Spurs Might Be Worst Non-Tanking Team Currently And Next Season

[TD 21]

Let's face it, they only backed into the play-in because they had built up enough of an early lead courtesy of a weak schedule and rare clutch time luck that in conjunction with their would-be competitors tanking, led to them running out of time to complete what was otherwise inevitably going to be an embarrassing collapse.

So forget what the standings or even point differential (in some cases) say: How many teams are they really better than? Probably five, with only the first not tanking (higher ceiling offensive players and a likely higher incoming pick could change that though): Cavaliers, Magic, Pistons, Thunder, Rockets.

People will debate some combination of Wizards, Pacers, Hornets, Bulls, Raptors, Warriors, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Kings, Timberwolves, but at the very least they all have higher ceilings.

[Dejounte]

Situation faced. Now what? Petition? Boycott?

[timvp]

The Spurs have $50 million in cap room, all their first round picks, multiple up-and-coming players and no bad contracts. Break out the shower rods, this is unbearable :cry

[Floyd Pacquiao]

The Spurs have $50 million in cap room, all their first round picks, multiple up-and-coming players and no bad contracts. Break out the shower rods, this is unbearable :cry
We’ll be using those shower rods when the spurs use that cap space to resign _eRozan

[cjw]

The Spurs are 25th in the league at 16-22 in games that are within five in the last five minutes. And 26th at 12-19 in games within three in the last three minutes. That hardly qualifies as getting lucky in the clutch.

On the “easy schedule”, I don’t know what you’re taking about. Every team in the west played the exact same schedule. One anecdote, the Spurs got the Lakers 3x early in the season before Lebron and Davis were hurt. Other teams got luckier. In any given year, some teams will have more luck or less luck. Nothing points to the Spurs having more luck this time around.

[TD 21]

The Spurs have $50 million in cap room, all their first round picks, multiple up-and-coming players and no bad contracts. Break out the shower rods, this is unbearable :cry

- No one of significance is coming here and they won't use it as a dumping ground for dead money in order to extract draft capital, so enjoy Markkanen and Burks or whatever.

- Great, another late lottery pick to add to their collection of role players who play like it's '01! Then a projected mid lottery pick next season!!

- Not a single foundational piece and no fan should care about their cap space unless it pertains to markedly upgrading their situation, something theirs doesn't project to do.

- Translation: They won 5 championships in a small market, so I don't care what they do for the rest of my life, I'll defend them to the death.



The Spurs are 25th in the league at 16-22 in games that are within five in the last five minutes. And 26th at 12-19 in games within three in the last three minutes. That hardly qualifies as getting lucky in the clutch.


On the “easy schedule”, I don’t know what you’re taking about. Every team in the west played the exact same schedule. One anecdote, the Spurs got the Lakers 3x early in the season before Lebron and Davis were hurt. Other teams got luckier. In any given year, some teams will have more luck or less luck. Nothing points to the Spurs having more luck this time around.

The operative word in both cases was early, which is why they had an inflated record relative to their point differential.

[davi78239]

The Spurs have $50 million in cap room, all their first round picks, multiple up-and-coming players and no bad contracts. Break out the shower rods, this is unbearable :cry

I’ll be very curious to see how that 50 mil will be used. I still don’t see top FA wanting to come here tbh. Wasn’t Aldridge recently the last one??

[timvp]

- No one of significance is coming here and they won't use it as a dumping ground for dead money in order to extract draft capital, so enjoy Markkanen and Burks or whatever.

- Great, another late lottery pick to add to their collection of role players who play like it's '01! Then a projected mid lottery pick next season!!

- Not a single foundational piece and no fan should care about their cap space unless it pertains to markedly upgrading their situation, something theirs doesn't project to do.

- Translation: They won 5 championships in a small market, so I don't care what they do for the rest of my life, I'll defend them to the death.




The operative word in both cases was early, which is why they had an inflated record relative to their point differential.

This guy :lmao

Miserable during the Duncan years. Now miserable based on his own miserable outlook.

:lol @ "nothing can be considered a positive because I think everything will end up bad"

[timvp]

The Spurs are 25th in the league at 16-22 in games that are within five in the last five minutes. And 26th at 12-19 in games within three in the last three minutes. That hardly qualifies as getting lucky in the clutch.

On the “easy schedule”, I don’t know what you’re taking about. Every team in the west played the exact same schedule. One anecdote, the Spurs got the Lakers 3x early in the season before Lebron and Davis were hurt. Other teams got luckier. In any given year, some teams will have more luck or less luck. Nothing points to the Spurs having more luck this time around.

Hey now, this thread is for miserable projections and unproveable anecdotes, not logic and facts.

[TD 21]

This is quite possibly the worst situation in the league, a sizable portion of that is self inflicted (from the Scumbag debacle to them actively avoiding modernizing their style or increasing their odds of lucking into a foundational player) and you brainwashed apologists continue to make tired excuses. :wakeup



This guy :lmao

Miserable during the Duncan years. Now miserable based on his own miserable outlook.

:lol @ "nothing can be considered a positive because I think everything will end up bad"

Ah, it's ad homenim time already, aka you have no credible retort to anything I say.

Your lose, old man. Now go finish up your grades and worship at PATFO's altar before bed.

[Russ]

Let's face it, they only backed into the play-in because they had built up enough of an early lead courtesy of a weak schedule and rare clutch time luck that in conjunction with their would-be competitors tanking, led to them running out of time to complete what was otherwise inevitably going to be an embarrassing collapse.

So forget what the standings or even point differential (in some cases) say: How many teams are they really better than? Probably five, with only the first not tanking (higher ceiling offensive players and a likely higher incoming pick could change that though): Cavaliers, Magic, Pistons, Thunder, Rockets.

People will debate some combination of Wizards, Pacers, Hornets, Bulls, Raptors, Warriors, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Kings, Timberwolves, but at the very least they all have higher ceilings.

This Spurs team looks to have a decent future (maybe better).

Dejuante, Keldon, and White are a pretty good young core. And Walker may be at least a sparkplug-type player.

Poertl has value, a good situational option at the very least.

Samanic, Tre Jones and even Weatherspoon may step up.

What despairing fans always forget is that young players get better over time. They just do. Even if you do nothing else but just let them grow.

Instead we throw up our hands and say, "I've already seen DJ, Keldon and White play together."

You just can't say that at this point.

The first year Steph Curry and Klay Thompson played together at GS they went 23-43. (And Curry was already 24, considered by some a "reach" where he was drafted, and Klay was already 22.) But nobody gave up.

As we speak, DJ is 24 and Keldon is 21 and the Spurs are in a play-in game.

(And yes I realize you can't compare DJ and Keldon to Curry and Klay, you certainly can't -- at least not with the advantage of the hindsight that we all so unconsciously and sublimely employ.)

[Mr. Body]

They had a brutal second half of the season, lost momentum during the COVID lull, and their best player cannot stay healthy. Yes, Derrick White is the most important player on the Spurs.

All told, it was a rough year but they did as well as they could.

[Dex]

Spurs actually have a chance at the playoffs (albeit small) thanks to the play-in tournament...while still managing to maintain a decent draft position and chance to acquire another great player. This is a win-win in my book.

Anyone who thinks the Spurs are going to go hard-tank under Pop needs to have their head examined. Otherwise, this is pretty much the best case scenario for a soft-tank.

For everyone who thinks we should full out tank and go for a top 3 pick...tell me how that has worked out for anyone else in the last 5 years. You are asking for a decade of mediocrity if you go down that road, and this forum would implode upon itself.

[SpursDynasty85]

Actually we are right where we planned as a soft transition (rebuild).

[Rummpd]

This is quite possibly the worst situation in the league, a sizable portion of that is self inflicted (from the Scumbag debacle to them actively avoiding modernizing their style or increasing their odds of lucking into a foundational player) and you brainwashed apologists continue to make tired excuses. :wakeup

OP is right


Ah, it's ad homenim time already, aka you have no credible retort to anything I say.

Your lose, old man. Now go finish up your grades and worship at PATFO's altar before bed.

[PhantomDashCam]

Looking forward to the next thread that emerges in this series.
One just isn't enough to contain the necessary intel. for the prognostication of this team.

My suggestions, "Trade 'em all, Burn it down, Relocate..." or "Worst species at sport in the known universe (sans the Kings as they will always be bad because Doncic miss so they don't count)".

The season is still going when many predicted it to have ended hours ago... Let's have some patience y'all.

[Sugus]

:cry :cry when ever will Luck shine upon the Spurs again :cry :cry

[offset formation]

Let's face it, they only backed into the play-in because they had built up enough of an early lead courtesy of a weak schedule and rare clutch time luck that in conjunction with their would-be competitors tanking, led to them running out of time to complete what was otherwise inevitably going to be an embarrassing collapse.

So forget what the standings or even point differential (in some cases) say: How many teams are they really better than? Probably five, with only the first not tanking (higher ceiling offensive players and a likely higher incoming pick could change that though): Cavaliers, Magic, Pistons, Thunder, Rockets.

People will debate some combination of Wizards, Pacers, Hornets, Bulls, Raptors, Warriors, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Kings, Timberwolves, but at the very least they all have higher ceilings.

Thunder curb stomped us twice. We suck.

[SURGE]

SPURS will be fine they just need to let Patty n Rudy go look for a trade for DeRozan or sign to a team friendly deal play Luka n Vasell more next year covid really hurt this team this year GOD willing next season that won’t be a factor https://youtu.be/37_M8BdBHYs

[SAGirl]

Well, unless there's growth and improvement in the shooting department... they will go from non-tanking, to unwilling but now tanking.

[daslicer]

Well, unless there's growth and improvement in the shooting department... they will go from non-tanking, to unwilling but now tanking.

They are on the trajectory of being the Kemba Walker Hornets. They will keep trying every year to win with what they have and add mediocre free agents to the roster in hopes things will get better. They will get the same results every year which is either barely getting in as a 8th seed or missing barely as a 10 or 11th seed. Then get a useless lottery pick that will result in just a decent to solid player but not a star. We will see this pattern for a while.

[SAGirl]

They are on the trajectory of being the Kemba Walker Hornets. They will keep trying every year to win with what they have and add mediocre free agents to the roster in hopes things will get better. They will get the same results every year which is either barely getting in as a 8th seed or missing barely as a 10 or 11th seed. Then get a useless lottery pick that will result in just a decent to solid player but not a star. We will see this pattern for a while.
I wonder if they have any youngster that is as good as Kemba was on those Hornets teams. I didn't watch them tbh, but I am guessing they don't. I like some of their players, but I tend to think they don't have one youngster who is that good.

[intlspurshk]

This is a good year to tank but SPURS waste this chance. Don't know whether there are any chances to have another good draft in coming years.

[LeGiannis]

The Spurs have $50 million in cap room, all their first round picks, multiple up-and-coming players and no bad contracts. Break out the shower rods, this is unbearable :cry

Cap room doesnt mean much for a small-market team like the Spurs. Superstars dont want to play in small markets like San Antonio. Second-tier stars will only play there if you overpay them. Your only hope is to draft a superstar which is very difficult.

[itzsoweezee]

They threw away three years that could have been used to rebuild and acquire legitimate assets. Now they are at least 3 years away from being a respectable team again, with a roster full of role players and cap room that is basically worthless on a small market team.

The level of incompetence is amazing. They should go all in on their dumbassery and throw $20M+ at Derozan in the offseason.

