrown into the fire, or perhaps he will be soon. This team desperately needs a spark, and that spark isn't more Patty Mills.


Pretty sure Walker is probably there basically to shake off rust and get back into something close to game shape.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Pretty sure Walker is probably there basically to shake off rust and get back into something close to game shape.

Walker will definitely get throw into the fire this season. The Spurs are desperate enough to give a green rookie some run. He can't be any worse than what we're trotting out there now on a nightly basis.

[cd98]

It's amazing how in the toilet this team is when you take away Manu. Sure, a game like this would happen, even with Manu. But we were still winning the close games with him. Spurs can't beat the bad teams like they used to do (maybe because they are now one of the bad teams).

[Das Texan]

Walker will definitely get throw into the fire this season. The Spurs are desperate enough to give a green rookie some run. He can't be any worse than what we're trotting out there now on a nightly basis.

I think you would have seen Walker slowly get more and more playing time as hte season went along regardless.

Now its going to be a fuck it and roll with him unless he is just getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

I fully expect him to be receiving 25-35 minutes a night regularly once he gets his legs under him.

Hopefully this coincides with Cunningham receiving nothing more than spot minutes (or just playing against the Pelicans) and a reduction in Marco's playing time (unless he removes his head from his ass).

[8FOR!3]

Spurs fans are so incredibly spoiled.

Spurs build team basically around Murray. Murray goes down for the year. What the fuck did fans expect would happen?

This team has both Walker and Murray on it....

This team is tons more fun to watch and much more successful.

It is what it is.

I think most fans expected we'd overachieve a little having DDR and Aldridge on the team and some shooters around them. Hell, I did.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

It's amazing how in the toilet this team is when you take away Manu. Sure, a game like this would happen, even with Manu. But we were still winning the close games with him. Spurs can't beat the bad teams like they used to do (maybe because they are now one of the bad teams).

Manu was a glue guy and the ultimate x-factor, and you're right, the Spurs miss that. I think the Spurs would have been below .500 last year without his influence late in games. If DeRozan, Aldridge and Gay are off there's no one else on this team to win games. DeRozan is the only closer this team has. Mills really isn't that guy, as well as he's played, and as much as Pop would like him to be. Granted, the Spurs would have been blown out even worse a few times this year without Mills' contributions.

[sasaint]

White came back from injury and yes was thrown into the starting pg lineup. He had a short leash from there. Belli has the longest leash of any Spurs player I have ever seen.

Just the latest in Pop's string of bizarre decisions, tbh. White had logged very little regular season time against front-line NBA players. Pop should have brought him off the bench for a few games to re-integrate him into the game against mostly second units to regain rhythm and confidence before trying him in the SL.

[sasaint]

Walker will definitely get throw into the fire this season. The Spurs are desperate enough to give a green rookie some run. He can't be any worse than what we're trotting out there now on a nightly basis.

I hope Pop eases him into his role, though. Throwing young guys to the wolves can really damage their confidence. I want Lonnie to be able to build confidence - not have to restore it after he's had to get over himself. I think that is a lot of what has happened to DWhite.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

There is an old saying in sports, he got old over night. I think that's what happened with Aldridge. He simply can't produce the energy needed to be consistent night after night. Carrying the team last year has drained him. He probably shouldn't be playing any more than 32 minutes a game anymore.

As for White, he should have played the second half of last season with the Spurs and he would be much more prepared for this season. He's basically a rookie and after missing pretty much the first quarter of the season, can't expect him to go straight into the starting line up and run the team. He's matching up against starters that have already fell into form. I think he well get better as the season progresses but for now he should be coming off of the bench

Forget about defense in today's NBA. The Spurs need another scorer. For the Spurs to be a good team Aldridge, DD and Gay have to be dominate scores every game and that's not realistic. If one of those three have a off night or can't play the Spurs will struggle to win. Spurs need a 4th player that can score consistently.

[bklynspursfan]

Pretty sure Walker is probably there basically to shake off rust and get back into something close to game shape.

That's what I took from the reports as well

[r0drig0lac]

People expect Murray to be the answer to everything, but he’d have to be a DPOY/MVP caliber player to fix this up.

even if it really had dpoy level, a guard or combo guard does not have the ability to anchor or change the level of a defense on its own

[acoelho1]

The idea that Murray wouldn't have made considerable impact on the defense is without merit. Look at his numbers last year. It was at an elite DPOY level and any argument otherwise is pure bias. Nevertheless, this team is flawed because our 2 best players don't have the toughness needed to lead a team night-in night-out given the roster makeup. I think the team struggling is badly needed since losing Kawhi, this roster doesn't make a lot sense. Hopefully, we can get another dynamic player in the upcoming draft. It just takes one player to change a team's fortunes. I'm already very high on Murray's ascension and if Walker develops into something special, we could have 2 building blocks.

[exstatic]

even if it really had dpoy level, a guard or combo guard does not have the ability to anchor or change the level of a defense on its own

Gary Payton sez hello.

[exstatic]

This team is obviously still not all on the same page. That's a recipe for ripe pickings for a Thibs-style pressure defense. Big Three era teams knew where every one was, and could pick apart the trapping defense with some off ball picks and back cuts. Center the ball to someone at the FT line, and someone gets a layup. There are ways to use their aggression against them. This team just isn't cohesive enough yet to do so.

[r0drig0lac]

Gary Payton sez hello.

it was a time when physicality was allowed and his team had good defenders, but I'll try to summarize: in 2018 gary payton would not turn SA defense into elite with that support roster (even his drtg was never less than 103 in an era of pace down, it's simply not possible for a point guard to do this work on its own)

[r0drig0lac]

The idea that Murray wouldn't have made considerable impact on the defense is without merit. Look at his numbers last year. It was at an elite DPOY level and any argument otherwise is pure bias. Nevertheless, this team is flawed because our 2 best players don't have the toughness needed to lead a team night-in night-out given the roster makeup. I think the team struggling is badly needed since losing Kawhi, this roster doesn't make a lot sense. Hopefully, we can get another dynamic player in the upcoming draft. It just takes one player to change a team's fortunes. I'm already very high on Murray's ascension and if Walker develops into something special, we could have 2 building blocks.

you are correct, but with the rest of the current roster this "improvement" would not change the overall team defense level

[JeffDuncan]

you are correct, but with the rest of the current roster this "improvement" would not change the overall team defense level

It'd depend on the opposition. Murray would help a lot against Kemba Walker, but not against Anthony Davis.

[Russ]

Thanks timvp.

Keep telling it like it is.

You are Robert Mueller in our darkest hour.

[SAGirl]

The idea that Murray wouldn't have made considerable impact on the defense is without merit. Look at his numbers last year. It was at an elite DPOY level and any argument otherwise is pure bias. Nevertheless, this team is flawed because our 2 best players don't have the toughness needed to lead a team night-in night-out given the roster makeup. I think the team struggling is badly needed since losing Kawhi, this roster doesn't make a lot sense. Hopefully, we can get another dynamic player in the upcoming draft. It just takes one player to change a team's fortunes. I'm already very high on Murray's ascension and if Walker develops into something special, we could have 2 building blocks.
I am very high on Murray's ascension too. I just watched some highlights from him bc I miss him on the team and wanted to remind myself how good he is and he's an incredible talent, an electric player, who will reinvigorate this team. As I said, my comments weren't really so much about him as about the rest of this roster. I still think the team needs legit sized wings. IN many of his highlights you notice teammates combine with him to make defensive plays that just aren't possible with a bunch of midgets. He'd still be impactful regardless, but not as much covering for cone after cone after cone.

[timvp]

If they wanted to contend, they should have kept Kawhi and made that apparent trade for a third star.As you know, that ship had unfortunately sailed. Trading Nephew wasn't San Antonio's idea.


Hell, even if they should have made a Kawhi trade that complimented their plan.I mean, they did. If you're building a defense around Murray, you need a swingman playmaker to handle the offensive point guard duties. There are only a handful of those guys in the league and the Spurs got one.

