Run for Play-In

[Rocalcio]

I know you guys are all focusing on the tank and hoping for the best pick but it looks like PATFO is aiming for the Play-In. Considering the schedule we have a great shoot at it.

[KingKev]

Playing and beating the Lakers in the play-in would be a nice consolation prize for not getting a top 5 pick.

[cjw]

Playing and beating the Lakers in the play-in would be a nice consolation prize for not getting a top 5 pick.

Hey, both could happen! Beat Lakers in 9-10 game, lose the next play-in, and lottery balls pop up the right way!

In all seriousness, win or lose here, treating the remaining stretch like the playoffs is great experience for the team. Better than being out of it in February like many of the teams below them.

[ZeusWillJudge]

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[cd98]

Getting to the play-in is short sighted. Ugh.

[CGD]

Honesty at the point at which your record projects you to pick closer to 10 than 7, i don’t see much downside in trying to make a run for the play in. You’re already entering the middling/meh part of the draft anyway where you’re choosing between the Duartes, Primos, and Moodys of the world.

Frustrating but hopefully it balances out with whatever psychological benefits flows to the players of pushing for the goal.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I'm rooting for the play-in, hopefully knocking out the Lakers would make the season a success. Also, while difficult to judge, player development is better when they play meaningful games. Look at Primo yesterday - he was supposed to spend the season in the gleague and now he's starting and playing 35 minutes in the most important game of the season. Important to notice how Pop played him over Josh Richardson down the stretch, because of his defense. Does anyone think Suggs, for example, is developing at all right now?

Besides, this draft is bad, there's very little talent difference between picks 6 - 14.

Regarding the play-in, it's important to know the Spurs hold the tie breaker with NO (3-1) and will most likely do so against Lakers as well (2-2 but having a better record against western teams). In a 3-way tie the Spurs would come on top. The remaining schedule is very interesting for all teams :
https://www.tankathon.com/spurs
https://www.tankathon.com/pelicans
https://www.tankathon.com/lakers

On paper Lakers have the toughest schedule but it's difficult to say what strength teams will field for the last games.

It seems like 35 wins will be enough to make the play-in, maybe 34 if some team continues to struggle.

[John B]

And getting thrashed in the 1st round while getting the 15th pick as consolation, instead of getting a shot at top 4 however small chance that is, still a chance. Nah.

[FutureMan]

As most fans know, you’re just wasting time without a franchise player. 50% of the best players in the NBA are top 4 draft picks. This leads me to three scenarios as to why they would go for the play in:

1. For Pop to retire with a playoff team
2. They know they will be acquiring a franchise player in free agency so they don’t care about the pick. I believe the only two that they could acquire are Ayton and Lavine.
3. The NBA has decided the Spurs should be trapped in purgatory for at least another year

[SAGirl]

I am here. Thanks for the thread!

[Degoat]

Im disappointed the spurs arent losing games at this point, but it is important to maintain a culture of winning tbh you look and every year it’s the same teams at the bottom praying for ping pong balls lol We most likely have 3 first round picks in the upcoming draft (plus a 2nd rounder) and cap flexibility. At the very least we have lots of flexibility the spurs can choose to play with

[SAGirl]

To hope for a tank at this point is defeatist. They won’t end with a top pick and there is very little separation on talent between picks 8-10 or even below that. Also, the Spurs would alienate the players, DJ specially by closing shop early while they are trying to make the play in game and still have a chance. The last thing you want as a player and leader is for Pop to believe you can’t make it and hold you back. It doesn’t make sense this late tbh.

[Chinook]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.

[John B]

Unless the Spurs are a big market, they have a bigger chance of drafting their next franchise player (26% top 4 at 8th), than a top tier player (most likely disgruntled) coming to San Antonio, imo.

[Mr. Body]

It was clear they were never tanking.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Unless the Spurs are a big market, they have a bigger chance of drafting their next franchise player (26% top 4 at 8th), than a top tier player (most likely disgruntled) coming to San Antonio, imo.

Perhaps, but getting a top 4 pick isn't the same as getting a franchise player, much less the kind of a franchise player that can lead a team to title contention. Specifically in this draft there don't seem to be real tier 1 prospects. Holmgren and Smith have 2nd/3rd banana ceilings. Banchero and Ivey could be really good but they have much lower floors. Sharpe is a complete wild card. It's not a great draft as a whole.

[Russ]

The Spurs' will likely finish somewhere between the 7th and 9th worst record in the league.

A full-on tank might get them up (down?) to the 7th worst record.

A play-in berth would get them the 9th worst record (assuming they don't win two road games in row against higher seeded teams).

If they try to tank but don't get to 7 or try to win and don't get to 9, they'll be at 8 (possibly the most likely outcome).

The chances of getting a top 4 pick are as follows:

7th worst record -- 31.9%

8th worst record -- 26.2%

9th worst record -- 20.2%

That's about a 10% difference between going all out to win and trying to lose every game. A one in ten difference is, at most, what all this fuss is about.

The more likely difference is between 8 and 9, so a mere 5% difference is more realistically what all this fuss is about.

Tanking or not tanking is not a binary thing, although as humans we're programmed to think that way. Rather this situation is incremental, statistical. And you don't get points for trying (or not trying) or thinking good/bad thoughts, although again as humans we're programmed to think that way. That's why when people are asked whether they want a 50% chance to get something rather than 50% of losing something, when it's exactly the same choice, they react differently. And I think that's why we're so excited about trying to lose games in this case.

If you had a 20% of winning some bet, how much better would you feel if you had a 26% chance of winning? Would it make that much difference?

I hope the Spurs to go out and play hard and try to get better as a young team. The "fates" may reward you more for that.

[duncan2150]

What's best tonight for the play in, a Pels or Lakers win ? imo it's a Pels win, Lakers having a tougher schedule i think spurs could go ahead of them.

[BatManu20]

If we go through all this shit and make the play-in game just to be sent home by Lebron and the lakers this will be one of the worst Spurs seasons in franchise history tbh. :lol

[BatManu20]

What's best tonight for the play in, a Pels or Lakers win ? imo it's a Pels win, Lakers having a tougher schedule i think spurs could go ahead of them.

Lakers loss would be better obviously.

[MultiTroll]

Later picks can and have happened. But most of todays *stars* are top 5 picks.

15th Greek Freak
15th Kwa Leonard
13th Booker
7th Steffi Curry

[MultiTroll]

I'm rooting for the play-in, hopefully knocking out the Lakers would make the season a success.
If that makes your season a success, the suck factor of losing to the Flamers in the play in has to be considered vs upping the draft pick.

[Mr. Body]

There are no clear stars in this lottery, even at the top. Banchero may be the most polished right now, but it's not clear that he'll be much more than a Randle-type player. Top picks wind up being very expensive. I'm not even sure the Spurs want to bother with that mess. Regardless of draft position they're liable to do something really odd and surprising.

[Degoat]

This upcoming draft is interesting, I keep hearing it’s deep but there’s no sure thing from the players I’ve been watching imo

[Ariel]

There are never any guarantees, but let's not kid ourselves: there's an ABYSMAL difference between (the chance at) picking in the top 4 vs (the certainty of) picking outside the top 10, just for the opportunity to be slapped by the first opponent we meet... I understand the culture aspect of it, and I don't imply that you tell your players to lose, but it's undeniably better for the Spurs long term NOT to make the play in... Rationalizing otherwise is just sour grapes...

[slick'81]

I mean this is what spur fan really wants i guess. Beating a Bunch of tanking teams and making a playin game that nobody really wants to be in

[ZeusWillJudge]

The Spurs' will likely finish somewhere between the 7th and 9th worst record in the league.

A full-on tank might get them up (down?) to the 7th worst record.

A play-in berth would get them the 9th worst record (assuming they don't win two road games in row against higher seeded teams).

If they try to tank but don't get to 7 or try to win and don't get to 9, they'll be at 8 (possibly the most likely outcome).

The chances of getting a top 4 pick are as follows:

7th worst record -- 31.9%

8th worst record -- 26.2%

9th worst record -- 20.2%

That's about a 10% difference between going all out to win and trying to lose every game. A one in ten difference is, at most, what all this fuss is about.

The more likely difference is between 8 and 9, so a mere 5% difference is more realistically what all this fuss is about.

Tanking or not tanking is not a binary thing, although as humans we're programmed to think that way. Rather this situation is incremental, statistical. And you don't get points for trying (or not trying) or thinking good/bad thoughts, although again as humans we're programmed to think that way. That's why when people are asked whether they want a 50% chance to get something rather than 50% of losing something, when it's exactly the same choice, they react differently. And I think that's why we're so excited about trying to lose games in this case.

If you had a 20% of winning some bet, how much better would you feel if you had a 26% chance of winning? Would it make that much difference?

I hope the Spurs to go out and play hard and try to get better as a young team. The "fates" may reward you more for that.


Would it make much difference if a bet had a 30% greater chance of winning? Seriously? People like you are the exact reason why Las Vegas continues to rake in billions in profits every year.

You're right, it's not binary. Not only does the 10 slot have a much lower chance of a Top 4 pick, it has a zero percent chance of getting picks 5,6,7,8, or 9. So I guess if draft position doesn't really matter, the Spur would be really smart to trade their first rounder for a couple of second round picks.

And just so you're clear - I know the Fates personally, and only Atropos rewards people for being stupid. And her reward is cutting their life short. So perfect analogy.

[Mr. Body]

This upcoming draft is interesting, I keep hearing it’s deep but there’s no sure thing from the players I’ve been watching imo

It's not deep.

[Ariel]

The more likely difference is between 8 and 9, so a mere 5% difference is more realistically what all this fuss is about.
The Spurs are, as of now, the 8th worst record, and there are 4 other teams than are separated by 2 games (Pelicans, Lakers, Wizards, Kicks). So if you're going all out and you succeed, you might end up at 12-14 and if you end up making the playoffs, you pick at 15, with a ZERO percent chance at a top four pick. So while it's true that the outcome is probabilistic, you're not taking into account the full picture either.

[hoopdreams11]

Later picks can and have happened. But most of todays *stars* are top 5 picks.

15th Greek Freak
15th Kwa Leonard
13th Booker
7th Steffi Curry

Draymond and Middleton were second rounders

[Ariel]

Draymond and Middleton were second rounders
So were Jokic and Manu. But there are 30 secound rounders every year, and in the past 20 years, how many were top 10 talent worthy? you do the math...

[Mr. Body]

Guys, just because like four good players were drafted in the 2nd round lately doesn't mean they're all good. The Spurs also drafted zero of them.

[Degoat]

It's not deep.

That’s not what the draft experts are saying about this years draft

[duncan2150]

It's not deep.


It's deep but i think you talk about high level talent, it's not that deep in that way.

[Ariel]

It's deep but i think you talk about high level talent, it's not that deep in that way.
This. It's probably deep in that you might find a good player in the late teens, but franchise caliber players are all long gone by then.
For instance, I really like Sochan, who I think will go in the late lottery. If things go right and his shot develops, he ends up a quality starter for a competent team for many years. But if Ivey, Banchero or Smith pan out, you've got yourself a franchise player to build around for 10+ years... and that's a difference.

[Mr. Body]

That’s not what the draft experts are saying about this years draft

What draft experts? I haven't seen anything like that. Draft experts are also often full of shit. This isn't a deep draft.

[offset formation]

Playing and beating the Lakers in the play-in would be a nice consolation prize for not getting a top 5 pick.

I normally would agree cause fuck the lakers but we aren't the lakers. we will just remain in a state of basketball purgatory while they'll bottom out for a year or two and then sign the next two biggest free agents and be right back to the top.

So in this rare instance, not making the play in would be preferable. Though there may not be much of a difference in what kind of draft pick we ultimately get this close to the play-in. It seems the real trajectory changing talent in this draft resides in the top 5 anyway.

[Degoat]

What draft experts? I haven't seen anything like that. Draft experts are also often full of shit. This isn't a deep draft.

Go read some draft articles online lol they all say it’s a deep draft, there’s just uncertainty with it

[Russ]

If you had a 20% of winning some bet, how much better would you feel if you had a 26% chance of winning? Would it make that much difference?


Would it make much difference if a bet had a 30% greater chance of winning? Seriously?

It depends.

If you had a 1% chance of winning would it make a difference if you had a 1.3% chance? That's 30% greater.

30% of what is the question. In this case 30% equals a mere 6% (from 20% to 26%).

If you had a 77% chance of winning an extra 30% would give you a 100% chance -- that would really matter!

To be brutally honest, Zeus, to mistake a 6% increase in chance of success for a 30% increased chance, that's the kind of enticing thought that makes "Las Vegas continues to rake in billions in profits every year." :)

[BackHome]

I hate to break it to a lot of people but this team sucks we do not have a lot of talent well we got two legit NBA starters Murray and Poodle and that is it. We are not going to get anyone any good in free agency with this group because everyone knows that we are going to suck for years. So the best thing to get people to actually go to games and watch us on TV is for a couple of years of hard tank and hopefully we can get lucky to get two really really good starters. This team will not get good overnight it is going to take at least 3 years if they embrace the tank and never if we keep drafting in the teens

[CGD]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.

I’ve been thinking about your last point there for some time. I do wonder if the team experts assess or characterize the top of this draft a certain way.

It’s like in the NFL: not all drafts are good QB drafts (like this coming one), so better to allocate resources to replenishing ranks via multiple 3/4 rounds.

[CGD]

This upcoming draft is interesting, I keep hearing it’s deep but there’s no sure thing from the players I’ve been watching imo

I don’t know man. I’m increasingly feeling it’s a little thin out there. Perhaps it’s the lack of decent foreign prospects this time around? No se

May we’ll validate the theory of the case in taking Primo last year where they did.

[K...]

whenever someone says "the spurs aint shit until we have a franchise player" ...how many such players are in the league today and how did they arrive there. Are any with the original drafting team as of today?

[spurs10]

They should go for it because their draft prospects won't be that different and if TO makes the playoffs we'll have some bargaining chips.

[R. DeMurre]

whenever someone says "the spurs aint shit until we have a franchise player" ...how many such players are in the league today and how did they arrive there. Are any with the original drafting team as of today?


