Dieng, Chriss, PATFO and Cold, Hard Cash [Archive]

Chinook

03-28-2021, 04:09 PM

So I don't normally make a thread to post my thoughts if they can fit into an existing topic. I think, though, that this is a good time for an exception.

A lot of posters seem to think that Dieng's signing disproved the concern that came from the Chriss trade. This is not true. Most of the "cliff-jumping" started before the news broke that Chriss' insurance payments meant he had to stay on the roster. The points in that thread up to that point about selling salary space and opportunity cost strictly for the owners' profit remain. This is actually pretty obvious when you look at the Dieng signing.

According to timvp (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8), the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. Let's say for argument sake that Dieng's contract is counting for $1 Million flat. That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day. If all the Spurs do is sign 10-days and eventually a guy for the rest of the season, this is enough money. However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. Remember that the Spurs sold $1.8 Million in salary space, not just the remain balance of his contract. If anything, it's almost worse that they sold it for almost a million bucks less than they originally were slated to get because of this waiving.

The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket. Kudos to the Spurs for landing Dieng, and kudos to them for getting LMA to still give back three times as much as he had to (wanted the buyout to be official before mentioning that, lest we find out the amount was even smaller). Without the Chriss trade, this would've been a coup. Rather, if the Chriss trade had included draft compensation like the needed to, it would've been a mega coup.

But as constructed, the Chriss trade looks even worse than it did 24 hours ago. The Spurs damaged their competitive position for no reason now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived). It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day. The Spurs should still be able to get their roster filled. This didn't kill them this year, but it definitely restricted the leeway they have to build the best team they can.

So PATFO and Ownership: Sure, my opinion for them is more hopeful now than it was before. They have enough sway with ownership to be able to talk them out of a bit of cash. That's seriously important when trying to evaluate the state of the Spurs as an organization. Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. However, that this trade ever happened means folks should still be concerned between the relationship between PATFO and this new ownership coalition. This type of trade should've never come up for a team seriously looking to win games. The liquidation efficiency for this move, even had Chriss' full insurance payout occurred, was always bad. There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses. The Chriss trade is the same canary it was on Wednesday, even if the mine hasn't exploded yet.

Dejounte

03-28-2021, 04:11 PM

Sugus , look what you did. You made Chinook double down.

https://media.tenor.com/images/47687bc571d3a00df2c274b09be708b5/tenor.gif

JuneJive

03-28-2021, 04:17 PM

We don't have insight into the machinations of PATFO, yet this reads like a conclusion based on every single fact.

Seventyniner

03-28-2021, 04:32 PM

timvp

03-28-2021, 04:36 PM

(Interesting note that I guess I'll put in this thread: According to a very reliable source, the Spurs profited more than $1 million from the Chriss trade. If they would have kept him the rest of the season, the total profit would have been around $2 million.)

I mostly agree with Chinook. I view it slightly more optimistically though. My assumption of what happened:

-Spurs were seeking to take advantage of their extra roster spot and the limited amount of money they had under the luxury tax.

-They thought they had a deal for Melli, Iwundu and a second rounder for Lyles but that fell through at the very last second.

-With only seconds to spare, the Spurs went with one of their fallback plans that were still on the table.

-The Chriss trade would have profited $1 million or $2 million -- so it made use of the two assets (roster spot, lux tax room).

Now if the Spurs spend the trade deadline looking to make money, then that would be a different story. Maybe they did ... but the evidence gives me hope that they didn't.

I know a select few fans will pull the "This is a small market, of course every dollar matters during a pandemic :cry" card to explain away the Chriss trade. But oldheads know that timvp doesn't care about the owners profiting. When Holt was holding up Tony Parker's extension ('04, I believe) and when the Spurs traded away Scola to get under the luxury tax, I was livid. I'm a fan of the team but my fandom doesn't extend to the pockets of the ownership group. I couldn't care less about that, especially since anyone with any understanding of accounting knows that ownership is profiting whether they want to admit it or not.

On it's face, the Chriss trade remains a money grab. Pop even admitted that. That's not good unless you're a fan of the owners' bank account for some reason. A financial move that has actual positive ramifications on the basketball team (like even the Scola trade) is understandable. A financial move that is only for profit that negatively impacts the flexibility of the basketball team is another matter. The Chriss trade was in the latter group -- and it's the first Spurs trade I can remember that is in that group since the Holts have been in charge.

As it turns out, I think it's close to a non-issue. It looks like the Spurs will round out their roster with Dieng and Reynolds. Cashing in could have cost the Spurs an opportunity ... but it apparently didn't. That's good news but I do agree with Chinook that the Chriss moves now makes it necessary to keep an eye on what ownership values the most going forward.

mo7888

03-28-2021, 04:58 PM

I still can't tell what the LMA discount was? That will tell me more than anything because I'm sure they had it negotiated before the deadline and therfore knew how much room they'd have after the buyout. Paul Garcia is still adamant that he gave back over $7M... I'm hoping in a couple days we'll know for sure. If he really did give us that much room I'm not as concerned with the Chriss trade...if it was as small as Chinook used in his post then I'd tend to agree with his assessment and be more concerned.

KingKev

03-28-2021, 04:58 PM

This is what we have gotten to. The disrespect for David Robinson, Tim Duncan and to a lesser extent Tony/Manu is at an all time high. Fair amount of luck involved in both Pop and ownership’s success the last 20 years. Pay homage to those guys and realize there is no lotto ticket waiting for the next dynasty and we certainly are not positioned to build it ourselves with the current management and coaching staff. Another few years of the garbage we have been dealing with from a front office stand point and this team will have earned their Vegas residency. As an out of towner i’ll miss visiting SA but also I enjoy sinning so keep up the good work PATFO.

Mr. Body

03-28-2021, 05:01 PM

This is fucking pathetic. You all need to give it up. Just sad, dreary, pathetic idiotic wankery. Jesus Christ.

RD2191

03-28-2021, 05:03 PM

OP dropping truth nukes tbh.

Mr. Body

03-28-2021, 05:09 PM

I'm reminded of when all you candyasses were sobbing that we didn't pick up Corey Maggette or the trade for J.R. Smith fell through.

The fact of the matter is, none of you know even remotely about basketball as much as you think you do. The FO made a trade to pick up some cash and it's like Thanos nutted on your mother.

Holy shit is this board hilarious.

BacktoBasics

03-28-2021, 05:12 PM

I guess we’re supposed to be mad that ownership choose easy money over wasting money for the sake of wasting money because the optics of using the last roster spot on a guy that will ultimately mean nothing by the end of the season is somehow “better”.

RD2191

03-28-2021, 05:12 PM

BacktoBasics

03-28-2021, 05:16 PM

Enlighten us with your basketball knowledge, faggot.

Calling someone a faggot certainly shows your intellectual superiority. Everyone knows you can’t argue against a homophobic slur.

Dejounte

03-28-2021, 05:16 PM

KobesAchilles

03-28-2021, 05:25 PM

It does show however that going forward we are screwed. Ownership is willing to interfere a lot. They pulled back for Pop. But what about when he retires? Does anyone there actually respect Brian Wrong once Pop leaves? Having a cheap meddlesome ownership is bad news. Ask the Phoenix Suns when they could’ve won a title if not for a cheap owner.

All this does is exasperate what I said before, our organization management is a shit show and the fact that everything hinges on a 73 year old coach who may call it quits does nothing to make me feel better. Who is our next coach? What top assistants can we get? Is Brian Wrong a good GM? Are the Holt kids going to be good owners? It’s looking bleak as the answers here are all “we have no idea.”

KingKev

03-28-2021, 05:26 PM

Is there truly a concern with the owners struggling with money when they're the first NBA organization to deploy robot tech for disinfecting the stadium?

https://twitter.com/ZoneStrikeUVC/status/1350183190095405061?s=19

that is also our new stretch 4. He/Him is quiet, efficient and anti trump. Total Spurs culture guy.

RD2191

03-28-2021, 05:27 PM

Calling someone a faggot certainly shows your intellectual superiority. Everyone knows you can’t argue against a homophobic slur.
And you being a whiny faggot shows your emotional insecurity.

DesignatedT

03-28-2021, 05:27 PM

Geez give it a rest man.

KingKev

03-28-2021, 05:28 PM

cd98

03-28-2021, 05:37 PM

Do the Spurs have to buy their own cokes like in Moneyball? That's a good sign if they are cash strapped. Maybe GSW promised to stock their fridge for a year.

BacktoBasics

03-28-2021, 06:29 PM

And you being a whiny faggot shows your emotional insecurity.

This is a great look for you. A true Spurs fan we can all be proud of.

...and to think, so courageous being all that you can be from behind the comfort of your keyboard.

EasyMoney

03-28-2021, 06:35 PM

And you being a whiny faggot shows your emotional insecurity.

Lol

poopbox

03-28-2021, 07:24 PM

While I don't particularly care about ownerships money, if you told me a family that owned an nba team made a purely financial nba roster decision during a pandemic when there at the gate revenue has been slashed by somewhere between 85 and 93% for a full nba season my reaction would be "they only did it once?"

Don't very much care about this because for this season there is no one roster spot move that is going to be major for the spurs. Now once free agency comes and we start doing shit like the 76ers and mavs were doing just trying to hoover around the salary floor then yeah I am going to be livid.

The Truth #6

03-28-2021, 08:52 PM

I understand how this Chriss trade seems like new territory—trading for a guy with a broken leg to save money. But the talk about protecting the brand seems off. After suffering through the Forbes/Belinelli experiment, it feels difficult for me to see how the Chriss trade is worse for the brand. I understand, to a degree, how the optics look worse in trading for Chriss. But the damage to the brand has already been done, and arguably worse by playing such horrible players in Forbes and Belinelli above younger players that were, if not better, at least could be understood in a rebuilding project that would have been understood as rational.

Sure, the Chriss trade may feel like a betrayal to some, but what the hell was the Forbes/Belinelli experiment? Delusional. Not about winning. Saving face. Protecting egos.

I definitely don't want to see some hedgefund dickweeds take control of ownership because the hipster Holt kids are partying in NYC and too disinterested to get involved in the nuts and bolts of running a business. But if anything, after the Bubble, I would argue the team and franchise are trending in a better direction. To me, the nadir has already passed.

Sugus

03-28-2021, 09:43 PM

Sugus , look what you did. You made Chinook double down.

https://media.tenor.com/images/47687bc571d3a00df2c274b09be708b5/tenor.gif

Not gonna lie, I'm giving this post the TL;DR for the time being, just because I got myself sick and bored of the topic after today's banter. No more cliffjumping for me, I'm full... But knowing I'm closer to pushing Chino over the edge is satisfactory :lol

Degoat

03-28-2021, 09:53 PM

Sugus

03-28-2021, 10:16 PM

Dejounte

03-28-2021, 10:19 PM

There is no saving face when there was no backlash to begin with (outside of this website).

Chinook

03-28-2021, 10:40 PM

All right, so let's get to some of the responses.

So one of the themes tends to be the belief that the Holts have to be doing poorly in order to change their philosophy. This isn't true. Hedge funds work this way often as a matter of principle. They buy businesses in order to liquidate as possible and to cut as much as as possible to make for a profitable sale. Long-term growth comes from them cycling through purchases, not letting their money sit in one and grow over time. From the little contacts I have, it seems like the Holts don't have money problems. That means nothing. Money problems were a possible explanation for the Chriss trade -- it wasn't the reason why the Chriss trade as bad.