None of the other trade offers that I heard would have complemented the plan. (Side note: I still can't believes scrubs like Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma, Jaylen Brown, Markelle Fultz, etc. were taken off the table when Nephew was available :lol ... It sucked for the Spurs that a bidding war never commenced but it's also humorous how much other teams overvalued their young talent.)


Hoping Murray can over up everyone else is just weird, especially if the goal was to legit contend.A lot of people thought Pop could take 12 Steve Novaks and find a way to make the team above average defensively. I don't remember a lot of people pointing out the weirdness of the plan in the offseason, tbh.


The Spurs held onto Walker and didn't parlay Poe and 18 into win-now talent. I don't really think they were all-in.Even during the USDA certified, Grade A championship years, the Spurs never went all, all-in. They always had at least a couple youngsters hopping in the popcorn machine.


Again, I'm trying to avoid making controversial statements, but I can't go with the idea that Murray can carry a defense in the way a guy like Gobert can. I don't disagree that PATFO didn't prioritize three-and-D wings in the off-season. They definitely preferred spacing for their stars. But Murray and a bunch of bad defenders doesn't seem better than a more balanced approach. The Spurs won 47 games pretty much be being an elite defense.It was a small-ish sample size but Murray did carry the defense last year at a Gobert-esque level. With him on the court, the Spurs allowed 98 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, that number exploded to 105.1 points per 100 possessions.

And while we can reminisce about Green and Anderson, the stats say neither one really helped Murray last year. In fact, the defense got worse when Murray was paired with either of those two players.

Again, the plan was to go for a home run. The Spurs thought their one chance to win a championship was for Murray to become an even more devastating defender, so they tried to plug the holes playing Murray more minutes would cause. I'm not here to argue that was necessarily the best possible plan but it's pretty obvious what the thinking was at the time.


Simply keeping that together while turning Kawhi into a scoring player that can fit with the defensive nucleus. If you're already hoping Murray is a legit offensive player, then going for a player like Bradley Beal makes more sense. Then you can keep Anderson over Bertans and pick up one of the many decent cheap bigs on the market rather than having Poeltl thrown in (though Kawhi and Gasol would combine for so much more than Beal's salary that Washington probably has to send back Jason Smith to make the numbers work anyway).

1) Flipping Kawhi for an empty scorer like a Kyle Kuzma or whoever while keeping the rest of the team in place would have put the ceiling of the team at about a seventh seed with zero championship potential. That's why I think the Spurs swung for the fences. They could have gone safer routes but none of those safer routes give more upside than simply extending the playoff streak.

2) The Spurs planned as if Murray wasn't a legit offensive player ... or at least they had to cover for his shortcomings. Players like Green and Anderson fit next to Murray defensively, obviously, but would have been a difficult fit offensively. For example, in a vacuum you pick Anderson over Bertans -- but with Murray in mind, you have to pick Bertans over Anderson.

3) I never heard Beal being available for Kawhi. But even if he was, that would have been an awkward fit since you'd then have to believe Murray is a legit playmaker. If you trade for Beal, then you basically have to pivot away from Murray. Even in the scenario that the Spurs bring back the same team plus Beal, that's still a relatively low ceiling team considering Murray would be stuck playing 20-22 minutes again.

4) The Wizards act like Beal is their franchise player and Wall is the one they'd like to trade if they could. To think they could have gotten Beal from the Wizards while also offloading Gasol on them is ... wishful thinking, IMO.


I think Pop sees White as the realization of Danny Green more than he does as a true PG. I would call him a lockdown defender at all, but I would say he could hold his own there while helping the D out in other areas. And Walker may garner similar expectations.Agreed. I think Pop saw White and Walker and thought they could replace Green and Anderson. White is smaller than Green but he plays bigger than he is so he has across the board defensive potential. And then on the offensive end, he fits today's need for penetrators with good court vision. Pop also dropped hints from Day 1 that Walker wasn't going to be the typical redshirt-in-Austin rookie.


Going from a team with multiple great defenders (regardless of what some advanced stats say) to a team completely dependent on one player certainly seems to be an issue with a team's construction. No one forced them to make these exact moves to become so vulnerable. I don't know of a team outside of the Bay Area that isn't left vulnerable after one of their top three most important players is lost for the season. In San Antonio's situation, they bet big on Murray taking a big step forward and constructed their roster with that in mind. The roster obviously looks "weird" now but that's because the player the team was most built around is now lost for the season.

I don't mind people criticizing the roster construction (personally, for example, I was in favor at keeping Green at nearly all costs and keeping Parker around). But I do think it's disingenuous for people (not saying you, particularly) to criticize the current state of the roster while ignoring that losing Murray totally changed the equation.


I shudder to think how DeMar would have down with Murray, especially if that also meant Gay and Cun starting. Could be an offense as bad as 17-18Cunningham wouldn't be anywhere near the starting lineup with Murray around. He was signed as deep reserve big who got thrust into the starting lineup because he was the only thing left around that looked like a possible defensive player after Murray went down.

I don't know how Murray and DeRozan would have fit but I image Murray would have ceded most of the playmaking duties to DeRozan. But, again, your point on how the offense looked like it would struggle is exactly why the Spurs opted for offensive role players rather than defensive role players.

[TimDunkem]

You'd have to be stupid to think that Murray, even taking 2 or 3 steps higher in his game, would have ever pushed this roster into contention. This team would be a low seed at best.

A team with Forbes, Gasol, Gay, Poeltl, Bertans, White, Mills, Belinelli, etc was never going to be any more than average.

[SuperCam]

I am very high on Murray's ascension too. I just watched some highlights from him bc I miss him on the team and wanted to remind myself how good he is and he's an incredible talent, an electric player, who will reinvigorate this team. As I said, my comments weren't really so much about him as about the rest of this roster. I still think the team needs legit sized wings. IN many of his highlights you notice teammates combine with him to make defensive plays that just aren't possible with a bunch of midgets. He'd still be impactful regardless, but not as much covering for cone after cone after cone.

Franchise was in bad hands if the plan was to build around a defensive PG in 2018 anyways.

The best players in the league not named Lebron are considered by vegas oddsmakers to be worth 7-12 wins to a team over the course of a season. Regular allstars maybe 3 to 7. A player like Murray closer to the bottom end of that range, so his injury is no excuse for not taking the clippers trade for what is polrobably a 40 to 41 win team at best if Murray was healthy, and 36 or 37 wins without him.

[Keepin' it real]

C'mon Mo, you know the answer. Those guys haven't gotten over themselves yet.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/b/b0/This_Guy_Gets_It.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150610022211

[SAGirl]

timvp... you sound reasonable but I am not eating up that piece of pie you are serving.

The Spurs wanted Anderson back. They just had a figure in mind that was lower than what he wanted. I don't feel like looking it up bc frankly I am with a cold and low on energy and it's already time-consuming as is to type this response. If there is interest I can elaborate at other time but I hope that since this is already in the past, and only marginally relevant to the current team and situation, there is really not that much interest and you will indulge me. I read reports at the time the Spurs wanted him back. I saw Bertans agent leaking to the press that Bertans was looking at playing in Europe and wasn't discarding that possibility. I saw an interview from Bertans this season where he said he was happy about coming back but that he wasn't really sure he was going to be back last summer bc there were other things the Spurs had to take care of first, and he wasn't sure how it would work out.

The Spurs wanted Anderson back for sure but they had a budget, perhaps considering at the time Kiwi's max was still on the table, their desire to pay up for Murray when he was due, and all other contracts that they wanted to give, but they had a budget for Anderson. I read a report some time ago where Anderson or I think maybe his dad said they got the Grizzlies offer and weren't sure if the Spurs were going to match it. Half of his family thought they were, and the other didn't. They wouldn't have considered the possibility SA would match if they didn't want him back. In fact, I remember now also that Kyle had visited several teams but he went back to the Spurs and was ready to sign a smaller deal with them before the Grizzlies made their offer. Had the Grizzlies not signed him, he would have signed back for less money. Bertans might have been in Europe or perhaps in Sacramento instead of Bjelica. Point is, at no point did I get the sense the Spurs didn't want Anderson back. He just signed an offer sheet with the Grizzlies that was for more money or perhaps more significant, for more years than they wanted to commit to him, and that is fine. One has to be happy for him that he got paid. But this narrative doesn't prove to me that Bertans was their priority, no way.