[Chinook]

Again, a lot of folks salivate over what Memphis did, and they only fully tanked one year. They've basically been a win-now club for a decade and seem not to be too hurt by them waiting or sitting on the treadmill. Would I trade three years of competing for the playoffs for tanking years on the hope they draft stars? No. Obviously no. Not a single poster has really shown that tanking is a reliable way to build a contender anyway, let alone the most reliable way.

[objective]

Are the people counting on $50 million in capspace ignoring the huge risk of a Patty Mills charity deal for big money? Like a 3/30 to 'show the young ones how it's done' while he's overplayed and ineffective?

[objective]

So forget what the standings or even point differential (in some cases) say: How many teams are they really better than? Probably five, with only the first not tanking (higher ceiling offensive players and a likely higher incoming pick could change that though): Cavaliers, Magic, Pistons, Thunder, Rockets.

People will debate some combination of Wizards, Pacers, Hornets, Bulls, Raptors, Warriors, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Kings, Timberwolves, but at the very least they all have higher ceilings.

I'm guessing not too many of the optimists will even answer the bolded.

FWIW, I think the Spurs biggest and addressable issue is coaching. Father Time is undefeated and the amateur hour no experience assistants can't patch up the holes.

Well coached they have a quite a bit of untapped potential as far as grinding out some wins and being a bigger threat to make the playoffs. But it would mean not playing guys who are automatic runs for the other team while also not doing the headgame shuffle with the young players. Typically that's meant that as soon as a player succeeds with a massive 'break-out' game, the powers that be praise them in the postgame, then bury them for a week or two to mess with their heads and teach them a lesson.

Head messed with, confidence deflated, swag swiped.

Because without superstars like the big 3 to be dependable difference makers, they have to win a the margins. Before they could shoot themselves in the foot and do all kinds of dumb stuff but still have a good chance to win because Duncan or Manu could still pull it out. Now they don't have that so the decision making becomes much more key and crippling when poor decisions are made.

[rankingtear]

I'm guessing not too many of the optimists will even answer the bolded.

FWIW, I think the Spurs biggest and addressable issue is coaching. Father Time is undefeated and the amateur hour no experience assistants can't patch up the holes.

Well coached they have a quite a bit of untapped potential as far as grinding out some wins and being a bigger threat to make the playoffs. But it would mean not playing guys who are automatic runs for the other team while also not doing the headgame shuffle with the young players. Typically that's meant that as soon as a player succeeds with a massive 'break-out' game, the powers that be praise them in the postgame, then bury them for a week or two to mess with their heads and teach them a lesson.

Head messed with, confidence deflated, swag swiped.

Because without superstars like the big 3 to be dependable difference makers, they have to win a the margins. Before they could shoot themselves in the foot and do all kinds of dumb stuff but still have a good chance to win because Duncan or Manu could still pull it out. Now they don't have that so the decision making becomes much more key and crippling when poor decisions are made.

I have been playing fantasy basketball for a while. These "break-out games" happen quit a lot and don't mean anything. Players don't jump rotations because of 1 good game not even a weeks worth of good production.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

OP called the Duncan-Manu-TP Spurs 'gutless worms' https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177840&

Now he's crying they're not contenders a couple of years after 3 hall of famers retired. Imagine what he and the like would be saying in year 3 of being the Timberwolves.

As for using the cap space for absorbing dead money and picks - take a look at the actual contracts - there are very few players that teams would dump. If the Spurs decide to blow it up their best assets will be their own picks, not the late 1sts they'd acquire from other teams.

[rankingtear]

They are on the trajectory of being the Kemba Walker Hornets. They will keep trying every year to win with what they have and add mediocre free agents to the roster in hopes things will get better. They will get the same results every year which is either barely getting in as a 8th seed or missing barely as a 10 or 11th seed. Then get a useless lottery pick that will result in just a decent to solid player but not a star. We will see this pattern for a while.

We are closer to UTA competency in the Draft / Player Development than CHA. Kemba / Batum making max money is not comparable to DJ / White making sixth man money.

[objective]

I have been playing fantasy basketball for a while. These "break-out games" happen quit a lot and don't mean anything. Players don't jump rotations because of 1 good game not even a weeks worth of good production.

I put break-out in quotes on purpose. The phrase is tossed around like it means superstardom, that's not what I'm using it for, or rather, I'm pointing out that good production can be perceived as 'break-out'.

And it's not as simple as jumping rotations. I mean players who play a small role for a few games, then have their great game, then they disappear from the small role they had before the big game. At least that's sure what it feels like.

[objective]

What's a realistic offseason for the Spurs?

Here's one, and I wonder how people would rank that team in the west.

Lose DeRozan, Gay and Lyles.

Sign Markkanen, re-sign Mills and Dieng for a total of $40 million. Maybe Bates-Diop fits in that number. Keep $10 million free to poke around the edges.

Draft a guy who won't play the first year.

Is that team that competitive in the West?

Poeltl-Markannen-Johnson-White-Murray
with
Dieng, Samanic, Vassell, Walker, Mills

and Eubanks, Draft pick, and Tre Jones rounding out the active roster

I don't know if that team is much better at all really

Then there won't be much more caproom to be had in the years after.

Just one scenario, but things can go awry. This front office will still be paying DeMarre Carroll 1.2 million next season.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Poeltl-Markannen-Johnson-White-Murray
with
Dieng, Samanic, Vassell, Walker, Mills

and Eubanks, Draft pick, and Tre Jones rounding out the active roster

I don't know if that team is much better at all really


Better? This is a 20 win team.

[tim_duncan_fan]

What's a realistic offseason for the Spurs?

Here's one, and I wonder how people would rank that team in the west.

Lose DeRozan, Gay and Lyles.

Sign Markkanen, re-sign Mills and Dieng for a total of $40 million. Maybe Bates-Diop fits in that number. Keep $10 million free to poke around the edges.

Draft a guy who won't play the first year.

Is that team that competitive in the West?

Poeltl-Markannen-Johnson-White-Murray
with
Dieng, Samanic, Vassell, Walker, Mills

and Eubanks, Draft pick, and Tre Jones rounding out the active roster

I don't know if that team is much better at all really

Then there won't be much more caproom to be had in the years after.

Just one scenario, but things can go awry. This front office will still be paying DeMarre Carroll 1.2 million next season.


Better? This is a 20 win team.



It's better in the sense that we won't needlessly win just enough games to lose a play-in or get swept in a first round and therefore we would draft somewhere at 1 to 6 rather than 11 or 12.

That would be a step in the right direction for the long term, and in the short term, that team would be more interesting to watch than the Derozan-Mills-Gay triumvirate.

[J_Paco]

This guy :lmao

Miserable during the Duncan years. Now miserable based on his own miserable outlook.

:lol @ "nothing can be considered a positive because I think everything will end up bad"

He always has been and always will be a whining, miserable crybaby.

Any jackass, uh, I mean "fan" that refers to Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili as 'gutless worms' should look for another team or sport to follow.

And especially when they're a pompous, blowhard that thinks they're always right, but has no professional experience or aspirations to back it up.

My bad, I'm being a stupid, vanilla, 'apologist' to the only coach, front - office & (former) players to bring championships to this small market team.

[duncan2150]

Better? This is a 20 win team.

No

[J_Paco]

OP called the Duncan-Manu-TP Spurs 'gutless worms' https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177840&

Now he's crying they're not contenders a couple of years after 3 hall of famers retired. Imagine what he and the like would be saying in year 3 of being the Timberwolves.

As for using the cap space for absorbing dead money and picks - take a look at the actual contracts - there are very few players that teams would dump. If the Spurs decide to blow it up their best assets will be their own picks, not the late 1sts they'd acquire from other teams.

Ding ding ding ding ding......

[J_Paco]

Only someone that needs to always prove "he's right" needs to make such a ridiculous thread.

The Spurs could end up a 'treadmill team,' have a bottoming out season helping snag top 5 pick or countless other situations.

The future is unknown and we're all just spectators, period. I'm happy that we were blessed to see greatness in Tim Duncan, David Robinson and to lesser (but still great) extents in Tony & Manu.

Now, we'll see if they can reach those heights again or if they'll end up like the countless middling, small market organizations in the NBA.

It took the Golden State Warriors 40 years to reach the mountain top again after 1975, so it could be a very, very long wait.

Gonna be a lot of whining, bitching and making of dumb threads about how 'the Spurs have the worst present/future amongst _____."

[Spursfanfromafar]

Gutless worm doing gutless work...

[rascal]

Again, a lot of folks salivate over what Memphis did, and they only fully tanked one year. They've basically been a win-now club for a decade and seem not to be too hurt by them waiting or sitting on the treadmill. Would I trade three years of competing for the playoffs for tanking years on the hope they draft stars? No. Obviously no. Not a single poster has really shown that tanking is a reliable way to build a contender anyway, let alone the most reliable way.

The Spurs tanked when they got Duncan.

[objective]

The Spurs tanked when they got Duncan.

I don't think the Spurs tanked to get Duncan, they just had crazy injuries. Their odds weren't even great. It's this public perception that's grabbed hold and been perpetuated by the national media, none of whom followed what was happening with the team that year.

The easiest tell for me that they weren't tanking?

Dominique Wilkins

They didn't buy him out to go ring chase, even though there were rumors at the time. And they didn't bench him like OKC with Horford. When he was healthy he played as much as an antique could and he was the only scorer left, he even played 34 minutes in the final game of the year.

If they had been tanking for real, they would have just cut Dominique, because without him they were beyond terrible. He even had 9 games over 40 minutes, where the Spurs went 4-5, but the guy turned 37 during the year and with a torn Achilles in his history and couldn't do it all.

[Dejounte]

Learning two things from this thread:

1) People can see the future. I'd like my fortune told, please.

2) People would prefer to stay in an unhappy situation than do something about it. Here's an analogy: How many people here have a spouse? Do they hurt you? Do you communicate that to them? Should you maybe consider counseling? It's obvious your marriage is on the rocks, maybe do something about it...

[SAGirl]

Again, a lot of folks salivate over what Memphis did, and they only fully tanked one year. They've basically been a win-now club for a decade and seem not to be too hurt by them waiting or sitting on the treadmill. Would I trade three years of competing for the playoffs for tanking years on the hope they draft stars? No. Obviously no. Not a single poster has really shown that tanking is a reliable way to build a contender anyway, let alone the most reliable way.
The mavs tanked hard for a year to get Doncic.

I don’t argue with anyone here it’s a waste of my time tbh.

[SAGirl]

What's a realistic offseason for the Spurs?

Here's one, and I wonder how people would rank that team in the west.

Lose DeRozan, Gay and Lyles.

Sign Markkanen, re-sign Mills and Dieng for a total of $40 million. Maybe Bates-Diop fits in that number. Keep $10 million free to poke around the edges.

Draft a guy who won't play the first year.

Is that team that competitive in the West?

Poeltl-Markannen-Johnson-White-Murray
with
Dieng, Samanic, Vassell, Walker, Mills

and Eubanks, Draft pick, and Tre Jones rounding out the active roster

I don't know if that team is much better at all really

Then there won't be much more caproom to be had in the years after.