Giannis, Embiid, Jokic, Doncic, Tatum, Steph... quite a few actually.

[Mr. Body]

Go read some draft articles online lol they all say it’s a deep draft, there’s just uncertainty with it

I think by "deep draft" they mean not top heavy. It's just a bullshit term they use to mean there aren't any sure things.

[BackHome]

Every year they say the next year is full of talent and then we get to that year and then everyone says not a lot of high for sure talent.

[Kurik]

Every year they say the next year is full of talent and then we get to that year and then everyone says not a lot of high for sure talent.

Basically this, I’ve seen articles every year saying that the next year should be deeper. At this point I just put it all on NBA teams to draft, develop, or maneuver well through trades.

[KingKev]

Ppl need to realize a top 4 pick is all but lost. It’s a sunk cost. I enjoyed watching last night because for the first time in awhile the game had relevance. Hitting the ML +210 for a quick buck was also nice.

Bitch and moan about not tanking or enjoy what is left with the season. It was wishful thinking (myself included) from the jump to think this organization could out tank others.

We have infinite cap space, a growing amount of draft capital and potentially two building blocks in Murray and maybe Keldon. Could be worse.

[Mr. Body]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.

Two major things here (and I agree):

1. The Spurs alread have developing players. Getting those developing players experience in games that matter is very important. If they are a playoff team next year, and I think they can be, the push this year will have echoes in how they perform then. The franchise values a winning culture over tanking for a slot or two in the draft. We'll see if a team like Portland can get the gum out of their eyes and actually perform, even with Lillard, after indicating that they're losers. That gets into the bones. Look at the enthusiasm of the Spurs at beating teams right now. It's been a hard year because they can't close games. Here they are, learning how.

2. This franchise values flexibility and the long-term. It is unlikely to commit money to unknowns. This is why dreams of signing a John Collins likely come out of a pipe. The franchise just doesn't work in making big, fat money bets that are really hard to discharge. In a draft where there are no sure things, they aren't too hard pressed to try for a high pick. And the reason why is that those high picks turn out to be really expensive in the long run. If you don't have a franchise or near-franchise player, you're screwed. Jabari Smith, Holmgren, Ivey, Banchero. These are nice players. But are they worth eventually moving a guy like Primo or Vassell down the line, maybe even both?

In short, the Spurs value a winning culture and value long-term flexibility. They make their own luck, even if it doesn't come out well for them, like how they failed to avoid Memphis when they owned us a decade ago. Instead they got two later 1st round picks and still have the LAL 2nd rounder and will see what they can do to trade them around or find guys they like.

[K...]

Giannis, Embiid, Jokic, Doncic, Tatum, Steph... quite a few actually.

so is that one franchise guy every 3 years? so the spurs have to hard tank 3 years to get one (assuming they actually can talent spot better than most teams) vs soft tanking for 10 yrs?

[Ariel]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.
Top 10 teams in each conference that got their best players through the draft:
Phoenix: Ayton, Booker, Bridges
Memphis: Ja Morant, Jaren Jackson, Desmond Bane
Golden State: Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Kumminga
Dallas: Doncic
Utah: Donovan Mitchell, Gobert
Denver: Jokic, Murray, Porter Jr
Minnesota: KAT, Edwards
Pelicans: Zion Williamson
Philadelphia: Embiid, Maxey, Thybulle
Boston: Jason Tatum, Jaylen Brown
Milwaukee: Antetokoumpo
Toronto: Scottie Barnes, Siakam, Van Vleet
Cleveland: Mobley, Garland
Charlotte: Lamelo Ball
Atlanta: Trae Young

Pretty mucho all of them got their top player through a high pick, with a few notable exceptions that got it lower (Giannis & Jokic)

Top teams that didn't get their best players through the draft:
Lakers & Clippers (LA)
Nets (NY)
Miami

Notice a pattern? Unless you're LA, NY or Miami, you get your franchise players through the draft (almost invariably through a high pick)

[talkspurs]

Giannis, Embiid, Jokic, Doncic, Tatum, Steph... quite a few actually.

I dont know why people keep putting Luka in this list. he is not a franchise player. He may become one but he is not currently. Tatum is kind of on the cusp in my opinion. There are only a couple franchise players in the league.

[Chinook]

Top 10 teams in each conference that got their best players through the draft:
Phoenix: Ayton, Booker, Bridges
Memphis: Ja Morant, Jaren Jackson, Desmond Bane
Golden State: Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Kumminga
Dallas: Doncic
Utah: Donovan Mitchell, Gobert
Denver: Jokic, Murray, Porter Jr
Minnesota: KAT, Edwards
Pelicans: Zion Williamson
Philadelphia: Embiid, Maxey, Thybulle
Boston: Jason Tatum, Jaylen Brown
Milwaukee: Antetokoumpo
Toronto: Scottie Barnes, Siakam, Van Vleet
Cleveland: Mobley, Garland
Charlotte: Lamelo Ball
Atlanta: Trae Young

Pretty mucho all of them got their top player through a high pick, with a few notable exceptions that got it lower (Giannis & Jokic)

Top teams that didn't get their best players through the draft:
Lakers & Clippers (LA)
Nets (NY)
Miami

Notice a pattern? Unless you're LA, NY or Miami, you get your franchise players through the draft (almost invariably through a high pick)

You're trying to answer a different question as a reply to me. The Spurs are still going to draft players this year. They didn't trade away all their picks to make a run at the 10th seed. So let's try to use your list to actually answer the question


Phoenix: Ayton,
Minnesota: KAT, Edwards
Pelicans: Zion Williamson
Philadelphia: Embiid, Maxey, Thybulle
Cleveland: Mobley, Garland
Charlotte: Lamelo Ball
Atlanta: Trae Young


I was relatively generous and listed guys like Mobley, Young and Zion even though their teams didn't tank (they were bad teams that had lottery luck). You have a lot of fringe playoffs teams left on that list, which again is an answer to a question I didn't ask. What makes it worse is that you brought that list up to show a "pattern" of franchise players being drafted while purposefully ignoring the various trades the teams made to acquire players on that list as well as their best players that you left off. It's inexcusable to pretend like Philly's top three players include Maxey and Thybulle rather than Harris and Harden. Pretending like Paul isn't the actual franchise for Phoenix is worse. NOP isn't even in the play-in conversation because of Zion. There's no pattern to observe to support a tanking situation. Almost every contender had some draft luck, but they needed to put themselves in a position to capitalize on the free-agent or trade market either to acquire their best player or to compliment them.

No one was debating whether it's important for the Spurs to draft and develop. The question was whether them losing games in an attempt to gain better lottery odds is a strong path to success. The list of contenders for hell even competitors as you tried to pass off doesn't suggest that it is. The Wolves and Cavs are the two best examples of teams who are almost entirely homegrown (Russell is a meh player though he is still a starter for them), and neither is guaranteed a playoff spot even after all of these years. With the sheer number of not just lottery picks but first-overall picks those franchises have had, it's insane to try to replicate their path, even if it didn't potentially lead to mediocrity like it might well end up for one or both.

[duncan2150]

I think by "deep draft" they mean not top heavy. It's just a bullshit term they use to mean there aren't any sure things.


I think deep it's just the number of good prospects, after that it could be good at the top of the draft or so-so or bad .... Btw it's always difficult to evaluate a draft, it's a year process.
Imo this draft is deep, with a lot of good prospects who can be starters in this league but the top is not so heavy.

[mo7888]

Top 10 teams in each conference that got their best players through the draft:
Phoenix: Ayton, Booker, Bridges
Memphis: Ja Morant, Jaren Jackson, Desmond Bane
Golden State: Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Kumminga
Dallas: Doncic
Utah: Donovan Mitchell, Gobert
Denver: Jokic, Murray, Porter Jr
Minnesota: KAT, Edwards
Pelicans: Zion Williamson
Philadelphia: Embiid, Maxey, Thybulle
Boston: Jason Tatum, Jaylen Brown
Milwaukee: Antetokoumpo
Toronto: Scottie Barnes, Siakam, Van Vleet
Cleveland: Mobley, Garland
Charlotte: Lamelo Ball
Atlanta: Trae Young

Pretty mucho all of them got their top player through a high pick, with a few notable exceptions that got it lower (Giannis & Jokic)

Top teams that didn't get their best players through the draft:
Lakers & Clippers (LA)
Nets (NY)
Miami

Notice a pattern? Unless you're LA, NY or Miami, you get your franchise players through the draft (almost invariably through a high pick)

You both make some valid points there....but the crux of the whole debate comes down to Chinook's last sentence, "They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it."... none of us really know the answer because we aren't in that war room. If the Spurs scouts don't see value at the top of the draft (and in this case the top 8 is the definition of the top of the draft) then trying to make the play-in is the smart move.... if they do see value at the top of the draft then we should be giving our D league guys more burn....

There's one other option or caveat if you will, that could be in play... they may feel the need to improve the roster through trades and FA instead of the draft because they may want to put a high level player or two alongside DJ for next year and try to compete for a championship. If that's the case then there's nobody in the draft that will make that kind of immediate impact. If they're looking to package our cap space, young guys, and picks to go after a couple upper tier players that compliment DJ then 'tanking' would hurt that play....

Personally, I hope thats what we're doing because competing sooner rather than a slower rebuild is more interesting to me....in fact, if we were going to use the picks on a slow rebuild I'd rather cash in on DJ's value this summer...

[Arcadian]

Hey, both could happen!

Or, more likely, neither could happen.

The Spurs are in the worst place for a franchise to be, in contention with the worst teams trying to make the playoffs, on the outside looking in, but not quite bad enough to get a serious lottery pick.

[BatManu20]

Or, more likely, neither could happen.

The Spurs are in the worst place for a franchise to be, in contention with the worst teams trying to make the playoffs, on the outside looking in, but not quite bad enough to get a serious lottery pick.

NBA Purgatory. The absolute worst position to be in. And we’re here for the 3rd year in a row. :td

[RC_Drunkford]

NBA Purgatory. The absolute worst position to be in. And we’re here for the 3rd year in a row. :td

but at least Popovich got his record and the players are over themselves :bobo

[TD 21]

:lmao Look at the apologists go. These brainwashed fools would spin anything.

There is no upside to what they're doing, it's just the organization in full-on schtick mode. No one else in their position is doing this, but somehow they're all idiots. Give your head a shake.

I don't know what's dumber: The notion that tanking post All-Star break in one season is somehow going to entrench them in a losing culture (because it's not like they've sucked for 3 years now or been mediocre the 2 previous to that).

Or that these still meaningless games are somehow going to pay dividends in the future (as if some established core is in place).

[Mr. Body]

:lmao Look at the apologists go. These brainwashed fools would spin anything.

There is no upside to what they're doing, it's just the organization in full-on schtick mode. No one else in their position is doing this, but somehow they're all idiots. Give your head a shake.

I don't know what's dumber: The notion that tanking post All-Star break in one season is somehow going to entrench them in a losing culture (because it's not like they've sucked for 3 years now or been mediocre the 2 previous to that).

Or that these still meaningless games are somehow going to pay dividends in the future (as if some established core is in place).

I'm not surprised to see people genuinely not understand basketball.

[KingKev]

:lmao Look at the apologists go. These brainwashed fools would spin anything.

There is no upside to what they're doing, it's just the organization in full-on schtick mode. No one else in their position is doing this, but somehow they're all idiots. Give your head a shake.

I don't know what's dumber: The notion that tanking post All-Star break in one season is somehow going to entrench them in a losing culture (because it's not like they've sucked for 3 years now or been mediocre the 2 previous to that).

Or that these still meaningless games are somehow going to pay dividends in the future (as if some established core is in place).

Somebody get this guy a zanny

[Ariel]

You're trying to answer a different question as a reply to me.
You claimed that "Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated", and I just proved your claim wrong by listing pretty much every franchise in contention for a playoff spot that has gone through that route. In fact I was pretty generous, considering that I didn't even include franchise caliber players that were gotten thanks to draft acquired assets (Harden for Simmons, Paul George for Shai Gilgeous Alexander, Anthony Davis for Ingram, Lonzo & Hart, and so on and so forth), or mention that even FA signings of relevance usually come through S&T, which means you have to give up assets to get them. So in essence, the draft is at the core of every process of setting up a successful team, with no exceptions, and it takes no mathematician to realize that it's usuarlly better not to let 10 teams pick ahead of you. If you try to delude yourself into meaningless tanking semanthics, be my guest.

[Mr. Body]

All this talk about drafting franchise players doesn't matter if the 2022 draft has no franchise players.

[Chomag]

Why....no point and it would be a negative effect for the future. I get it but Hopefully they can put their pride aside and realize it would be a big mistake and more beneficial for the team not to.

[baseline bum]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.

You think they're going to sign a franchise guy when they couldn't even do that when they were winning titles? Or trade for one when they're not a destination stars force their way too? That's lunacy, the draft is the only way they're getting a franchise player.

[KingKev]

All this talk about drafting franchise players doesn't matter if the 2022 draft has no franchise players.

The best of the best talent scouts can’t get it right so the 2022 draft not having franchise players is a foolish thing to say. 2021 draft is already looking wayyyy better than most expected.

We have multiple swings at drafting young talent. We could draft 1 and 2 in 2022 and probably still be a bottom 10 team.

[KingKev]

You think they're going to sign a franchise guy when they couldn't even do that when they were winning titles? Or trade for one when they're not a destination stars force their way too? That's lunacy, the draft is the only way they're getting a franchise player.

and multiple swings at the draft are the way to go.

[MultiTroll]

Play In People:
What did the last 3 years do for the Spurs?

[MultiTroll]

Character development.
1122359427372343296
or is that Arrested Development?

[TD 21]

Then enlighten us, apologists. If getting the best possible odds at the best projected talent supposedly isn't the way to go, then what is and why does virtually every other team in the Spurs position do so?

[PhantomDashCam]

Consider this - In the past 14 months, the Spurs have moved on from: DDR, LMA, Patty Mills, Rudy Gay, Derrick White, Drew Eubanks, Bryn Forbes (all arguably key rotation players, at least as far as the Spurs FO were concerned) and shipped out or waived Thad Young, Satoransky, Hermangomez and Dragic.