What all this delay with Anderson caused was that Bertans was still waiting and eventually Sacramento swung and missed on all their targets and their offer to Zach Lavine got matched. Once that happened they started looking around and Bertans caught their eye. By then SA was ready to sign Bertans but their initial offer was no good anymore and they had to renegotiate with him.

I don't really like to talk all that much about this since it's already in the past. The only reason that is relevant now is that I cannot buy your Murray theory and the Spurs prioritizing this roster to complement him specifically. I do think Pop wanted better and more shooters. Had they signed Anderson like they wanted they needed shooters for Anderson too, so Bellinelli in hindsight makes alot of sense, if you wanted Kyle to be a bench player.

I thought Pop gave a lot, FRANKLY A LOT of opportunities to Forbes last season. AT one point he was the most played wing in the team. I think it was either December or January of last season, before Pop started scaling back minutes for him (have to remember Rudy Gay missed 26 games last year, so Rudy being hobbled and with a bad heel doesn't impress me as a reason to suck this year)... Anyways, I think Pop didn't think Forbes was so trustworthy, he is improved this year, but based on last season and the playoffs, one wouldn't have felt comfortable with him as your designated sniper. So Pop brought the vet in: Marco. He also made a lot more sense if you didn't have Bertans this year, as he complemented both Murray and Anderson. see... you can spin this narrative any number of ways.

Anyways... I do think a lot more was going to end up in Murray's plate, but I don't think it was really a result of all that deliberate planning. Things didn't go for them quite as planned, their Plan A didn't work, possibly neither did Plan B. They had to go to contingencies.

Again, have to repeat myself bc Jezzzzussss, this is not about the merits of Murray specifically.

[timvp]

The Spurs wanted Anderson back. They just had a figure in mind that was lower than what he wanted.

...

Point is, at no point did I get the sense the Spurs didn't want Anderson back.

It's impossible to know for sure either way. Remember, the Spurs are known to feign interest to their own free agents in order to help them land contracts elsewhere. Hell, with Jonathon Simmons, not only did they feign interest, they unnecessarily allowed him to become an unrestricted free agent in order to help him land a deal. They did that for Simmons out of their kindness of the hearts -- there were no basketball reasons to do so.

Pop and company enjoy seeing role players get rewarded for their time spent on the Spurs. Some Spurs fans hate that trait and think the Spurs should be more cutthroat ... but that's not how the Spurs do business, right or wrong.

So, it's quite possible that the Spurs signaled that they wanted to keep Anderson for a reasonable price in order to help Anderson's market value. It worked out for Anderson as he was ultimately given an offer that the Spurs told him instantly they wouldn't match.

I wouldn't doubt that there was a number that the Spurs had in mind where they'd bring Anderson back. I don't think this was another Simmons situation where the truth was they never really wanted him back for any amount of money. With Anderson, the Spurs probably would have re-signed him if no one seriously came after him but they also had to know that was unlikely. If they were serious about keeping Anderson, they would have simply matched the contract offered by the Grizzlies. It wasn't too outrageous for a player valued as a prominent piece going forward.

Most likely scenario is Pop never valued Anderson more than a "utility infielder" even after a productive season. And with fit in mind, it didn't make sense to pay Anderson more than two times as much as guaranteed money as Bertans would command.

I put Anderson in the Cory Joseph and George Hill category as players the Spurs genuinely liked but didn't fit well enough long-term in order to invest in them.

[TD 21]

I've given timvp a hard time over the years for his being an apologist, but I'm not going to shoot the messenger. If, as this reads, it's more so inside information, it's yet another indication of just how delusional and senile they are.

Any notion of contending was finished the second they decided (I don't care what he requested; there was no gun to their head to acquiesce before the season began) to trade their superstar. I've said it countless times, but it bears repeating: you're not winning a championship in this league with Aldridge and DeRozan as your best players.



You'd have to be stupid to think that Murray, even taking 2 or 3 steps higher in his game, would have ever pushed this roster into contention. This team would be a low seed at best.


A team with Forbes, Gasol, Gay, Poeltl, Bertans, White, Mills, Belinelli, etc was never going to be any more than average.



Franchise was in bad hands if the plan was to build around a defensive PG in 2018 anyways.

The best players in the league not named Lebron are considered by vegas oddsmakers to be worth 7-12 wins to a team over the course of a season. Regular allstars maybe 3 to 7. A player like Murray closer to the bottom end of that range, so his injury is no excuse for not taking the clippers trade for what is polrobably a 40 to 41 win team at best if Murray was healthy, and 36 or 37 wins without him.

:tu

[Chinook]

I mean, they did. If you're building a defense around Murray, you need a swingman playmaker to handle the offensive point guard duties. There are only a handful of those guys in the league and the Spurs got one.

None of the other trade offers that I heard would have complemented the plan. (Side note: I still can't believes scrubs like Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma, Jaylen Brown, Markelle Fultz, etc. were taken off the table when Nephew was available :lol ... It sucked for the Spurs that a bidding war never commenced but it's also humorous how much other teams overvalued their young talent.)

I don't know all the offers that were available. But I don't think DeRozan made sense as a player to compliment Murray at all. If your whole plan relies on Murray essentially becoming an average offensive PG while becoming (or continuing to be) elite defensively, then you don't need someone else to be a PG. That goes double if Pop really believed in White. Just start Murray and White together in the back court. Like sure, that'd seem like a dumpster fire right now, but theoretically, the Spurs would have someone else from the Leonard trade who might compliment or offset Murray's injury.

And yeah, Philly and Boston fucked up. Teams tend to overestimate the length of their windows.


A lot of people thought Pop could take 12 Steve Novaks and find a way to make the team above average defensively. I don't remember a lot of people pointing out the weirdness of the plan in the offseason, tbh.

I feel like a lot of people were pessimistic about the D before the pre-season. I am one who believes good coaching can make any group of personnel mediocre defensively if the guys buy in. That's still a huge reason for the Spurs being piss-poor on that end so many nights. If they don't go out there with focus, guys just run train on them.


Even during the USDA certified, Grade A championship years, the Spurs never went all, all-in. They always had at least a couple youngsters hopping in the popcorn machine.

They routinely moved their firsts for cash or for win-now pieces like Kurt Thomas. Yes, they had Mahinmi and Uridh, but the Lebron Heat also had Norris Cole. Eventually, you gotta take someone. That's not the same thing as retaining what was essentially a package that could have gotten a star (if the DA report is correct).


It was a small-ish sample size but Murray did carry the defense last year at a Gobert-esque level. With him on the court, the Spurs allowed 98 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, that number exploded to 105.1 points per 100 possessions.

And while we can reminisce about Green and Anderson, the stats say neither one really helped Murray last year. In fact, the defense got worse when Murray was paired with either of those two players.

Again, the plan was to go for a home run. The Spurs thought their one chance to win a championship was for Murray to become an even more devastating defender, so they tried to plug the holes playing Murray more minutes would cause. I'm not here to argue that was necessarily the best possible plan but it's pretty obvious what the thinking was at the time.

Last year was weird. I don't want to be sucked into the whirlpool of really parsing through those numbers (that's another thread/fight). I do think it's easy to see at this point that Murray didn't make those guys good defenders. He didn't cover up for them or anything like that. They're really good. They were good before him. They're good after him. Any argument that Murray/Beli or Murray/DeRozan is a superior defensive pairing that Murray and those other two falls apart in my mind, whatever the numbers say.


1) Flipping Kawhi for an empty scorer like a Kyle Kuzma or whoever while keeping the rest of the team in place would have put the ceiling of the team at about a seventh seed with zero championship potential. That's why I think the Spurs swung for the fences. They could have gone safer routes but none of those safer routes give more upside than simply extending the playoff streak.