Just one scenario, but things can go awry. This front office will still be paying DeMarre Carroll 1.2 million next season.
This is a realistic scenario for them if they let Derozan go for nothing. It doesn’t look good without one or two guys making a leap from where they are. The Spurs don’t operate this way IMO. They are more likely to sign someone to keep that pressure off them which makes me think they want to sign Derozan back and maybe add someone like Marakkanen and call it an off-season after adding some guys on the margins (their pick, some prospects for the 2-way). I’d hope some of those guys are shooters.

The play-in has actually concealed that in a normal situation the team would have been eliminated from the playoffs already and that competitive basketball wouldn’t be the goal the past few games or so of their season anyways.

That makes me think the NBA will keep the playin, to keep the hope of these teams on the fringes alive, but that’s an entirely different point/subject.

The question is whether Derozan wants to come back. I don’t think he does but this is speculation based simply on the assumption that he (like Aldridge) would like to finish his career in a more competitive team or at least a team that he perceives to be in a better situation (or location).

[exstatic]

Learning two things from this thread:

1) People can see the future. I'd like my fortune told, please.

2) People would prefer to stay in an unhappy situation than do something about it. Here's an analogy: How many people here have a spouse? Do they hurt you? Do you communicate that to them? Should you maybe consider counseling? It's obvious your marriage is on the rocks, maybe do something about it...

2 is a very common psychological phenomenon: people almost always choose unhappiness over uncertainty.

[exstatic]

BTW, if the Spurs sign Markkanen, you’ll officially see me go full on HAM objective next season.

[GreekSpursfan]

Sam Hinkie had a plan but then Colangelo and after him Elton Brand(lol) came in and fucked everything up and threw away whatever asset he had accumulated. I would go the Sam Hinkie route and i don't care about winning culture and bs like that. Winning culture can be built with the right coaching staff and top tier talent which we don't have right now, we don't even have a tier below that, i take that back, we have but they either can't shoot for shit and he's the pg(bad combination) or the other one who's injury prone af.
Yes we are not in a bad position asset- wise but it doesn't matter what position you are in if you can't produce results based on the position you're in. This season with the pandemic was the perfect season to go full tank mode because it wouldn't affect your tickets sales anyway but no, not us, not Pop who i love very much. Very bad decision by Pop the POBO not to tank this season.
Give me the Hinkie route, it's that simple. Two years all out tank is what we need and clever asset management.

[SAGirl]

BTW, if the Spurs sign Markkanen, you’ll officially see me go full on HAM objective next season.
I started on this apathetic path with the re-signing of Gasol, and it's been worse with the Spurs FO moves since then tbh, because they then did shit like sign Cunningham, Lyles, and Demarre Carroll. Lyles was a waste of $ and him being on the roster this season makes no difference, could have just as easily been waived like Carroll. Carroll obviously was worse because he didn't give them any production.

Spurs FO moves can't be just stand pat and hope for the best... Markkanen seems like a realistic target for them though who knows. The leak could have come from his own agent.

[exstatic]

I started on this apathetic path with the re-signing of Gasol, and it's been worse with the Spurs FO moves since then tbh, because they then did shit like sign Cunningham, Lyles, and Demarre Carroll. Lyles was a waste of $ and him being on the roster this season makes no difference, could have just as easily been waived like Carroll. Carroll obviously was worse because he didn't give them any production.

Spurs FO moves can't be just stand pat and hope for the best... Markkanen seems like a realistic target for them though who knows. The leak could have come from his own agent.

He’s meh on offense, and fucking terrible on defense. I’d rather trade for Al Horford. At least he’s a + on both O and D, and he shoots avout the same from beyond the arc.

[SpursDynasty85]

Are the people counting on $50 million in capspace ignoring the huge risk of a Patty Mills charity deal for big money? Like a 3/30 to 'show the young ones how it's done' while he's overplayed and ineffective?

The way Pop has given a green light to his vets this year, stacking the roster with guards, our same seeding as last year, we are moving on from at the very least Patty and Demar. I can see Rudy staying if we can’t find a better 4 in the offseason though.

[cd98]

Again, a lot of folks salivate over what Memphis did, and they only fully tanked one year. They've basically been a win-now club for a decade and seem not to be too hurt by them waiting or sitting on the treadmill. Would I trade three years of competing for the playoffs for tanking years on the hope they draft stars? No. Obviously no. Not a single poster has really shown that tanking is a reliable way to build a contender anyway, let alone the most reliable way.

Tanking is no guarantee, for sure. But neither is barely making the playoffs, like Memphis. Point is, in a year with strong talent, it's worth it to take a chance on it when your roster is otherwise just not good enough. That said, I actually think if the Spurs did not have the COVID make up schedule, they would have made the playoffs as a seeded team, or at least they would be competing in the playoffs as a seeded team. How many losses in the 2nd half of the season were schedule losses? Enough to improve them several games. But given how ridiculously hard the schedule was, all the more reason to tank.

[SAGirl]

He’s meh on offense, and fucking terrible on defense. I’d rather trade for Al Horford. At least he’s a + on both O and D, and he shoots avout the same from beyond the arc.
I prefer Al Horford as well.

[cd98]

Are the people counting on $50 million in capspace ignoring the huge risk of a Patty Mills charity deal for big money? Like a 3/30 to 'show the young ones how it's done' while he's overplayed and ineffective?

I don't agree with all the moves the Spurs make, and Patty was overpaid, but it made sense to bring him back when he signed a contract. He is a glue guy. The team likes his leadership and 3 point shooting. They had a veteran team back then and they thought they could still compete. Fast forward to now and there is no way they pay him $50 million. The Spurs have made some small mistakes as every team does, but they aren't the Kings or the Nets (pre-Sean Marks).

[KobesAchilles]

Detroit, orlando, Cleveland, and Chicago will suck for the foreseeable future. So will the T-wolves, Rockets, Thunder, and Kings. Next year we will be right here again battling for that 10th seed. I think this play-in stuff is here to stay. So we should be getting that 8th pick and just kinda hope shit goes our way into getting 1-4.

[Seventyniner]

2) People would prefer to stay in an unhappy situation than do something about it. Here's an analogy: How many people here have a spouse? Do they hurt you? Do you communicate that to them? Should you maybe consider counseling? It's obvious your marriage is on the rocks, maybe do something about it...

In general sports fandom doesn't work like that at all. An individual fan has basically no control over the situation, the only things they can do are stop being a fan or bitch and moan. The ones who stop caring don't post less often (if at all), so bitching and moaning makes up a large percentage of what's left.

[Dejounte]

In general sports fandom doesn't work like that at all. An individual fan has basically no control over the situation, the only things they can do are stop being a fan or bitch and moan. The ones who stop caring don't post less often (if at all), so bitching and moaning makes up a large percentage of what's left.

Hmm, so do the bitchers and moaners want other people to bitch and moan with them? And then what? Just trying to figure out a logical explanation why people are so invested in calling out other fans and their choice to support the team. It's a life mission for some, apparently.

Let's all bitch and moan and everyone will be happy? I don't get it. Being 100% serious here.

[SAGirl]

Hey its like bitching about Destiny 2 chaning this or that... I became more and more apathetic and just play casual atm, sometimes not at all... sometimes to check what's up and see if I like it. Mostly it's repetitive and the same things I didn't like about it are in place or made worse or balanced one thing to unbalance another. I just stop playing.

though the Destiny hard core fans seem to want to play no matter what but then bitch endlessly about it. I don't get it. If you hate the game so much, stop playing like I did ja ja. I do think some fans watch less and less. Maybe every so often check a game or two to see if the same things they found annoying are happening, but they'll be back if the Spurs draft a steal I guarantee it.

Also, I am not criticizing any fan. Life is short and you got to enjoy it however you want, haters be damned tbh.

[rjv]

The Spurs have $50 million in cap room, all their first round picks, multiple up-and-coming players and no bad contracts. Break out the shower rods, this is unbearable :cry

[rjv]

Again, a lot of folks salivate over what Memphis did, and they only fully tanked one year. They've basically been a win-now club for a decade and seem not to be too hurt by them waiting or sitting on the treadmill. Would I trade three years of competing for the playoffs for tanking years on the hope they draft stars? No. Obviously no. Not a single poster has really shown that tanking is a reliable way to build a contender anyway, let alone the most reliable way.

the other aspect of tanking the the usual tank brigade ignores is that of financial sustainability-this franchise fares much better when it wins games and doesn't come off as a bottom feeder. that's just one component. there are so many negative aspects to tanking that one can't sustain a pro argument for it, especially when, from an actuarial standpoint, the risk analysis is not a favorable one.

[cd98]

the other aspect of tanking the the usual tank brigade ignores is that of financial sustainability-this franchise fares much better when it wins games and doesn't come off as a bottom feeder. that's just one component. there are so many negative aspects to tanking that one can't sustain a pro argument for it, especially when, from an actuarial standpoint, the risk analysis is not a favorable one.

Imagine ticket sales if the Spurs won a top 3 pick in this draft.For sustainable success they need a young star that is a name.

[The Truth #6]

Playing Derozan isn’t tanking?

[PrimeMinister]

I mean... the Chicago bulls bought at the deadline, a player that many here on this board said was desperately needed, and finished the season with a worse record in a weaker conference.

Y’all spend so much time in your little cynical bubble you don’t even realize how melodramatic and ridiculous these routine woe is me takes are.

you can throw out in the abstract “the bulls have a higher ceiling” yet there’s a 70 game sample that shows they are basement dweller. It’s a take that has nothing to back it up and can’t be argued. It’s entirely hypothetical and without substance.

Go outside. Take a walk. Rewatch an old game. Are you this out of things to talk about or do you think it’s your obligation to fill the air with whatever fleeting thoughts enter your head?

[rjv]

Imagine ticket sales if the Spurs won a top 3 pick in this draft.For sustainable success they need a young star that is a name.

would someone like sean elliot sustain a franchise? he was a 3rd round pick. solid player. great guy. but a player like manu would have a had a better shot at sustaining a franchise and he was almost the last player selected in the draft. last year's top three were wiseman, edwards and ball and while i think edwards will be pretty decent, only ball would have really moved the needle. zion and ja can sell seats for now. doncic is the only top three from 2018 that could fill seats. maybe tatum from 2017. and i'll say simmons from 2016 although his game is not the most exciting. so that's not a sure thing and it's not a sure thing that a bottom three record even gets you a top three pick. again, there's a lot of risk involved in tanking because there is no guaranteed payoff.

[rankingtear]

He’s meh on offense, and fucking terrible on defense. I’d rather trade for Al Horford. At least he’s a + on both O and D, and he shoots avout the same from beyond the arc.

I like Markannen , 60% eFG is pretty good for a non center. 65% eFG and 45% from 3 on his last 15 games on a mostly off ball role is Joe Harris , Joe Ingles type efficiency. He is not clueless defensively like Demar or Lonnie not even as bad as Keldon. If he stops trying to be a star and focus on being a good role player there is Joe Harris upside there.

[SAGirl]

I like Markannen , 60% eFG is pretty good for a non center. 65% eFG and 45% from 3 on his last 15 games on a mostly off ball role is Joe Harris , Joe Ingles type efficiency. He is not clueless defensively like Demar or Lonnie not even as bad as Keldon. If he stops trying to be a star and focus on being a good role player there is Joe Harris upside there.
I am hoping that if the Spurs go for him is because they see potential that can improve with coaching. I don't think Chicago has excellent coaching or player development and maybe they think there's untapped potential. He's also young and in their window with the Spurs next gen, that is why I am not as opposed to him as I would be other veterans. Al Horford is a win now player that OKC couldn't flip for a pick or prospect and had he played he would have won them more games than they wanted to win this year... He's a better player but with a likely short shelf life. I like him better to fill a hole now, specially because he's also a good passer, but the wheels may come off at any time. I do understand the move for Markkanen if they make it.