They will soon make decisions on: Lonnie Walker, Romeo Langford, Richardson (and probably Poeltl, based on value and desirability), to whether they will still be with the team next year...

DJ has solidified himself as an all-star talent, KJ continues to show that his shooting isn't a fluke, and Primo is getting key rotation minutes as a rookie for a team that rarely makes that kind of commitment...

This season has been an overwhelming success...and will continue to be whether they make or miss the play-in/playoffs.

This team may have built a reputation as a stubborn, antiquated, loyalty driven franchise (and deservedly so considering their past successes), but this season isn't one of them.

The Spurs seem to be cognizant of where they are, (finally), how their players are projecting, what talent is available come draft and likely, the flattened structure after pick 4. They couldn't care less what the mocks say.
They have their draft board.

If they want to make a run for the play-in, I say go for it.

[Chinook]

You think they're going to sign a franchise guy when they couldn't even do that when they were winning titles? Or trade for one when they're not a destination stars force their way too? That's lunacy, the draft is the only way they're getting a franchise player.

No. Some of you need to come out of 2004 already. The Spurs have been very successful in free agency when they've actually had the means and will. Bitching about Aldridge doesn't negate the fact that the Spurs got the best player on the market on their first try. The very next year, they turned around and got another of the best players on the market in Gasol. Then, even after Paul backed out of what honestly was tampering by the Spurs to get traded to Houston, the Spurs still got one of the best players on the market to take the MLE. No one's confusing SA with South Beach, but their money is still good in the NBA. Like with Aldridge, stars want a number of things that aren't just big markets. Are the Spurs likely to sign a top-10 player outright? No. But even so, they are more likely to sign one than to draft one.

As far as trades go, players are traded outside of top markets all the time, whether that be the Paul trade, the George trade, two of the three Butler trades or so forth. You assume those players would leave the Spurs but somehow think that SA drafting a player means they wouldn't also leave. We already know that doesn't stop them. So if the idea is to be horrible, draft a top player and then somehow win a title before that player has the leverage to ask out, everything runs aground almost immediately. Any disadvantages the Spurs have in terms of location are only magnified if they're also a loser tank team. A Spurs that does what you want is FAR more likely to end up maxing a guy like Fox in an effort to not lose talent than they are to cobbling together than OKC-like string of draft homeruns. A Spurs that tries to lose their way to winning is going to end up going to Vegas after years of "rebuild" followed by spurts of "trying to win" that get aborted when the young players who've never seen NBA winning end up not being able to carry anything. The number of failed tanks is much larger than the number of successful attempts.

[Chinook]

Then enlighten us, apologists. If getting the best possible odds at the best projected talent supposedly isn't the way to go, then what is and why does virtually every other team in the Spurs position do so?

Pretty sure the end of your sentence is patently false, so maybe don't load the question if you want an answer.

Also pretty sure you know what I would say to the first half of your question already and weren't specifically asking me.

[SPURt]

Consider this - In the past 14 months, the Spurs have moved on from: DDR, LMA, Patty Mills, Rudy Gay, Derrick White, Drew Eubanks, Bryn Forbes (all arguably key rotation players, at least as far as the Spurs FO were concerned) and shipped out or waived Thad Young, Satoransky, Hermangomez and Dragic.

They will soon make decisions on: Lonnie Walker, Romeo Langford, Richardson (and probably Poeltl, based on value and desirability), to whether they will still be with the team next year...

DJ has solidified himself as an all-star talent, KJ continues to show that his shooting isn't a fluke, and Primo is getting key rotation minutes as a rookie for a team that rarely makes that kind of commitment...

This season has been an overwhelming success...and will continue to be whether they make or miss the play-in/playoffs.

This team may have built a reputation as a stubborn, antiquated, loyalty driven franchise (and deservedly so considering their past successes), but this season isn't one of them.

The Spurs seem to be cognizant of where they are, (finally), how their players are projecting, what talent is available come draft and likely, the flattened structure after pick 4. They couldn't care less what the mocks say.
They have their draft board.

If they want to make a run for the play-in, I say go for it.
My glass is half full, same as yours. The Spurs have been making good decisions, which also gave them three first round picks this year. They have a lot of flexibility to trade up in the draft. Whether the Spurs draft 8 or 12, I think they have a good idea of who they want most. That player likely isn’t getting picked in the same place as any mock or other franchise is projecting. I’m all for these young Spurs getting some playoff experience too.

What doesn’t look good is this years free agents. I don’t see anyone that makes sense for this Spurs team.

[TD 21]

Pretty sure the end of your sentence is patently false, so maybe don't load the question if you want an answer.

Also pretty sure you know what I would say to the first half of your question already and weren't specifically asking me.

Pretty sure only the Knicks (big market that superstars/stars will want to plan in if they look promising and are run competently), Lakers (all-in with a GOAT candidate) and Pelicans (trying to keep a generational talent) are the only others not blatantly tanking and the Spurs don't have those same things going for them.

No, I don't. I keep seeing the usual extensive, what I presume to be convoluted pontifications, but I don't see any specifics.

[Chinook]

You claimed that "Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated", and I just proved your claim wrong by listing pretty much every franchise in contention for a playoff spot that has gone through that route.

You didn't actually do that. Most of the guys you listed aren't franchise players (Maxey and Thybulle, really?), and the reason why most of those teams are good is because of the players they've acquired through trades and free agency. The question wasn't "Can drafting well really lead to being a good team?" or "Does it even make sense to use picks on players rather than trading them?" There are like 10 franchise players in the league, and only a small handful of them were acquired through drafting high -- and even fewer were acquired through tanking. Memphis, for example, didn't tank for Morant or JJJ. They still had their old core for JJJ and still had Conley when they picked Morant. They spent years pushing to be an eighth seed with zero cost to their long-term future. Dallas likely did tank for Doncic though they fell in the lottery and ended up lucking out by TRADING up for him.

Anyways, the reason why assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next player is antiquated is because franchise players are more mobile than they were before. I didn't say the Spurs can't draft such a player. But people like Base, Teeds and apparently you seem to think that's the way to go, and the logic underpinning that is antiquated. Players don't stay with their teams, windows don't stay open for a player's career, stars want to clump together, so getting one can bring others. What you guys propose, being a bad team that collects talent, is a way to become a farm team in the modern NBA. Memphis never had a loser's spirit, even when they drafted Ja and JJJ, they had still owed a future first they traded away trying to get better. The reason why they were able to turn it around is because they were never trying to be the loser team you guys want the Spurs to be. They weren't trying to gamble on upside or trade away anyone decent in order to get a good pick. They draft a number of older, limited prospects for their win-now capabilities. They were basically the anti-OKC, and it shows.


n fact I was pretty generous, considering that I didn't even include franchise caliber players that were gotten thanks to draft acquired assets (Harden for Simmons, Paul George for Shai Gilgeous Alexander, Anthony Davis for Ingram, Lonzo & Hart, and so on and so forth), or mention that even FA signings of relevance usually come through S&T, which means you have to give up assets to get them.

That's not "being generous", that's just not being silly. The Lakers didn't tank for Davis. Philly didn't tank for Harden -- Brooklyn damned sure didn't tank for him. Boston didn't tank at all for guys like Tatum and Brown. It would be like claiming the Spurs tanked for whomever they draft with the 2025 Bulls pick or 2028 Celtics pick. Saying that LAC tanked to get George, when the non-tanking Spurs have taken multiple players as high or higher than SGA was drafted doesn't make sense.


So in essence, the draft is at the core of every process of setting up a successful team, with no exceptions, and it takes no mathematician to realize that it's usuarlly better not to let 10 teams pick ahead of you.

See, this is the same sleight of hand you tried before. Even if we are talking about teams drafting "franchise players", you can't list a ton of guys drafted in the late-lottery and later, and then pretend like that's justification for why the Spurs should be trying to get as high of a pick as possible. Most of those players you listed were not acquired the way you think "mathematicians" would say the Spurs need to acquire them. The Spurs should not tank to get a high pick in order to be like the Nuggets or Bucks who got their MVPs outside of the lottery, or like the Suns who traded for their best player or the Heat who signed (and traded) for their franchise player. Successful teams did NOT do what you want the Spurs to do. At best, they drafted well and brought in good UDFAs. But the mentalities they had, the roadmaps they followed -- they have nothing to do with finding no benefit to winning games. Most of these very teams got to where they are now after a period of struggling to get a low seed. Memphis is obvious, but Phoenix missing the play-in the year before last is another example. Miami spending years hovering between 6th and 10th in the conference is another. Or like how Utah hung around .500 for years before trading for their top stars. Countering that actual history was the question, not whether the Grizzlies drafted Desmond Bane (who they actually traded for but whatever).

[baseline bum]

No. Some of you need to come out of 2004 already. The Spurs have been very successful in free agency when they've actually had the means and will. Bitching about Aldridge doesn't negate the fact that the Spurs got the best player on the market on their first try. The very next year, they turned around and got another of the best players on the market in Gasol. Then, even after Paul backed out of what honestly was tampering by the Spurs to get traded to Houston, the Spurs still got one of the best players on the market to take the MLE. No one's confusing SA with South Beach, but their money is still good in the NBA. Like with Aldridge, stars want a number of things that aren't just big markets. Are the Spurs likely to sign a top-10 player outright? No. But even so, they are more likely to sign one than to draft one.

As far as trades go, players are traded outside of top markets all the time, whether that be the Paul trade, the George trade, two of the three Butler trades or so forth. You assume those players would leave the Spurs but somehow think that SA drafting a player means they wouldn't also leave. We already know that doesn't stop them. So if the idea is to be horrible, draft a top player and then somehow win a title before that player has the leverage to ask out, everything runs aground almost immediately. Any disadvantages the Spurs have in terms of location are only magnified if they're also a loser tank team. A Spurs that does what you want is FAR more likely to end up maxing a guy like Fox in an effort to not lose talent than they are to cobbling together than OKC-like string of draft homeruns. A Spurs that tries to lose their way to winning is going to end up going to Vegas after years of "rebuild" followed by spurts of "trying to win" that get aborted when the young players who've never seen NBA winning end up not being able to carry anything. The number of failed tanks is much larger than the number of successful attempts.

:lmao They got Gasol when he was 36. They struck the fuck out on him when he was actually still good and chose Chicago instead two years before.

[BatManu20]

Lakers curb-stomping the Pels right now.

[MultiTroll]

Lakers curb-stomping the Pels right now.
Not sure if its Lebron excelling (points record chase), Pels tanking or both?

Previous NBA years we could say this game is ova, but modern NBA wow lets see 2nd half. :lol

[tim_duncan_fan]

The play-in as a concept is fucking annoying. If you don't make the 8th seed, stay home. What's the issue with that?

As for this Spurs team, sure. Make the playoffs if you want more of the same.

We need talent and basically tanked this year just to give it up and not draft talent by winning the last 2 games of the season would be moronic. Plus, we can't shoot, can't play defense, can't rebound, can't run a fast break, can't execute a play out of a timeout, etc. Why the hell should this team be in the playoffs?

We need people who can play when the games matter.

[Chinook]

Pretty sure only the Knicks (big market that superstars/stars will want to plan in if they look promising and are run competently), Lakers (all-in with a GOAT candidate) and Pelicans (trying to keep a generational talent) are the only others not blatantly tanking and the Spurs don't have those same things going for them.

Many of the teams below the Spurs aren't in the same position as them. A lot of them are perennial losers like SAC that know at this point they don't have to win to keep fan engagement. Houston's always thought it was smarter than the rest of the room. Detroit's actually been trying to win in recent weeks. The Pelicans know full well that they can't stop Zion from leaving. They aren't trying to appeal to him. They have a lot of talent but have been trying to get the stink of losing off them for years now. I'm pretty sure you would say they have more talent than SA does. Portland is blatantly tanking, but they've been awful forever now and just didn't know it. Any team trying to play Robert Covington big minutes is a walking corpse.


No, I don't. I keep seeing the usual extensive, what I presume to be convoluted pontifications, but I don't see any specifics.

So "tanking" isn't specific. Don't go around demanding details when your plan seems to be 1) Lose a bunch of games, 2) ????? 3) Profit.

Regardless, I actually have specified, to you, what I think the Spurs should do. I said the Spurs need to be aggressive in moving guys that don't fit the long-term contending goal. Originally I meant that to apply to Murray, though White proved himself to be the more expendable. Johnson, Poeltl and Vassell are next under the microscope. They need to use trades to upgrade their draft picks. Protections aside, the Young trade was brilliant in that regard. I would have preferred them keep White to move during the draft in order to acquire a specific player rather than a pick, but if they use the pick to move up, then it's still a workable, albeit inefficient exchange.

They need to keep their cap space flexibility and constantly woo free agents. That's easier now with Murray than it was this time last year with an outgoing DMDR. Ultimately, the Spurs need to acquire three stars of varying impact through trades, the draft and free agency. While it's idea to draft or trade up for in the draft for the top star, getting the second or third guy and acquiring the top guy in another way also works. That's why the Spurs need to have assets and not a full cap sheet of low-ceiling players. They have to be able to make a good deal when it's available, and once they seal that deal they'll need the supporting cast to start winning soon after acquiring the player. That's why not tanking and training players in a winning culture matters. A star on an awful team is just a pending departure. A star on a competitive team is a recruitment tool.

If I were the Spurs, I would be open to a huge offer for Murray during the draft but would otherwise go into the off-season planning on him being a second- or third-tier star and working with him to try to get one of the impact guards to come to SA. Absent a Murray trade, I'd try to play the board as best as I could to raise that prospect standard on the team. There are a number of forwards I like and would want the Spurs to pick up. Getting one of those and a combo-guard would be nice, though I would also be shopping one of two of the picks for a disgruntled star. Assuming no trades happen, leaving the draft with two PFs, a defensive combo-guard and a prospect center would fill most of the holes heading into free agency, where using picks and guys like Richardson, Collins and McD to facilitate trades or S&Ts would be my main goal. The Spurs have good contracts, a number of prospects and future picks, they can improve their position even if they don't land a big fish themselves. Peeling off someone like Randle, Ingram, Collins or even like Nance seems very possible.