2) The Spurs planned as if Murray wasn't a legit offensive player ... or at least they had to cover for his shortcomings. Players like Green and Anderson fit next to Murray defensively, obviously, but would have been a difficult fit offensively. For example, in a vacuum you pick Anderson over Bertans -- but with Murray in mind, you have to pick Bertans over Anderson.

3) I never heard Beal being available for Kawhi. But even if he was, that would have been an awkward fit since you'd then have to believe Murray is a legit playmaker. If you trade for Beal, then you basically have to pivot away from Murray. Even in the scenario that the Spurs bring back the same team plus Beal, that's still a relatively low ceiling team considering Murray would be stuck playing 20-22 minutes again.

4) The Wizards act like Beal is their franchise player and Wall is the one they'd like to trade if they could. To think they could have gotten Beal from the Wizards while also offloading Gasol on them is ... wishful thinking, IMO.

1- No idea why you'd say that. Having an elite D and just getting some better scorers is much better than having mostly terrible defensive personnel and a back court that is a really bad offensive pairing. You're esssntially saying PATFO was hoping certain guys would be a lot better than they actually are, but for some reason you think that can only apply in one direction. Trading Leonard for a traditional PG might well have been enough to reignite Green while not alienating Aldridge. Seeing how Murray would probably have been ended up pair with Forbes regardless, having him play next to a guy like Walker wasn't going to hurt.

2- This isn't swinging for the fences then. You have to assume that Murray's shooting (the thing he was working all summer long) has to hold up at least. And I totally think Pop was expecting Murray would be a consistent 12-15ppg guy and hoping for 16-20ppg. If he was going to do that by having the ball in his hands even a little, then a guy like DeRozan didn't make sense.

3&4- I don't get why Beal would have been a worse player than DeRozan/nobody. Bradley already knows how to play with a PG who doesn't shoot well. He can set up his teammates decently well, so between him and Murray, they should have been okay, provided they continued to be oriented around their defense. Simply put, adding 20-plus ppg scorer who can play with Aldridge and Murray and who isn't a sieve defensively seems to create a higher ceiling. As to whether the Wizards would have been amenable to Beal, I am not sure. I do think they prefer to give up Wall due to his contract and would rather move Porter if they'd get back a SF. But that's different than assuming they'd refuse a chance to move into the top of the Eastern bracket. The team was planning on trading away Gortat anyway, so the idea of taking on Pau for a year doesn't seem to hurt. Even if they needed Green though, it could have evened out by them sending Oubre.


I don't know of a team outside of the Bay Area that isn't left vulnerable after one of their top three most important players is lost for the season. In San Antonio's situation, they bet big on Murray taking a big step forward and constructed their roster with that in mind. The roster obviously looks "weird" now but that's because the player the team was most built around is now lost for the season.

I don't mind people criticizing the roster construction (personally, for example, I was in favor at keeping Green at nearly all costs and keeping Parker around). But I do think it's disingenuous for people (not saying you, particularly) to criticize the current state of the roster while ignoring that losing Murray totally changed the equation.

The Spurs don't have a small-forward. How is that not someone worthy of criticism? Like sure, Murray may have mega-evolved to the point that he could make the Spurs a respectable defense. But the team still lacks someone to guard the plenum of elite wings in today's game. Murray wasn't that guy. I think even his biggest supporters can agree there. Maybe he develops into that guy, but it seems less rational to argue that rather than him just getting a corner three to work off a PG or enough of a PnR game to share play-making duties with Beal.

I think the biggest problem with the roster is coaching right now. They could defend much better if they bought in. They can get better shots if they stick to cleaner offensive principles. The Spurs could have been an above-average team by having a mediocre D and a strong offense. That's even after Murray went down. Them being this bad wasn't inevitable.


Cunningham wouldn't be anywhere near the starting lineup with Murray around. He was signed as deep reserve big who got thrust into the starting lineup because he was the only thing left around that looked like a possible defensive player after Murray went down.

I don't know how Murray and DeRozan would have fit but I image Murray would have ceded most of the playmaking duties to DeRozan. But, again, your point on how the offense looked like it would struggle is exactly why the Spurs opted for offensive role players rather than defensive role players.

I think Cun would still be starting. The Lakers game would have still happened, so Pop would have tried to match up. Cun still would have done a decent job on him, and Pop would have still gone with him over Bertans. That's even more true when Gay had to miss games. Maybe Forbes squeezes into the SL anyway. Dante was brought in for depth, I agree, but I also think Pop wanted him to compete with Bertans for that rotation spot, and Davis just had too many dumpster-fire moments for me to think Pop wouldn't have gone with DC eventually.

[SAGirl]

Hell, with Jonathon Simmons, not only did they feign interest, they unnecessarily allowed him to become an unrestricted free agent in order to help him land a deal. They did that for Simmons out of their kindness of the hearts -- there were no basketball reasons to do so.

Pop and company enjoy seeing role players get rewarded for their time spent on the Spurs. Some Spurs fans hate that trait and think the Spurs should be more cutthroat ... but that's not how the Spurs do business, right or wrong.

So, it's quite possible that the Spurs signaled that they wanted to keep Anderson for a reasonable price in order to help Anderson's market value. It worked out for Anderson as he was ultimately given an offer that the Spurs told him instantly they wouldn't match.

I wouldn't doubt that there was a number that the Spurs had in mind where they'd bring Anderson back. I don't think this was another Simmons situation where the truth was they never really wanted him back for any amount of money. With Anderson, the Spurs probably would have re-signed him if no one seriously came after him but they also had to know that was unlikely. If they were serious about keeping Anderson, they would have simply matched the contract offered by the Grizzlies. It wasn't too outrageous for a player valued as a prominent piece going forward.

Most likely scenario is Pop never valued Anderson more than a "utility infielder" even after a productive season. And with fit in mind, it didn't make sense to pay Anderson more than two times as much as guaranteed money as Bertans would command.

I put Anderson in the Cory Joseph and George Hill category as players the Spurs genuinely liked but didn't fit well enough long-term in order to invest in them.

Lifting the RFA status for JSimms wasn't unnecessary. It was necessary and his agent specifically requested it. The market that summer was tepid, teams didn't have money and no one wanted to commit to Simmons thinking the Spurs would match. I don't want to debate the merits of Simmons the player here, but the point is clear that he didn't get an offer sheet from anybody about two weeks into FA and his agent got desperate. Bc Simmons wasn't getting offers, they explored some trades with Phoenix and SA backed out at the last minute (one thinks perhaps someone with high pecking order --one of the Holts?-- didn't like the trade and they vetoed), on a trade involving Tyson Chandler. After that fiasco, JSimms requested that the RFA status be withdrawn. RC Buford said the Spurs still wanted to re-sign him but didn't know how that would work out. Simmons agent released a statement almost immediately after that that they were looking to sign elsewhere, not with the Spurs. Within a day or two he signed with Orlando. Turns out when JSimms got his offer from Orlando he called Pop to tell him he wasn't coming back. One thinks PATFO would have matched his deal from Orlando, but he was very clear that he felt restricted in Pop's system, he wanted more opportunities, minutes, the chance to play every game, not get benched, that whole chestnut he said. But it was clear that rescinding that RFA offer was necessary for JSimms to get his deal.

Anderson was handled differently simply bc he did get an offer sheet. He didn't need PATFO's kindness to get that offer on his own. Bertans was ready to play in Europe and perhaps that statement from his agent was made to obtain a commitment from the Spurs but they didn't budge back then. They went through their process and it probably resulted in Davis profiting bc he got more as a result of waiting for all of these other scenarios to play out.

Will disagree with you on the rest of your evaluation but have no desire to argue about it since all this is way in the past. I couldn't agree with you on your assessment of Simmons situation or even that of Anderson, and even less that of Bertans.

[Fusternino]

I don't know all the offers that were available. But I don't think DeRozan made sense as a player to compliment Murray at all. If your whole plan relies on Murray essentially becoming an average offensive PG while becoming (or continuing to be) elite defensively, then you don't need someone else to be a PG. That goes double if Pop really believed in White. Just start Murray and White together in the back court. Like sure, that'd seem like a dumpster fire right now, but theoretically, the Spurs would have someone else from the Leonard trade who might compliment or offset Murray's injury.