---------------------------------

Unrelated comment = Some people are raging against a tank but it may be upon them anyways. Can't be helped some times tbh. It's just so painful to do it the way where you are pretending to try to compete but still suck (and it takes longer presumably -- though hopefully it doesn't. I have my reasons to hope).

[objective]

the other aspect of tanking the the usual tank brigade ignores is that of financial sustainability-this franchise fares much better when it wins games and doesn't come off as a bottom feeder. that's just one component. there are so many negative aspects to tanking that one can't sustain a pro argument for it, especially when, from an actuarial standpoint, the risk analysis is not a favorable one.

I don't think all the tank brigade ignore it, hell I think they recognize why this year was the year to do it.

A season largely without fans in seats is the best year to tank because it wouldn't affect the gate near as much as a normal year.

Instead they stayed supposedly competitive and still couldn't sell out the fraction of seats they did open up

They aren't selling out anymore, it's been getting bad for years now. But if tanking had resulted in a top pick, maybe they'd be better sooner and be better off financially.

Of course, if they win the lottery anyway this year they it worked out. If that pick 12, maybe not.

[Seventyniner]

Hmm, so do the bitchers and moaners want other people to bitch and moan with them? And then what? Just trying to figure out a logical explanation why people are so invested in calling out other fans and their choice to support the team. It's a life mission for some, apparently.

Misery loves company. This is what many message boards devolve into. The franchise wasn't the only thing Duncan kept afloat for so long!

I do like the ignore list, though I would also prefer that quotes from ignored posters be hidden also. Even better would be if the board didn't even show that a post was made by someone on your ignore list. Then you could just make the idiots completely disappear and not even realize they are there for the most part.


Let's all bitch and moan and everyone will be happy? I don't get it. Being 100% serious here.

They don't want to be happy. They want to not be alone.

[exstatic]

I like Markannen , 60% eFG is pretty good for a non center. 65% eFG and 45% from 3 on his last 15 games on a mostly off ball role is Joe Harris , Joe Ingles type efficiency. He is not clueless defensively like Demar or Lonnie not even as bad as Keldon. If he stops trying to be a star and focus on being a good role player there is Joe Harris upside there.

The problem is, you’re not going to get him for role player money. He’s restricted. The only offer Chicago won’t match would be a stupid overpay.

[rjv]

I don't think all the tank brigade ignore it, hell I think they recognize why this year was the year to do it.

A season largely without fans in seats is the best year to tank because it wouldn't affect the gate near as much as a normal year.

Instead they stayed supposedly competitive and still couldn't sell out the fraction of seats they did open up

They aren't selling out anymore, it's been getting bad for years now. But if tanking had resulted in a top pick, maybe they'd be better sooner and be better off financially.

Of course, if they win the lottery anyway this year they it worked out. If that pick 12, maybe not.

if there had been any year where the reward for the tank (and by that i mean getting a franchise player by virtue of having a top three pick) is as much of an unsure thing as possible, this is it.

[Trill Clinton]

As bad as ST tells me this team is, they still managed to qualify for the play in....wow. Pop really is the GOAT of this shit.

[rascal]

The best way for the Spurs to get top talent is through the draft. They built their championship teams through the draft. This front office has not had success overall in trades or free agency through the years. So tanking makes sense to get top talent back on the roster.

[cd98]

would someone like sean elliot sustain a franchise? he was a 3rd round pick. solid player. great guy. but a player like manu would have a had a better shot at sustaining a franchise and he was almost the last player selected in the draft. last year's top three were wiseman, edwards and ball and while i think edwards will be pretty decent, only ball would have really moved the needle. zion and ja can sell seats for now. doncic is the only top three from 2018 that could fill seats. maybe tatum from 2017. and i'll say simmons from 2016 although his game is not the most exciting. so that's not a sure thing and it's not a sure thing that a bottom three record even gets you a top three pick. again, there's a lot of risk involved in tanking because there is no guaranteed payoff.

Well don't forget that Tim Duncan and David Robinson were also top 3 picks. Sean Elliott was the 3rd pick in a weak draft. This is projected to be a strong draft. And yes, I would love to have Edwards on my team. I'd also take Simmons too. I'd love Zion and Doncic. And I trust the Spurs to develop players better than anyone in the league. I also believe that a guy like Wiseman should be allowed more than half a season and playing without a true offseason or summer league before I judge on what type of NBA player he will be. And that said, last year's draft was supposed to be a weak draft. This year's draft is projected to be deeper and more talented with guys that have star potential. No one is ever a guarantee. It's not normal to draft Tim Duncan and have him come in the league and be a top 10 player from day one. But the early the draft pick the better the prospect. And when you have a top notch development team, imagine what you can do with a player that has top 3 talent.

[Rummpd]

Front office F -
Head Coach D -
Talent Level C -
Talent distribution D -
Shooting F - and getting worse
Team seems to have a plan F -

BLUF this is one screwed up situation that may only get worse depsite millions in cap room. Who would want to come to a team playings 2000s ball in the 2020s?

[mo7888]

What's a realistic offseason for the Spurs?

Here's one, and I wonder how people would rank that team in the west.

Lose DeRozan, Gay and Lyles.

Sign Markkanen, re-sign Mills and Dieng for a total of $40 million. Maybe Bates-Diop fits in that number. Keep $10 million free to poke around the edges.

Draft a guy who won't play the first year.

Is that team that competitive in the West?

Poeltl-Markannen-Johnson-White-Murray
with
Dieng, Samanic, Vassell, Walker, Mills

and Eubanks, Draft pick, and Tre Jones rounding out the active roster

I don't know if that team is much better at all really

Then there won't be much more caproom to be had in the years after.

Just one scenario, but things can go awry. This front office will still be paying DeMarre Carroll 1.2 million next season.

I'd rather surround out young guys with OPJ, McDermott, Fournier types on 2 year deals...(maybe Frank Ntilikina if we move White or Murray)...and look for an advantageous trade...

[TD 21]

This Spurs team looks to have a decent future (maybe better).

Dejuante, Keldon, and White are a pretty good young core. And Walker may be at least a sparkplug-type player.

What despairing fans always forget is that young players get better over time. They just do. Even if you do nothing else but just let them grow.


Every fan base can cite trite cliches like this . . . the difference is, virtually all of them can do so with better current talent, future talent or at least a blank canvas and better odds with which to acquire future talent.

Most of these picks have already been homeruns relative to slot, but that's ultimately meaningless if they collectively lack high end talent/fit.



Spurs actually have a chance at the playoffs (albeit small) thanks to the play-in tournament...while still managing to maintain a decent draft position and chance to acquire another great player. This is a win-win in my book.

For everyone who thinks we should full out tank and go for a top 3 pick...tell me how that has worked out for anyone else in the last 5 years. You are asking for a decade of mediocrity if you go down that road, and this forum would implode upon itself.

Yeah, that's the problem. They're intentionally and perpetually stuck in the nebulous zone of bad but not quite bad enough to get high enough odds to change their lot in life.

It's not about how it's worked out for others, it's about odds (and confining it to last 5 years is foolish, considering in the "player empowerment" era, free agency now rules the league). They're asking for a decade of mediocrity by refusing to tank.


Again, a lot of folks salivate over what Memphis did, and they only fully tanked one year. They've basically been a win-now club for a decade and seem not to be too hurt by them waiting or sitting on the treadmill. Would I trade three years of competing for the playoffs for tanking years on the hope they draft stars? No. Obviously no. Not a single poster has really shown that tanking is a reliable way to build a contender anyway, let alone the most reliable way.

They got lucky that it happened so fast, but sometimes it works that way. They gave themselves the best odds though of something like that happening though.

Tell me then, outside of being in a glamour market, what's the best way to build a contender then?



I'm guessing not too many of the optimists will even answer the bolded.

Of course not because deep down they know I'm right and mostly aren't knowledgeable enough to engage me, so they just resort to ad homenim.



OP called the Duncan-Manu-TP Spurs 'gutless worms' https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177840&

Now he's crying they're not contenders a couple of years after 3 hall of famers retired. Imagine what he and the like would be saying in year 3 of being the Timberwolves.

As for using the cap space for absorbing dead money and picks - take a look at the actual contracts - there are very few players that teams would dump. If the Spurs decide to blow it up their best assets will be their own picks, not the late 1sts they'd acquire from other teams.

I didn't and even if I did, what does that have to do with this?

That's not at all what I'm saying, that's just your predetermined narrative because you, like all apologists, don't like me for speaking the truth.



Detroit, orlando, Cleveland, and Chicago will suck for the foreseeable future. So will the T-wolves, Rockets, Thunder, and Kings. Next year we will be right here again battling for that 10th seed. I think this play-in stuff is here to stay. So we should be getting that 8th pick and just kinda hope shit goes our way into getting 1-4.

Ridiculous comment. They all have things going for them the Spurs don't: better current talent, young talent, market, blank canvas, in position to select high for the foreseeable future, etc.

Battling for 10th is not an accomplishment for a team in their state; it's a death sentence. "Just kind of hope shit goes our way" is not a viable strategy. Increasing your odds to, is.



I mean... the Chicago bulls bought at the deadline, a player that many here on this board said was desperately needed, and finished the season with a worse record in a weaker conference.

Y’all spend so much time in your little cynical bubble you don’t even realize how melodramatic and ridiculous these routine woe is me takes are.

you can throw out in the abstract “the bulls have a higher ceiling” yet there’s a 70 game sample that shows they are basement dweller. It’s a take that has nothing to back it up and can’t be argued. It’s entirely hypothetical and without substance.?

Small sample size and LaVine vacillated between banged up and out with COVID during that stretch. I wasn't crazy about the Vucevic trade, but I get it: Big market that's been down for a while, had a bunch of high picks and didn't see it bear much fruit. They probably figure this can help get them to decent in the years to come, entice LaVine to re-sign and become a player again for significant free agents.

It's you apologists who are stuck in your myopic bubble, still high on Spurs mystique because of a series of miracles ranging from 10-24 years ago, thinking they'll be fine because of PATFO and not realizing how bad of a situation they've put themselves in.

It says "might" in the title and it is a message board. I know how much you apologists hate it, but I was under the impression it was in existence for opinion and debate.



As bad as ST tells me this team is, they still managed to qualify for the play in....wow. Pop really is the GOAT of this shit.

I detailed why and again, it's not something to be proud of.

[rjv]

Well don't forget that Tim Duncan and David Robinson were also top 3 picks. Sean Elliott was the 3rd pick in a weak draft. This is projected to be a strong draft. And yes, I would love to have Edwards on my team. I'd also take Simmons too. I'd love Zion and Doncic. And I trust the Spurs to develop players better than anyone in the league. I also believe that a guy like Wiseman should be allowed more than half a season and playing without a true offseason or summer league before I judge on what type of NBA player he will be. And that said, last year's draft was supposed to be a weak draft. This year's draft is projected to be deeper and more talented with guys that have star potential. No one is ever a guarantee. It's not normal to draft Tim Duncan and have him come in the league and be a top 10 player from day one. But the early the draft pick the better the prospect. And when you have a top notch development team, imagine what you can do with a player that has top 3 talent.

that's sort of my point. a robinson and duncan don't come around that often. there isn't a duncan like player that will come from any of the past drafts. this draft is potentially talented but there is no clear cut franchise player in the lot. it's fine to get draft picks as you are developing but to tank intentionally as the chief means to getting your franchise back on top is reckless.