Then rinse and repeat. You try to win games, use trades to improve your draft position, stay flexible and opportunistic and constantly look at ways to acquire talent and get value for pieces that don't fit.

[Chinook]

:lmao They got Gasol when he was 36. They struck the fuck out on him when he was actually still good and chose Chicago instead two years before.

Gasol was actually great that first year. You might want to go back and look at his numbers. He was old, but he was a HoFer who aged really well. Tim and Manu were both productive players at that age and would have been huge gets for a team trying to be a contender at the time. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but the problem with him was always cheaping out and giving him a three-year deal and not a two-year deal for the same money. He was definitely worth the money before he got hurt, and would have been worth more had the Spurs traded Aldridge for Paul like they assumed they were going to. He also wasn't max contract either. I had forgotten to mention after my edit that the Spurs did well with ring-chasers during both of those years 2015 and 2016. People were willing to play on the Spurs for little money those season. Thinking they wouldn't because 20 years ago Jermaine O'Neal didn't want to play and Kidd's wife wanted to stay on the East Coast is outdated.

[Mr. Body]

Not sure if its Lebron excelling (points record chase), Pels tanking or both?

Previous NBA years we could say this game is ova, but modern NBA wow lets see 2nd half. :lol

Lakers are playing really hard. James is playing like his career depends on it.

[baseline bum]

Gasol was actually great that first year. You might want to go back and look at his numbers. He was old, but he was a HoFer who aged really well. Tim and Manu were both productive players at that age and would have been huge gets for a team trying to be a contender at the time. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but the problem with him was always cheaping out and giving him a three-year deal and not a two-year deal for the same money. He was definitely worth the money before he got hurt, and would have been worth more had the Spurs traded Aldridge for Paul like they assumed they were going to. He also wasn't max contract either. I had forgotten to mention after my edit that the Spurs did well with ring-chasers during both of those years 2015 and 2016. People were willing to play on the Spurs for little money those season. Thinking they wouldn't because 20 years ago Jermaine O'Neal didn't want to play and Kidd's wife wanted to stay on the East Coast is outdated.

Also lol Gasol when your original post was about the Spurs signing franchise players. Yeah Durant was falling all over himself to sign here.

[Mr. Body]

Lakers now down to the Pelicans, giving up a huge 3rd quarter. Nursing home residents just can't move that fast.

[Leetonidas]

lol Lakers

[KingKev]

Yikes. Lakers are hot trash. Worse than 06-07’ Cavs

[Chinook]

Also lol Gasol when your original post was about the Spurs signing franchise players. Yeah Durant was falling all over himself to sign here.

My post was countering your assertion that SA can't sign stars citing 2003's off-season as the proof. I'm not saying that the Spurs are going to sign the next Durant that takes interviews. I'm saying they've already proven they can sign big-name free agents and that that's a viable part of their strategy. I also think the idea of prioritizing getting a true franchise player before trying to open a window is extremely flawed. But regardless, they are more likely to trade for one or woo one than to tank for one and then pivot to winning a title in a short period of time. Zion's uniquely shitty in how quickly he tried to ask out, but players don't care about demanding trades like they used to.

[jjspur]

Yikes. Lakers are hot trash. Worse than 06-07’ Cavs
Pels over the Fakers. Apparently Lebron wants his points, whether they make the playoffs or not.

[BackHome]

But no player is demanding a trade to SA but a few have demanded to be traded away from SA - The we going to get great players through free agency is beating a dead horse over and over it's not going to happen. The Spurs screwed up by not trading certain players when they had the opportunity to do so and get something back. This team is terrible to watch players can't shot, can't dribble, can't box out, can't rebound, it's painful to watch. Just start from scratch trade Poodle and Murray if you can get something good and then put a proper team together from the ground up

[KingKev]

Pels over the Fakers. Apparently Lebron wants his points, whether they make the playoffs or not.

He is playing his damn ass off. Can’t fault him for that. His GM skills make Brian Wright and whoever else has been pulling strings in PATFO look like rockstars though.

[Mr. Body]

Lakers have a really hard remaining schedule. The Spurs should finish better if they want it.

[RD2191]

:wakeup

[Mr. Body]

Too many people here think tanking leads to automatic success. Only rarely does an obvious superstar result. More often, high picks start handicapping teams that tank. This is because they get middling talent year after year and are reluctant to let them go. Their salaries start choking the team's ability to make changes in any other way. This is a major reason why you keep seeing the same shitty teams in the lottery year after year.

I guess tanking works in EA Sports though.

[Chinook]

Too many people here think tanking leads to automatic success. Only rarely does an obvious superstar result. More often, high picks start handicapping teams that tank. This is because they get middling talent year after year and are reluctant to let them go. Their salaries start choking the team's ability to make changes in any other way. This is a major reason why you keep seeing the same shitty teams in the lottery year after year.

I guess tanking works in EA Sports though.

Yes. For right now, the Spurs have to avoid paying too many guys like Walker, Johnson and Vassell $15M-$20M out of fear of losing them. If the team tanked like some want, the Spurs would have to hand out multiple rookie maxes to guys who aren't notably better. And unlike guys like White who can be traded for value because he's considered to just be a solid player on a fair contract, guys like Fox are only traded if there is something wrong with them, and they aren't going to be on fair deals if that happens. It would be much harder to stay flexible if the Spurs had to pay three or four top-five pick salaries at the same time.

[PhantomDashCam]

Too many people here think tanking leads to automatic success. Only rarely does an obvious superstar result. More often, high picks start handicapping teams that tank. This is because they get middling talent year after year and are reluctant to let them go. Their salaries start choking the team's ability to make changes in any other way. This is a major reason why you keep seeing the same shitty teams in the lottery year after year.

I guess tanking works in EA Sports though.


"It's in the game."
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/05/28/3205287bed488fb18f3f1eabc4930154.gif

[Dex]

Lakers have a really hard remaining schedule. The Spurs should finish better if they want it.

Lakers lost to move into 10th AND LeBron hurt his ankle, it ain't looking good for them:

1508265116210544641

The Lakers next games:
Mar 29 -- Dallas 6:30 pm CT
Mar 31 -- Utah 9:00 pm CT
April 1 -- New Orleans 9:30 pm CT
April 3 -- Denver 2:30 pm CT

Spurs just one game behind now.

[MultiTroll]

Lamelo Ball.
Another draft pick turning a sucky teams fortunes around.

[baseline bum]

My post was countering your assertion that SA can't sign stars citing 2003's off-season as the proof. I'm not saying that the Spurs are going to sign the next Durant that takes interviews. I'm saying they've already proven they can sign big-name free agents and that that's a viable part of their strategy. I also think the idea of prioritizing getting a true franchise player before trying to open a window is extremely flawed. But regardless, they are more likely to trade for one or woo one than to tank for one and then pivot to winning a title in a short period of time. Zion's uniquely shitty in how quickly he tried to ask out, but players don't care about demanding trades like they used to.

My assertion was the Spurs weren't going to sign franchise players and no franchise player is going to force a trade to the Spurs. Aldridge is the only big free agent signing the Spurs have ever made and he's pretty far from a franchise player, and that was when they were title contenders.

[Gibbz]

It's still incredible that LeGM traded useful players for Russell Westbrook and the Lakers just let him do it.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Top 10 teams in each conference that got their best players through the draft:
Phoenix: Ayton, Booker, Bridges
Memphis: Ja Morant, Jaren Jackson, Desmond Bane
Golden State: Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Kumminga
Dallas: Doncic
Utah: Donovan Mitchell, Gobert
Denver: Jokic, Murray, Porter Jr
Minnesota: KAT, Edwards
Pelicans: Zion Williamson
Philadelphia: Embiid, Maxey, Thybulle
Boston: Jason Tatum, Jaylen Brown
Milwaukee: Antetokoumpo
Toronto: Scottie Barnes, Siakam, Van Vleet
Cleveland: Mobley, Garland
Charlotte: Lamelo Ball
Atlanta: Trae Young

Pretty mucho all of them got their top player through a high pick, with a few notable exceptions that got it lower (Giannis & Jokic)

Top teams that didn't get their best players through the draft:
Lakers & Clippers (LA)
Nets (NY)
Miami

Notice a pattern? Unless you're LA, NY or Miami, you get your franchise players through the draft (almost invariably through a high pick)

Weird choice of players to list, but the pattern we see is that half of them are drafted outside of the top 10.

There are only a handful of real franchise players, but let's see how every top 10 team has acquired their best player.

Boston - Tatum - didn't tank, got the pick through a trade
Miami - Butler - trade
Bucks - Giannis - didn't tank, drafted at 15
Philly - Embiid - the mother of all tanks, back when the pick odds weren't as flat, led to a GM being blacklisted and the NBA intervening
Bulls - Lavigne - trade
Raptors - Siakam - drafted at 26
Cavs - Mobley - tanked
Charlotte - LaMelo - didn't tank, finished just outside of the playoffs
Brooklyn - Durant - FA
Atlanta - Young - tanked

Phoenix - Paul - trade
Memphis - Morant - didn't tank, had only the 8th best odds prior to draft lottery
G State - Curry - drafted 7th, didn't tank
Dallas - Doncic - trade
Utah - Mitchell - trade
Denver - Jokic - tanking (yeah, I'm kidding)
Minnesota - KAT - tank
Clippers - Snake - FA
New Orleans - Zion - tanked, wanted out since the moment he was drafted
Lakers - LeBron - FA

So, yeah, not many tank jobs, much less successful ones.

[Rocalcio]

I am here. Thanks for the thread!

You’re welcome !

[Chinook]

My assertion was the Spurs weren't going to sign franchise players and no franchise player is going to force a trade to the Spurs. Aldridge is the only big free agent signing the Spurs have ever made and he's pretty far from a franchise player, and that was when they were title contenders.

Your assertion is flawed when you assume the Spurs are going to draft guys better than Aldridge if they just tank enough. LMA was the second-overall pick in his draft and the best player to come out that year (Lowry and Millsap are the only guys who have arguments). Getting someone that good would be really lucky. That you turn up your nose at him shows you have a really skewed idea of how teambuilding works. If you can sign an All-NBA player in his prime, you don't have a trouble as a free agent destination. Thinking that they are going to tank and grab their next Duncan is at least as flawed as thinking their going to woo their next Durant. They don't have to do either. They can sign an All-Star to pair with the one they already have and then trade for a third and be in business without having to go all-in on lottery balls.

[Dirks_Finale]

Looking at the schedule, it looks like they are going to get in. And since the Clippers suck, I do think they will get the 8 seed.

Still don't agree with the playin as there were already too many bad teams in the playoffs to begin with, but I guess it adds some excitement to a few more fan bases down the stretch. Also stops the intentional tanking so I do see the benefit.

[itzsoweezee]

Weird choice of players to list, but the pattern we see is that half of them are drafted outside of the top 10.

There are only a handful of real franchise players, but let's see how every top 10 team has acquired their best player.

Boston - Tatum - didn't tank, got the pick through a trade
Miami - Butler - trade
Bucks - Giannis - didn't tank, drafted at 15
Philly - Embiid - the mother of all tanks, back when the pick odds weren't as flat, led to a GM being blacklisted and the NBA intervening
Bulls - Lavigne - trade
Raptors - Siakam - drafted at 26
Cavs - Mobley - tanked
Charlotte - LaMelo - didn't tank, finished just outside of the playoffs
Brooklyn - Durant - FA
Atlanta - Young - tanked

Phoenix - Paul - trade
Memphis - Morant - didn't tank, had only the 8th best odds prior to draft lottery
G State - Curry - drafted 7th, didn't tank
Dallas - Doncic - trade
Utah - Mitchell - trade
Denver - Jokic - tanking (yeah, I'm kidding)
Minnesota - KAT - tank
Clippers - Snake - FA
New Orleans - Zion - tanked, wanted out since the moment he was drafted
Lakers - LeBron - FA

So, yeah, not many tank jobs, much less successful ones.

This is not very hard — you need to tank unless your team is in a big market. If you’re in a small market and have a superstar, you might be able to get by without tanking. The spurs are a small market team with no superstar. They need to tank or be stuck in the play-in mediocrity for years. They already screwed up their timing because Murray is about to approach his prime and no one else on the team is anywhere near his level.

[Russ]

It's still incredible that LeGM traded useful players for Russell Westbrook and the Lakers just let him do it.

He did it at the end of his first run at Cleveland, too, then just left when it didn't work out.

[JPB]

Routing for your team to lose so you get det generational player like Nephew who fucked up the franchose... Meanwhile, AD dodn't really lead NO anuwhere before transforming into Zion "next injury to happen" Williamson... #2 was drafted #15 by the way.

Truth is you certainly have as much chances at winning a LOBT by tanking than not, specially in a team like SA... So might as well play to win, you know the goal of pro sport... It's so aleatory (hello Porzingis, hello Simmons) that just play the fucking game and have fun.

I know that ironically, the Fakers are tanking but if symbolically we can oust them out of the PO picture... that would be fun... Then see what happens in the PO. You give experience to your core, eventually raise some players value and reputation wise to attract FAs, that's not bad either to be in.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I know that ironically, the Fakers are tanking but if symbolically we can oust them out of the PO picture... that would be fun... Then see what happens in the PO. You give experience to your core, eventually raise some players value and reputation wise to attract FAs, that's not bad either to be in.

No no, the fun is that Lakers aren't tanking at all - they don't own either of their picks so they have no incentive to tank. It'd be absolutely fantastic if the Spurs could send them packing, whether through the play in game or pushing them down the standings.

[spurraider21]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.
spurs had loads of trouble attracting FA's even when they were a high end team. LMA was the one. other than him, who is the best FA we had signed in the pop era? brent barry? i dont know if there really has been a shift in that regard. other than those, our best FA guy was marcus morris and we saw what happened there :lol

[Dex]

Looking at the schedule, it looks like they are going to get in. And since the Clippers suck, I do think they will get the 8 seed.

Still don't agree with the playin as there were already too many bad teams in the playoffs to begin with, but I guess it adds some excitement to a few more fan bases down the stretch. Also stops the intentional tanking so I do see the benefit.