And yeah, Philly and Boston fucked up. Teams tend to overestimate the length of their windows.



I feel like a lot of people were pessimistic about the D before the pre-season. I am one who believes good coaching can make any group of personnel mediocre defensively if the guys buy in. That's still a huge reason for the Spurs being piss-poor on that end so many nights. If they don't go out there with focus, guys just run train on them.



They routinely moved their firsts for cash or for win-now pieces like Kurt Thomas. Yes, they had Mahinmi and Uridh, but the Lebron Heat also had Norris Cole. Eventually, you gotta take someone. That's not the same thing as retaining what was essentially a package that could have gotten a star (if the DA report is correct).



Last year was weird. I don't want to be sucked into the whirlpool of really parsing through those numbers (that's another thread/fight). I do think it's easy to see at this point that Murray didn't make those guys good defenders. He didn't cover up for them or anything like that. They're really good. They were good before him. They're good after him. Any argument that Murray/Beli or Murray/DeRozan is a superior defensive pairing that Murray and those other two falls apart in my mind, whatever the numbers say.



1- No idea why you'd say that. Having an elite D and just getting some better scorers is much better than having mostly terrible defensive personnel and a back court that is a really bad offensive pairing. You're esssntially saying PATFO was hoping certain guys would be a lot better than they actually are, but for some reason you think that can only apply in one direction. Trading Leonard for a traditional PG might well have been enough to reignite Green while not alienating Aldridge. Seeing how Murray would probably have been ended up pair with Forbes regardless, having him play next to a guy like Walker wasn't going to hurt.

2- This isn't swinging for the fences then. You have to assume that Murray's shooting (the thing he was working all summer long) has to hold up at least. And I totally think Pop was expecting Murray would be a consistent 12-15ppg guy and hoping for 16-20ppg. If he was going to do that by having the ball in his hands even a little, then a guy like DeRozan didn't make sense.

3&4- I don't get why Beal would have been a worse player than DeRozan/nobody. Bradley already knows how to play with a PG who doesn't shoot well. He can set up his teammates decently well, so between him and Murray, they should have been okay, provided they continued to be oriented around their defense. Simply put, adding 20-plus ppg scorer who can play with Aldridge and Murray and who isn't a sieve defensively seems to create a higher ceiling. As to whether the Wizards would have been amenable to Beal, I am not sure. I do think they prefer to give up Wall due to his contract and would rather move Porter if they'd get back a SF. But that's different than assuming they'd refuse a chance to move into the top of the Eastern bracket. The team was planning on trading away Gortat anyway, so the idea of taking on Pau for a year doesn't seem to hurt. Even if they needed Green though, it could have evened out by them sending Oubre.



The Spurs don't have a small-forward. How is that not someone worthy of criticism? Like sure, Murray may have mega-evolved to the point that he could make the Spurs a respectable defense. But the team still lacks someone to guard the plenum of elite wings in today's game. Murray wasn't that guy. I think even his biggest supporters can agree there. Maybe he develops into that guy, but it seems less rational to argue that rather than him just getting a corner three to work off a PG or enough of a PnR game to share play-making duties with Beal.

I think the biggest problem with the roster is coaching right now. They could defend much better if they bought in. They can get better shots if they stick to cleaner offensive principles. The Spurs could have been an above-average team by having a mediocre D and a strong offense. That's even after Murray went down. Them being this bad wasn't inevitable.



I think Cun would still be starting. The Lakers game would have still happened, so Pop would have tried to match up. Cun still would have done a decent job on him, and Pop would have still gone with him over Bertans. That's even more true when Gay had to miss games. Maybe Forbes squeezes into the SL anyway. Dante was brought in for depth, I agree, but I also think Pop wanted him to compete with Bertans for that rotation spot, and Davis just had too many dumpster-fire moments for me to think Pop wouldn't have gone with DC eventually.

As for guarding SF's I wasn't happy we re-signed Marco instead of pursuing LMAM who was had for nothing. Although admittedly he may be physically done suddenly.

[Chinook]

You'd have to be stupid to think that Murray, even taking 2 or 3 steps higher in his game, would have ever pushed this roster into contention. This team would be a low seed at best.

A team with Forbes, Gasol, Gay, Poeltl, Bertans, White, Mills, Belinelli, etc was never going to be any more than average.

I don't think they'd be contenders with a healthy and more actualized Murray. But they'd be in position to consider making a big trade to get there. I'm never going to buy this idea that Murray would make the Spurs elite defensively by himself. The Spurs have always had at least two really good defenders, so making a move for Porter could have gotten them there.

[Raven]

derozan gay bertans aldridge gasol starting lineup. can't beat them with pace? beat them with size.

[sasaint]

As you know, that ship had unfortunately sailed. Trading Nephew wasn't San Antonio's idea.

I mean, they did. If you're building a defense around Murray, you need a swingman playmaker to handle the offensive point guard duties. There are only a handful of those guys in the league and the Spurs got one.

None of the other trade offers that I heard would have complemented the plan. (Side note: I still can't believes scrubs like Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma, Jaylen Brown, Markelle Fultz, etc. were taken off the table when Nephew was available :lol ... It sucked for the Spurs that a bidding war never commenced but it's also humorous how much other teams overvalued their young talent.)

A lot of people thought Pop could take 12 Steve Novaks and find a way to make the team above average defensively. I don't remember a lot of people pointing out the weirdness of the plan in the offseason, tbh.

Even during the USDA certified, Grade A championship years, the Spurs never went all, all-in. They always had at least a couple youngsters hopping in the popcorn machine.

It was a small-ish sample size but Murray did carry the defense last year at a Gobert-esque level. With him on the court, the Spurs allowed 98 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, that number exploded to 105.1 points per 100 possessions.

And while we can reminisce about Green and Anderson, the stats say neither one really helped Murray last year. In fact, the defense got worse when Murray was paired with either of those two players.

Again, the plan was to go for a home run. The Spurs thought their one chance to win a championship was for Murray to become an even more devastating defender, so they tried to plug the holes playing Murray more minutes would cause. I'm not here to argue that was necessarily the best possible plan but it's pretty obvious what the thinking was at the time.



1) Flipping Kawhi for an empty scorer like a Kyle Kuzma or whoever while keeping the rest of the team in place would have put the ceiling of the team at about a seventh seed with zero championship potential. That's why I think the Spurs swung for the fences. They could have gone safer routes but none of those safer routes give more upside than simply extending the playoff streak.

2) The Spurs planned as if Murray wasn't a legit offensive player ... or at least they had to cover for his shortcomings. Players like Green and Anderson fit next to Murray defensively, obviously, but would have been a difficult fit offensively. For example, in a vacuum you pick Anderson over Bertans -- but with Murray in mind, you have to pick Bertans over Anderson.

3) I never heard Beal being available for Kawhi. But even if he was, that would have been an awkward fit since you'd then have to believe Murray is a legit playmaker. If you trade for Beal, then you basically have to pivot away from Murray. Even in the scenario that the Spurs bring back the same team plus Beal, that's still a relatively low ceiling team considering Murray would be stuck playing 20-22 minutes again.

4) The Wizards act like Beal is their franchise player and Wall is the one they'd like to trade if they could. To think they could have gotten Beal from the Wizards while also offloading Gasol on them is ... wishful thinking, IMO.

Agreed. I think Pop saw White and Walker and thought they could replace Green and Anderson. White is smaller than Green but he plays bigger than he is so he has across the board defensive potential. And then on the offensive end, he fits today's need for penetrators with good court vision. Pop also dropped hints from Day 1 that Walker wasn't going to be the typical redshirt-in-Austin rookie.

I don't know of a team outside of the Bay Area that isn't left vulnerable after one of their top three most important players is lost for the season. In San Antonio's situation, they bet big on Murray taking a big step forward and constructed their roster with that in mind. The roster obviously looks "weird" now but that's because the player the team was most built around is now lost for the season.