As timvp pointed out, comparing this trade to previous moves is pretty wrong-headed. This is not simply making a move that didn't have a good on-court effect. "The quality of the product" is not referring to the team's performance. It's referring to the integrity of the basketball side of the operations. The Spurs may or may not make the appropriate basketball decisions to excel. The business side is suppose to do what they can to market and connect the product the basketball side makes in order to make the organization money. This is no different than a newspaper having a business team and a journalistic team. Obviously, there's always some crossover, which is why players who do things like break the law or say something rude to fans might be traded or cut even if they are good players who otherwise help their teams win. However, when the business side starts dictating how the basketball side uses its resources or converts basketball assets into business capital, then it crosses the line. Bottom line: What the Spurs did is something they haven't done in decades. It's legit not something we could have expected them to do, especially not in a season where they are playing pretty well.

It also seems like a number of posters didn't understand why folks like me were sounding the alarm in the first place. They believe that any of recent events actually have anything to do with why I and others thought it was an issue. That means when they see a thread like this they might think, "Give it up already." Just to be clear: The trade was wrong in and of itself. Context doesn't play any role in whether or not the trade was bad. What context does is help us see how much damage it caused or what liquidation rate the owners need to see in order to do something like this. The impact started off basically right where it is now, with us assuming Chris was going to be released and the Spurs were going to clear about $1 Million (if you look at my first post, that is actually the number I guessed in terms of their profit). When it looked like LMA was going to give back a lot of money (which we still don't know that he didn't?), the context made the owners seem crazy-cheap for selling roster space for a few hundred thousand bucks when they were already saving millions. Then, when the buyout shrank and the speculation rose that the Spurs were going to have to keep Chriss on the roster with no additional cash payment, it went to the Spurs being willing to sell a roster spot for basically nothing. Then it went to them waiving Chriss but us still believing they didn't get a lot of extra cash, thus making the deal basically for nothing. Now, we believe they got about $1 Million, and they waived Chriss. So we're back to believing that the owners sold salary space for cash when they had a team that didn't really have the latitude to make moves even before this trade. We're right where we were when the criticism started -- nothing was "proven to not be a big deal" because what was wrong on Wednesday is still wrong now.

My point in talking about this isn't to change people's mind or to call folks who don't agree with me stupid. There are a lot of posters who are only interested in looking at the Spurs as a basketball club or only worry about the business dealings if/when it obviously affects the team. For them, Forbes being awful is worse than this trade. I'm not here to take that point of view away from you guys. What I am trying to do is put the theory out there. You may or may not believe the trade signaled a big issue. You can disagree that it's a problem. But hopefully this is helping folks see why posters who are usually considered to be pretty firm "sniffers" have such a strong criticism for the trade. It's obviously not because we just hate on anything PATFO does. Hopefully, as lot of the people who read this thread will feel inclination to switch their lenses as we see other moves or non-moves PATFO makes to see if and how much the ideas in this thread apply rather than just looking at it from a basketball perspective.

Allan Rowe vs Wade

03-28-2021, 10:49 PM

ownership made a cash play and then made the team play when it was available

shocking

for a measly mil

offset formation

03-28-2021, 10:52 PM

Is there truly a concern with the owners struggling with money when they're the first NBA organization to deploy robot tech for disinfecting the stadium?

https://twitter.com/ZoneStrikeUVC/status/1350183190095405061?s=19

They're probably getting a hefty discount considering the company that makes them is based in SA.

cjw

03-28-2021, 10:53 PM

Chinook

03-28-2021, 11:14 PM

I’m sort of confused by the conversation, like it doesn’t surprise me that the spurs ownership looked to make up some extra cash, who wouldn’t when your team may not may not make the playoffs especially during a pandemic... but if the spurs ownership was being picky with money, wouldnt they have not allowed the spurs to extend DWhite before the season started?

NBA contracts don't work like the NFL. White didn't receive any money last year from signing the extension. IF he got a signing bonus as part of the extension (which I haven't heard but is well could have), that doesn't kick in until next year. The max he could get as a bonus is $11 Million. So he'd get about $27 Million next year and then the remaining $46 Million over the last three years. It'd look the same on a cap sheet as a straight bonusless deal, but it would be a bigger cash commitment for sure. Provided that didn't happen, signing a player to an extension has little to do with cash-readiness. Even Hinkie extended players.

I'm just as confused now that I've read the thread, tbh. Nevermind the White extension - if Spurs ownership were as cash-strapped as Chino suggests, and wanted so badly to cut operational costs that they'd do the Chriss trade in the lens that Chino paints it - why get Dieng at all? The cost of his contract will surely be more than whatever the Spurs got for Chriss, and with bringing him before his contract is up, there's also the expectation that they'll try to resign him next season, further adding up the cost of this move.

The Spurs had no reason whatsoever, beyond well, basketball reasons, to go out of their way to sign Dieng - it would've been perfectly easy to let the hole at backup C carry on for another half season and pocket that money as well. So maybe I'm not understanding this right? But I don't see why Dieng's contract is a direct contraposition to the idea that ownership wants to spend as little as possible, despite understanding that it's an after-move to the Chriss trade (like, I guess Dieng would be "face-saving" over the backlash for the Chriss trade or something? In which case, Occam's Razor...).

So what we know is that the Spurs made a move to liquidate a basketball asset for cash. Right, like we're at the point where no one is still trying to dress Chriss up as a piece the Spurs wanted. At this point, we know PATFO will do moves like this; therefore, Dieng being signed doesn't negate anything. The idea any poster argued that the ONLY thing PATFO wants is to save money is wrong-headed both because it's a clear strawman, but also because PATFO will never have saving money as its primary goal. The Spurs signed Dieng because PATFO wanted Dieng, and they traded for Chriss because ownership wanted to use a basketball asset. Not only can those two things be true at once, but them being true together is precisely the point of the alarm being sounded in the first place. Just because ownership has a certain inclination doesn't mean that that inclination will always win, especially immediately. I'm sure the Holts trust PATFO and probably aren't interested in being the Sixers in an NBA that would be way less friendly to that type of tank. I feel they could easily be convinced that signing a center to try to make the playoffs was the right move. Even being an eighth seed would make them a lot of money. A legit thing that did happen in between the Thursday trade and Sunday signing is that the Spurs got obliterated again by LAC and had to bench Eubanks against Chicago. The Spurs are no longer anything like a lock to make the playoffs. Depending on what the Dieng got, this move could end up making them millions, and that's probably a strong enough argument to convince the Holts to spend the money, even if they didn't want to or even if they were cash-strapped.

Remember, both of these things are true: The Spurs would make a decent amount of extra money if they made the playoffs and that the Spurs made a move that was purely to put cash in their owner's pockets. Therefore, the Spurs have to care about winning while not making it the sole priority of the basketball side. So the strawman that the Spurs could not have signed Dieng while also wanting to maximize profit falls out, and the main criticism -- the new-found encroachment of cash consciousness onto the basketball side of the Spurs operations -- remains. Dieng, like White, is not a good counter argument, because the Chriss trade is inherently bad. Folks should move on from trying to defend it.

Also, if I have to do my work to show that signing Dieng is a move to try to make the playoffs, just think that the Spurs have lost or at least been hampered to the point of almost losing games because Poeltl and/or Eubanks can't hold down the fort. Upgrading that position with one of the best overall buyout players may give the Spurs and extra win or two, and that's enough to potentially give them a playoff birth. Yes, signing him matters. It may not work out, but they certainly expect to need him.

Chinook

03-28-2021, 11:28 PM

Maybe the Chriss move helped push the balance in favor of the Dieng signing with the money saved? If the money they saved with Chriss = paid for Dieng, then how do you fault them?

They don’t have roster space to do one of those 1+2 deals you talk about. It would have been great to pawn off Lyles’ contract and create that space, but it would have meant taking on money beyond this season which they didn’t want to do.

So according to timvp, the Spurs did want to do that Lyles trade enough to enter the trade call with Dallas and NOP.

It's hard to say if the Spurs' budget was randomly below the tax line. What should be true is that Aldridge's buyout minus Dieng on a min deal should be like plus $1.7 Million space and cash, while what they ended up having was Aldridge's buyout minus Chriss' salary hit/cash hit plus the cash paid, minus Dieng on a min deal, which is like minus $200k in space and plus $2.7 Million in cash. If that's true, the Chriss deal did basically cancel out the cash paid to Dieng, but the Spurs should've been far enough under budget to where the trade wasn't necessary. There was no way the Spurs should've been anticipating having to buy Aldridge out to make ends meet. Right, ideally, he'd've been a good contributor to the team, and no one would be waived, and that 15th spot would be filled. That had to be the Spurs' roster goal at the start of the season.

Chinook

03-28-2021, 11:32 PM

If the Spurs really are getting the insurance payments, does this line of reasoning still stand?

I have yet to hear a definitive answer as to whether the Spurs had to keep Chriss on the roster to get the insurance payments.

So the reasoning would still stand, yes. Like in the best, best-case scenario, someone would randomly claim Chriss off waivers, giving the Spurs cash for nothing. But if the problem, is with the Spurs deciding to sell basketball assets for cash, that problem exists no matter how much cash they got for the asset. Think that Churchill prostitute anecdote.

mo7888

03-28-2021, 11:47 PM

So the reasoning would still stand, yes. Like in the best, best-case scenario, someone would randomly claim Chriss off waivers, giving the Spurs cash for nothing. But if the problem, is with the Spurs deciding to sell basketball assets for cash, that problem exists no matter how much cash they got for the asset. Think that Churchill prostitute anecdote.

The issue are the unknowns... we really still don't know the amount Aldridge gave back in the buyout (but it's reasonable to assume the team and his agent had that worked out beforehand)...we also don't know when the interest between the Spurs and Dieng became a real thing... was it today? Was it before the Chriss trade? All of those things have to be taken into consideration to come to a solid conclusion.... with the limited information we have we have to consider that there are really two possibilities...1) we knew the buyout was large enough to accomplish what we just pulled off or 2) we went cheap and something fell into our laps that made us reverse course.... until we get all of the info (and it will come out) we have to be open minded to either possibility.

LakerHater

03-29-2021, 12:57 AM

Brian Wright is trash!

Mr. Body

03-29-2021, 01:09 AM

This is one of the most pathetic posts I've ever seen on this board, which is impressive given how given to lunacy this place is.

Teamduncan21

03-29-2021, 05:00 AM

They sold the roster space that is given. But its not really detrimental basketball wise, and if they see someone they like, they still have the flexibility to do so (ie Dieng).

If the move will be detrimental to the team's winning, then Pop would have said no. (or at least in theory). The point is they can make some cash without really losing much (at worst a 14th/15th man off the bench). And they still have the flexibility to get someone anyway if so happened that someone better than 14th/15th man comes.

we need to care about the business side, not sure how much spurs is making. but if spurs operate at a loss for too long, they will have to sell. Not saying that 1M gain can really change that, but we cant go away with the business side. Its a small market family owned team

RC_Drunkford

03-29-2021, 05:10 AM

Bobby Marks: As part of the trade to acquire Marquese Chriss from Golden State, the Spurs received $1.85M. They will net $1.2M with Chriss now being waived (https://hoopshype.com/social/). $1.85M- $650K (amount left on his contract)

Spurs owners made a quick 1.2 million and signed Dieng. I don't have a problem with that tbh

JPB

03-29-2021, 05:35 AM

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 07:04 AM

This is making my head spin. Is Chinook broken? Someone call maintenance.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 08:04 AM

This is making my head spin. Is Chinook broken? Someone call maintenance.

Not trying to be offensive, but your head isn't spinning because the arguments I've made have been changing. It's spinning because you've gone up and down over the past few days trying to find a way to defend the trade. The reasons I laid out in the OP and timvp laid out in his article remain in the same state they were in right after the trade was announced. The argument against the trade was intrinsic to the deal itself -- it didn't change just because the context around the trade has changed. However, all of the arguments for the trade are context depended, so every time something new came out, folks ran over to try to spin it as an explanation for why the trade was good or why we should've expected it or whatever.