The play-in made sense when COVID cut the season short so teams hadn't played an even amount of games, and there were several teams within reach of the 8 spot.

I don't love it as a standard practice. Imagine being the 8th seed and having a 4-5 game lead over the next in the standings...and then you get kicked out for having a bad game or two.

BUT the NBA knows they can get a few more "exciting playoff games" and the revenue that comes with it, so here we are.

[Rummpd]

Please knock LeRoid, Westbrick, HOward, and DaQuit out either way but best would be making Fakers miss play in.

[spurs10]

The play-in made sense when COVID cut the season short so teams hadn't played an even amount of games, and there were several teams within reach of the 8 spot.

I don't love it as a standard practice. Imagine being the 8th seed and having a 4-5 game lead over the next in the standings...and then you get kicked out for having a bad game or two.

BUT the NBA knows they can get a few more "exciting playoff games" and the revenue that comes with it, so here we are. Have to agree. That's why you play 82 !#%ing games. Either you make it or you don't.

[ZeusWillJudge]

Weird choice of players to list, but the pattern we see is that half of them are drafted outside of the top 10.

There are only a handful of real franchise players, but let's see how every top 10 team has acquired their best player.

Boston - Tatum - didn't tank, got the pick through a trade
Miami - Butler - trade
Bucks - Giannis - didn't tank, drafted at 15
Philly - Embiid - the mother of all tanks, back when the pick odds weren't as flat, led to a GM being blacklisted and the NBA intervening
Bulls - Lavigne - trade
Raptors - Siakam - drafted at 26
Cavs - Mobley - tanked
Charlotte - LaMelo - didn't tank, finished just outside of the playoffs
Brooklyn - Durant - FA
Atlanta - Young - tanked

Phoenix - Paul - trade
Memphis - Morant - didn't tank, had only the 8th best odds prior to draft lottery
G State - Curry - drafted 7th, didn't tank
Dallas - Doncic - trade
Utah - Mitchell - trade
Denver - Jokic - tanking (yeah, I'm kidding)
Minnesota - KAT - tank
Clippers - Snake - FA
New Orleans - Zion - tanked, wanted out since the moment he was drafted
Lakers - LeBron - FA

So, yeah, not many tank jobs, much less successful ones.


LOL. GSW got Durant as a free agent. All they had to do was put together a 73 win season, so that he would agree to come there and get a ring. The Spurs can try that route. The Lakers got LeBron as a FA. All that took was being Los Angeles. The Spurs could try that route, too, but I don't give it much chance for success.

And Brooklyn didn't get Durant as a FA - it was a sign and trade deal. He had a torn Achilles, and GSW still had to send out a first round pick. But GSW got a better pick the next year by... tanking.

The Hawks didn't get Trae Young by just tanking. They took Doncic with the 3 pick, and then traded him to Dallas who had the 5 pick from... tanking. Plus Atlanta got another pick. Weird that you said Doncic came through a trade, but not Trae Young, since it was the same trade.

Memphis may not have tanked, but they were "strategically bad" to get the 8 pick, and THEN got lucky with ping pong balls to get Morant. That was a LOT less likely to happen if they had finished 11.

Boston got Tatum through a VERY complicated pick swap, via Brooklyn who was on a campaign of tanking to build up picks, and leveraging them into players. (See: Sean Marks) So the very high draft pick responsible for Tatum came as a result of a team playing very badly to begin with. They just did the deal in reverse order.

I could go on, but I won't. Yeah, some guys get overlooked and come up big from mid to late first round. But most of the guys on your list were lottery picks originally, and mostly up in the 1-8 range. Every year some of you try to make the case that a mediocre draft pick is almost as good as a high draft pick. It isn't. Everyone available at 15 was available at 4, not the other way around. That never changes. A good FO helps, luck helps, but there's no substitute for having a high pick.

[duncan2150]

Anthony Davis coming back for LA this week, maybe they will win a game or two....

Not totally related but PG13 is also coming back for the Clipps in the next few days.

[Chinook]

spurs had loads of trouble attracting FA's even when they were a high end team. LMA was the one. other than him, who is the best FA we had signed in the pop era? brent barry? i dont know if there really has been a shift in that regard. other than those, our best FA guy was marcus morris and we saw what happened there :lol

We've already talked about the other players, but just in the last few years, Aldridge, West, Gasol, Lee Martin, Miller, Gay, Beli, Carroll and Dieng were all players who were coveted that SA was able to sign. STers hating all or most of those players isn't the same thing as those guys not having legit options in free agency and choosing the Spurs. They only had cap space for two seasons before last year. In both of those seasons, they made big signings. Before anyone tries to go on about Gasol in 2016, this is the list of free agents that year: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2016-nba-free-agent-tracker-where-players-are-going-whos-still-available/

Of guys who changed teams, he's a worst the fourth guy on the list behind Durant (who was always going to GS)m Horford (who wasn't actually better but was much younger and might have still been around the team all of these years later) and Howard (who was a bigger name but was very much in decline). They didn't even have the cap space to keep Boban that summer. They only had enough to offer Pau like $15 Million and got it done.

The next summer, the Spurs didn't have cap space but had a plan to use a LMA trade to get Paul or Conley. They apparently felt confident enough in whatever tampering they were doing to basically dump Aldridge and Green and re-up Mills and Gasol (at a smaller APY to save money). I doubt that happens if there is no real interest on the player's parts. Of course Paul got traded and Conley re-upped after the Grizzlies signed Parsons. But considering they didn't even have cap space, I don't see that as a failure. They made the WCF with Aldridge playing well.

The next summer, they got Gay to agree to an MLE deal. No, it wasn't just his value. People got crazy money that summer (Millsap got $91M/3 and Hill got $20 Million a year as examples). This was with Leonard already starting his bullshit and not even trying to recruit for the Spurs. The next year, the Leonard drama basically killed free agency. The year after that they got Carroll, who was a good player before he became a Spur and was coveted. That big-market seeking Klutch agreed to a deal with the Spurs is a sign they didn't think SA was a bad landing spot to direct their players to (also agreeing to an extension for Murray later that summer), though Morris flipped for more money than SA could offer. Last year as mentioned, the Spurs got Dieng to sign with them over teams like Miami who wanted him even though the team didn't have a ton of playing time available. That was the cheap COVID year where the Spurs had tons of dead money and big contracts on their books.

So last summer is probably the first summer since 2015 that the Spurs could come to play with a max contract. The team chose instead of rebuild and take on salaries as opposed to playing the bad free agent market. I don't know if they would have done that had they known how good Murray would be this season, but this was the first time you could even wonder if they could attract a big-name guy since they actually signed one the previous time they had max space. I'm not arguing that in 2003, the Spurs weren't seen as a big destination. They were boring and had a hard-ass coach. But the Spurs of the early 2020s have a young All-Star (who actually networks) and loads of assets. They aren't the team of old.

[TD 21]

Many of the teams below the Spurs aren't in the same position as them. A lot of them are perennial losers like SAC that know at this point they don't have to win to keep fan engagement. Houston's always thought it was smarter than the rest of the room. Detroit's actually been trying to win in recent weeks. The Pelicans know full well that they can't stop Zion from leaving. They aren't trying to appeal to him.

Nice try. Teams like the Kings, Rockets and Pistons are in precisely the same position: Bad and in desperate need of an infusion of talent. The Spurs being less bad for a lot less longer is a nominal difference. No star is going to be more apt to stay here than those places because they fight for the play-in here.

Whether the Pelicans can do anything about Williamson or not, their jobs likely hang in the balance and they have no other means to get a talent like that, so they'll still exhaust every opportunity.



So "tanking" isn't specific. Don't go around demanding details when your plan seems to be 1) Lose a bunch of games, 2) ????? 3) Profit.

My plan is simple: Give yourself the best odds possible to get the best talent possible, then adjust accordingly. The flattened odds help teams like this, who have some good, young veterans and don't want to do a full scale re-build. They could have tanked post trade deadline, had a legit shot at lucking into Banchero (I say him because the go-to potential and positional fit) and not had to do so again.



I said the Spurs need to be aggressive in moving guys that don't fit the long-term contending goal. Originally I meant that to apply to Murray, though White proved himself to be the more expendable. Johnson, Poeltl and Vassell are next under the microscope. They need to use trades to upgrade their draft picks.

They need to keep their cap space flexibility and constantly woo free agents. That's easier now with Murray than it was this time last year with an outgoing DMDR. Ultimately, the Spurs need to acquire three stars of varying impact through trades, the draft and free agency. While it's idea to draft or trade up for in the draft for the top star, getting the second or third guy and acquiring the top guy in another way also works. That's why the Spurs need to have assets and not a full cap sheet of low-ceiling players. A star on an awful team is just a pending departure. A star on a competitive team is a recruitment tool.

If I were the Spurs, I would be open to a huge offer for Murray during the draft. I'd try to play the board as best as I could to raise that prospect standard on the team. There are a number of forwards I like and would want the Spurs to pick up. Getting one of those and a combo-guard would be nice, though I would also be shopping one of two of the picks for a disgruntled star. The Spurs have good contracts, a number of prospects and future picks, they can improve their position even if they don't land a big fish themselves. Peeling off someone like Randle, Ingram, Collins or even like Nance seems very possible.

Then rinse and repeat. You try to win games, use trades to improve your draft position, stay flexible and opportunistic and constantly look at ways to acquire talent and get value for pieces that don't fit.

Good luck getting divas to stay here, especially those not ingrained in this atypical "culture". I'd also argue it makes sense to extend the Johnson's and Vassell's already. Wings who are at least decent from 3 and non physical liabilities on D will always have re-sale value and their likely projected ranges make for nice matching salary.

The rest is basically what I've been advocating for, for this draft. I'm not opposed to seeing if someone is willing to blow them away for Murray either. Otherwise, try to trade up for Banchero. Once that fails, try for Murray. If that fails, try to trade for Collins.

[Chinook]

Nice try. Teams like the Kings, Rockets and Pistons are in precisely the same position: Bad and in desperate need of an infusion of talent.

That's a superficial way of reading it. The Kings, Rockets and Pistons all have quite a bit of talent (more than the Spurs), but they have to grow that talent. The Spurs are actually doing a great job growing the talent they have, but their seed stock hasn't been great. So it's basically the opposite position. That's just in terms of talent. But the extension of it is that those teams being bad is necessary because they don't have players who can play. The Spurs aren't horse-whipping themselves to get where they are. They'd have to make the conscious choice to lose, because their young players are performing well enough to make a play-in game. It would behoove those teams you mentioned to get their guys playoff experience rather than just bringing in new guys. But they can't because they suck too bad.


No star is going to be more apt to stay here than those places because they fight for the play-in here.

They obviously would, because they'd be on a team that would make the playoffs rather than a team that even with them has an awful culture. If the Spurs can already outperform teams with more talent, then getting an infusion of talent would be more useful to them. They already have a number of complimentary players, as the White trade shows. Those teams you mentioned don't. They have talented youngsters who all want the ball and need to learn fit it, with a number of them having bad attitudes about it.


My plan is simple: Give yourself the best odds possible to get the best talent possible, then adjust accordingly. The flattened odds help teams like this, who have some good, young veterans and don't want to do a full scale re-build. They could have tanked post trade deadline, had a legit shot at lucking into Banchero (I say him because the go-to potential and positional fit) and not had to do so again.

I don't actually think that's specific. The closest you get is drafting Banchero. If you really wanted to do this kind of thing, you'd have acquire as many lotto picks as possible, preferably with less protection and trade anyone you want. Increasing the odds of getting higher priority to roll the dice on a guy and then building from there into a title team feels extremely difficult. You could get lucky, but the flip side of that is just getting normal returns, and for many reasons, average top-five selections are much worse for a team than obvious busts.

The most strategy in your plan is a controlled tank this season, but this isn't like the past where you could shut down DeRozan or Aldridge and lose a bunch of games while giving young guys a chance to grow. Those young guys getting a chance to grow are the ones winning the games. So tanking would mean giving up a ton of developmental upside of players who might become title-worthy rotation players or trade pieces. Murray's All-Star nod this year was a huge value bump for the team. No matter how you intend to play this summer, having DJM move into the Sabonis/Siakam/Simmons tier, if not the Brown/Adebayo/Lavine tier only helps. Keldon playing well down the stretch combined with his networking might raise his value substantially. There's little down in my mind that White developing a friendship with Tatum and the others added to the value Boston was willing to pay for him.


Good luck getting divas to stay here, especially those not ingrained in this atypical "culture". I'd also argue it makes sense to extend the Johnson's and Vassell's already. Wings who are at least decent from 3 and non physical liabilities on D will always have re-sale value and their likely projected ranges make for nice matching salary.

Extending to fair contracts is one thing; extending and then building the organization's marketing and recruitment around them is another. Yeah, it's fine to extend Johnson (Vassell still has another year to go) to good value while still looking to upgrade. It's not fine to pass up on forwards because you think you're set with Keldon's spot. That's why I'm both in favor of seeking a Poeltl trade and offering him a max extension. The value on that extension is just too good even if the team ends up moving away from him.


The rest is basically what I've been advocating for, for this draft. I'm not opposed to seeing if someone is willing to blow them away for Murray either. Otherwise, try to trade up for Banchero. Once that fails, try for Murray. If that fails, try to trade for Collins.

I'm only a fan of trading up with the first pick if the team thinks they're getting a star or if the value is just too good (like going from 11 to 7 using the Lakers pick for example). Right now, it's a matter of odds. During the draft, it's specific humans being selected. The picks aren't any different -- they'll all bring in a specific player that the team will work with. If the Spurs have their target(s), they should use their picks and players to get them. Otherwise, BPA for rotation players and move on. I don't think drafting a decent prospect affects what the team should do in terms of trying to acquire players. If they win the lotto and get their guy, then yeah, they probably don't need to go all out trading for a vet at the same position. But if they draft Jaden Ivy and Lavine still wants to come over, that's fine. They need at least two more stars. If the Spurs draft Murray and can trade for Collins without giving up their game, that's even better.