I don't mind people criticizing the roster construction (personally, for example, I was in favor at keeping Green at nearly all costs and keeping Parker around). But I do think it's disingenuous for people (not saying you, particularly) to criticize the current state of the roster while ignoring that losing Murray totally changed the equation.

Cunningham wouldn't be anywhere near the starting lineup with Murray around. He was signed as deep reserve big who got thrust into the starting lineup because he was the only thing left around that looked like a possible defensive player after Murray went down.

I don't know how Murray and DeRozan would have fit but I image Murray would have ceded most of the playmaking duties to DeRozan. But, again, your point on how the offense looked like it would struggle is exactly why the Spurs opted for offensive role players rather than defensive role players.

Your reconstruction of what was likely PATFO's "plan" is very illuminating. It would definitely explain some specific choices you point out. However, Danny does not seem to be an awkward fit with Murray, but actually very complementary. That's just one decision that doesn't advance the "plan". Another is signing Marco. Another is failing to do anything to address the SF position with a role player with EITHER defensive or offensive skill.

[SAGirl]

The Spurs don't have a small-forward. How is that not someone worthy of criticism? Like sure, Murray may have mega-evolved to the point that he could make the Spurs a respectable defense. But the team still lacks someone to guard the plenum of elite wings in today's game. Murray wasn't that guy. I think even his biggest supporters can agree there. Maybe he develops into that guy, but it seems less rational to argue that rather than him just getting a corner three to work off a PG or enough of a PnR game to share play-making duties with Beal.

It's funny that you mention that, bc timvp was saying he finds it weird people criticize the FO decisions, but he at the same time hates the Cunningham starting rotation. He hates it but there is no other player you can slot there that will fit. He has to start bc you don't have anybody else. Starting White is not only a problem offensively between ballhandling duties taken from derozan and the chemistry, but makes the team undersized. There is a lot more to chat about with White, Derozan, Cunningham, Davis etc. but it's dishonest to say he doesn't understand the others criticizing this roster while pointing out he doesn't like Cunningham starting...

And again this is b4 we introduce Murray into the equation and the additional spacing and other things required to fit him in.

[vavvi]

I don't think they'd be contenders with a healthy and more actualized Murray. But they'd be in position to consider making a big trade to get there. I'm never going to buy this idea that Murray would make the Spurs elite defensively by himself. The Spurs have always had at least two really good defenders, so making a move for Porter could have gotten them there.

Spurs would have never been true contenders for this year and the next one and probably the year after that. Murray or no Murray. Porter or no Porter. Neither Demar, nor LMA with all due respect can be #1 guy on a title team in today's league. We have no true #1 guy for contention (and no assets to get one) and no strong supporting cast either. Our goal is not to be terrible and stay in most games and fight for the playoffs so that Pop has a decent career ending. And at the same time try to develop our young guys which, let's be honest, are not the best set of young guys in the league: Murray, Walker, White and to a lesser extend Forbes.

Our only chance for real title contention in the near future is a sudden Nephew-in-reverse situation. Like if Anthony Davis or Yannis demand a trade only to the Spurs and say he will only resign with the Spurs and create such a toxic atmosphere that their team would have to take LMA or whatever we have back. But it won't happen.

[objective]

i may be misunderstanding things, but are people really suggesting that nobody was criticizing the Spurs FO not getting any small forwards or capable defenders in the off-season?

Because I was pretty non-stop in criticizing those exact things and I wasn't alone.

[DAF86]

lol thinking a PG can anchor an entire defense. If PATFO really thought that then they're more lost than we thought.

[r0drig0lac]

i may be misunderstanding things, but are people really suggesting that nobody was criticizing the Spurs FO not getting any small forwards or capable defenders in the off-season?

Because I was pretty non-stop in criticizing those exact things and I wasn't alone.

particularly, I've been criticizing the lack of slashers since the time that we had no difficulties of winning teams of level b even resting our main players and winning 50 games in our sleep, the league was already going in that direction since 2015 and Spurs should have prepared another SF prototype to pair with Kawhi Leonard

[Kurgan]

Building your entire team around a defensive point guard...in 2018? Oof. PATFO is so out of touch. The game has passed them by completely.

[TimDunkem]

I don't think they'd be contenders with a healthy and more actualized Murray. But they'd be in position to consider making a big trade to get there. I'm never going to buy this idea that Murray would make the Spurs elite defensively by himself. The Spurs have always had at least two really good defenders, so making a move for Porter could have gotten them there.

I personally haven't entertained the idea of a trade. Who would PATFO consider moving? A Gasol trade was always fantasy everything considered, and Mills will retire here. Aldridge maybe but, if things went as planned and Murray were actually playing, PATFO would surely be running this Aldridge experiment back.

[TimDunkem]

i may be misunderstanding things, but are people really suggesting that nobody was criticizing the Spurs FO not getting any small forwards or capable defenders in the off-season?

Because I was pretty non-stop in criticizing those exact things and I wasn't alone.

It wasn't obvious at first that they were going to ignore the situation entirely and throw Dante fucking Cunningham into the 3 spot until the summer began drawing to a close. :lol

[timvp]

I don't know all the offers that were available. But I don't think DeRozan made sense as a player to compliment Murray at all. If your whole plan relies on Murray essentially becoming an average offensive PG while becoming (or continuing to be) elite defensively, then you don't need someone else to be a PG.I don't see anything to hint that the Spurs thought Murray would become an average offensive point guard. Quite the opposite, really. They thought they needed to reinforce the offense due to the drag of him playing 30+ minutes per night.

They thought he'd be great defensively.


And yeah, Philly and Boston fucked up. Teams tend to overestimate the length of their windows. Even if Nephew stays at his current 80% status, history is going to laugh at those teams for not offering up anything. Taking Ingram, Kuzma, Fultz, Brown, etc. off the table was dumb at the time and looks even more insane now.

Spurs just had bad luck, tbh. Their superstar wanted a trade in an era where teams were paranoid about accidentally agreeing to a Herschel Walker redux deal. (Obviously, didn't help that said superstar helped destroy his value on his way out the door.) Eventually, the worm will turn and teams will once again realize that you give up anything not nailed to the ground when a superstar is available.


I feel like a lot of people were pessimistic about the D before the pre-season. I am one who believes good coaching can make any group of personnel mediocre defensively if the guys buy in. That's still a huge reason for the Spurs being piss-poor on that end so many nights. If they don't go out there with focus, guys just run train on them.I was concerned about the defense in the preseason but thought there was a chance Murray could hold the dam. After his injury, all the onus fell on Pop. But, really, with how the rules are, I don't know if it's even possible for a coach to invent a defensive team out of thin air anymore.

It's no longer the days when you could put past their prime Mario Elie and Jerome Kersey on the court and wrestle and scheme your way into a good defense unit, unfortunately.


Having an elite D and just getting some better scorers is much better than having mostly terrible defensive personnel and a back court that is a really bad offensive pairing. If by "much better" you mean "much safer," then I agree. The ultimate thread-the-needle-back-to-contention was betting it all on Murray's defense. It was always a longshot but the ceiling was higher than if you just traded Nephew for Kuzma-esque scorers and brought everyone back while keeping Murray in that 20-22 minute role.

Disagree that Murray and DeRozan is a bad offensive pairing on paper. DeRozan could be the ballhandler and the hope was that Murray's work on his shooting could decently spread the court. To help spread the court, since that was a glaring issue, the Spurs opted for offensive role players.


This isn't swinging for the fences then. You have to assume that Murray's shooting (the thing he was working all summer long) has to hold up at least. And I totally think Pop was expecting Murray would be a consistent 12-15ppg guy and hoping for 16-20ppg. If he was going to do that by having the ball in his hands even a little, then a guy like DeRozan didn't make sense. Projecting Murray to average 20 points per game was much more unrealistic than projecting him to win DPOY. The hope on offense was he could hit wide open jumpers while not being a complete liability


The Spurs don't have a small-forward. How is that not someone worthy of criticism? Turns out Pop planned to play Gay and DeRozan at small forward. That idea looks a lot worse without Murray than it would have looked with him. With him, he could harass ballhandlers and not let them waltz into their offensive sets like they do when Forbes or Mills is defending the point.