[Chinook]

They got lucky that it happened so fast, but sometimes it works that way. They gave themselves the best odds though of something like that happening though.

Tell me then, outside of being in a glamour market, what's the best way to build a contender then?

They didn't really. They were just bad when they drafted JJJ. It would've been like had DeRozan gotten hurt this year. They only tanked in 2019, and that really only involved trading Gasol. Most of the other pieces they "let go for nothing" (Conley was traded, but that was because they drafted his replacement, not so the team would lose a bunch of games). What they never did was have a 76ers-style rebuild. The bigger point though is that before they tanked, they didn't tank, and waiting wasn't an issue for them. The Spurs tanking now or in three years means nothing to their long-term prospects. I'd much rather watch them fight for the playoffs than not, so as a fan, I don't see tanking as a good option.

To your second line, the way to build a contender is three-fold. First is you draft a star. Then you sign a star. Finally you trade for a star. Note: Step one wasn't to draft a franchise player. Tanking and trying for the top pick year after year is unnecessary. Developing a top 25-40 player is fine. Then you sign a guy. That's almost certainly going to mean having a flexible cap situation and a decent roster of young/cheap players. This is obviously where you'd want to get the contender's best player, but that's hard for a lot of reasons. A max contract and good situation should still be enough to sway guys in the 10-20 range though, like the Spurs signing Aldridge. Finally, you parlay that young, cheap core into a final star. That trade is hopefully just for a finisher in the 15-30 range, but more and more it's looking like that's where the stars come from. Be prepared to throw away seven firsts and every decent young player in order to get that core together.

Does that seem hard? It might be, but it's simple and straight-forward. It's way easier to do that than to draft a young core in a short window and basically be a title contender before the contracts get too big. That's basically impossible. People mistake being an "up-and-coming" young club with talent with being an actual contender/winner. They're very different things. Few non-contenders are truly close to a title. Most good non-winners have a glass ceiling above them.

[MultiTroll]

With Gramps back and if he brings Pet Wombat etc with him it's going to be a repeat year.

Thanks Timmy Duncs for 2014 and thanks Kwa for the path before Zaza in 2017.

It's over until Gramps leaves.

[TD 21]

They didn't really. They were just bad when they drafted JJJ. It would've been like had DeRozan gotten hurt this year. They only tanked in 2019, and that really only involved trading Gasol. Most of the other pieces they "let go for nothing" (Conley was traded, but that was because they drafted his replacement, not so the team would lose a bunch of games). What they never did was have a 76ers-style rebuild. The bigger point though is that before they tanked, they didn't tank, and waiting wasn't an issue for them. The Spurs tanking now or in three years means nothing to their long-term prospects. I'd much rather watch them fight for the playoffs than not, so as a fan, I don't see tanking as a good option.

To your second line, the way to build a contender is three-fold. First is you draft a star. Then you sign a star. Finally you trade for a star. Note: Step one wasn't to draft a franchise player. Tanking and trying for the top pick year after year is unnecessary. Developing a top 25-40 player is fine. Then you sign a guy. That's almost certainly going to mean having a flexible cap situation and a decent roster of young/cheap players. This is obviously where you'd want to get the contender's best player, but that's hard for a lot of reasons. A max contract and good situation should still be enough to sway guys in the 10-20 range though, like the Spurs signing Aldridge. Finally, you parlay that young, cheap core into a final star. That trade is hopefully just for a finisher in the 15-30 range, but more and more it's looking like that's where the stars come from. Be prepared to throw away seven firsts and every decent young player in order to get that core together.

Does that seem hard? It might be, but it's simple and straight-forward. It's way easier to do that than to draft a young core in a short window and basically be a title contender before the contracts get too big. That's basically impossible. People mistake being an "up-and-coming" young club with talent with being an actual contender/winner. They're very different things. Few non-contenders are truly close to a title. Most good non-winners have a glass ceiling above them.

I know, but still. One bad year of tanking gave them a possible core to build a contender or far more likely a good team, around.

I realize that, but it's just delaying the inevitable, which is a waste of time. Just rip the band-aid off and be done with it.

You're making assumptions and jumping ahead. Boiled down: It's not easy to build a contender and any path is highly unlikely, but it is simple in terms of going about how to do so (at least in the state they're in).

[cd98]

that's sort of my point. a robinson and duncan don't come around that often. there isn't a duncan like player that will come from any of the past drafts. this draft is potentially talented but there is no clear cut franchise player in the lot. it's fine to get draft picks as you are developing but to tank intentionally as the chief means to getting your franchise back on top is reckless.

Eh, I don't think you always tank to get better, but right now in this season, it made the most sense. No lottery pick is ever guaranteed, but there are three to give players that have a strong chance to be a franchise player. That's all you can ask for. The talent in this draft is projected higher than the last several drafts.

[MultiTroll]

The BSPN headlline read:

Kane tells Spurs he wants to leave

I thought another player wanted out. :lol
Harry Kane informs Tottenham he wants to leave this summer - sources (espn.com) (https://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-transfers/story/4388298/harry-kane-informs-tottenham-he-wants-to-leave-this-summer-sources)

[Dex]

The BSPN headlline read:

Kane tells Spurs he wants to leave

I thought another player wanted out. :lol
Harry Kane informs Tottenham he wants to leave this summer - sources (espn.com) (https://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-transfers/story/4388298/harry-kane-informs-tottenham-he-wants-to-leave-this-summer-sources)

Finding news on Twitter about the Spurs is a real bitch for this reason

[Spurtacular]

Silver lining: Some FAs don't want to go to tanking teams.

[MultiTroll]

Finding news on Twitter about the Spurs is a real bitch for this reason
Oh ya in games the Spurs are winning handily (hey it happens like vs Phoenix sans Wombat and DeFrozen) the 2-3 in game highlight 30 second clips BSPN shows will be the other team making a play. "Booker takes it all the way." "CP0 hit's the shot".

[pad300]

...

To your second line, the way to build a contender is three-fold. First is you draft a star. Then you sign a star. Finally you trade for a star. Note: Step one wasn't to draft a franchise player. Tanking and trying for the top pick year after year is unnecessary. Developing a top 25-40 player is fine. Then you sign a guy. That's almost certainly going to mean having a flexible cap situation and a decent roster of young/cheap players. This is obviously where you'd want to get the contender's best player, but that's hard for a lot of reasons. A max contract and good situation should still be enough to sway guys in the 10-20 range though, like the Spurs signing Aldridge. Finally, you parlay that young, cheap core into a final star. That trade is hopefully just for a finisher in the 15-30 range, but more and more it's looking like that's where the stars come from. Be prepared to throw away seven firsts and every decent young player in order to get that core together.

...

I don't agree with you here Chinook. IMO, a real contender is pretty much defined by having a serious MVP candidate to "be the man" on the team. There been maybe 1 team in the last 50 years to violate that rule. (Detroit. Maybe 2 if you count the spurs in 2013-14, but Tim was still able to give us something special in the playoffs and Kawhi was pretty good statistically.) Players 25-40, 10-20 and 15-30 don't do it. You need a player who's 1-7 or so to be a real contender... The trick is, of course, getting that guy.

[exstatic]

I don't agree with you here Chinook. IMO, a real contender is pretty much defined by having a serious MVP candidate to "be the man" on the team. There been maybe 1 team in the last 50 years to violate that rule. (Detroit. Maybe 2 if you count the spurs in 2013-14, but Tim was still able to give us something special in the playoffs and Kawhi was pretty good statistically.) Players 25-40, 10-20 and 15-30 don't do it. You need a player who's 1-7 or so to be a real contender... The trick is, of course, getting that guy.

Kawhi was 15. Giannis was 15. Jokic was 41. You find greatness where you find it, and I’ll add that no one thought any of these guys would be All NBAers, and none of them were great out of the box. They needed development.

[pad300]

Kawhi was 15. Giannis was 15. Jokic was 41. You find greatness where you find it, and I’ll add that no one thought any of these guys would be All NBAers, and none of them were great out of the box. They needed development.

Neither of us (Chinook, myself) are talking about draft position here Exstatic. We're both talking about ranking of player in the NBA... That said, Kawhi, Giannis, Jokic; all of them are the legitimate MVP candidate guys. You need one of those to be a serious contender. What Chinook's proposing doesn't have that foundation.

[cd98]

Statistics say that the first 5 players in the draft are the most likely to be stars or solid players that are not complete busts. That doesn't mean that there aren't busts in the top 5, but it means that you have the best chance to get a star to a solid player. Of the 6-10 range, about 1/3 of the picks reach star status, but there are a lot of role players. In the 11-20 range, there are as many busts as there are stars. In the late round picks (21-30) only 6% become stars and less than half even become role players. It gets much worse in the 2nd round.

So yes, it is possible to get starts outside of the first 5 picks, but it's rare and chances are greater that you will fail. There are no guarantees in life, but it is always a good idea to give yourself a chance to get a star and unfortunately, picking at 11-13 just makes it really hard to get a star.

[Mr. Body]

The BSPN headlline read:

Kane tells Spurs he wants to leave

I thought another player wanted out. :lol
Harry Kane informs Tottenham he wants to leave this summer - sources (espn.com) (https://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-transfers/story/4388298/harry-kane-informs-tottenham-he-wants-to-leave-this-summer-sources)

That's actually big news.

[Chinook]

I don't agree with you here Chinook. IMO, a real contender is pretty much defined by having a serious MVP candidate to "be the man" on the team. There been maybe 1 team in the last 50 years to violate that rule. (Detroit. Maybe 2 if you count the spurs in 2013-14, but Tim was still able to give us something special in the playoffs and Kawhi was pretty good statistically.) Players 25-40, 10-20 and 15-30 don't do it. You need a player who's 1-7 or so to be a real contender... The trick is, of course, getting that guy.

I think you misread what I was saying. It's not that the 25th-, 15th- and 10th-best players in the league are a pure contending trio. It would be pretty good and could be excellent with the right role-players. But they'd have to get really lucky to win. It's that folks have to look at the reality of the league rather than stick to the old-school, build-through-the-draft model. The idea of drafting a franchise player and then drafting multiple stars you can keep together for years to develop into a contending core just won't happen. Stars move, even the top guys. You have to do your best to attract them and hold onto the ones you have, and a team like SA can only do that by presenting a good situation. If you actually tank, you won't be able to pull out of your tailspin for years, and by then you're maxing guys and have a losing culture like SAC and Minnesota. It's all one. You can tell the Spurs to abandon their culture when it comes to team-building but then somehow retain it for player-development.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I think you misread what I was saying. It's not that the 25th-, 15th- and 10th-best players in the league are a pure contending trio. It would be pretty good and could be excellent with the right role-players. But they'd have to get really lucky to win. It's that folks have to look at the reality of the league rather than stick to the old-school, build-through-the-draft model. The idea of drafting a franchise player and then drafting multiple stars you can keep together for years to develop into a contending core just won't happen. Stars move, even the top guys. You have to do your best to attract them and hold onto the ones you have, and a team like SA can only do that by presenting a good situation. If you actually tank, you won't be able to pull out of your tailspin for years, and by then you're maxing guys and have a losing culture like SAC and Minnesota. It's all one. You can tell the Spurs to abandon their culture when it comes to team-building but then somehow retain it for player-development.