[Dverde]

If Spurs eliminate The Lakers and LeBron leaves. They would have broken up two LeBron super teams

[Sugus]

If Spurs eliminate The Lakers and LeBron leaves. They would have broken up two LeBron super teams

As much as I'd like the Spurs to tank out the season, this is too delicious to pass up, tbh.

Not sure why there's so much doom and gloom here recently, when the Spurs are in a win-win situation, tbh. Get a chance to knock out the Fakers, else get a higher pick, me gusta.

[TD 21]

The Kings, Rockets and Pistons all have quite a bit of talent (more than the Spurs), but they have to grow that talent. It would behoove those teams you mentioned to get their guys playoff experience rather than just bringing in new guys.

None of them have quite a bit of talent. They need far more before they can even begin to think about gaining experience through a brief playoff experience.



They obviously would, because they'd be on a team that would make the playoffs rather than a team that even with them has an awful culture.

The play-in isn't the playoffs and nobody cares who gets 10th, most likely loses a meaningless game to who gets 9th, who then plays another meaningless game(s) to see who gets 8th for the right to be destroyed by the Suns.


I don't actually think that's specific. The closest you get is drafting Banchero. Increasing the odds of getting higher priority to roll the dice on a guy and then building from there into a title team feels extremely difficult. You could get lucky, but the flip side of that is just getting normal returns, and for many reasons, average top-five selections are much worse for a team than obvious busts.

The most strategy in your plan is a controlled tank this season, but this isn't like the past where you could shut down DeRozan or Aldridge and lose a bunch of games while giving young guys a chance to grow. Those young guys getting a chance to grow are the ones winning the games. So tanking would mean giving up a ton of developmental upside of players who might become title-worthy rotation players or trade pieces.

Well, it meets my criteria. Basically, if you're foolish enough to play yourself out of decent odds for a high end talent, then try to put together a package for it. Obviously, the truly elite talents (the likes of which this draft projects to lack), no one is giving up.

Every path to a title team is extremely difficult. It's not about coming up with the most complex plan possible; it's actually the exact opposite.

Wrong. They could have easily limited or altogether shut down Murray, Poeltl and Johnson.


I'm only a fan of trading up with the first pick if the team thinks they're getting a star or if the value is just too good (like going from 11 to 7 using the Lakers pick for example). They need at least two more stars. If the Spurs draft Murray and can trade for Collins without giving up their game, that's even better.

That goes without saying. Murray and Collins would be an either/or considering the assets required to get one and the fact that neither can play the three or function as a full time five.

[Joseph Kony]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in :lol

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.

[exstatic]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in :lol

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.

…and pick 15th in the draft.

[slick'81]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in :lol

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.

glutton for punishment i guess

[Chinook]

None of them have quite a bit of talent. They need far more before they can even begin to think about gaining experience through a brief playoff experience.

The Rockets just drafted four first-rounders last year to go with Wood. Sacramento has two All-Star threats and a number of decent role-players. If you don't think getting a high pick is a talent infusion, I don't know why you want the Spurs to get worse in hopes of getting it. Teams shouldn't have to tank for multiple years in order to get the talent to be decent. That takes it from a decision a team makes during a season and a way a roster is built. Building a roster capable to repeatedly getting top-five picks means getting away from a team that can even use the talent they have. Of course, you could be trying to argue that the Rockets prospects improve would be "gaining talent", but that would be splitting hairs with what I said, so I'm assuming you don't think that.


The play-in isn't the playoffs and nobody cares who gets 10th, most likely loses a meaningless game to who gets 9th, who then plays another meaningless game(s) to see who gets 8th for the right to be destroyed by the Suns.

If you're asking me if I'd rather the Spurs get the sixth seed or the 10th seed, I'd prefer the former. I'm still rooting for them to get that ninth or even eighth seed. But the choice is between play-in and not now, so I'm rooting for them to make the play-in then win it and then to beat the Suns on their way to a title. My rooting interests aren't ambiguous. I don't think they'll get there or anything right now, and I've given my roadmap of how I'd want the off-season to go assuming they don't do that. But I don't have to worry about the cognitive dissonance trying to feel happy about a team losing. I get to want them to win and still find the silver lining of them not doing that. Being a Spurs fans has never been easier.

But yeah, it would be nice to see guys like Keldon and Vassell not only play in big moments but do so against the same team multiple games. How Murray adjusts to being gameplanned against will help determine his ceiling. Even assuming the Spurs get swept, I'm down with them showing what they can do. I would be signing a different tune if we were talking about them getting there by trading their picks for vets. But a young team with tons of assets? Yep. It's fine.


Every path to a title team is extremely difficult. It's not about coming up with the most complex plan possible; it's actually the exact opposite.

I'm assuming you mean "keep it simple, stupid". But that is like saying, "Your plan to go to school, get a degree and work experience and saving money to buy a home is needlessly complex. I'll just keep playing the lotto" is a good idea because it's simpler. Playing the odds isn't a way to build a roster. At best it's a way to acquire the initial building block. After that you have to deal with everything else, which isn't as simple as turning a switch. That's why teams that draft great players after tanking have a hard time figuring it out.


Wrong. They could have easily limited or altogether shut down Murray, Poeltl and Johnson.

First, they were the people I was talking about almost exactly. That's pretty apparent in the other paragraph put into the response. Guys like Murray and Johnson developing matters for the team, both because they are the best perimeter players on the roster and because they are the most integrated into the wider NBA network. Murray had a lot of players pushing for him to make the ASG, and Johnson improving to be a regular USANT member puts him around a lot of stars. That helps with recruiting players to the Spurs and getting value sending those players out.

Second, though, even if I just meant Primo and Vassell, they're more likely to improve on a competitive rotation than one that may as well play in Austin. Playing them in a lineup where they are artificially the best players on the court for their side is likely to hurt them when they return to situations where they are not those guys. One of the main reasons why bad teams stay bad even after picking up talent is that they don't have structure in place to develop talent. Removing that structure has a cost, even if it's just for the last quarter of the season.


That goes without saying. Murray and Collins would be an either/or considering the assets required to get one and the fact that neither can play the three or function as a full time five.

Eh, count me as someone who'd be fine with the team playing too big for a while rather than too small. Plus, if it all works out, then Murray, Collins and Poeltl would pretty comfortably fill most of the front-court minutes. That's especially true given that Murray is likely to at least start the season off on the bench.

[gambit1990]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in :lol

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.
exactly. a higher pick is more important than possibly bouncing the lakers. and i don't even think the spurs would tbh.

[slick'81]

Play in is spurs to lose,tbh

[objective]

Everyone tanking hard except the spurs

I hope the basketball gods reward them with the huge move up in the lottery because otherwise it's a giant waste of time

[Dirks_Finale]

The play-in made sense when COVID cut the season short so teams hadn't played an even amount of games, and there were several teams within reach of the 8 spot.

I don't love it as a standard practice. Imagine being the 8th seed and having a 4-5 game lead over the next in the standings...and then you get kicked out for having a bad game or two.

BUT the NBA knows they can get a few more "exciting playoff games" and the revenue that comes with it, so here we are.

Pretty much, yes. This is where we are at and I don't see them doing the right thing and returning to the norm.

[exstatic]

If they really want to make the play-in interesting and valid, they need to change the structure to make it possible for any two teams to make the playoffs. Right now, 7 and 8 play, and the winner is in. 9 and 10 play, and the loser is out, then the loser of 7/8 plays the winner of 9/10 for the last spot. Straight up make it 7/10 and 8/9, and the two winners are in.

[baseline bum]

Your assertion is flawed when you assume the Spurs are going to draft guys better than Aldridge if they just tank enough. LMA was the second-overall pick in his draft and the best player to come out that year (Lowry and Millsap are the only guys who have arguments). Getting someone that good would be really lucky. That you turn up your nose at him shows you have a really skewed idea of how teambuilding works. If you can sign an All-NBA player in his prime, you don't have a trouble as a free agent destination. Thinking that they are going to tank and grab their next Duncan is at least as flawed as thinking their going to woo their next Durant. They don't have to do either. They can sign an All-Star to pair with the one they already have and then trade for a third and be in business without having to go all-in on lottery balls.

I'm not turning my nose up at him, you were the one talking about franchise players and Aldridge isn't one. Besides, getting someone like Aldridge in the draft is way way more likely than signing him as a free agent when the team isn't a title contender. The Spurs would have had no chance to sign him if they weren't one year removed from a title. I don't know what fantasy land you live in where the Spurs can be a prime free agent destination but they couldn't even get John Collins interested last summer. And you're strawmanning me saying I'd turn my nose up at non franchise player free agent signings, Collins is who I really wanted last summer.

[MultiTroll]

Pop Slurpers: weren't you praising Popped earlier this season on how he was losing games with lineups of Bryn Bryn etc while simultaneously developing players? Such genius per you.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I'm all about the play-in if it means the Lakers are 11...without a draft pick. Lebron's handpicked team not even making the play-in? That would be epic. Beaten out by a Spurs team in the midst of a rebuild nonetheless.

Fvck the Lakers.

[TDomination]

I'm all about the play-in if it means the Lakers are 11...without a draft pick. Lebron's handpicked team not even making the play-in? That would be epic. Beaten out by a Spurs team in the midst of a rebuild nonetheless.

Fvck the Lakers.

This would make it oh so worth it!

[baseline bum]

He did it at the end of his first run at Cleveland, too, then just left when it didn't work out.

Meh they traded Ilgauskas and a late first for Jamison, then Ilgauskas got bought out and they brought him back. And traded the corpse of Ben Wallace's career plus Sasha Pavlovic and a mid second rounder for Shaq. Don't think those are at all comparable to the Westbrook trade.

[gambit1990]

this is a mistake.

[gambit1990]

i don't understand how people want this to happen when making the playoffs / trying to make the playoffs the past couple seasons didn't help.

pop should've tanked hard and then go all in next season.

[slick'81]

i don't understand how people want this to happen when making the playoffs / trying to make the playoffs the past couple seasons didn't help.

pop should've tanked hard and then go all in next season.


Spur fan just taking what they're given,tbh

[cjw]

i don't understand how people want this to happen when making the playoffs / trying to make the playoffs the past couple seasons didn't help.

pop should've tanked hard and then go all in next season.

This isn’t NBA 2K

And the team isn’t trying to win at expense of giving young players minutes. Vassell will get close to 2,000 minutes, Jones over 1,000 minutes and Primo almost 1,000 minutes as a kid who just turned 19.

They dealt away three of the four oldest guys on the team (Forbes, White and Young) and got back assets. The only other older guy getting minutes provides important floor spacing that helps development of the rest of the roster.

Not sure what your definition of tanking is. Should they have kept Eubanks and Forbes and played them with street free agents?

[Russ]

Meh they traded Ilgauskas and a late first for Jamison, then Ilgauskas got bought out and they brought him back. And traded the corpse of Ben Wallace's career plus Sasha Pavlovic and a mid second rounder for Shaq. Don't think those are at all comparable to the Westbrook trade.

LeBron reportedly nixed a trade for Amare Stoudemire who (at the time in 2010) was way better than Jamison (and also actually younger). Jamison didn't help the Cavs that much. That's all I was saying.

[BacktoBasics]

i don't understand how people want this to happen when making the playoffs / trying to make the playoffs the past couple seasons didn't help.

pop should've tanked hard and then go all in next season.
Because at this point it doesn't change much. The Spurs aren't breaking the top 5 even if they lose out. Their ability to package up a 10th, 11th or 12th pick to acquire a 7th or 8th pick(which is where they'd be if they lose out) wouldn't be impossible.

So basically they can get a 7th or 8th pick if they really want it regardless of whether they land there by loses or package a player/late pick that was already not in the plans.

No ideal but not catastrophic like some make it out to be.

[baseline bum]

LeBron reportedly nixed a trade for Amare Stoudemire who (at the time in 2010) was way better than Jamison (and also actually younger). Jamison didn't help the Cavs that much. That's all I was saying.

Where did you hear that? I always heard the Cavs overvalued JJ Hickson and didn't want to move him for Amare.

[Mr. Body]

i don't understand how people want this to happen when making the playoffs / trying to make the playoffs the past couple seasons didn't help.

pop should've tanked hard and then go all in next season.

Two or three games at higher pressure to win a play-in spot are worth ten to fifteen games any other time of the year. If we want to make the play-offs next year, this taste is important. They need to know what it's like.

[slick'81]

Two or three games at higher pressure to win a play-in spot are worth ten to fifteen games any other time of the year. If we want to make the play-offs next year, this taste is important. They need to know what it's like.


if they actually make the playoffs sure

[Mr. Body]

if they actually make the playoffs sure

Even if they don't.

[rjv]

i'm still not penciling in the spurs just yet. the unknown variables would be if teams are shutting down towards the end. will the mavs rest players on the last game? how many games will lebron play? all these factors will have a big say in the final outcome.

[Sugus]

This isn’t NBA 2K

And the team isn’t trying to win at expense of giving young players minutes. Vassell will get close to 2,000 minutes, Jones over 1,000 minutes and Primo almost 1,000 minutes as a kid who just turned 19.

They dealt away three of the four oldest guys on the team (Forbes, White and Young) and got back assets. The only other older guy getting minutes provides important floor spacing that helps development of the rest of the roster.

Not sure what your definition of tanking is. Should they have kept Eubanks and Forbes and played them with street free agents?

You know this is the same retard that consistently posts pics of Forbes, right? :lol he wouldn't like that either.

The hilarious thing is that the Spurs did exactly what most "tanking" teams do: shipped out all the vets for assets, only sign minimal players without committing to any of them long-term, play the young players consistent, prominent, major minutes, and just ride the season out.

It just wasn't expected for DJ to rise to All-Star level in DDR's absence and keep the team afloat. That's really the only thing stopping these current Spurs from having bottomed out two months ago; him and Jak, to an extent, but DJ mainly. If anyone is to be ""blamed"" for not tanking this season, he's definitely the one.

E: wait, got my retards confused, I thought you quoted the other one. This is the retard who insists the Spurs do everything wrong and have the worst possible future - so again, he wouldn't have liked that, ironically enough :lmao

[slick'81]

Even if they don't.


nope. Playing a bunch of teams resting their best players or tanking isnt helping much

[MultiTroll]

Because at this point it doesn't change much. The Spurs aren't breaking the top 5 even if they lose out.
Not top 5 but still plenty of maneuvering among 6 - 10 can occur.