I think the biggest problem with the roster is coaching right now. They could defend much better if they bought in.See, I just can't mentally piece that train of thought together. You've listed thoroughly how badly constructed the post-Murray-injury roster is (no small forward, no wing defenders, etc.) and then say the biggest problem with the roster is coaching? To me, there are far bigger problems than coaching: losing Murray, Aldridge playing about 40% as well as he did last season, Gay being either injured and out or hobbled and in ... to name three.

As it stands, I just don't see how this could be a decent defensive team. I don't care who's coaching. Without Murray and with Aldridge playing a lot slower than he did last season, it's just not possible. This team could be bought in 100% to the greatest defensive schemes ever envisioned but at the end of the day you're still trotting Forbes, DeRozan, one-legged Gay and slow motion Aldridge out there. It's actually impressive they aren't bottom five on defense.


The Spurs could have been an above-average team by having a mediocre D and a strong offense. That's even after Murray went down. Them being this bad wasn't inevitable. I agree with this. The plan after Murray's injury should have been to try to be a top three offensive team and maybe 16-18 defensively. That would have allowed them to win 44+ games as long as DeRozan and Aldridge had at least B seasons.

To begin the season, it looked like the Spurs were heading that way. But Pop changed course and put Cunningham in the starting lineup in an attempt to repair the defense. That was a mistake, in my estimation. This team isn't going to be a good defensive team without Murray. Period. With Cunningham starting, they literally can't be a strong offensive team because he gets in the way too much. No coaching scheme or buying into coaching is going to change that.

The first step in the right direction is replacing Cunningham in the starting lineup with someone who gives you a shot at becoming an elite offensive team. On the current roster, the only person who fits that mold is Bertans. Pop needs to realize either this team is going to be elite offensively and sub par defensively or mediocre offensively and mediocre-at-best defensively, and that the former is the way to proceed.

[timvp]

Lifting the RFA status for JSimms wasn't unnecessary. It was necessary and his agent specifically requested it.?

Lifting Simmons' RFA status was unnecessary, meaning the Spurs didn't need to do it. If they wanted to keep his value low and re-sign him, they would have kept him a restricted free agent. If they didn't care to let him wallow, they could have done what the Warriors did to Patrick McCaw. They renounced him in order to help Simmons land his contract. There was no basketball reason to renounce him.

They renounced Simmons and then still pretended to still have interest in re-signing him all in order to help him get a contract. And did so out of the goodness of the hearts.


It's funny that you mention that, bc timvp was saying he finds it weird people criticize the FO decisionsThat's not what I said. I said it's disingenuous to criticize the construction of the roster without factoring in the loss of Murray. If someone wants to criticize the FO decisions, that's fine and I too disagreed with a majority of their offseason decisions. But if the objective is to be fair, you have to put it in the proper context.

And, yes, in any context starting Cunningham is a bad idea. It'd be an even worse idea if Murray were healthy.

[K...]

it isn't the case that murray would be a one man defense like gobert, it's that him and LMA could run a basic system other than, "i lost my man and he's running full steam" The great thing about anderson is that he slowed guys down. Murray is similar with his length. two defenders makes a system!

[TD 21]

History might laugh at those teams for overrating their young players and letting the Raptors leapfrog them, but it's going to laugh even harder at the Spurs, who considering the stakes and rigidness of this league now, made maybe the dumbest trade I've ever seen and set this franchise back years.

The worst part of this nonsense is, there's more than likely going to be no marked change. I think they'll spin this like the Grizzlies did last season, thinking a combination of health, continuity and a good draft pick will cure what ails them, while continuing to ignore systemic issues. In reality, everything needs to be re-evaluated. This is a franchise in denial.

[K...]

History might laugh at those teams for overrating their young players and letting the Raptors leapfrog them, but it's going to laugh even harder at the Spurs, who considering the stakes and rigidness of this league now, made maybe the dumbest trade I've ever seen and set this franchise back years.

The worst part of this nonsense is, there's more than likely going to be no marked change. I think they'll spin this like the Grizzlies did last season, thinking a combination of health, continuity and a good draft pick will cure what ails them, while continuing to ignore systemic issues. In reality, everything needs to be re-evaluated. This is a franchise in denial.

the griz are good this year????

[TD 21]

the griz are good this year????

I didn't say that. They're mediocre. But they too were and are in denial about the state of their franchise. At least they have a sure fire blue chip prospect though.

[Leetonidas]

I don't think it's disingenuous at all to criticize the roster makeup without factoring the loss of Murray. I'm a big fan of the kid but let's be realistic. It's 2018 and SFs and 3&D wing players are the most important players to have to play in today's NBA. Even with Murray spurs still have literally no SF on the roster and zero 3&D guys. How the fuck can anyone justify this kind of roster construction?

I really am starting to think Pop is that full of himself to believe he could coach a YMCA squad to 50 wins which is why he and RC thought adding Derozan to "basically the same team" would make us better while completely ignoring that we lost our ENTIRE perimeter defensive unit sans Dejounte in the off-season. I simply cannot fathom how they thought they didn't need a SF on the roster. Really should have matched Anderson

[Das Texan]

From what it appears the Spurs were hoping the starting lineup come March would have looked kinda like this:

Aldridge
Gay/Gasol
DeRozen
Walker, but maybe White
Murray

I mean with 2 of those 5 playing 0 minutes and one of those options playing what? 6 games?

Ya its difficult.

The roster is flawed, but its even more flawed with the injuries this team has had.

With Metu not being close to ready you are playing with 11 men on most nights / 12-13 if you factor in the 2 way deals

I would have liked to not go after Marco, but I get why they did, he had been fairly good the last couple of years and could be used to help instill some of the Spurs ways. I could just probably make about as many shots as he has been making.

Hanging around .500 is actually fairly impressive with as many flaws as this team has, both due to roster construction and due to bad luck with injuries. You cant assume Aldridge would be a shell of his former self after the season he had last year, which is just as big of an issue as losing Murray.

[Chinook]

I don't see anything to hint that the Spurs thought Murray would become an average offensive point guard. Quite the opposite, really. They thought they needed to reinforce the offense due to the drag of him playing 30+ minutes per night.

This is starting to confuse me. Murray isn't an incompetent offensive player; he just doesn't/didn't have a jump shot. He spent the whole summer working on offense. He showed in pre-season a style that seemed to be him with the ball in his hands more and trying to can midrange jumpers. Believing he wouldn't have reached that level is completely understandable. But I don't think it's defensible to argue that PATFO wasn't counting on DeJounte's offense. You don't tell a player to push the pace and put the ball in his hands like Pop did with Murray is you just want him to be a non-liability.

Moreover, Murray isn't a bad play-maker. He's a little robotic, but he's unselfish and can force help with his speed and size. Seeing as the Spurs had an Aldridge-based offense as it was, I don't see why that wouldn't have been something Pop was counting on.


I was concerned about the defense in the preseason but thought there was a chance Murray could hold the dam. After his injury, all the onus fell on Pop. But, really, with how the rules are, I don't know if it's even possible for a coach to invent a defensive team out of thin air anymore.

It's no longer the days when you could put past their prime Mario Elie and Jerome Kersey on the court and wrestle and scheme your way into a good defense unit, unfortunately.

I didn't think there was any chance Murray would hold the dam by himself. PGs aren't centers, whatever the numbers said. Centers' proximity to the rim means they can be part of more possessions than the average guard. That's why they can affect the game to such an extent. Murray may rebound like a good big, but he's not doing the other things. If other guys let their men beat them, Murray isn't going to be there at the basket waiting for them like Duncan was. He'll be with his own man on the other side of the court.

I get that Cun isn't a good defender, especially in an era where you can't make as much contact. But he's at least still in the picture when guarding someone in the post. That's way more than the other guys have done.