The "What about this? No? Well what about this other thing?" scattershot approach to rebutting the criticism of the trade is why you have whiplash. These same criticisms have been there since the first few posts after the trade broke.

Seventyniner

03-29-2021, 08:10 AM

So the reasoning would still stand, yes. Like in the best, best-case scenario, someone would randomly claim Chriss off waivers, giving the Spurs cash for nothing. But if the problem, is with the Spurs deciding to sell basketball assets for cash, that problem exists no matter how much cash they got for the asset. Think that Churchill prostitute anecdote.

According to this post below, the Spurs came out $1.2M ahead even after waiving Chriss.

Bobby Marks: As part of the trade to acquire Marquese Chriss from Golden State, the Spurs received $1.85M. They will net $1.2M with Chriss now being waived (https://hoopshype.com/social/). $1.85M- $650K (amount left on his contract)

Spurs owners made a quick 1.2 million and signed Dieng. I don't have a problem with that tbh

Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but to me it looks like the Spurs never really lost a basketball asset because waiving Chriss opened up the roster spot he took up. From my point of view, the Spurs just got gifted $1.2M with no effect on the basketball side of things.

If the Spurs had planned to keep Chriss and save extra money, only abandoning that plan when Dieng agreed to sign here, I can see why that would be worrying. But if the Spurs get a free $1.2M by trading for Chriss and then waiving him, I don't see any cause for alarm if waiving him was the plan all along.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 08:14 AM

Not trying to be offensive, but your head isn't spinning because the arguments I've made have been changing. It's spinning because you've gone up and down over the past few days trying to find a way to defend the trade. The reasons I laid out in the OP and timvp laid out in his article remain in the same state they were in right after the trade was announced. The argument against the trade was intrinsic to the deal itself -- it didn't change just because the context around the trade has changed. However, all of the arguments for the trade are context depended, so every time something new came out, folks ran over to try to spin it as an explanation for why the trade was good or why we should've expected it or whatever.

The "What about this? No? Well what about this other thing?" scattershot approach to rebutting the criticism of the trade is why you have whiplash. These same criticisms have been there since the first few posts after the trade broke.

I have not "tried" to defend the trade. I tried to move on just like I thought you would have already since you said that was the best way forward. I did that by looking at the players we received after the trade, like any basketball fan would. I looked at all possibilities, such as the low chance of keeping Chriss and looking at Austin Spurs players (which you will find in many threads before the trade was my preference in the first place). So if being satisfied with us signing a g league player AND getting a buyout player I wanted since the beginning is "defending the trade" to you...then I don't know what to tell you.

Did GSW do the trade for basketball reasons? I don't believe they've made a salary cutting trade in a long time. Aren't they within playoff reach and wasn't Chriss one of their best players last year? How concerning...

I don't believe in getting caught up in a trade as small as this one and raising our "red alert" security levels when:

1) there's nothing we can do about it.
2) holding your breath for the next move is a painful exercise (even though the next move they did already make should have relieved all worries. They are still focused on the basketball side of things)

Chinook

03-29-2021, 08:32 AM

The issue are the unknowns... we really still don't know the amount Aldridge gave back in the buyout (but it's reasonable to assume the team and his agent had that worked out beforehand)...we also don't know when the interest between the Spurs and Dieng became a real thing... was it today? Was it before the Chriss trade? All of those things have to be taken into consideration to come to a solid conclusion.... with the limited information we have we have to consider that there are really two possibilities...1) we knew the buyout was large enough to accomplish what we just pulled off or 2) we went cheap and something fell into our laps that made us reverse course.... until we get all of the info (and it will come out) we have to be open minded to either possibility.

I think there is a chance that the Spurs knew Dieng wanted to pick them before the deadline ended. It wasn't like the dude was sitting out for a while weighing bids. If that were the case, Pop was awkwardly smoke-screening when he was talking about how the team was going to consider Chriss as a player/person in the organization. Or it could be that Pop feels uncomfortable with the idea of making an impersonal transaction and at least wanted to try to humanize it a bit. It's also possible that Aldridge's buyout (which as far as I know hasn't been fully clarified) is big enough to where the Spurs have the budget for Dieng, Chriss and Reynolds. Both of those things can be true, I agree.

But that doesn't mean that the Spurs still didn't sell roster flexibility cash. They have $1.8 Million less space under the tax now. That probably won't stop them from making whatever moves they make to end their season. But the fact is that with the MLE and a few or couple of million in salary space, the Spurs had one of the strongest competitive positions in the league. For all we know, they were able to land Dieng without it (because it's not not completely established to be false that SA got the huge buyout from LMA and then signed Dieng to a multi-year deal using the MLE), but even if they knew they weren't going to need it for him, someone could become available. As I've said, Baynes, Brewer and Freddette are examples of young guys who were unexpectedly available to be signed. Worst case, the Spurs could just sit on that salary space, and the owners would still get a fair bit of extra money at the end of the season.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 08:41 AM

cd98

03-29-2021, 08:47 AM

Seriously, this debate is nonsensical. If the Holts are out of cash, then there's nothing anyone can do about it. If they have to sell the team or make the team available, so be it. Life goes on. And if they relocate the Spurs, it just means that I can subscribe to NBA League Pass and watch their games without being blacked out and I don't have to get cable anymore. The Spurs as a team will not cease to exist. Would it suck if they leave S.A.? Yes, but that's out of our control and no one here is the accountant doing the books for the Spurs or the Holts. I think this is all over analyzing the Chriss trade and the Dieng acquisition.

The only issue I see is that the Spurs are better off as a basketball team if they go back to the lottery, but the owners, for financial reasons, always want to make the playoffs. To be honest, I think organizations want to make the playoffs and I think the Spurs see it as a source of pride. So I can't say that they will go for the playoffs because they need the money or because this is a winning organization. All I can say is that I think the Spurs would have a better basketball team in the long run if they went to the lottery.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 08:50 AM

I have not "tried" to defend the trade. I tried to move on just like I thought you would have already since you said that was the best way forward.

No. What I said was that people need to just accept that the trade was bad and move on from trying to defend it.

So the Spurs could keep Chriss in the building and rehab him and all that shit after waiving him. There's still not a basketball reason to do this trade. The "sniffer" point of view should be to just hope this was a one-off rather than trying to dress this trade up. It happened. Now we just have to try to move forward with the team.

So basically what I just said multiple times in this thread: the trade sucks no matter what happens. As far as continuing to talk about it, a lot of posters seemed to want to get my reaction to the subsequent events, even though the context should not have mattered to the original argument. So I decided to explain the reasoning in its own thread so that the other threads could go wherever they could go now. This thread is specially to discuss why the trade was bad and why what's happened since doesn't change that. Every other thread is to "move on" so to speak. I didn't go into the Dieng threads and complain about the Chriss trade. Dieng as a player in his own right is a completely different matter, and I actually have a high opinion of that signing.

Did GSW do the trade for basketball reasons? I don't believe they've made a salary cutting trade in a long time. Aren't they within playoff reach and wasn't Chriss one of their best players last year? How concerning...

Yes, this was a trade for basketball reasons. Paying huge tax penalties is bad for their long-term competitive position. Also, Chriss is injured and can't help them make the playoffs.

Again, not be sound mean, but you thinking this is a good argument might explain why your head was spinning. This was a really bad counter to the point I made; it's just a random scattershot attempt to bolster your case. That I say this isn't me clinging to a take or doing gymnastics or whatever.

I don't believe in getting caught up in a trade as small as this one and raising our "red alert" security levels when:

1) there's nothing we can do about it.
2) being worried depends on the next move they make. (even though the next move they did already make should have relieved all worries and that they are focused on the basketball side of things)

1) There's never anything we can do about the moves they make. That's never stopped us from criticizing them.

2) This was never a good standard, since people aren't just black and white. It was never either they want to win or they will instantly sell everything off to save money. They clearly could've made other moves to liquidate basketball assets, like trading their first-round pick to Boston for them to absorb Gay and send back cash. As I said before, this is a vein of criticism that many fans aren't interested in considering, and there's nothing wrong with that. You're free to look at every move strictly in the context of basketball and rate moves that don't actively hurt the basketball side as meh without making it about the overarching financial pressures. That's completely cool. If you change your mind about that, threads like this will be here.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 08:55 AM

Seriously, this debate is nonsensical. If the Holts are out of cash

The debate is not about whether the Holts are out of cash. You don't have to be low on funds to make purely financial moves. That's what capital institutions (like probably CVC) do all the time.

The only issue I see is that the Spurs are better off as a basketball team if they go back to the lottery, but the owners, for financial reasons, always want to make the playoffs.

But yes, thanks for pointing out why a team might do something like sign Dieng even if their owners are prioritizing money.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 09:02 AM

So the premise is there could have been someone special available and that the Spurs could have had an advantage to sign that hypothetical player if they didn't do the trade. I don't know man, sounds absurd to me. Like putting all your eggs in a basket. We know that even if the Spurs had the competitive advantage, they still lose out on these player sweepstakes most of the time. It's like being upset you didn't have the poker chips to buy in a poker game. I get it. It would have been fun to play. But the prize money, and in this case a hypothetical player, never became available anyway. And if they did, would they have moved the needle?

The Spurs actually rarely have the type of competitive advantage that I've talking about. They're rarely able to offer the most money on the market. Also, we're not talking about something that's already passed. Dieng could've been one of those options, but there are still weeks coming up where players could become available where it'd nice to have the ability to offer a larger contract.

Also, Dieng is clearly a needle-mover. I showed my work for that earlier in this thread. He's not going to win them a title, but he should stabilize the center rotation enough to increase the Spurs' chances of making the playoffs by a fair bit. In this world of COVID and with SA's injury luck, salary space to sign replacements is a big deal. The flexibility to tweak the roster is always going to be valuable.

Again, the Spurs objectively sold salary space for cash. This is just a fact. It twisted, absurd reasoning is trying to argue that space didn't have value when it clearly does.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 09:03 AM

No. What I said was that people need to just accept that the trade was bad and move on from trying to defend it.

So basically what I just said multiple times in this thread: the trade sucks no matter what happens. As far as continuing to talk about it, a lot of posters seemed to want to get my reaction to the subsequent events, even though the context should not have mattered to the original argument. So I decided to explain the reasoning in its own thread so that the other threads could go wherever they could go now. This thread is specially to discuss why the trade was bad and why what's happened since doesn't change that. Every other thread is to "move on" so to speak. I didn't go into the Dieng threads and complain about the Chriss trade. Dieng as a player in his own right is a completely different matter, and I actually have a high opinion of that signing.

Yes, this was a trade for basketball reasons. Paying huge tax penalties is bad for their long-term competitive position. Also, Chriss is injured and can't help them make the playoffs.

Again, not be sound mean, but you thinking this is a good argument might explain why your head was spinning. This was a really bad counter to the point I made; it's just a random scattershot attempt to bolster your case. That I say this isn't me clinging to a take or doing gymnastics or whatever.

1) There's never anything we can do about the moves they make. That's never stopped us from criticizing them.

2) This was never a good standard, since people aren't just black and white. It was never either they want to win or they will instantly sell everything off to save money. They clearly could've made other moves to liquidate basketball assets, like trading their first-round pick to Boston for them to absorb Gay and send back cash. As I said before, this is a vein of criticism that many fans aren't interested in considering, and there's nothing wrong with that. You're free to look at every move strictly in the context of basketball and rate moves that don't actively hurt the basketball side as meh without making it about the overarching financial pressures. That's completely cool. If you change your mind about that, threads like this will be here.