[BatManu20]

Spurs ain’t ever gonna tank so y’all might as well sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. Knocking the lakers out of the playoffs is now what we should be looking forward to.

[BacktoBasics]

Not top 5 but still plenty of maneuvering among 6 - 10 can occur.

This is my point.

Let’s say they lose out. They’re still not going to land in the top 6 and probably not 7 either. They can just as easy trade for a 6-10 pick as they can losing out. While still attempting to make the play in.

Now a month ago when cracking the top 6 had a much higher chance I was definitely all for tanking out.

At this point no amount of tanking will produce a pick that wouldn’t otherwise be obtainable via a moderate trade.

[MultiTroll]

I believe exstatic posted the stats.
#6 is not impossible far fetched to reach #1 overall pick or is it?
Thought it was like 15%.

[slick'81]

This is my point.

Let’s say they lose out. They’re still not going to land in the top 6 and probably not 7 either. They can just as easy trade for a 6-10 pick as they can losing out. While still attempting to make the play in.

Now a month ago when cracking the top 6 had a much higher chance I was definitely all for tanking out.

At this point no amount of tanking will produce a pick that wouldn’t otherwise be obtainable via a moderate trade.

yup spurs are going to be in the playin again and we just have to hope for a different outcome this time around

[exstatic]

Because at this point it doesn't change much. The Spurs aren't breaking the top 5 even if they lose out. Their ability to package up a 10th, 11th or 12th pick to acquire a 7th or 8th pick(which is where they'd be if they lose out) wouldn't be impossible.

So basically they can get a 7th or 8th pick if they really want it regardless of whether they land there by loses or package a player/late pick that was already not in the plans.

No ideal but not catastrophic like some make it out to be.

Nobody here really is hot and bothered at picking 7th. What they want is to FINISH in 7th, and have that 32% chance of jumping into the top 4. Pick #7 has done it for 4 years in a row. Now, it's nearly impossible currently to finish 7th with Portland in the tank hard, but we could easily finish 8th, and have a 26% chance. You can't replace that chance, because nobody is trading out of the top 4. Slot #10 has a 13.9% chance. Dropping 2 slots from 8 to 10 and making the play in cuts our chances almost in half.

In the new draft era, 3 years total, 7 out of the 12 teams in the collective top 4s jumped in via the lottery. Only once with the new flat odds has a team 10 or later jumped in, and people were convinced that the league fixed it for the Lakers (#11) to do so as payment in the AD trade.

[BacktoBasics]

I believe exstatic posted the stats.
#6 is not impossible far fetched to reach #1 overall pick or is it?
Thought it was like 15%.
I believe 6 is impossible. If it isn’t it’ll take an absurd scenario to get there.

Let’s say the Spurs covet the 6th pick. It’s not unobtainable like a top 4 and probably easier to package up picks and players than it would be to work a miracle of losing out and needing other teams to win out.

We’re out of the window where we control our own destiny by simply losing out to get a good pick. At this point might as well put up the good fight

[BacktoBasics]

Nobody here really is hot and bothered at picking 7th. What they want is to FINISH in 7th, and have that 32% chance of jumping into the top 4. Pick #7 has done it for 4 years in a row. Now, it's nearly impossible currently to finish 7th with Portland in the tank hard, but we could easily finish 8th, and have a 26% chance. You can't replace that chance, because nobody is trading out of the top 4. Slot #10 has a 13.9% chance. Dropping 2 slots from 8 to 10 and making the play in cuts our chances almost in half.

In the new draft era, 3 years, 7 out of the 12 teams in the top 4s jumped in via the lottery. Only once with the new flat odds has a team 10 or later jumped in, and people were convinced that the league fixed it for the Lakers (#11) to do so as payment in the AD trade.

This is a fair argument but still requires divine intervention.

[exstatic]

This is a fair argument but still requires divine intervention.

It does, but the odds aren't awful at 7 or 8, and that's where the real talent is in most drafts, the top 3-4 picks.

[rjv]

if i had to prognosticate, i'd say that the spurs will make the play in as the 10th seed, lose to the pelicans (although it wouldn't shock me if they didn't) and then wind up with the 9th position in the lottery.

[jjspur]

He is playing his damn ass off. Can’t fault him for that. His GM skills make Brian Wright and whoever else has been pulling strings in PATFO look like rockstars though.
I don't fault him for that. I do fault him for getting his high priced, oft injured, over the hill pals to play with him. It doesn't leave any money to attract average priced 2nd teamers or reliable backups. Lebron " Come play with me in L.A. while I score a bunch a points and get paid 40 plus million dollars and you can get paid the veterans minimum. As a bonus we'll be the favorites to win the NBA championship" Of course you will Bronny. There's always next year when you get paid even more and this situation can happen again.
You're right, Brian Wright and company look like geniuses in comparison.

[gambit1990]

And the team isn’t trying to win at expense of giving young players minutes. Vassell will get close to 2,000 minutes, Jones over 1,000 minutes and Primo almost 1,000 minutes as a kid who just turned 19.

They dealt away three of the four oldest guys on the team (Forbes, White and Young) and got back assets. The only other older guy getting minutes provides important floor spacing that helps development of the rest of the roster.

Not sure what your definition of tanking is. Should they have kept Eubanks and Forbes and played them with street free agents?
i'd rest murray and poeltl some games tbh.

[Mr. Body]

Some interesting things going on with the team lately. I don't think the team is tanking, borne out by appearance, but Pop is definitely tinkering.

1. Getting Primo play. He's looking solid as a starter. I like what I see and am not concerned about his shot and mistakes. He's creating a great foundation for next year.

2. Richardson. Adds a real punch to the bench, finished the game against the Rockets. Closer to the true wing this team hasn't had and doesn't have the sadsack yips that still plagues Walker and Vassell.

3. Two-big sets. Earlier in the year, I wondered if we'd see Landale with Poeltl or Eubanks. Now we're starting to see it (and Collins in the mix). It causes problems for some teams.

The latter two are allowing Keldon to play more 3, which suits him in stretches. Primo is flashing some playmaking skills, even if he's not always executing, and Richardson looks untapped in a Popovich system.

Some casualties include KBD, who can't provide what Richardson does. I wonder if Richardson just makes any attempt to continue with Lonnie obsolete, although of course there are possibilities of trading J-Rich. I think the Spurs are nearly a playoff team outright next year if they make a couple of adds/changes.

[KingKev]

Some interesting things going on with the team lately. I don't think the team is tanking, borne out by appearance, but Pop is definitely tinkering.

1. Getting Primo play. He's looking solid as a starter. I like what I see and am not concerned about his shot and mistakes. He's creating a great foundation for next year.

2. Richardson. Adds a real punch to the bench, finished the game against the Rockets. Closer to the true wing this team hasn't had and doesn't have the sadsack yips that still plagues Walker and Vassell.

3. Two-big sets. Earlier in the year, I wondered if we'd see Landale with Poeltl or Eubanks. Now we're starting to see it (and Collins in the mix). It causes problems for some teams.

The latter two are allowing Keldon to play more 3, which suits him in stretches. Primo is flashing some playmaking skills, even if he's not always executing, and Richardson looks untapped in a Popovich system.

Some casualties include KBD, who can't provide what Richardson does. I wonder if Richardson just makes any attempt to continue with Lonnie obsolete, although of course there are possibilities of trading J-Rich. I think the Spurs are nearly a playoff team outright next year if they make a couple of adds/changes.


I wouldn’t take much if anything away from these points as they probably have little relevance come next season. We aren’t tanking but we aren’t all in for the play-in either. Points 1-3 above seem more circumstantial to end this season and less what we can expect next year.

[lefty20]

LBJ out against Mavs tonight. We in boys, for tonight at least.

[007nites]

LBJ out against Mavs tonight. We in boys, for tonight at least.

AD playing?

[TD 21]

The Rockets just drafted four first-rounders last year to go with Wood. Sacramento has two All-Star threats and a number of decent role-players. If you don't think getting a high pick is a talent infusion, I don't know why you want the Spurs to get worse in hopes of getting it.

Drafting in the 1st round doesn't automatically equate to high end talent. The Rockets have one player projected to fit that description. The Kings are horribly constructed, including their two "All-Star threats".

I want the Spurs to get a high pick because it's greater odds of getting a high end talent. There are obviously no guarantees though.



But I don't have to worry about the cognitive dissonance trying to feel happy about a team losing. I get to want them to win and still find the silver lining of them not doing that. Being a Spurs fans has never been easier.

But a young team with tons of assets? Yep. It's fine.

Neither do I. It's not like I'm in a rage over these results. I thought they'd do this down the stretch and am predisposed to presume bad luck against them, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But they don't have tons of assets.



I'm assuming you mean "keep it simple, stupid". But that is like saying, "Your plan to go to school, get a degree and work experience and saving money to buy a home is needlessly complex. I'll just keep playing the lotto" is a good idea because it's simpler. Playing the odds isn't a way to build a roster. At best it's a way to acquire the initial building block.

No, it's not like that at all and pro sports should never be analogized to most any profession. In this world, you're incentivized to a much higher degree for being bad.

A single building block is all I'm advocating for. This is not a ground floor re-build.


One of the main reasons why bad teams stay bad even after picking up talent is that they don't have structure in place to develop talent. Removing that structure has a cost, even if it's just for the last quarter of the season.

There's downsides to virtually anything. I'd have taken this miniscule one for a decent chance at getting a high end talent.


Eh, count me as someone who'd be fine with the team playing too big for a while rather than too small. Plus, if it all works out, then Murray, Collins and Poeltl would pretty comfortably fill most of the front-court minutes. That's especially true given that Murray is likely to at least start the season off on the bench.

I agree, but the lineup you're proposing is too lacking in ball handling mainly.

[lefty20]

AD playing?

Nope, he's confirmed to be out as well.

[RC_Drunkford]

I'm on neither team tbh. Weather it's play in or tanking, I don't really care. The team is a lot better than at the beginning or even middle of the season and that's with Lonnie and McDermott out. As long as they find a way to fix the hole at the starting 4 position in the offseason I'm fine. They should be a playoff team next season.

[boutons_deux]

LBJ out against Mavs tonight. We in boys, for tonight at least.


For tied records, the NBA tiebreaker rules apply

[Mr. Body]

I wouldn’t take much if anything away from these points as they probably have little relevance come next season. We aren’t tanking but we aren’t all in for the play-in either. Points 1-3 above seem more circumstantial to end this season and less what we can expect next year.

I mean, they literally are relevant to next season. This is literally the reason Popovich is trying them.

[Mr. Body]

Lakers look completely done.

[ZeusWillJudge]

Do you guys understand how the whole lottery thing works? The real method takes a lof of math, but an easy way to picture it is this:

Say there are 1,000 ping pong balls. With the current standings, HOU/ORL/DET each get 140 balls, and the Spurs get 60. So the Spurs chance at the #1 pick will be 60/1000 or 6%. Now... suppose Hou gets picked. It's time for the second pick, but Houston can't get a second pick so you have to remove all 140 of their ping pong balls. The Spurs still have 60 ping pong balls, only now there are just 860 balls in the container. So the Spurs chance at getting the #2 pick would be 60/860 or 6.9%.

Most of you can see that it would be different if Charlotte got drawn for the #1 pick. Charlotte only had 5 ping pong balls out of 1,000. So after they got drawn, only those 5 ping pong balls would be removed, and the Spurs would have a 60/995 chance at the #2 pick.

That's not the real methodology, but the important thing to remember is that when someone gets drawn for the #1 pick, they can't get picked again. So all the lottery odds you're looking at are estimates and averages. Because you can't know what the real odds for the #2 pick are until the #1 pick has been made, and you can know how many ping pong balls don't count anymore.

So if you can live with a little more math... imagine that Houston gets the #1 pick, Orlando gets the #2, and Detroit gets the #3 pick. None of them can get picked again, so there would be 420 ping pong balls removed from the bin. So the Spurs chance at getting the #4 pick at that point would be 60/580 or about 10.3%.

So in that exact situation, the 8th-worst Spurs would have had an overall 31.5% chance of getting one of the top 4 picks. The 14th-worst Hornets would have had a 1.7% chance of getting one of the top 4 picks. (That's not perfect, but it's darned close.) You see how much difference there CAN be between the 8 and the 14 record? It's not just the difference between the 8 and 14 pick, which is big. It's a HUGE difference in the chance of getting a Top 4.

And no matter what anyone says, Top 4 is everything. Because everyone available at 15 was available at 4 - not the other way around.

[Dex]

For tied records, the NBA tiebreaker rules apply

We're well ahead with the tie-breaker which will come down to record vs Western Conference. And we still play the Blazers twice

[Dex]

Lakers down 30 with 7 minutes left in the 2nd :wow

[slick'81]

Lakers down 30 with 7 minutes left in the 2nd :wow


no ad or bron so they suuuck

[Mr. Body]

The whole Lakers team is checked out. It must be a nightmare for the rank and file. Total dysfunction. I think they're done, the question is what they do for next year. Spurs are against NOP for the play-in. Who would have thought.

[slick'81]

Lakers look completely done.

they literally cant beat anyone without lebron&ad. They are fcked. No pick and no chance to win

[BackHome]

Dallas is smacking that Ass - Le China is done

[slick'81]

Lol westy and melo

[Chinook]

Drafting in the 1st round doesn't automatically equate to high end talent. The Rockets have one player projected to fit that description. The Kings are horribly constructed, including their two "All-Star threats".

I want the Spurs to get a high pick because it's greater odds of getting a high end talent. There are obviously no guarantees though.

If we're being real, I think the draft will take care of itself. I'm not saying that I expect the Spurs to get a top-four pick, but I do think they'll come away with a prospect that ends up in the Rising Stars game (though more likely their second year) and at least one other that people like (and I expect that second player to be different for different fans). Eason is a guy I've liked a lot for a while, and Duren looked good recently. Would I hope to draft Jaden Ivey in the top four and come around to grab one of those other guys in a trade-up? Yeah, I'd prefer that. But someone is going to fall that ends up being intriguing, and while I don't doubt there will be one or two guys obviously better taken higher up, I think there will be a lot of worse players that SA may have taken over the player they get if they had the chance. They drafted Samanic over much better players after all. They can be blinded by raw potential.