See, I just can't mentally piece that train of thought together. You've listed thoroughly how badly constructed the post-Murray-injury roster is (no small forward, no wing defenders, etc.) and then say the biggest problem with the roster is coaching? To me, there are far bigger problems than coaching: losing Murray, Aldridge playing about 40% as well as he did last season, Gay being either injured and out or hobbled and in ... to name three.

As it stands, I just don't see how this could be a decent defensive team. I don't care who's coaching. Without Murray and with Aldridge playing a lot slower than he did last season, it's just not possible. This team could be bought in 100% to the greatest defensive schemes ever envisioned but at the end of the day you're still trotting Forbes, DeRozan, one-legged Gay and slow motion Aldridge out there. It's actually impressive they aren't bottom five on defense.

The Spurs are letting guys get wide-open shots. That has nothing to do with size or even athleticism. Those things are why they can't be elite. But the complete lack of effort to rotate or communication to cover guys is totally about coaching. Murray has been gone for weeks now. They didn't just lose him. When they have had their good stretches, it hasn't been because Murray's come back on the court. It's been because they were motivated. There's nothing stopping the Spurs from playing hard and smart. That's not exclusive to star players. It's not exclusive to tall players, or small-forwards. They don't have to swipe at the ball so much or to somehow never be back in transition or to fail to box out guys for rebounds


The first step in the right direction is replacing Cunningham in the starting lineup with someone who gives you a shot at becoming an elite offensive team. On the current roster, the only person who fits that mold is Bertans. Pop needs to realize either this team is going to be elite offensively and sub par defensively or mediocre offensively and mediocre-at-best defensively, and that the former is the way to proceed.

I think Cun was a big part of the Spurs getting back to being an average defensive team. He embodies the attitude every Spur should have on that end. A roster full of guys who try as hard as Cun on defense would be average defensively. Folks like Durant would still shoot over them; guys like Giannis would just completely envelop them. But Tyreek Evans would not can three after open three against him. LAC wouldn't get offensive rebounds on them.

[SAGirl]

I don't think they'd be contenders with a healthy and more actualized Murray. But they'd be in position to consider making a big trade to get there. I'm never going to buy this idea that Murray would make the Spurs elite defensively by himself. The Spurs have always had at least two really good defenders, so making a move for Porter could have gotten them there.
Have to agree wholeheartedly with this too. It's not an attack on Murray. Even in the great Timmy Duncan's days he wasn't left on an island. There was usually some wing, or Dave Robinson to help out. In the late era aside from the great Timmy D, there was tiago, there was Danny and then Kawhi... In the late era Pop was so worried about wing defense that not satisfied with having all of Kawhi and Danny (plus an aged Manu) they got Rudy Gay. At different times Pop had Jsimms who was serviceable while in the Spurs and Kyle, who was quality depth. In that timeframe Pop didn't get complacent and left Kawhi to be the one and only wing with size on the team. Sure, there was Marco in there, Neal, Mills... but Pop worried about defense, CoJo was available for the times Mills got burned one time too many as well. He didn't have this philosphy of putting the entire defense responsibility on a single player while surrounded by guys who were absolute negatives one side of the court.

This piece of pie from Timvp is concocted as an explanation for this abomination, whether it be coaching, wrong personnel, wrong lineups, or all of the above in different measure.

[SAGirl]

Spurs would have never been true contenders for this year and the next one and probably the year after that. Murray or no Murray. Porter or no Porter. Neither Demar, nor LMA with all due respect can be #1 guy on a title team in today's league. We have no true #1 guy for contention (and no assets to get one) and no strong supporting cast either. Our goal is not to be terrible and stay in most games and fight for the playoffs so that Pop has a decent career ending. And at the same time try to develop our young guys which, let's be honest, are not the best set of young guys in the league: Murray, Walker, White and to a lesser extend Forbes.

Our only chance for real title contention in the near future is a sudden Nephew-in-reverse situation. Like if Anthony Davis or Yannis demand a trade only to the Spurs and say he will only re-sign with the Spurs and create such a toxic atmosphere that their team would have to take LMA or whatever we have back. But it won't happen.


Post more often vavvi, very sensible explanation. This is what it is.

[TimDunkem]

From what it appears the Spurs were hoping the starting lineup come March would have looked kinda like this:

Aldridge
Gay/Gasol
DeRozen
Walker, but maybe White
Murray

I mean with 2 of those 5 playing 0 minutes and one of those options playing what? 6 games?

Ya its difficult.

The roster is flawed, but its even more flawed with the injuries this team has had.

With Metu not being close to ready you are playing with 11 men on most nights / 12-13 if you factor in the 2 way deals

I would have liked to not go after Marco, but I get why they did, he had been fairly good the last couple of years and could be used to help instill some of the Spurs ways. I could just probably make about as many shots as he has been making.

Hanging around .500 is actually fairly impressive with as many flaws as this team has, both due to roster construction and due to bad luck with injuries. You cant assume Aldridge would be a shell of his former self after the season he had last year, which is just as big of an issue as losing Murray.

That is still a team with poor shooting and poor defense built around the fadeaway two. It's stupid to begin with. This team makes no sense.

[Truth4sale$]

Great write TimVP.
I see alot of people are overlooking the Spurs wasted a lot of the offseason trying to mend the relationship Kawhi. Only to scramble for a trade that they felt would make them competitive not rebuild. The Spurs loss ALL of their defensive players from a year ago. No Kawhi, Kyle Anderson, Murray and Danny Green. There is a reason Toronto is playing lights out basketball, and it's not all Kawhi, as Danny is playing great too.
As the Spurs were debated the Kawhi situation, players signed with other teams (Anderson), and the Spurs were missed out on the best undrafted prospects. In addition over seas draft and stash players have not panned out.
Bottom line, the Spurs scrambled a team to put together and this is the results. One dimensional players, unathletic aging veterans, One defensive player who is lost for the year..btw. why dont the Spurs use their injury exception.

[SAGirl]

1068260667113713664

[SAGirl]

Great write TimVP.
I see alot of people are overlooking the Spurs wasted a lot of the offseason trying to mend the relationship Kawhi. Only to scramble for a trade that they felt would make them competitive not rebuild. The Spurs loss ALL of their defensive players from a year ago. No Kawhi, Kyle Anderson, Murray and Danny Green. There is a reason Toronto is playing lights out basketball, and it's not all Kawhi, as Danny is playing great too.
As the Spurs were debated the Kawhi situation, players signed with other teams (Anderson), and the Spurs were missed out on the best undrafted prospects. In addition over seas draft and stash players have not panned out.
Bottom line, the Spurs scrambled a team to put together and this is the results. One dimensional players, unathletic aging veterans, One defensive player who is lost for the year..btw. why dont the Spurs use their injury exception.

I agree. Like you I think this process was a lot more haphazard than the deliberate design that Timvp describes. I am willing to accept the shit sandwich, but I don't have to like it, and at any given point they had options. Maybe they were all bad options, pick your poison options. It is what it is as vavvi and others explained.

[spurs10]

Good thread with a lot of ideas. One thing I find interesting is how many people don't consider how injuries greatly altered any game plans we might have had. Also the idea of Kawhi being traded as some idea we came up with. I was of the school saying don't trade him no matter what he wants. However, the Spurs might have decided they had hit a brick wall and got the best deal they could. At any rate, it wasn't their idea.

[TimDunkem]

Good thread with a lot of ideas. One thing I find interesting is how many people don't consider how injuries greatly altered any game plans we might have had. Also the idea of Kawhi being traded as some idea we came up with. I was of the school saying don't trade him no matter what he wants. However, the Spurs might have decided they had hit a brick wall and got the best deal they could. At any rate, it wasn't their idea.

Building a team around a core of players that can't shoot and surrounding them with players who do nothing but shoot inefficiently and don't defend was a bad plan to begin with.

[spurs10]

Building a team around a core of players that can't shoot and surrounding them with players who do nothing but shoot inefficiently and don't defend was a bad plan to begin with. You’re making my point really. It wasn’t their plan at all. They tried to get things right with Nephew and then had to do the best they could. There wasn’t exactly a bidding war for Kawhi. Add that to two of our starters being injured, and in Murray’s case out for the season. This was not their plan.