Completely agree. The last No.1 pick that led the team that drafted him to a title was... Tim Duncan. And before him - Olajuwon, so 2 in 35-40 years or so. People could argue LeBron but he won with Cavs after signing there as a FA.

Technically it's true that you get a better chance to draft a star with a higher draft pick, however, building a team, and a championship one at that, is way more complicated (Philly). Teams continuously fall into the trap of overpaying their draftees and ending up average and capped out. One could argue that developing well, preserving assets and being as good as you can while transitioning (Miami, Denver) and waiting for the chance to draft or trade for the star you need, would offer no worse chances that you'd evolve to contender status. In any case, the two approaches are damn close, unlike what some would have you believe.

[rjv]

The idea of drafting a franchise player and then drafting multiple stars you can keep together for years to develop into a contending core just won't happen. Stars move, even the top guys. You have to do your best to attract them and hold onto the ones you have, and a team like SA can only do that by presenting a good situation. If you actually tank, you won't be able to pull out of your tailspin for years, and by then you're maxing guys and have a losing culture like SAC and Minnesota. It's all one. You can tell the Spurs to abandon their culture when it comes to team-building but then somehow retain it for player-development.

i think this is the part that the pro-tank crowd can't seem to fathom. they seem to think that tanking is some magical panacea when the reality is that it would likely create a losing culture.

[Russ]

i think this is the part that the pro-tank crowd can't seem to fathom. they seem to think that tanking is some magical panacea when the reality is that it would likely create a losing culture.

Tanking is like committing suicide and hoping there's a heaven.

[timvp]

If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you accumulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.

[rjv]

If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you accumulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.

in other words, while there's still the breath of the duncan led dynasty and some of the stalwarts of that dynasty (i.e., pop and buford) in place.

[Ocotillo]

I avoided this thread for a couple of visits because I was not in the mood to read a bunch of bitchin'. It is worse than I thought it would be. If the future is so hopeless, than the tanking will begin soon enough even if it is not intentional.

[The Truth #6]

My issue is tangential to all this. Perhaps naively, I think we would have done better this year without Derozan. I really don’t see him as part of any winning culture.

[Russ]

If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you accumulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.

I agree timvp but those two paths are looking at it only from a basketball (vs business) perspective.

Path #2 must be eliminated because job 1 is to keep the team in San Antonio. If you don't do that, all the other paths disappear and it's game, set, match.

[mo7888]

If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you accumulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.

How do you define 'trying to win' though. I mean sure that's the better option but are we really trying? What good is flexibility if you never use it?

You don't have to tank to be willing to package assets to acquire higher picks or other players.

I think a good bit of the frustration (I'm discounting trolls) is that it feels like our FO is complacent where we are. I don't think as many people would want to tank if they felt like there was a concerted effort to improve this team. I know I've read your comments on more than one occasion where you've been concerned about this as well... So how do you define 'trying to win'?

[timvp]

So how do you define 'trying to win'?

Good question.

The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.

Me too. A full-on tank in a small market, non-destination NBA city like San Antonio could lead to many years of mediocrity. Sometimes that hole can't be climbed out of for decades. We got lucky with Robinson and then with Duncan. My fear is that we may have used up all of our wishes getting those two.

[Sugus]

Misery loves company. This is what many message boards devolve into. The franchise wasn't the only thing Duncan kept afloat for so long!

I do like the ignore list, though I would also prefer that quotes from ignored posters be hidden also. Even better would be if the board didn't even show that a post was made by someone on your ignore list. Then you could just make the idiots completely disappear and not even realize they are there for the most part.



They don't want to be happy. They want to not be alone.

I'll take the chance to ask, since you're on the thread currently, timvp - any progress on an "Ignore 2.0" feature like the bolded part? Just curious, tbh, and seeing the bitchin' and crying in this thread, it'll be a real necessity as soon as next season by the looks of it...

[cd98]

Good question.

The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.

Yes, well the third pick that year was Jayson Tatum, who would have been the star player they would have wanted. They could also have gotten De'Aaron Fox at 5. I think the only dud that year in the top 5 was Josh Jackson, though Fultz may end up a dud. Lonzo is a solid player that has the potential to be a really good starting point guard if he can continue to improve his shooting. Again, I'm not saying you tank every year, but this was a good year to lose, especially when your second half schedule made it nearly impossible to make the playoffs and they barely made the play-in.

I think "tank" for the Spurs would be different than trotting out G-League players. I think the "tank" most Spurs fans wanted was to focus on playing the Vassel and Luka and Jones more. They probably didn't earn the minutes. I think Rudy Gay is better than them now. But I'd rather make the play-in playing those guys and living with the lottery if they can't step up to the challenge then barely making the play-in with a heavy dose of Rudy Gay and Patty Mills. And I like both those players, but they are clearly not the future for this team. In fact, I was hoping that Pop would cut Gay loose so he could have a chance to win a title elsewhere as I think he could be a difference-maker for a lot of playoff teams.

[Russ]

We got lucky with Robinson and then with Duncan. My fear is that we may have used up all of our wishes getting those two.

Me too. Although pretty much every team gets their chances at great players over time.

The key is not so much maximizing your chances as much as protecting them like hell once you get them.

Look at Orlando, Shaq landed in their lap but they were too cute to draft Chris Webber and instead make some really "clever" draft trades. Shaq left.

OKC. They had Durant, Westbrook and Hardin and managed to parlay that into nothing.

We'll get our chances.

[mo7888]

Good question.

The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.

Good answer and in general I agree. I do think coaches and players should always try to win but, a FO can trade veterans for younger players who aren't as good but may have upside or picks and that doesn't fly in the face of 'trying to win.' They can also trade their draft pick + a player to move up in the draft trying to win in a longer term outlook. Conversely, they can go the other direction and trade young guys + picks to make the roster better and win more in the short-term. The point is this FO doesn't seem to want to do either of those things (fingers crossed that changes this summer). I think it's that 'do nothing' mentality that makes people want to tank because they think the chance of winning by catching lightning in a bottle is greater than the chance of winning by doing nothing.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Me too. Although pretty much every team gets their chances at great players over time.

The key is not so much maximizing your chances as much as protecting them like hell once you get them.

Look at Orlando, Shaq landed in their lap but they were too cute to draft Chris Webber and instead make some really "clever" draft trades. Shaq left.

OKC. They had Durant, Westbrook and Hardin and managed to parlay that into nothing.


True. And now the norm is to bolt for the bigger markets, super teams, etc., when given the first opening to leave. Team loyalty seems to not be all that important to a lot of guys now that players can basically demand whatever they want and get it. San Antonio is going to have to bottle lightning if they want to get good and stay good through getting top draft picks. We've already had one superstar abruptly leave on us. It certainly can happen again. Guys like Giannis are now the exception to the rule.

[SpursDynasty85]

Yes, well the third pick that year was Jayson Tatum, who would have been the star player they would have wanted. They could also have gotten De'Aaron Fox at 5. I think the only dud that year in the top 5 was Josh Jackson, though Fultz may end up a dud. Lonzo is a solid player that has the potential to be a really good starting point guard if he can continue to improve his shooting. Again, I'm not saying you tank every year, but this was a good year to lose, especially when your second half schedule made it nearly impossible to make the playoffs and they barely made the play-in.

I think "tank" for the Spurs would be different than trotting out G-League players. I think the "tank" most Spurs fans wanted was to focus on playing the Vassel and Luka and Jones more. They probably didn't earn the minutes. I think Rudy Gay is better than them now. But I'd rather make the play-in playing those guys and living with the lottery if they can't step up to the challenge then barely making the play-in with a heavy dose of Rudy Gay and Patty Mills. And I like both those players, but they are clearly not the future for this team. In fact, I was hoping that Pop would cut Gay loose so he could have a chance to win a title elsewhere as I think he could be a difference-maker for a lot of playoff teams.

Funny cuz Boston and SA are basically at the same level but I would argue SA’s youngsters have even more room improve than Boston’s.

[Russ]

True. And now the norm is to bolt for the bigger markets, super teams, etc., when given the first opening to leave. Team loyalty seems to not be all that important to a lot of guys now that players can basically demand whatever they want and get it. San Antonio is going to have to bottle lightning if they want to get good and stay good through getting top draft picks. We've already had one superstar abruptly leave on us. It certainly can happen again. Guys like Giannis are now the exception to the rule.

If the Spurs can get a Euro star I think they'll have a pretty good chance of keeping him. Those guys don't seem to be as much into big markets. A lot of them are from smaller places and America may be pretty much all the same to them.

That's another reason to look at international guys in the draft.

I'm trying not to read to much into Kawhi -- he's just strange cat. He's not that engaged or loyal to his team out here either.

[Poolboy5623]

The Spurs arent tanking lol...crazy talk. They're just not that good. You guys are funny.

[cd98]

Funny cuz Boston and SA are basically at the same level but I would argue SA’s youngsters have even more room improve than Boston’s.

Well Boston made other bad moves, but we’d trade any and everyone on our roster for Tatum.

[TD 21]

Completely agree. The last No.1 pick that led the team that drafted him to a title was... Tim Duncan. And before him - Olajuwon, so 2 in 35-40 years or so. People could argue LeBron but he won with Cavs after signing there as a FA.

Technically it's true that you get a better chance to draft a star with a higher draft pick, however, building a team, and a championship one at that, is way more complicated (Philly).



i think this is the part that the pro-tank crowd can't seem to fathom. they seem to think that tanking is some magical panacea when the reality is that it would likely create a losing culture.


The Spurs arent tanking lol...crazy talk. They're just not that good. You guys are funny.

Perfect examples of lack of basic reading comprehension, especially the last one, where the opposite was literally said in the title.



If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you accumulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.


Good question.

The easiest and probably best way to define it as simply not trying to lose. It's pretty obvious when a team is actively tanking games.

A good example is the 2016-17 Heat. That was the first year after the Heatles disbanded. They were 11-30 at the midway point of the season. Pundits were saying they should tank so they could get a high lottery pick and get a chance at one of the top three players in the draft: Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball or Josh Jackson. On multiple levels, it had to be tempting to finish off the tank. But instead of tanking, the Heat were 30-11 in the second half of the season with a team powered by Dragic and Whiteside. Miami still missed the playoffs ... but that unquestionably sustained their winning culture and laid the foundation for a team that found their way back to the finals a few years later. Oh, and even though they only ended up with the 14th pick in that draft instead of a top three pick, they ended up drafting Bam Adebayo.

I may critique decisions made by the front office but in general I agree with their plan to avoid a full-on tank. Maybe that may be necessary at some point in the future but for the time being, the best plan is to travel down that first path as long as they can.

That ship has already sailed. The Jazz and Heat got lucky bagging stars in the late lottery - late 1st and the latter is in a glamour market. Relying on being the team to pick the needle out of the haystack is both foolish and arrogant.


Funny cuz Boston and SA are basically at the same level but I would argue SA’s youngsters have even more room improve than Boston’s.

No, they're not. The Celtics had a bunch of COVID and injury related absences to their best players this season. They have a high quality core and have proven they can attract significant free agents.

[timvp]

Yes, well the third pick that year was Jayson Tatum, who would have been the star player they would have wanted. They could also have gotten De'Aaron Fox at 5. I think the only dud that year in the top 5 was Josh Jackson, though Fultz may end up a dud.