I don't know what you'd expect from this "argument" when you've built a house, locked it, and threw away the key. It's one pridicated on assumptions, without knowledge of inner dealings, and without knowledge of the legitimate reasons for why the moves were necessary. What kind of effort do you expect from anyone here to put forth when there's not much evidence to go by? If I had more information on this matter, it would be easier. But the truth is, we're still going by hearsay on this and a lot of your points (such as the insurance money, how much was given back by LMA, etc.) have no credible points of reference.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 09:16 AM

The Spurs actually rarely have the type of competitive advantage that I've talking about. They're rarely able to offer the most money on the market. Also, we're not talking about something that's already passed. Dieng could've been one of those options, but there are still weeks coming up where players could become available where it'd nice to have the ability to offer a larger contract.

Also, Dieng is clearly a needle-mover. I showed my work for that earlier in this thread. He's not going to win them a title, but he should stabilize the center rotation enough to increase the Spurs' chances of making the playoffs by a fair bit. In this world of COVID and with SA's injury luck, salary space to sign replacements is a big deal. The flexibility to tweak the roster is always going to be valuable.

Again, the Spurs objectively sold salary space for cash. This is just a fact. It twisted, absurd reasoning is trying to argue that space didn't have value when it clearly does.

So the "Spurs rarely have the competitive advantage" they would've had without the trade. Big whoop. They'll also have that competitive advantage this off-season where they should know who will be available and who won't, and not praying for a player to fall from the sky like you're suggesting here. Why would the Spurs plan to wait for weeks for a player when many games would have already been played? Inserting this magical player into that situation is a disaster if the Spurs kept losing. Again, this is jumping through a lot of hoops with too many factors not being considered.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 09:22 AM

I don't know what you'd expect from this "argument" when you've built a house, locked it, and threw away the key.

I'm actually not expecting an argument. The trade is bad. That never depended on the context. It's like rather than moving the goalposts, you keep moving where you're kicking from and still missing the goal posts, all the while you keep trying to blame me for the fact that you're kicking in the first place. I'm not following you to other threads, @ing you or PMing you to talk about this.

It's one pridicated on assumptions, without knowledge of inner dealings, and without knowledge of the legitimate reasons for why the moves were necessary.

No, it's not. That's literally the whole point of what I've been saying. The Chriss trade was wrong intrinsically. I'm not assuming a context, because the context is irrelevant.

What kind of effort do you expect from anyone here to put forth when there's not much evidence to go by?

Effort's been fine. People have asked questions, given answers and made comments. I don't remember putting a call to action in my OP or anything.

If I had more information on this matter, it would be easier. But the truth is, we're still going by hearsay on this and a lot of your points (such as the insurance money, how much was given back by LMA, etc.) have no credible points of reference.

As I've said, none of those things actually matters to the point I made. The arguments existed before we knew anything about insurance or LMA's buyouts. Don't confuse me talking about those things in the context of the trade with me saying that context determines whether the trade is good or bad. Right, like the trade was bad and happened, so now let's discuss what this buyout amount or this insurance payment means or whatever. Like independent of my views as a fan, I still try to draw out the lines for other posters on more "objective" matters, especially when it comes to the finances. Talking about the financial implications of hypothetical moves that never end up coming to pass is one of the things I'm basically known for on ST.

Dex

03-29-2021, 09:23 AM

Spurs actually make a savvy move to bring in a free agent, and there are still a bunch of "yeah but..."s flying around here.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 09:30 AM

So the "Spurs rarely have the competitive advantage" they would've had without the trade. Big whoop.

First, you misquoted me. The Spurs rarely have the ability to offer many times what other teams can offer while also not actually overpaying. That's extremely rare, and not something they're slated to get in the off-season, where every team will have some sort of salary to offer.

Why would the Spurs plan to wait for weeks for a player when many games would have already been played?

Huh? Why would they want to be prepared in case a unique situation falls into their laps? I dunno... maybe look to the examples I pointed out before for how this type of advantage actually has value beyond the current season.

Inserting this magical player into that situation is a disaster if the Spurs kept losing

Obviously no. Calling something as routine as preparedness "magic" doesn't actually change how ordinary and "smart" it tends to be. Luck is supposed to be preparation meeting opportunity, after all.

Again, this is jumping through a lot of hoops with too many factors not being considered.

There's actually not a single hoop jumped. The trade hurt the Spurs' competitive position. That can't be reasoned out of. Arguing that the Spurs are going to be fine without the same position isn't the same thing as arguing that they didn't hurt their position in the first place, and you seem extremely invested in trying to make that so.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 09:34 AM

Spurs actually make a savvy move to bring in a free agent, and there are still a bunch of "yeah but..."s flying around here.

Are there? I like the move quite a bit. I don't know that anyone in this thread has said anything negative about the move.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 09:49 AM

I'm actually not expecting an argument. The trade is bad. That never depended on the context.

So we're just we're looking for people to validate your opinion or find people who think this trade was insignificant and nail it to their head that it was significant. Got it.

I'm not assuming a context, because the context is irrelevant.

I know it's irrelevant in this thread, you've made it clear. Locked house, no key.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 09:54 AM

First, you misquoted me. The Spurs rarely have the ability to offer many times what other teams can offer while also not actually overpaying. That's extremely rare, and not something they're slated to get in the off-season, where every team will have some sort of salary to offer..

I'm sorry the Spurs did not want to have the competitive advantage to pursue a Baynes level player. That sucks so bad.

JuneJive

03-29-2021, 09:55 AM

The Chriss trade was wrong intrinsically. I'm not assuming a context, because the context is irrelevant.

How is context irrelevant? Sure, in a vacuum the trade was wrong if it was a money grab in lieu of advancing basketball matters.

But it was both. They profited and then upgraded the roster.
And if I may assume, the latter very well could not have happened were there not the former.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 10:04 AM

So we're just we're looking for people to validate your opinion or find people who think this trade was insignificant and nail it to their head that it was significant. Got it.

Last time I checked, I did nothing but make a thread with my opinion. I haven't done like you like to do an constantly tag people with your slights or grumble about their posting long after the posting is over. If you don't want to talk about this trade, you certainly don't have to. No one's making you come in here. But if you do, and you want to directly engage what I'm saying, then you have to actually start doing that instead of constantly bringing up irrelevant context and then getting mad that I am willing to tell you that it's irrelevant.

Again, look up the definition of intrinsic.

Seventyniner

03-29-2021, 10:05 AM

How is context irrelevant? Sure, in a vacuum the trade was wrong if it was a money grab in lieu of advancing basketball matters.

But it was both. They profited and then upgraded the roster.
And if I may assume, the latter very well could not have happened were there not the former.

That sums up my stance. We don't know if the Spurs would have made the Chriss move in a vacuum, thus I don't think reading the short- or long-term intentions of ownership and the front office from just that move is possible. They might have already agreed to terms with Dieng when making the trade for Chriss, and certainly had with Aldridge. Taken as a batch the three moves are a clear upgrade.

I will grant that the Chriss trade is a trail of smoke on the horizon. It might not be a fire, but if ownership really does start prioritizing small and short-term financial gains over the health of the basketball side of things, it could turn out to have been the first indicator.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 10:05 AM

I'm sorry the Spurs did not want to have the competitive advantage to pursue a Baynes level player. That sucks so bad.

So says the guy trying to pump up Chriss.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 10:09 AM

Last time I checked, I did nothing but make a thread with my opinion. I haven't done like you like to do an constantly tag people with your slights or grumble about their posting long after the posting is over. If you don't want to talk about this trade, you certainly don't have to. No one's making you come in here. But if you do, and you want to directly engage what I'm saying, then you have to actually start doing that instead of constantly bringing up irrelevant context and then getting mad that I am willing to tell you that it's irrelevant.

Again, look up the definition of intrinsic.

No one is getting mad. I'm putting the same level of effort as you into this thought process, and trust me, it's not very hard. If you want to go into each other's post history like you insistently have, then we can go there.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 10:11 AM

So says the guy trying to pump up Chriss.

The fact that you think it was me "pumping up Chriss" is laughable. I was providing this forum with insight from sources not my own. If that's your definition of me defending the trade, then it says a lot of about how flawed your view is of other people "coping" with the trade.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 10:11 AM

How is context irrelevant? Sure, in a vacuum the trade was wrong if it was a money grab in lieu of advancing basketball matters.

But it was both. They profited and then upgraded the roster.
And if I may assume, the latter very well could not have happened were there not the former.

Okay, signing Dieng did not happen because they traded for Chriss. Those are two separate deals.

You could argue that they got the money to sign Dieng from the Chriss deal, but this leaves out the implication that SA could not afford to keep Aldridge's full salary. Like had they not signed Dieng, bought out Aldridge or traded for Chriss, it would've cost them more money than what they have now. Obviously, LMA was playing poorly enough to where buying him out made sense. But what would the plan be if he was completely down with being a backup and staying with the team? Are you saying the Spurs would've found some way to shed that salary regardless? That doesn't seem reasonable, especially not to the point of being the "realistic" counter. If the Spurs were in a position where their budget was that much lower than their already-committed salary, they would've waived Lyles before the season started.

hombre

03-29-2021, 10:20 AM

And you being a whiny faggot shows your emotional insecurity.

This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.

Sugus

03-29-2021, 10:28 AM

This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.

Nice to see other people waking up to the truth... Both he and his alt can not spend a day without talking about, or fantasizing about, other men, homoerotic tendencies, and spewing out homophobic insults... Frankly, too stereotypically closeted-homo-macho-beta to not be hilarious :lol, but I do hope he finds happiness and realizes what his heart desires sooner than later.

We all deserve to be happy in this life...

RD2191

03-29-2021, 10:32 AM

I have not "tried" to defend the trade. I tried to move on just like I thought you would have already since you said that was the best way forward. I did that by looking at the players we received after the trade, like any basketball fan would. I looked at all possibilities, such as the low chance of keeping Chriss and looking at Austin Spurs players (which you will find in many threads before the trade was my preference in the first place). So if being satisfied with us signing a g league player AND getting a buyout player I wanted since the beginning is "defending the trade" to you...then I don't know what to tell you.

Did GSW do the trade for basketball reasons? I don't believe they've made a salary cutting trade in a long time. Aren't they within playoff reach and wasn't Chriss one of their best players last year? How concerning...

I don't believe in getting caught up in a trade as small as this one and raising our "red alert" security levels when:

1) there's nothing we can do about it.
2) holding your breath for the next move is a painful exercise (even though the next move they did already make should have relieved all worries. They are still focused on the basketball side of things)

You're not on Chinook's level, scrub. Your takes are trash.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 10:33 AM

You're not on Chinook's level, scrub. Your takes are trash.

HEYYYY I missed you RD. Hi pussy, let's party

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 10:35 AM

You're not on Chinook's level, scrub. Your takes are trash.

I've got a special gif for you

https://media.tenor.com/images/a3bdfa77d11263b273c4aa4c573f7184/tenor.gif

Sugus

03-29-2021, 10:41 AM

Okay, signing Dieng did not happen because they traded for Chriss. Those are two separate deals.

You could argue that they got the money to sign Dieng from the Chriss deal, but this leaves out the implication that SA could not afford to keep Aldridge's full salary. Like had they not signed Dieng, bought out Aldridge or traded for Chriss, it would've cost them more money than what they have now. Obviously, LMA was playing poorly enough to where buying him out made sense. But what would the plan be if he was completely down with being a backup and staying with the team? Are you saying the Spurs would've found some way to shed that salary regardless? That doesn't seem reasonable, especially not to the point of being the "realistic" counter. If the Spurs were in a position where their budget was that much lower than their already-committed salary, they would've waived Lyles before the season started.