During that season, the top three can't-miss prospects were Fultz, Ball and Jackson and they were supposedly why the Heat should have tanked when they were 11-30. Tatum didn't start rising until later:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170206192858/http://www.nbadraft.net/

But, yeah, not resorting to tanking has paid off quite nicely for a lot of franchises, including the Heat. Hell, even the vast majority of internet Spurs fans thought the Spurs should start tanking and rebuilding back in in like 2009. By 2011, it was almost unanimous that the Spurs would never contend and that Duncan should retire, etc:

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178659

[timvp]

The Celtics had a bunch of COVID and injury related absences to their best players this season.

While the Spurs had a weak schedule (huh?) and "clutch time luck" (provably false). Good stuff, tnbh :tu

[TD 21]

While the Spurs had a weak schedule (huh?) and "clutch time luck" (provably false). Good stuff, tnbh :tu


early lead courtesy of a weak schedule and rare clutch time luck

[Chinook]

I think there's a massive difference between believing the roster as is should be overhauled and that the team should tank. I honestly do think the Spurs' current biggest issue is that they don't have a clean development web for their prospects. That is one of the main reasons I've argue for trading Murray. Basically keeping him, White and potentially Walker on second contracts is a bigger risk to damage the team long-term than re-upping DeRozan to a short-term deal. DeMar is what he is -- and he's good at being that. If he's there, you can build around that by getting off-ball offensive players and strong defenders. It's not going to make a great team, but those are roles where guys can develop in. But you have to run a more traditional offense to give the structure necessarily to instill good habits. Moving DeRozan only to replace him with White and try to run the same offense isn't ultimately going to cut it. Say what you want about the "new NBA" or whatever, but guys like Danny Green still find ways to be impact players despite not being ball-handlers. Johnson could use an intermediate game, but he could use a more consistent three-ball way more. Stop trying to make everybody a one-on-one star and teach them how to play team ball.

Anyway, yeah, the Spurs should look to make smart moves to improve their long-term position, but those trades aren't as simple as getting picks for older guys and losing games. It means that basically everyone should be on the table for the right price and that they shouldn't put any player on the roster currently as the focal point of their system. Meaning that fit with any of them is basically irrelevant. How the guys on the roster fit together is obviously important, but the goal needs to be adding talent for a good price, and if a less talented incumbent player doesn't fit, then too bad. The Grizzlies didn't trade Gasol until after they drafted JJJ, and they didn't trade Conley until after they drafted Morant. The Spurs have so many youngish players on the roster right now that getting multiple first-rounders this year feels like a questionable move. But it shouldn't be. Pick the two or three guys you think are your best prospects and look to make deals with the rest. Fill the gaps with vets. Don't try to draft and develop a future starting line-up. That almost never works nowadays. Just focus on a few and then try to lock in deep-bench players for really cheap deals like Eubanks and Jones.

The Spurs should absolutely be looking for a starting wing and PF this summer, guys like Samanic and the losers of the Johnson/Walker/Vassell competition be damned. Obviously don't sign an awful player and put them above those guys. But getting legit players to fill out their rotation should be their top priorities, not finding a way to play as many raw guys at once.

[gambit1990]

If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.

1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.

2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you accumulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.

Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.

1) trading for demar = "Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era" ?? :lol
2) dude... the spurs have smoldering since moving kawhi, except without having high picks to show for it

it's funny that you say: "it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless" ... that's exactly where we're at

[itzsoweezee]

1) trading for demar = "Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era" ?? :lol
2) dude... the spurs have smoldering since moving kawhi, except without having high picks to show for it

it's funny that you say: "it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless" ... that's exactly where we're at

These people are just delusional. Like, living in an alternate reality delusional. Somehow, the Spurs are building a winning culture by missing the playoffs and spending three years centering the offense and defense around a loser like derozan.

If they had “burned it down” two years ago, they’d be in a much better position of being a playoff team soon. Now, they’re 3 years away, at least, with no star prospects and no path to winning.

Also, the heat are in Miami. So it’s just stupid comparing San Antonio to them. And the jazz built around two stars. The Spurs have ZERO.

[cd98]

During that season, the top three can't-miss prospects were Fultz, Ball and Jackson and they were supposedly why the Heat should have tanked when they were 11-30. Tatum didn't start rising until later:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170206192858/http://www.nbadraft.net/

But, yeah, not resorting to tanking has paid off quite nicely for a lot of franchises, including the Heat. Hell, even the vast majority of internet Spurs fans thought the Spurs should start tanking and rebuilding back in in like 2009. By 2011, it was almost unanimous that the Spurs would never contend and that Duncan should retire, etc:

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178659

Well I was definitely not the one thinking of tanking until last year. But I disagree on Tatum. He was on Duke and was clearly a one and done player. Now, I don't think he was likely to go no. 1, but he was definitely considered a top 3 lottery pick as I remember it. I still think Ball could end up being a really good player and I think if the Spurs were not overloaded at the position, they'd make a push for him in the offseason. Fultz has been a dud so far, but Orlando is counting on him to still reach his potential. The only real dud is Jackson, but it was well known he couldn't shoot coming out of college.

The fact that the Heat got Bam and he turned into a player doesn't mean that getting the 14th pick and a near miss playoff run is the right way to go. Plenty of teams have drafted at 14 and got a dud player that didn't work out. Statistically, a top 5 pick is going to have a better chance of hitting. I mean we only know what happens after-the-fact, so we won't know if the Spurs made the right move until probably two or three years down the road. But as every draft expert has said, this is the best draft in a while in terms of projected star players. No guarantee, but people talk about it like it was the year to get into the lottery.

[timvp]

And the jazz built around two stars.

How did the Jazz get their two stars?

[rankingtear]

These people are just delusional. Like, living in an alternate reality delusional. Somehow, the Spurs are building a winning culture by missing the playoffs and spending three years centering the offense and defense around a loser like derozan.

If they had “burned it down” two years ago, they’d be in a much better position of being a playoff team soon. Now, they’re 3 years away, at least, with no star prospects and no path to winning.

Also, the heat are in Miami. So it’s just stupid comparing San Antonio to them. And the jazz built around two stars. The Spurs have ZERO.

[exstatic]

How did the Jazz get their two stars?

Rudy Gobert, pick #27 in 2013, acquired for pick #46 in 2013, plus cash.

Donovan Mitchell, pick #13 2017 draft, acquired for pick #24 and Trey Lyles.

Both players were drafted and traded to Utah from Denver.

[timvp]

Rudy Gobert, pick #27 in 2013, acquired for pick #46 in 2013, plus cash.

Donovan Mitchell, pick #13 2017 draft, acquired for pick #24 and Trey Lyles.

Both players were drafted and traded to Utah from Denver.

Hmmm ... interesting. So burning down the franchise isn't the only way to rebuild, maybe.

[rjv]

Perfect examples of lack of basic reading comprehension, especially the last one, where the opposite was literally said in the title.


eh, my post was in reply to Chinook's observation, not to your thread starter.

[cd98]

Rudy Gobert, pick #27 in 2013, acquired for pick #46 in 2013, plus cash.

Donovan Mitchell, pick #13 2017 draft, acquired for pick #24 and Trey Lyles.

Both players were drafted and traded to Utah from Denver.

Yes, but how many #13 picks turn into Donovan Mitchell or even 50% of Donovan Mitchell and how many #27 picks turn into Gobert or even 50% of Gobert? That is the problem with saying that you can win and just draft guys in the late lottery and late first round. I believe in the Spurs development program, but the only late first round picks that have hit big were Tony Parker and maybe George Hill. Other than that, they have drafted players that got minor roles in the NBA and they have drafted players overseas that never did anything. The chances of having a player hit are greater when you are in the lottery picking in the top 5. That's why people advocate some form of tanking. I am all-in on playing the youth and seeing where you end up at the end of the season when you do not have a franchise that is a contender.

[Russ]

Yes, but how many #13 picks turn into Donovan Mitchell or even 50% of Donovan Mitchell and how many #27 picks turn into Gobert or even 50% of Gobert? That is the problem with saying that you can win and just draft guys in the late lottery and late first round.

But at the same time, how many top 5 picks turn into those guys? The odds are better but only incrementally.

In fact, since you mentioned #13 Mitchell, what about #15 Kawhi, an actual Spurs' pick.


I believe in the Spurs development program, but the only late first round picks that have hit big were Tony Parker and maybe George Hill.

Even forgetting about Kawhi, what about Manu? He was a late 2d round pick, I think we have to include late 1st round or later when we talk about what's available without tanking.

And if we expand it outside Spurs world (as we already did with Donovan Mitchell and Gobert), then we have to include soon-to-be MVP Nikola Jokic.

So to recap, you can get Gobert, Parker, Manu, or Jokic without tanking . . .

Hmmmm, what do those guys have in common?

[K...]

Is tonight the first test of this thread? Spurs win, thread closed? Or is this like the gambit 1990 thread where even if the spurs win, they'd win bigger if they tanked.

[cd98]

But at the same time, how many top 5 picks turn into those guys? The odds are better but only incrementally.

In fact, since you mentioned #13 Mitchell, what about #15 Kawhi, an actual Spurs' pick.



Even forgetting about Kawhi, what about Manu? He was a late 2d round pick, I think we have to include late 1st round or later when we talk about what's available without tanking.

And if we expand it outside Spurs world (as we already did with Donovan Mitchell and Gobert), then we have to include soon-to-be MVP Nikola Jokic.

So to recap, you can get Gobert, Parker, Manu, or Jokic without tanking . . .

Hmmmm, what do those guys have in common?

Again, you can list the exceptions to the rule all you want. But I can come with a list 3x longer with the picks that didn't work out. Is it possible to draft a player that becomes great at the end of the first round or in the second round? Yes. How often does it happen? Rarely. I can name a lot more picks in the 1-5 range that are superstars and MVP winners and title winners as the main star on their team as players drafted at the end of the lottery and at the end of the first round or second round. The exceptions are exceptions to the rule, the exceptions are not the rule. How many other HOF players were drafted with the last pick of the 2nd round besides Manu? Are you going to build a team banking on those odds?

[cd98]

Per NBA.com, the best player in the draft was listed for each of the drafts in the last 20 years. Of the last twenty years, 12 of the best players were taken in the first five picks of the draft. Only 3 were in the 10-15 range. Only two were late first round picks. And only one was a second round pick.

https://www.nba.com/news/best-player-from-last-20-nba-drafts

[Dejounte]

Again, you can list the exceptions to the rule all you want. But I can come with a list 3x longer with the picks that didn't work out. Is it possible to draft a player that becomes great at the end of the first round or in the second round? Yes. How often does it happen? Rarely. I can name a lot more picks in the 1-5 range that are superstars and MVP winners and title winners as the main star on their team as players drafted at the end of the lottery and at the end of the first round or second round. The exceptions are exceptions to the rule, the exceptions are not the rule. How many other HOF players were drafted with the last pick of the 2nd round besides Manu? Are you going to build a team banking on those odds?

What? Of course you can. There are 10 players in the top 10, and there's 50 players after the top 10. This was a stupid statement :lmao

A better way to do it is to compare picks [1-10] to picks [11-20]. That's an equal number of players and obviously the percentage of stars is higher in the top 10, but likely much lower than you think. In any given draft, only 3 (if that) of the 10 players in the top 10 become anything worthwhile. While the players selected between 11-20 is from 1-2. Is that such a great difference? You tell me.