I'll just respond to this instead of the quote you quoted for me (since it was really long, and the arguments I mainly wanted to make have been put forward by Dejounte and company afterwards).

Chino, take a step back, my guy. You are definitely over-analyzing this. And it's the worst case of over-analysis - baseless one. There is literally no source on any of your conjurations, besides the "logical trail" that you weave, where one conjecture makes the other conjecture sound more reasonable because it "couldn't be any other way". Take this for example:

bviously, LMA was playing poorly enough to where buying him out made sense. But what would the plan be if he was completely down with being a backup and staying with the team? Are you saying the Spurs would've found some way to shed that salary regardless? That doesn't seem reasonable, especially not to the point of being the "realistic" counter.

This is absolute conjecture of the highest order, in order to make your theory the only "correct" or plausible one, by shutting out any others. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the Spurs would've found the way to shed LMA's salary even if he didn't ask to be traded, for two reasons: first, his acceptance of a bench role and eagerness to play into that role would've benefited both the Spurs, and himself, and made him a much more enticing asset to be traded for by contenders looking to bolster up their benches (you can also perfectly argue that LMA asking out publicly significantly reduced his trade value, as we've seen that most contenders that could've traded for him, chose to wait out SA like vultures and get him off a buyout, which wouldn't've been a possibility had LMA not wanted out at all); and second, even if interest in trading for him was low, the Spurs could've easily shipped him off alongside a second or two second round picks, if they truly were in such a dire economical state. I'm absolutely certain that, given a scenario where LMA isn't pouting due to being benched, and actively embraces that role, there's no need to add any picks at all to ship him off, since he'd be looked at as a productive, yet overpaid, player, the likes of which are easily moved around every year (hell, this very season, Morey actually got a positive asset out of dumping Horford of all contracts).

So, there you have it. We can go back and forth on this, and other aristas, all day - because it's baseless speculation at its core. I don't think anyone's so much "defending" the Chriss trade (frankly, I don't give two shits about it right now, especially after getting Dieng), so much as pointing out the flawed assumptions that you take in order to make this post, and try to "remain correct" in your original stance, which IMO hasn't aged as gracefully as you want it to.

There is literally no point in saying the Spurs would be hindered by Chriss' salary in future moves that they could make when, 1) they've already made a pretty huge move after the trade, and weren't hindered by said salary, and 2) we literally do not know whether they want, or care to, make any other moves at all in the first place. This is crying-over-spillt-milk taken to the upteenth... With no other point (as you say, you don't even expect a debate!) other than you saying "no, I'm still right, y'all don't understand!!", which frankly, I think we do... We just disagree, tbh.

Do let me know if I've missed anything, but that seems to be the gist of it.

JuneJive

03-29-2021, 10:41 AM

Chinook

All in all, you pointed out the possibilty that the ownership is meddling in the basketball side of things by prioritizing financial gains.

I say possibility because there is no hard evidence of that, and judging by the subsequent move, it likely is a non-issue.

But, having no definite information means that there is something to keep an eye on.

Sugus

03-29-2021, 10:45 AM

HEYYYY I missed you RD. Hi pussy, let's party

I'd love to know whether there was some sort of recent trigger to RD's homoerotically-influenced nervous breakdown? It's even featuring stalker behavior, really fascinating tbh... Like did it all really start at that trade deadline thread? Was the Spurs' inactivity the "straw on the camel's back", were there previous incidents? I don't think I saw him following you or me around before that... Certainly a case for not-so-serious study :lol

Better prepare some more GIFs before he logs into his alt to talk back and like his own posts :lmao

Chinook

03-29-2021, 10:46 AM

According to this post below, the Spurs came out $1.2M ahead even after waiving Chriss.

Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but to me it looks like the Spurs never really lost a basketball asset because waiving Chriss opened up the roster spot he took up. From my point of view, the Spurs just got gifted $1.2M with no effect on the basketball side of things.

If the Spurs had planned to keep Chriss and save extra money, only abandoning that plan when Dieng agreed to sign here, I can see why that would be worrying. But if the Spurs get a free $1.2M by trading for Chriss and then waiving him, I don't see any cause for alarm if waiving him was the plan all along.

Remember, the alarms were sound before anything about the insurance came out. We all assumed Chriss was going to be waived at the start. The insurance could've made it worse, but it was bad before that.

The roster is still live. Not only is their a spot for a 15th man with Reynolds only a 10-day but maintaining flexibility in the event of another outbreak or just plain old injuries remains an issue. DPEs allow for a team to go over the cap to replace guys, but it doesn't affect the tax line, and thus the Spurs' assumed budget. Salary space is always a basketball asset, with the only exception I guess being the playoffs when salary doesn't really count anymore. That doesn't mean that any loss in salary space cripples a team. That's an unrealistic standard to hold the argument to.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 10:47 AM

I'd love to know whether there was some sort of recent trigger to RD's homoerotically-influenced nervous breakdown? It's even featuring stalker behavior, really fascinating tbh... Like did it all really start at that trade deadline thread? Was the Spurs' inactivity the "straw on the camel's back", were there previous incidents? I don't think I saw him following you or me around before that... Certainly a case for not-so-serious study :lol

Better prepare some more GIFs before he logs into his alt to talk back and like his own posts :lmao

All I know is that it makes my day when RD gives me attention. I love when he replies to my posts. Nothing thrills me on this board than going back and forth with him, tbh

Sugus

03-29-2021, 10:52 AM

And just as an addendum, I'll leave this very interesting post from Spursfanfromafar, which seems relevant to the discussion;

Interesting what John Hollinger had to say about Spurs waiving Aldridge, getting paid to take Chriss, and later release him to make a spot for Dieng:

Three players officially completed buyouts over the weekend. While LaMarcus Aldridge gave back a staggering $7.25 million to the Spurs (which will be “just” $5.8 million in his wallet after factoring in the league’s escrow cut), the pay cuts for Andre Drummond and Gorgui Dieng were more typical. Drummond gave back $794,536 to the Cavs and Dieng returned $699,952 to the Grizzlies; not coincidentally, these are likely the exact amounts of the minimum contracts each will sign upon clearing waivers.

San Antonio gained breathing room for both the Chriss trade and the Dieng signing when Aldridge put 7.25M back on their cap in his buyout. Otherwise, the Spurs would have been over the tax with either move. The Spurs, incidentally, ended up saving money while getting a better player at the same position for their playoff run. Not too shabby.

Basically Hollinger still holds to the $7.25 million theory...

I think, given this information, we can infere the most likely scenario was that the FO saw that the huge amount LMA gave back opened both the possibility of making a profit move, and a roster upgrade; and before you say it, Chino, there's literally no way to know whether the Dieng signing was talked with him beforehand, with how much time in advance, etc, in terms of knowing whether it factored in the Chriss move or not. This could literally be: Spurs get an agreement with Dieng, and knowing how much he was bought out for, know that they'll have money to spare after signing him -> they see there's more unused room on the cap -> Pop or whomever calls Golden State, a known financially-struggling team (at least in terms of luxury tax), to see if any deal can be had -> cue in the Chriss trade.

I guess you can argue the Spurs could've gotten a second rounder or something out of the effort? I don't even know which picks GS could trade, but that would be a fair assessment/criticism. But not the wild speculation about ownership shooting the team in the foot for quick cash or whatever, that's simply unfounded at this point with the evidence we have (and lack).

Chinook

03-29-2021, 10:53 AM

Chinook (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557)

All in all, you pointed out the possibilty that the ownership is meddling in the basketball side of things by prioritizing financial gains.

I say possibility because there is no hard evidence of that, and judging by the subsequent move, it likely is a non-issue.

But, having no definite information means that there is something to keep an eye on.

I'm basically fine with this. But it'd be hard to see how making a deal to give the owners a cash payment is not something the owner has input on. It would be one thing if cash given was added to a team's limit of cash they could pay out. Then you could say they took the cash as a potential basketball asset. As it is, though, that money goes right to the org's profits and thus into the owner's pockets. Even if PATFO gave their bosses money all on their own, that doing so is considered a desirable goal has to come from ownership setting that goal or allowing that goal to exist. Remember, this type of trade isn't something the Spurs have done in decades.

Allan Rowe vs Wade

03-29-2021, 11:03 AM

san antonio spurs had a small slice of cake and ate it

ergo las vegas spurs

mo7888

03-29-2021, 11:13 AM

I've read this thread...and I can't conclude (with the info we have) that the Chriss trade was a bad trade... As close as I can come is that it could have been a bad trade if certain assumptions are applied... if the LMA buyout is as currently reported it looks like the FO got exactly what they wanted and got a little free money to boot... is that absolutely the case? Idk...maybe what's currently reported is wrong... but I need verification on that before I could conclude this was a bad trade.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 11:26 AM

I'll just respond to this instead of the quote you quoted for me (since it was really long, and the arguments I mainly wanted to make have been put forward by Dejounte (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=51342) and company afterwards).

Chino, take a step back, my guy. You are definitely over-analyzing this. And it's the worst case of over-analysis - baseless one. There is literally no source on any of your conjurations, besides the "logical trail" that you weave, where one conjecture makes the other conjecture sound more reasonable because it "couldn't be any other way".

Don't confuse a counter-argument with a constructive. I don't need to have a concrete source for why the "Chriss paid for Dieng" argument, because that argument itself is just a theory built on premises, one of which I challenged in that sequence of texted that was apparently so bad.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume the Spurs would've found the way to shed LMA's salary even if he didn't ask to be traded,

That's not the argument I was making. It's not whether the Spurs could've gotten rid of Aldridge; it's whether they felt like they needed to shed salary in order to stay under budget. If the Spurs set a budget of, say, $131.7 Million rather than the $132.7-Million tax line to the point that they knew they weren't going to be able to keep LMA on his salary for the whole year if they were going to add any money to their books, they could've easily just waived Lyles and pocketed the $4 Million or whatever. Right, like they didn't need to do any buyout or cash-infusion shenanigans to stay within budget. They openly chose to commit to paying more than they had to. Ultimately, all three transactions combined netted the Spurs less money than simply waiving Lyles would have, so the idea that the team NEEDED to get cash for Chriss to pay Dieng is wrong. It's not even just wrong for that, since the Spurs would've paid more for the Iwundo/Melli trade they tried to do before the Chriss trade.

The argument that the Spurs needed the Chriss transaction is not the reasonable interpretation of what happened. It is possible, since we don't know if some event happened that made the Spurs extremely cash poor at the very last second. But that possibility is not likely enough to be the leading theory. It's way more likely that they're just to mostly unrelated transactions, the first to give the owners some money and the second to try to increase the Spurs' chances to make the playoffs.

first, his acceptance of a bench role and eagerness to play into that role would've benefited both the Spurs, and himself, and made him a much more enticing asset to be traded for by contenders looking to bolster up their benches (you can also perfectly argue that LMA asking out publicly significantly reduced his trade value, as we've seen that most contenders that could've traded for him, chose to wait out SA like vultures and get him off a buyout, which wouldn't've been a possibility had LMA not wanted out at all); and second, even if interest in trading for him was low, the Spurs could've easily shipped him off alongside a second or two second round picks, if they truly were in such a dire economical state. I'm absolutely certain that, given a scenario where LMA isn't pouting due to being benched, and actively embraces that role, there's no need to add any picks at all to ship him off, since he'd be looked at as a productive, yet overpaid, player, the likes of which are easily moved around every year (hell, this very season, Morey actually got a positive asset out of dumping Horford of all contracts).

This is just the rest of the first paragraph before I cut it off. I don't actually agree it was easy to move Aldridge. Not may teams had the salary flexibility to take him, especially to give the Spurs salary relief. We still don't even know for sure how much the Spurs saved by waiving him, so we don't know that there was a possible trade out there that would've netted the Spurs more savings. It's also a poor standard to hold the argument to that the Spurs had to be willing to dump a bunch of basketball assets to save any amount of money in order for us to accuse them of having meddling ownership. That's a really extreme position.