[rjv]

Per NBA.com, the best player in the draft was listed for each of the drafts in the last 20 years. Of the last twenty years, 12 of the best players were taken in the first five picks of the draft. Only 3 were in the 10-15 range. Only two were late first round picks. And only one was a second round pick.

https://www.nba.com/news/best-player-from-last-20-nba-drafts

yes, but game changers could have been picked later in the draft in several of these years so it's not as if you had to have a top three in those years to have found an impact player. for instance, in 2000, jamaal crawford was selected at #8, in 2002, tayshaun prince at # 23, iguadola at #9 in 2004, marc gasol in the 2nd round in 2007, draymond in the 2nd in 2012, siakam at #27 in 2016, mitchell at 13 and adabayo at 14 in 2017, and herro and clarke in 2019 at #13 at 21 respectively. you don't have to necessarily get the "best" player in a year when there is no james or durant.

[SAGirl]

Is tonight the first test of this thread? Spurs win, thread closed? Or is this like the gambit 1990 thread where even if the spurs win, they'd win bigger if they tanked.
This topic is not going to be over this season... TBH until the Spurs draft a steal it will keep coming up. I am yawning already.

[SAGirl]

Per NBA.com, the best player in the draft was listed for each of the drafts in the last 20 years. Of the last twenty years, 12 of the best players were taken in the first five picks of the draft. Only 3 were in the 10-15 range. Only two were late first round picks. And only one was a second round pick.

https://www.nba.com/news/best-player-from-last-20-nba-drafts
Interesting and useful FACT. Thanks.

[Dejounte]

https://i.ibb.co/zRRsF6C/2011.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ibb.co/pv1MkFn/2012.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ibb.co/9wvVzzj/2013.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ibb.co/12T5Hvz/2014.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ibb.co/xFCy1b9/2015.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ibb.co/Y8ccy3p/2016.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ibb.co/ynMpjNC/2017.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short:

2011 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 3 stars between #11 to #20
2012 had 4 stars in the top 10 to 0 stars between #11 to #20
2013 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2014 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2015 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2016 had 4 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2017 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 2 stars between #11 to #20

In seven years,

an average of 2-3 stars came out from the top 10
and
an average of 1-2 stars came out of the #11-#20 selections

Wow, such a drastic difference

This is not even accounting for the players who became stars after the 20th selection... If your team has a good scouting department, it's possible you can increase your odds of finding a star after the 10th pick to gain an equal to or greater than odds of getting one in the top 10.

[Dejounte]

BTW...

Which team would win?

Team Top 10:

PG: Kyrie/ Lillard/ Jamal Murray
SG: Beal/ McCollum
SF: Jayson Tatum/ Ben Simmons
PF: J.Randle/ Brandon Ingram
C: A.Davis/ Embiid

against

Team #11-#20:
PG: Zach LaVine/ Donavon Mitchell
SG: Klay/ Devin Booker/
SF: Kawhi
PF: Giannis/ Bam Adebayo
C: Vucevic/ Domantas Sabonis

^doing this exercise made me realize star point guards barely come from the #11-20 selections. There were literally 0 of them between 2011-2017. Amazing. Meanwhile, star SG's and forwards were more abundant in that range. Further proof the Spurs should draft a wing/ forward this upcoming draft.

[Seventyniner]

This certainly shows that finding stars is just plain hard. Obviously easier at the top of the draft, but having a FO with a good eye for talent/character/team-building is more important than draft position. Just look at the Hornets. Of course those two things are not mutually exclusive, I just think that too many ignore the negative effects of deliberate tanking. Culture and ownership do matter.

[mo7888]

BTW...

Which team would win?

Team Top 10:

PG: Kyrie/ Lillard/ Jamal Murray
SG: Beal/ McCollum
SF: Jayson Tatum/ Ben Simmons
PF: J.Randle/ Brandon Ingram
C: A.Davis/ Embiid

against

Team #11-#20:
PG: Zach LaVine/ Donavon Mitchell
SG: Klay/ Devin Booker/
SF: Kawhi
PF: Giannis/ Bam Adebayo
C: Vucevic/ Domantas Sabonis

^doing this exercise made me realize star point guards barely come from the #11-20 selections. There were literally 0 of them between 2011-2017. Amazing. Meanwhile, star SG's and forwards were more abundant in that range. Further proof the Spurs should draft a wing/ forward this upcoming draft.

Now that's interesting stuff...

[cd98]

What? Of course you can. There are 10 players in the top 10, and there's 50 players after the top 10. This was a stupid statement :lmao

A better way to do it is to compare picks [1-10] to picks [11-20]. That's an equal number of players and obviously the percentage of stars is higher in the top 10, but likely much lower than you think. In any given draft, only 3 (if that) of the 10 players in the top 10 become anything worthwhile. While the players selected between 11-20 is from 1-2. Is that such a great difference? You tell me.

It's not that it's a stupid statement. It's that it's obvious. And it's also obvious that citing that because one player that was drafted in the second round became an MVP candidate is ridiculous to defend the notion that somehow banking on that happening again in the next 20 years is a solid strategy for rebuilding a team. I don't think you've read all my arguments or maybe you haven't understood them. I have said that the best percentage chance of getting a difference maker or a star is by drafting 1-5 in the lottery. That is a fact. Is it a guarantee that you will draft a star? No. And some drafts are weaker than others. But this draft is, by all the draft experts, a top heavy draft of potential difference makers and that's why it makes sense to play your young players, lose games, let them get experience, and get into the top 5. Yes, you might draft the next franchise superstar at 11 or 12 or wherever they pick, but the chances are lesser that that will be the case.

[spurraider21]

OP is the original gutless worm

[cd98]

yes, but game changers could have been picked later in the draft in several of these years so it's not as if you had to have a top three in those years to have found an impact player. for instance, in 2000, jamaal crawford was selected at #8, in 2002, tayshaun prince at # 23, iguadola at #9 in 2004, marc gasol in the 2nd round in 2007, draymond in the 2nd in 2012, siakam at #27 in 2016, mitchell at 13 and adabayo at 14 in 2017, and herro and clarke in 2019 at #13 at 21 respectively. you don't have to necessarily get the "best" player in a year when there is no james or durant.

That's true that you can draft an impact player and that is good to have. But to win a title, you got to get a superstar and the Spurs are unlikely to get one through free agency, so they need to find someone at 11 that is better than Crawford, Iguadala, Prince, Green, Siakam, Mitchell, and Adabayo, or Herro or Clarke. That's hard to do at 1-5, but it's even harder to do at 11-15, and even harder yet to do it 16-30.

[Dejounte]

It's not that it's a stupid statement. It's that it's obvious. And it's also obvious that citing that because one player that was drafted in the second round became an MVP candidate is ridiculous to defend the notion that somehow banking on that happening again in the next 20 years is a solid strategy for rebuilding a team. I don't think you've read all my arguments or maybe you haven't understood them. I have said that the best percentage chance of getting a difference maker or a star is by drafting 1-5 in the lottery. That is a fact. Is it a guarantee that you will draft a star? No. And some drafts are weaker than others. But this draft is, by all the draft experts, a top heavy draft of potential difference makers and that's why it makes sense to play your young players, lose games, let them get experience, and get into the top 5. Yes, you might draft the next franchise superstar at 11 or 12 or wherever they pick, but the chances are lesser that that will be the case.

I didn't cite this and I'm telling you what's stupid is believing that drafting in the top 5 or top 10 has as great of a chance you think it is at landing a star (if you read my other posts). That's ignoring the fact that it will cost the Spurs more than just a tanked season since you think that's all it will cost.

When you say "best percentage chance" it really is no greater than a 20% chance, and likely much less if you factor in that there's a chance you drop out of the top 5 due to the lottery. The odds are not great. People think tanking, getting a star, and then becoming a successful team is simple math when it's actually calculus.

[cd98]

I didn't cite this and I'm telling you what's stupid is believing that drafting in the top 5 or top 10 has as great of a chance you think it is at landing a star (if you read my other posts). That's ignoring the fact that it will cost the Spurs more than just a tanked season since you think that's all it will cost.

When you say "best percentage chance" it really is no greater than a 20% chance, and likely much less if you factor in that there's a chance you drop out of the top 5 due to the lottery. The odds are not great. People think tanking, getting a star, and then becoming a successful team is simple math when it's actually calculus.

That's not the totality of the analysis. It's not just "get to the top 5 picks." It's considering what is the talent in the draft. It's considering what is the current roster make-up. And it is considering what is the benefit of making the playin, playing one game, and then getting eliminated. In years where the draft doesn't look good, then sure, try and make the playoffs. But this is a top heavy draft. The Spurs are not going to get their next superstar through free agency. It's going to be through the draft. And their best chance of doing it was landing a 1-5 pick in a good draft. That would be this year, a year where they had a really hard schedule, no fans in the chairs, and a product where the best selling point to watch was to see the young players.

I'm not advocating taking DDR sit and exaggerate an injury like David Robinson did to ensure the Spurs could draft Tim Duncan. The Spurs started sitting their whole roster back then. I'm saying play the young players. All of them. Prioritize them over aging vets. Send Rudy Gay to a team that has a chance to win with him instead of wasting his precious years on a team that weighs success as getting to the 10th seed and a playin. In the totality of the circumstances, I see playing the young players and seeing where it takes the Spurs as a better option than leaning on vets and trying to make the 10th seed so you can draft 11 or 12. I just don't see the point in that. If the Spurs were spending 11 years in the lottery like Sacramento, then I would see things differently. But they can spend one year in the lottery and hope that they get one of the top 3 picks, who are all projected to have star careers and then couple them with the young players that we already have and see what happens. That makes more sense to me than trying to win a play in spot in a short season.

[TD 21]

:lmao Intentionally being obtuse about my and others position and supporting a decision to actively have math/odds against them on multiple counts, both in terms of style of play and overall direction.

[JuneJive]

TD21 If math was the answer we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Luckily / sadly, it is not, but there is a certain level of truth to your posts, however morose they might be.

[Man In Black]

Russ!

You still have that ASTERISK .GIF file of you at Staples in 2003?

Thanks,
Man In Black

Oh and I agree...NO NEED FOR A FULL SCALE CLEANOUT OR TANK. They were competitive in a game where they were down 21 points and ended up losing by 4. People want to blame DeRozan for an off-shooting night but he got to the line and remained aggressive. What about the YOUNG guys? Had Derrick White been healthy, there would be no Dillon Brooks scoring 24 Points.

[Man In Black]

BTW...

Which team would win?

Team Top 10:

PG: Kyrie/ Lillard/ Jamal Murray
SG: Beal/ McCollum
SF: Jayson Tatum/ Ben Simmons
PF: J.Randle/ Brandon Ingram
C: A.Davis/ Embiid

against

Team #11-#20:
PG: Zach LaVine/ Donavon Mitchell
SG: Klay/ Devin Booker/
SF: Kawhi
PF: Giannis/ Bam Adebayo
C: Vucevic/ Domantas Sabonis

^doing this exercise made me realize star point guards barely come from the #11-20 selections. There were literally 0 of them between 2011-2017. Amazing. Meanwhile, star SG's and forwards were more abundant in that range. Further proof the Spurs should draft a wing/ forward this upcoming draft.

That's pretty eye-opening.