So, there you have it. We can go back and forth on this, and other aristas, all day - because it's baseless speculation at its core. I don't think anyone's so much "defending" the Chriss trade (frankly, I don't give two shits about it right now, especially after getting Dieng), so much as pointing out the flawed assumptions that you take in order to make this post, and try to "remain correct" in your original stance, which IMO hasn't aged as gracefully as you want it to.

It's not speculation that the Spurs sold salary space for cash. Me saying that them doing that is intrinsically wrong is not based on a tower of assumptions. Arguing things like the Holts being cash-poor or that the team needed Chriss to pay for Dieng -- those things are based on assumptions.

There is literally no point in saying the Spurs would be hindered by Chriss' salary in future moves that they could make when, 1) they've already made a pretty huge move after the trade, and weren't hindered by said salary, and 2) we literally do not know whether they want, or care to, make any other moves at all in the first place.

I never said the Spurs would be hindered by Chriss salary hold. I did say that losing salary hurt their competitive position. It limits their options and leverage to take advantage of those options, whether they want to take those options or not. It's like if they traded a draft pick for cash and you jumped in here to say "They didn't want to pick anyone anyway." Its like, sure, but that doesn't mean that trading picks for cash is not bad.

This is crying-over-spillt-milk taken to the upteenth... With no other point (as you say, you don't even expect a debate!) other than you saying "no, I'm still right, y'all don't understand!!", which frankly, I think we do... We just disagree, tbh.

I actually legit don't think you do, given that the majority of the word count of your post was dedicated to a point that had nothing to do with what I was saying. Like it came from directly misunderstanding what I said, so to come in here and go, "We do understand" doesn't really work.

timvp

03-29-2021, 11:26 AM

To look into Hollinger's statements a little closer...

While LaMarcus Aldridge gave back a staggering $7.25 million to the Spurs (which will be “just” $5.8 million in his wallet after factoring in the league’s escrow cut)

Hollinger was in an NBA front office not too long ago so his info should be good. Aldridge's buyout math went off track because Woj decided to use a post-escrow number for an unknown reason (no one uses post-escrow numbers, tbh). He also worded it weird.

https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1375208639137468418

That makes it sound like the Spurs paid Aldridge $5.8 million to settle the amount owed to him. That's how Bobby Marks interpreted it...

https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/1375212533133479948

Also, Bobby Marks didn't use post-escrow numbers.

So, back to square one, if the Spurs still owed Aldridge $8.5 million, it's now sounding like Aldridge only asked for $1.25 million more in the buyout, which left the Spurs will $7.25 million. If that's the case, the Spurs could have had ~$6.4 million in salary cap space after the Aldridge buyout and before the Dieng signing.

If you want to translate those numbers to post-escrow, Aldridge was owed $6.8 million and asked for exactly $1 million in the buyout, which left the $5.8 million that Woj referenced. That $1 million is such a round number that now I'm thinking this is what really happened :wow

Pop: "Sorry to see you go, LA. How much do you want in your buyout?"
Aldridge: "Since you guaranteed my contract when you didn't have to, give me a million and we'll call it even."

Chinook

03-29-2021, 11:27 AM

No one is getting mad. I'm putting the same level of effort as you into this thought process, and trust me, it's not very hard. If you want to go into each other's post history like you insistently have, then we can go there.

:rolleyes

You good? You done? Or are you going to keep coming into this thread to talk about how little you care? You've always had thin skin since you've become a regular poster. That's just you. You do a lot of good things, but you spiral into personal grudges and have a hard time letting disagreements go, hence why you're posting basically as much as I am in this thread despite it being my topic and a thread you supposedly don't think matters.

We can keep going on this thread. I think at this point though, you know what I'm saying, but rather than just disagreeing with it, you're letting it break your brain as if it's some ever-shifting Gordian knot when it's just a simple value argument.

1) Trading basketball assets for pure cash is intrinsically bad

2) The Chriss trade was a trade of basketball assets for pure cash

3) Therefore, the Chriss trade is intrinsically bad

So any point that doesn't address 1) or 2) is irrelevant. That's not closed-mindedness. It's how arguments work. We all agree 2) is true. So the only potentially contentious element is 1). A lot of folks don't care about 1). They don't care about having a "moral philosophy" about trades. They don't see the wall between business and production as sacred. I and some others have written a ton of words now laying out why we do think this type of transaction violate the "moral philosophy" of trades and breaches the wall, and why those breaches cause concern. You can disagree with that stance -- and indeed some people have. I have actually not hammered those people for disagreeing with 1) on philosophical grounds or who don't want to engage with the "moral philosophy" at all. All I've said was, "That's cool, this system of arguments will be here if you change your mind."

Chinook

03-29-2021, 11:28 AM

To look into Hollinger's statements a little closer...

Hollinger was in an NBA front office not too long ago so his info should be good. Aldridge's buyout math went off track because Woj decided to use a post-escrow number for an unknown reason (no one uses post-escrow numbers, tbh). He also worded it weird.

https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1375208639137468418

That makes it sound like the Spurs paid Aldridge $5.8 million to settle the amount owed to him. That's how Bobby Marks interpreted it...

https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/1375212533133479948

Also, Bobby Marks didn't use post-escrow numbers.

So, back to square one, if the Spurs still owed Aldridge $8.5 million, it's now sounding like Aldridge only asked for $1.25 million more in the buyout, which left the Spurs will $7.25 million. If that's the case, the Spurs could have had ~$6.4 million in salary cap space after the Aldridge buyout and before the Dieng signing.

If you want to translate those numbers to post-escrow, Aldridge was owed $6.8 million and asked for exactly $1 million in the buyout, which left the $5.8 million that Woj referenced. That $1 million is such a round number that now I'm thinking this is what really happened :wow

Pop: "Sorry to see you go, LA. How much do you want in your buyout?"
Aldridge: "Since you guaranteed my contract when you didn't have to, give me a million and we'll call it even."

I really want to see how many more times you have to edit that thread title.

The implications this is going to have on everything from Dieng's potential deal (not whether it's good but like, what it is) to whether the Spurs can or could scour the international buyout market are just going to stay in flux. It remains possible that having an extra $1.8 Million in salary space could've helped in all of those scenarios, though. But I think Dieng is a good pickup regardless.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 11:34 AM

:rolleyes

You good? You done? Or are you going to keep coming into this thread to talk about how little you care? You've always had thin skin since you've become a regular poster. That's just you. You do a lot of good things, but you spiral into personal grudges and have a hard time letting disagreements go, hence why you're posting basically as much as I am in this thread despite it being my topic and a thread you supposedly don't think matters.

We can keep going on this thread. I think at this point though, you know what I'm saying, but rather than just disagreeing with it, you're letting it break your brain as if it's some ever-shifting Gordian knot when it's just a simple value argument.

1) Trading basketball assets for pure cash is intrinsically bad

2) The Chriss trade was a trade of basketball assets for pure cash

3) Therefore, the Chriss trade is intrinsically bad

So any point that doesn't address 1) or 2) is irrelevant. That's not closed-mindedness. It's how arguments work. We all agree 2) is true. So the only potentially contentious element is 1). A lot of folks don't care about 1). They don't care about having a "moral philosophy" about trades. They don't see the wall between business and production as sacred. I and some others have written a ton of words now laying out why we do think this type of transaction violate the "moral philosophy" of trades and breaches the wall, and why those breaches cause concern. You can disagree with that stance -- and indeed some people have. I have actually not hammered those people for disagreeing with 1) on philosophical grounds or who don't want to engage with the "moral philosophy" at all. All I've said was, "That's cool, this system of arguments will be here if you change your mind."

Again, I'm not the one bringing up post history but since you do we can begin (let me eat lunch first tho). Sounds like I've ruffled your feathers a bit, we've got the Chinook throwing mud version and I like that. This whole shaninigan has really broken your brain. I haven't attempted to cross boundaries here, but here we go.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 11:39 AM

Again, I'm not the one bringing up post history but since you do we can begin (let me eat lunch first tho). Sounds like I've ruffled your feathers a bit, we've got the Chinook throwing mud and I like that. This whole shaninigan has really broken your brain. I haven't attempted to cross boundaries here, but here we go.

You:"Lol, I'm just sitting pretty."

Also you: "I've just waiting by the computer for him to post."

It looks like this thread is going to still have relevance outside of this little back-and-forth. I'm willing to basically to call a truce so the thread doesn't just become a bunch of unrelated quotes from other threads or whatever you're envisioning.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 11:42 AM

You:"Lol, I'm just sitting pretty."

Also you: "I've just waiting by the computer for him to post."

It looks like this thread is going to still have relevance outside of this little back-and-forth. I'm willing to basically to call a truce so the thread doesn't just become a bunch of unrelated quotes from other threads or whatever you're envisioning.

It's a hobby on top of my other hobbies.

No need for unrelated quotes.

Funny how we go from "hey, let me bring up so and so about you from back then and there" to "you're probably gonna bring up unrelated quotes" as if the former wasn't unrelated.

Chinook so feisty. I like it.

The Truth #6

03-29-2021, 11:56 AM

Nice to see other people waking up to the truth... Both he and his alt can not spend a day without talking about, or fantasizing about, other men, homoerotic tendencies, and spewing out homophobic insults... Frankly, too stereotypically closeted-homo-macho-beta to not be hilarious :lol, but I do hope he finds happiness and realizes what his heart desires sooner than later.

We all deserve to be happy in this life...

"He doth protest too much..."

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 12:06 PM

Post #1

So I don't normally make a thread to post my thoughts if they can fit into an existing topic. I think, though, that this is a good time for an exception.

A lot of posters seem to think that Dieng's signing disproved the concern that came from the Chriss trade. This is not true. Most of the "cliff-jumping" started before the news broke that Chriss' insurance payments meant he had to stay on the roster. The points in that thread up to that point about selling salary space and opportunity cost strictly for the owners' profit remain. This is actually pretty obvious when you look at the Dieng signing.

According to timvp (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8), the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. Let's say for argument sake that Dieng's contract is counting for $1 Million flat. That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day. If all the Spurs do is sign 10-days and eventually a guy for the rest of the season, this is enough money. However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. Remember that the Spurs sold $1.8 Million in salary space, not just the remain balance of his contract. If anything, it's almost worse that they sold it for almost a million bucks less than they originally were slated to get because of this waiving.

The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket. Kudos to the Spurs for landing Dieng, and kudos to them for getting LMA to still give back three times as much as he had to (wanted the buyout to be official before mentioning that, lest we find out the amount was even smaller). Without the Chriss trade, this would've been a coup. Rather, if the Chriss trade had included draft compensation like the needed to, it would've been a mega coup.

But as constructed, the Chriss trade looks even worse than it did 24 hours ago. The Spurs damaged their competitive position for no reason now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived). It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day. The Spurs should still be able to get their roster filled. This didn't kill them this year, but it definitely restricted the leeway they have to build the best team they can.

So PATFO and Ownership: Sure, my opinion for them is more hopeful now than it was before. They have enough sway with ownership to be able to talk them out of a bit of cash. That's seriously important when trying to evaluate the state of the Spurs as an organization. Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. However, that this trade ever happened means folks should still be concerned between the relationship between PATFO and this new ownership coalition. This type of trade should've never come up for a team seriously looking to win games. The liquidation efficiency for this move, even had Chriss' full insurance payout occurred, was always bad. There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses. The Chriss trade is the same canary it was on Wednesday, even if the mine hasn't exploded yet.

"According to timvp (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8), the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. " - Conjecture #1, proven to be false later on

"That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day." - Proven false

"However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. " - Assumption #1 that the Spurs didn't review alternatives

"The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket." - Hyperbole #1

"The Spurs damaged their competitive position for no reason" - Hyperbole #2, we've gone over this. Assumes a magical player falls out of a sky and planning around that when the schedule is condensed.

" now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived)." - Conjecture #2, you almost made it here. If somehow you can research deeper into it, kudos to you.

"It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. " - Conjecture #3 - Love the use of the word "lucky" here. Unless you knew what was going behind closed doors, we don't know what confidence level the Spurs had.

"We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day." Conjecture #4 - Good job. You used the word "we don't know". That's a step in the right direction....until you used it as a con to support your line of reasoning.

" Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. " -Conjecture AND hyperbole - We don't know if ownership needs to be "convinced winning matters"

"There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses." -Conjecture #6 - Say that is what capital firms do. There's no proof the Spurs did it for this reason. The trade helps the Warriors more than it does the Spurs. That is an actual fact.

The Truth #6

03-29-2021, 12:08 PM

I will agree with Chinook that the trade was bad. But there are levels to this. Much of the motivation or at least context is unknown as far as I can tell, which tempers any outrage on my part so far. Sacrificing available money under the luxury tax is lame, I agree with that as well. That may be the biggest problem with this trade as far as how it potentially affects the product on the court.

But I will be more concerned if the Holts pursue other actions in the future that begin to suggest they are cash strapped and want to move the team. That's my bigger concern, though ungrounded so far, that the Holts are not invested in the team financially and emotionally, so to speak. The team moving is the doomsday scenario to me as a fan. In that regard I want to be informed. But what if they are doing weasle moves like this to save money so they don't sell? Again, we're mired in hypotheticals without more knowledge and context.

So, let's file this trade the back of our minds and move forward. Because this is such an outlier in the technical sense, the ramifications are unknown. If Chinook or anyone else has chisme on the financial operations that are interesting to note, then I'm intrigued to know about it.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 12:10 PM

It's a hobby on top of my other hobbies.

No need for unrelated quotes.

Funny how we go from "hey, let me bring up so and so about you from back then and there" to "you're probably gonna bring up unrelated quotes" as if the former wasn't unrelated.

Chinook so feisty. I like it.

The former is related, because you're doing to me what you do to a lot of posters. You're an extremely combative poster for a guy who's basically not an edgelord.

What I'm trying to prevent isn't so much you making any personal evaluations of me or my history as much as you spamming the thread with a long series of quotes no one but you cares about. Like I'm willing to own my history as a poster. I've been wrong a lot, and I've been cringe way more than I wish I had been. But what I rarely do is try to drag people into unrelated threads because I am trying to get a dig in. There are posters I disagree with and even posters I don't enjoy conversing with. But I don't go around demanding they get notified whenever I make a comment about them.

Regardless, you see the premises of the argument I've been making. The only valid ways of arguing against the argument is to disprove 1) or 2) or to argue that 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). I don't see any way 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). It's a valid syllogism. The only argument against 2) is the "Chriss paid for Dieng" argument, which I've argued against in good faith, whatever side you take on that. I think there is a philosophical argument against 1), but what a lot of people are doing is trying to twist the absolute, "moralistic" statement I'm making and twisting it into a specific context-dependent sub-statement and then trying to disprove that.

For example:

"The Spurs didn't need that basketball asset." -- Okay, but that doesn't mean that turning in into cash wasn't a bad thing. The very fact that the team sought to do so is what's concerning, not whether the action immediately or noticeably damaged the team.

"It's a pandemic; the Holts might need cash." -- So? Explaining why you did something bad doesn't mean what you did wasn't bad.

"For all we know, it's a one-time thing." -- Let's hope so, but doing a bad thing one time doesn't stop it from being a bad thing.

"I don't care." -- That's cool. This thread will be here if you do decide to care later.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 12:20 PM

The former is related, because you're doing to me what you do to a lot of posters. You're an extremely combative poster for a guy who's basically not an edgelord.

What I'm trying to prevent isn't so much you making any personal evaluations of me or my history as much as you spamming the thread with a long series of quotes no one but you cares about. Like I'm willing to own my history as a poster. I've been wrong a lot, and I've been cringe way more than I wish I had been. But what I rarely do is try to drag people into unrelated threads because I am trying to get a dig in. There are posters I disagree with and even posters I don't enjoy conversing with. But I don't go around demanding they get notified whenever I make a comment about them.

Regardless, you see the premises of the argument I've been making. The only valid ways of arguing against the argument is to disprove 1) or 2) or to argue that 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). I don't see any way 1) and 2) don't lead to 3). It's a valid syllogism. The only argument against 2) is the "Chriss paid for Dieng" argument, which I've argued against in good faith, whatever side you take on that. I think there is a philosophical argument against 1), but what a lot of people are doing is trying to twist the absolute, "moralistic" statement I'm making and twisting it into a specific context-dependent sub-statement and then trying to disprove that.

For example:

"The Spurs didn't need that basketball asset." -- Okay, but that doesn't mean that turning in into cash wasn't a bad thing. The very fact that the team sought to do so is what's concerning, not whether the action immediately or noticeably damaged the team.

"It's a pandemic; the Holts might need cash." -- So? Explaining why you did something bad doesn't mean what you did wasn't bad.

"For all we know, it's a one-time thing." -- Let's hope so, but doing a bad thing one time doesn't stop it from being a bad thing.

"I don't care." -- That's cool. This thread will be here if you do decide to care later.

1) I had no intention of spamming your thread with quotes not from this thread
2) I take pride in being combative. Come at me, bro!
3) You took my digs (or @'s) as personal and not playful jabs. R. DeMurre (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14577) took it a certain way, too. It usually means I like you as a poster, and not anything else. You don't see me @'ing these trolls.

Chinook

03-29-2021, 12:28 PM

Post #1

"According to timvp (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8), the Spurs had about $1.8 Million of cap space after the trade and Aldridge buyout. " - Conjecture #1, proven to be false later on

"That means the team has something like $700k for the final roster spot that Reynolds is currently taking up with his 10-day." - Proven false

"However, if the Spurs want to do a "Hinkie special" and use the MLE to sign a rookie to a long-term deal by giving that player more guaranteed money in this season so they can get multiple non-guaranteed years, they are going to have a harder time doing that. " - Assumption #1 that the Spurs didn't review alternatives

"The Chriss trade was bad. Nothing, from LMA's buyout to Reynold's 10-day to landing Dieng changed that. Fans need to accept that rather than trying to find excuses for the front office. The trade at its best was the owners meddling in basketball operations for a quick buck. At its worst, it's the owners meddling for a quick buck but then relenting after the damage was done and getting back an even smaller drop in the bucket." - Hyperbole #1

"The Spurs damaged their competitive position for no reason" - Hyperbole #2, we've gone over this. Assumes a magical player falls out of a sky and planning around that when the schedule is condensed.

" now that they aren't getting the insurance payments (though are we sure they aren't? The CBA FAQ doesn't seem to say that a player can't be waived)." - Conjecture #2, you almost made it here. If somehow you can research deeper into it, kudos to you.

"It's lucky that they didn't need that extra salary space to win the Dieng sweepstakes -- it certainly could've been a difference-maker to be able to give him three or four times what other teams could. " - Conjecture #3 - Love the use of the word "lucky" here. Unless you knew what was going behind closed doors, we don't know what confidence level the Spurs had.

"We don't know if it will affect their ability to get an optimal deal with Reynolds or Renfro or anyone else -- including perhaps a young player who gets waived unexpectedly ala Jimmer Freddette back in the day." Conjecture #4 - Good job. You used the word "we don't know". That's a step in the right direction....until you used it as a con to support your line of reasoning.

" Their inability to negotiate any basketball assets is disheartening, but if they're still going to be able to convince ownership that winning games matters, we don't yet have a reason to believe that this upcoming summer will be terrible. " -Conjecture AND hyperbole - We don't know if ownership needs to be "convinced winning matters"

"There's no reason to believe that this was a complete one-off impulse by ownership. Liquidating assets for higher dividends is what capital firms do. They aren't interested in long-term growth. Even if the Holts believe in the Spurs as a culture and service to their fans, they will face increasing pressure from their cash-rich minority partners to make money. Without an obvious contender to market, the fastest way to increase profit is by reducing expenses." -Conjecture #6 - Say that is what capital firms do. There's no proof the Spurs did it for this reason. The trade helps the Warriors more than it does the Spurs. That is an actual fact.

A lot of this is you misusing the terms conjecture and hyperbole, like a lot. Like I was about half-way through a line-by-line and I just stopped. This is just a really bad sinkhole that comes from you trying to scattershot arguments and then puffing up when I'm like, "that's just random shrapnel".

Like you didn't quote this part:

The Spurs should still be able to get their roster filled. This didn't kill them this year, but it definitely restricted the leeway they have to build the best team they can.

That's directly saying that SA is going to be able to sign guys regardless. Therefore, patting yourself on the back that the Spurs signed guys is sort of weird.

You also sometimes accuse me of saying the opposite of what I'm saying? Like, that I didn't say that capital firms do, while quoting me saying that's what capital firms do.

It's just meh, man. Complete filler.

Dejounte

03-29-2021, 12:30 PM

A lot of this is you misusing the terms conjecture and hyperbole, like a lot. Like I was about half-way through a line-by-line and I just stopped. This is just a really bad sinkhole that comes from you trying to scattershot arguments and then puffing up when I'm like, "that's just random shrapnel".

Like you didn't quote this part:

That's directly saying that SA is going to be able to sign guys regardless. Therefore, patting yourself on the back that the Spurs signed guys is sort of weird.

You also sometimes accuse me of saying the opposite of what I'm saying? Like, that I didn't say that capital firms do, while quoting me saying that's what capital firms do.

It's just meh, man. Complete filler.

Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information

I mean, it's alright if you're too lazy to actually come back with a real rebuttal. No need to disguise it with another personal dig. Is this a part of your schtick now?

Chinook

03-29-2021, 12:33 PM

1) I had no intention of spamming your thread with quotes not from this thread
2) I take pride in being combative. Come at me, bro!
3) You took my digs (or @'s) as personal and not playful jabs. R. DeMurre (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14577) took it a certain way, too. It usually means I like you as a poster, and not anything else. You don't see me @'ing these trolls.

Man, basically, it's cool. I don't like that mentions are in a separate place than quotes. It makes it annoying to look at them. So when they're from a topic I wasn't trying to join I'm like, "Ugh, what is this? Do I have to reply?" As I've said, you've been a net-plus to the board. But like eventually we reach a point of consensus or detente, you know?

Chinook

03-29-2021, 12:58 PM

Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information

I mean, it's alright if you're too lazy to actually come back with a real rebuttal. No need to disguise it with another personal dig. Is this a part of your schtick now?

Ugh, no. Like it's not a conjecture on my part that timvp said the Spurs had that much space. That's a statement of fact. Then using that statement of fact I used rough math to paint a picture of what the Spurs' financial situation would be, (Which is something that's basically expected of it, to the point that folks with tag me to ask me to do it.) You flagging it as a conjecture implied to me that you saw it as a pillar to my argument rather than an avenue to explore the argument. It's in the same way that the "Chriss paid for Dieng" rationale is completely dependent on Dieng being a min deal.

Maybe I made a couple of bad assumptions for why you were flagging certain sentences. I figured you were flagging those things as a way of showing why my argument is weak, so I was more saying that you're applying those labels to situations where it doesn't really make sense to.

RD2191

03-29-2021, 01:26 PM

RD2191

03-29-2021, 01:27 PM

This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.

All I know is that it makes my day when RD gives me attention. I love when he replies to my posts. Nothing thrills me on this board than going back and forth with him, tbh
https://media.tenor.com/images/3240b08b8c1d722625dfb9e5d73b7b11/tenor.gif

weeks

03-29-2021, 01:32 PM

Adderall: the thread

hombre

03-29-2021, 01:33 PM

Look at these two faggots blowing each other online. Please keep me out of your homoerotic fantasies, thanks.

https://www.livescience.com/52146-homophobia-personality-traits.html

You're overacting, real straight men don't behave like you, we're not threatened by the gays. Seek help, you could be out dating men and free from all your inner conflict and public anger.

RD2191

03-29-2021, 01:43 PM

JeffDuncan

03-29-2021, 05:17 PM

...

1) Trading basketball assets for pure cash is intrinsically bad
...

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

In the Chriss deal, the Spurs received a liability, the Chriss contract, and they also received an asset, some cash. The asset the Spurs received exceeded the liability, producing a net gain, and making the deal a good business move.

Coach Pop is also the President of Basketball Operations. He has supervision of team finances. Why do people imagine ownership involvement in the Chriss deal? That's doubtful. Pop has authority to do a deal like that himself.

Pop and Kerr talked, Kerr wanted to move the Chriss contract, he offered Pop a way to do that so the Spurs would come out ahead, and Pop agreed to it. There is no reason to consult ownership on such a thing.

KingKev

03-29-2021, 05:31 PM

Chinook

03-29-2021, 05:51 PM

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

Um... So you start off by trying to correct me by saying teams trade liabilities, as if they don't trade assets. Then you say two lines latter that the Spurs received an asset. So basketball teams DO trade assets along with liabilities. Like if you're actually just trying to say that Chriss' contract was a liability, like duh. We all know that. It's not just a financial liability, but it's a basketball liability.

The asset the Spurs traded was salary space. Like obviously, the Warriors didn't just trade away things. They traded for something was salary relief and roster flexibility in the form of a trade exception being created as a result of the deal. The Spurs traded an asset for cash. Yes, they traded for a liability as well, but no one was disputing that.

Of course, cash isn't actually a basketball asset for reasons we've talked about many times already in this thread and others. Certainly, you can disagree with that, but it's weird that you thought no one considered it? Cash received doesn't stay in some account on a team's NBA ledger for them to use in a different trade. It goes into the owners' pockets, and the owners can decide to subsequently pay for something else out of their pockets later. To a FO completely concerned only with basketball performance and without the need to worry at all about owner's profits, the cash would be meaningless.

Sugus

03-29-2021, 05:52 PM

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

In the Chriss deal, the Spurs received a liability, the Chriss contract, and they also received an asset, some cash. The asset the Spurs received exceeded the liability, producing a net gain, and making the deal a good business move.

Coach Pop is also the President of Basketball Operations. He has supervision of team finances. Why do people imagine ownership involvement in the Chriss deal? That's doubtful. Pop has authority to do a deal like that himself.

Pop and Kerr talked, Kerr wanted to move the Chriss contract, he offered Pop a way to do that so the Spurs would come out ahead, and Pop agreed to it. There is no reason to consult ownership on such a thing.

Phew, thanks, you saved me some writing (and God knows this thread lacks everything BUT writing...).

It's incredibly close-minded, and surprising for a subject so insanely dissected (I seriously doubt even Pop/the FO gave this as much thought as Chino has :lol), to take off from such a flawed premise. And this is exactly why I was telling Chino that it's not that we "don't understand" how "bad" the trade was - we just disagree that it's some terrible error bound to affect forever the perception of other moves by the FO.

Not only, as you point out, was the trade not "basketball assets for pure cash", it ignores all other context as to why the Spurs might've done the trade in the first place. Strengthening their business relationship with Golden State by taking on the liability is the obvious one, and very underrated ITT, especially given how multiple FOs are reluctant to trade with the Spurs and "help them back to the top"; getting a good look at an intriguing prospect in Chriss is another one (he's free to rehab using SanAn's facilities, as far as I'm aware, and that's important in building up a relationship that might sway him to sign here in the future (whether Chino thinks we should or shouldn't sign him is irrelevant to this point)); lastly, and surprisingly I've seen NOBODY mention this before: it sets a precedent for the Spurs being a team that's willing to take on bad contracts, in exchange for something. Yes, it's "pure cash" this time, but it doesn't have to be so in the future, and showing as an organization that you're willing to make those sorts of moves, can open up a lot of doors in the future, especially in a VERY LIKELY scenario where the Spurs have $50m+ of cap space but not a good FA to dump it to. Taking on bad contracts like Chriss is certainly a move the FO could repeat in the future, hopefully in exchange for unprotected picks or whatever, it doesn't matter right now.

So that's a precedent I'd be willing to get behind that has been set by this Chriss trade. Wouldn't you agree, Chinook (of course you won't, I want to know why)?

Sugus

03-29-2021, 05:56 PM

https://www.livescience.com/52146-homophobia-personality-traits.html

You're overacting, real straight men don't behave like you, we're not threatened by the gays. Seek help, you could be out dating men and free from all your inner conflict and public anger.

Truth nukes, as my guy likes to say :lol

Lmfao at how spot-on was that; where is this guy from that it's normal for totally-straight-bruh guys to constantly have to call other men gay/faggots/whatever homophobic slurs in order to keep up the masculine appearance and persona? Absolutely reeks of insecurity and a low self-image, necessitating putting others down to his level (not surprising he turned out to be an online troll, the most worthless possible member of a society). Hope he realizes who he really is some day, and lives a happy life, tbh...

Chinook

03-29-2021, 05:59 PM

Phew, thanks, you saved me some writing (and God knows this thread lacks everything BUT writing...).

It's incredibly close-minded, and surprising for a subject so insanely dissected (I seriously doubt even Pop/the FO gave this as much thought as Chino has :lol), to take off from such a flawed premise. And this is exactly why I was telling Chino that it's not that we "don't understand" how "bad" the trade was - we just disagree that it's some terrible error bound to affect forever the perception of other moves by the FO.

Not only, as you point out, was the trade not "basketball assets for pure cash", it ignores all other context as to why the Spurs might've done the trade in the first place. Strengthening their business relationship with Golden State by taking on the liability is the obvious one, and very underrated ITT, especially given how multiple FOs are reluctant to trade with the Spurs and "help them back to the top"; getting a good look at an intriguing prospect in Chriss is another one (he's free to rehab using SanAn's facilities, as far as I'm aware, and that's important in building up a relationship that might sway him to sign here in the future (whether Chino thinks we should or shouldn't sign him is irrelevant to this point)); lastly, and surprisingly I've seen NOBODY mention this before: it sets a precedent for the Spurs being a team that's willing to take on bad contracts, in exchange for something. Yes, it's "pure cash" this time, but it doesn't have to be so in the future, and showing as an organization that you're willing to make those sorts of moves, can open up a lot of doors in the future, especially in a VERY LIKELY scenario where the Spurs have $50m+ of cap space but not a good FA to dump it to. Taking on bad contracts like Chriss is certainly a move the FO could repeat in the future, hopefully in exchange for unprotected picks or whatever, it doesn't matter right now.

So that's a precedent I'd be willing to get behind that has been set by this Chriss trade. Wouldn't you agree, Chinook (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557) (of course you won't, I want to know why)?

Ugh, so no. Cash isn't a basketball asset. Unprotected picks are basketball assets. This is why I question you saying you understand. Trading one basketball asset for another is literally what trades are for. It feels like you're trolling me. I've said multiple times that it would've been great had the Spurs gotten some actual basketball compensation for the trade.

As far as relationships go, that's so weak. You can basically say every trade strengthens ties or whatever. Most teams don't need to be bros in order to do mutually beneficial deals. Certainly, familiarity can sometimes help, but GS and SA were already plenty close before this deal. The Spurs don't have to go around paying teams to like them.

Sugus

03-29-2021, 06:17 PM

Ugh, so no. Cash isn't a basketball asset. Unprotected picks are basketball assets. This is why I question you saying you understand. Trading one basketball asset for another is literally what trades are for. It feels like you're trolling me. I've said multiple times that it would've been great had the Spurs gotten some actual basketball compensation for the trade.

As far as relationships go, that's so weak. You can basically say every trade strengthens ties or whatever. Most teams don't need to be bros in order to do mutually beneficial deals. Certainly, familiarity can sometimes help, but GS and SA were already plenty close before this deal. The Spurs don't have to go around paying teams to like them.

Damn, I was just done reading your other reply, I would've worded this second one way differently had I not jumped the gun.

Again, and yes, I completely understand the point you make, I'm not trolling you. I simply disagree with you. I've told you in that quote, three things the Spurs got out of the trade, that weren't explicitly enclosed in "straight cash". You saying the relationship stuff is "that's so weak" is hardly a counter-argument; you can think it's strong or weak or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that the Spurs did do the Warriors a solid, and can perfectly expect both FO's relationships to strengthen more than they were previously (and I would add, the Spurs could expect to have a favor made for them in the future of this kind, but that'd definitely fall within speculation, even though I think it's obvious and yet you've completely missed it in your extensive analysis). It's not that every trade strengthens relationships, because that's obviously untrue: but a trade of this specific circumstances, when one team has a vested interest in getting rid of another player and another team facilitates it, definitely isn't like "any trade", and has special context that should be taken into account. I really doubt, for example, that the Spurs' FO would've pulled this move to take in a player of the Knicks' roster (despite the fact that, if they were as cash-strapped as your interpretation of this move suggests, they should have no problems taking on the Knicks' trash).

Chriss being able to rehab here is another one, which you've missed entirely and also in your reply. I sincerely don't know what's up with Chriss, if he ever even flew down to SanAn, but the fact remains that as a player traded to SA, he's free and able to use our installations to aid his recovery, like for example Boogie did last season after tearing his what, ACL? MCL? I don't even remember. Even if Chriss doesn't end up staying in SA, it gives Pop and the medical staff a chance to have a close look at him, see how the rehab goes, and then determine whether he'd be worth throwing an offer towards. This also doesn't fall within the "straight cash" limitation of your original premise, yet is a definitive (well, to be confirmed I guess) plus of the trade. Still think I'm trolling?

And lastly, another point you failed to address - the presentation of the Spurs as a team willing to integrate players into their cap space. You only talked about one edge of this two-edged sword, the negative - the Spurs are effectively limited by Chriss' cap hold in their future moves for the season. I. Get. That. What I don't get is why you'd ignore the other side: the GM's of the NBA could be more willing to make offers to SA involving shipping out negative contracts, in exchange for assets. I certainly hope the "asset" won't be cash every time, and you could expect so too (or maybe not, considering this recent huge distrust in the FO). So, in a scenario where the Spurs think they won't have to make further moves after signing Dieng (or, as timvp's post implies, a scenario where they know they'd have room to make the moves they plan on doing and take on Chriss, which is another scenario you haven't/won't explore), it makes sense to let other teams know they're willing to strike those deals. Especially when, again, the Spurs will have upwards of $50M spending money this off-season, with no marquee FA's to realistically go after.

So, there you go. If you still think I don't understand, I don't know what to tell you. You base your entire post off one premise, and I'm explaining to you why I disagree with said premise. Whether you think these points are "strong" or "weak" is irrelevant; they're here to present a counter-argument to your absolutist way of constructing this thread. Peace :)

E: and btw, it's ok if you simply disagree, you don't have to write as much as I did for it. I just see you kind of ignoring or dismissing any point that's alternative to the reality that you believe to be factual, and naturally want to counter-argue. At this point, I'm fucking tired of Marquesse Chriss, and he hasn't even played one minute for the Spurs :lol