But they don't have tons of assets.

They have 10 firsts over the next seven drafts and a number solid prospects to go along with their cap space and expirings. As a team looking to make a win-now move, that's pretty good. They also have a high-end role-player center and a young All-Star with two years left on his deal. As a team looking to completely tear down, that's really good. Yes, there are better teams out there for both cases, but the Spurs have the latitude to bring in two All-Star --caliber players this summer without going into pick hell, and they're one of the few teams that could acquire a top-five pick that would have any real interest in doing so.


A single building block is all I'm advocating for. This is not a ground floor re-build.

I'm saying the idea of building from a single block isn't enough of a plan. How you get that block matters, because you can't count on keeping that block past like seven years (less if you're in New Orleans). Stars don't just want to play with players. They want to play in situations. If the Spurs can't put a good situation together, they aren't likely to keep their stars. If they can't, they're more likely to acquire more stars. I know a Murray/Lavine/Collins trio doesn't feel like a contender, but they'd be a young group that could be together for a long time, and the Spurs would still have some of Poeltl, Vassell, Richardson, Johnson and their picks to continue to build. Do they have a real chance at Lavine? I don't know, but I don't think it's less likely than them winning the lotto AND hitting on the right player. If it's not him, it can be someone else. There are a number of good scoring guards in the league in unideal situations (Mitchell, Nunn, Gary Harris and Sexton as youngish examples but also guys like Beal and Irving as unlikely free-agent wildcards). Murray's flexibility allows the Spurs to bring in guys at either position. The same interchangeability is there with Collins as well. Randle, Ingram, Siakam, Grant and Harris are other examples.


I agree, but the lineup you're proposing is too lacking in ball handling mainly.

With Vassell, possibly. With another lead-guard type, maybe not.

[slick'81]

Lebron to miss playoffs for 4th time in his career?!

[Chinook]

Lebron to miss playoffs for 4th time in his career?!

I wish people didn't shit on him for that. How many years has it been since Tim played in the post-season? What about MJ? Wait, Lebron is still playing?

[slick'81]

I wish people didn't shit on him for that. How many years has it been since Tim played in the post-season? What about MJ? Wait, Lebron is still playing?

whos shitting?! Its impressive. Not as impressive as timmy but still

[spurraider21]

I wish people didn't shit on him for that. How many years has it been since Tim played in the post-season? What about MJ? Wait, Lebron is still playing?
well thats a bit apples and oranges. lebron is in his 19th season, duncan played 19 seasons. obviously though lebron in year 19 >> duncan in year 19

[slick'81]

Man if the mavs can ever put anyone next to luka

[Leetonidas]

It's pretty hilarious that the Lakers now have the same record as SA :lol

[slick'81]

Couldnt get boban a bucket :cry

[Robz4000]

well thats a bit apples and oranges. lebron is in his 19th season, duncan played 19 seasons. obviously though lebron in year 19 >> duncan in year 19

Eh, should look at it through ages. Timmy at 37 > LeBron at 37.

[007nites]

It's pretty hilarious that the Lakers now have the same record as SA :lol

:rollin

[Dex]

Lakers active cap...$149M

Spurs active cap...$80M

Record after 75 games....even.

Don't sit there and tell me Pop isn't a great coach.

[ZeusWillJudge]

Lakers active cap...$149M

Spurs active cap...$80M

Record after 75 games....even.

Don't sit there and tell me Pop isn't a great coach.


Dear... well, Me. A .413 winning percentage is now proof of good coaching? You do realize that under the old, non-playin system they would be 5 games behind the 8th place team with 7 games left, and next to last in the Southwest division? So functionally dead.

Maybe they can win those two playin games and get to the 15th pick in the draft, proving once and for all that Pop really is the GOAT.

[Dex]

Dear... well, Me. A .413 winning percentage is now proof of good coaching? You do realize that under the old, non-playin system they would be 5 games behind the 8th place team with 7 games left, and next to last in the Southwest division? So functionally dead.

Maybe they can win those two playin games and get to the 15th pick in the draft, proving once and for all that Pop really is the GOAT.

Have you SEEN this roster? We spent half the year playing Drew Eubanks and Bryn fucking Forbes

Yet, still somehow as good as a team with LeBron, Anthony Davis, and Russell Westbrook.

But I'm sure Tim Duncan carried them there, too. :rolleyes

We ain't winning a championship or anything and are lucky to even be in the playoff conversation, but give credit where it's due, dude

[bdictjames]

I think we definitely should try for the play-in. These young guys need to taste success.. and not tanking.

Murray needs to zone in and lead us.

[slick'81]

Have you SEEN this roster? We spent half the year playing Drew Eubanks and Bryn fucking Forbes

Yet, still somehow as good as a team with LeBron, Anthony Davis, and Russell Westbrook.

But I'm sure Tim Duncan carried them there, too. :rolleyes

We ain't winning a championship or anything and are lucky to even be in the playoff conversation, but give credit where it's due, dude

Spurs are only as good as the lakers right now record wise because lebron and ad have missed soo many games. Still, im not arguing pops greatness at all

[MultiTroll]

Lakers active cap...$149M

Spurs active cap...$80M

Record after 75 games....even.

Don't sit there and tell me Pop isn't a great coach.
Memphis is 52-23 with a cap of 117M vs Spurs 127M

Not sure where you're going with "active cap" (cherry picking?) but if you mean for the 1st time in years Pop isn't overpaying for slackers like Softridge and Patty 50, well congrats.

Phoenix last year made the Finals with a salary of 128M vs Spurs 129M, and that included massive overpay for Chrissy Paul.

Guess Monty Williams and Taylor Jenkins might be greater?

[Chinook]

Memphis is 52-23 with a cap of 117M vs Spurs 127M

Not sure where you're going with "active cap" (cherry picking?) but if you mean for the 1st time in years Pop isn't overpaying for slackers like Softridge and Patty 50, well congrats.

Phoenix last year made the Finals with a salary of 128M vs Spurs 129M, and that included massive overpay for Chrissy Paul.

Guess Monty Williams and Taylor Jenkins might be greater?

"Active cap" is pretty obvious if you aren't looking for a diss. He's talking about cap space that isn't used on dead money. The Spurs are paying guys $80 Million to get their record and $47 Million to guy who aren't on the team and basically never were.

I don't really like the "bang for buck" logic in the first place, mind you, but the counter you used wasn't very good either.

[cjw]

Memphis is 52-23 with a cap of 117M vs Spurs 127M

Not sure where you're going with "active cap" (cherry picking?) but if you mean for the 1st time in years Pop isn't overpaying for slackers like Softridge and Patty 50, well congrats.

Phoenix last year made the Finals with a salary of 128M vs Spurs 129M, and that included massive overpay for Chrissy Paul.

Guess Monty Williams and Taylor Jenkins might be greater?

The Spurs took back salaries that they cut in order to get future assets. A lot of salary isn’t playing for them.

Yes, Memphis is great. And their record is even better without Ja. What’s up with that?

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

If Spurs eliminate The Lakers and LeBron leaves. They would have broken up two LeBron super teams

ooo yeah baby i like the way you talk

[MultiTroll]

"Active cap" is pretty obvious if you aren't looking for a diss. He's talking about cap space that isn't used on dead money. The Spurs are paying guys $80 Million to get their record and $47 Million to guy who aren't on the team and basically never were.

I don't really like the "bang for buck" logic in the first place, mind you, but the counter you used wasn't very good either.
Huh?
Working examples?

If the Spurs are paying guys 47 million who aren't on the team isn't this dog doo doo?

[MultiTroll]

The Spurs took back salaries that they cut in order to get future assets. A lot of salary isn’t playing for them.

Yes, Memphis is great. And their record is even better without Ja. What’s up with that?
Like the guy who dressed like Disco Stu?
And is Softridge still extorting money from the Spurs?

Memphis without Ja, all i can say is the parts of games i have seen Memphis in recently they are team balling big time. Like the cooperation.

[Chinook]

Huh?
Working examples?

If the Spurs are paying guys 47 million who aren't on the team isn't this dog doo doo?

No, because they got two firsts and three seconds for them. They didn't eat that money for free. They rented out a ton of cap space and still put together a roster that might make the playoffs. That's good asset management, though as I said I'm not committed to the idea that it's (more) proof Pop's a great coach.

[itzsoweezee]

Spurs ain’t ever gonna tank so y’all might as well sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. Knocking the lakers out of the playoffs is now what we should be looking forward to.

I’d rather see the Lakers and Lebron get embarrassed by the Suns.

[Rocalcio]

And so we’re in the Play In !
I don’t see how we can miss it actually.

[Proxy]

yeah it's gonna suck if the lakers get a player that pans out to be good while we get swept by the suns

[XDT76]

yeah it's gonna suck if the lakers get a player that pans out to be good while we get swept by the suns

It will never happen as they have 0 pick this year

[exstatic]

yeah it's gonna suck if the lakers get a player that pans out to be good while we get swept by the suns

New Orleans gets it if it falls 1-10, Memphis if it’s between 11-30.

[Elementis]

the Lakers are in a classic lose-lose-lose situation: miss the playoffs, no draft pick, have Westbrick.

[JPB]

I guess I should follow the NBA at least a little... Me thought LA was tanking :spin

Wow, so they suck for real... Bron Bron, Westbrick and they might not even make the play in with no pick to show for it...

Anyway, I was remembering of #8 GS upsetting #1 Dallas a few years ago and was thinking to myself, would they have tanked, something that made history and is in every GS fan memories could have never happened. That was like NBA finals appearance for them.

Odds are against you but you never know, it's sport and stuff happens... Try to get in the PO and give your best. Who knows, maybe both CP3 and Booker will have season ending injuries...

[Poolboy5623]

The Spurs are going to be fighting to be in the play in game every season, at this rate.

[KingKev]

I guess I should follow the NBA at least a little... Me thought LA was tanking :spin

Wow, so they suck for real... Bron Bron, Westbrick and they might not even make the play in with no pick to show for it...

Anyway, I was remembering of #8 GS upsetting #1 Dallas a few years ago and was thinking to myself, would they have tanked, something that made history and is in every GS fan memories could have never happened. That was like NBA finals appearance for them.

Odds are against you but you never know, it's sport and stuff happens... Try to get in the PO and give your best. Who knows, maybe both CP3 and Booker will have season ending injuries...

Lol that was 15 years ago and that team was stacked!! Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington, Jason Richardson, Barnes, Biedrus, Monta Ellis.

Pels will make quick work of us in the play-in If we make it. I’d rather play the Lakers.

[MannyIsGod]

I have thought almost everyone here has underrated the cap room the Spurs have this offseason all year. In fact, I think people have underrated how much flexibility the Spurs have in general this offseason. The amount of first round picks, young prospects, and tradable contracts is pretty damn amazing. This time last year, no one thought either James Harden or Ben Simmons were getting traded. In fact everyone was show someone like Beal would be moved and dude is still a Wizard. Same with Llilard. The Spurs are a pretty long way from true contention because they don't have a true #1 option on this team barring someone on this team takes a Ja Morant type leap (and then some tbh) this next season. Chances of that are low, but chances that someone in the first four picks is that player are also low. Yeah, those chances are higher than at the 8th or 10th pick, but I'm not sure the difference is that meaningful.

I wouldn't have cared if this team tanked because they just weren't good enough but I am happy that the young guys on this team and the few vets are playing hard and trying to win. Think of how many stars who started on losing teams are never any good. The culture of trying to lose is a horrible one for player development, IMO. Too many people spend too much time trying to plan out a perfect path to getting back to contention when the best thing to have is flexibility so that you can take whatever opportunity presents itself.

This team from the start of the season never going to be a 20 win team despite how many people here said the same. Go back and look at the preseason discussions. There were a handful of us that kept telling you this team was likely to win somewhere in the mid 30s, and guess where we're at. Some of you idiots said they woudn't win 20 fucking games! Truly a stupid take to those of you who thought that. So many people are worried about the Spurs being on a "treadmill" but they always seem to ignore that we have tradeable assets, caproom, and a front office that is willing to make deals in order to improve their team (a lot of y'all got that wrong too). If you were expecting a top 5 pick this season, I think you were delusional. Even after trading Derrick White, the improvement from other players on this team has kept them at .500! This is the first year they tried with the youth movement, and they are in a pretty good position. I don't understand how people can be worried about a treadmill when you look at teams like OKC, Philly who have tanked for half a fucking decade. THAT is a treadmill and it doesn't come with guarantees. The guy NOLA tanked for is likely to leave there after next year! THAT is a treadmill.

[widowmaker]

Lol that was 15 years ago and that team was stacked!! Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington, Jason Richardson, Barnes, Biedrus, Monta Ellis.

Pels will make quick work of us in the play-in If we make it. I’d rather play the Lakers.

The Spurs arent pussies like some people on this board. If it turns out they play the pelicans for the play in they are gonna give them hell and if the pelicans win so be it at least they didn’t pussy out like some people on this board. Im talking about other people not you.

[LeBowen]

I wanted the team to tank, but 8th or 9th worst record doesn't really change much and I doubt we could get any better than that.
Just don't finish 9th and that's it.

I'd take 6% less chance for a top4 pick as an exchange for fucking Lebron and the Lakers over. I'm too big of a hater.

And it's not like they can't trade up if needed.

[KingKev]

The Spurs arent pussies like some people on this board. If it turns out they play the pelicans for the play in they are gonna give them hell and if the pelicans win so be it at least they didn’t pussy out like some people on this board. Im talking about other people not you.

I’d expect our guys to play hard and Jak, Keldon, DJ have enough tenure to make this a game but the Pels trio of JV, BI and CJ is a tough matchup for us. Jak is going to be left on an island all night.

[CGD]

F it, I’m here for it. Let’s go play in!

[offset formation]

And so we’re in the Play In !
I don’t see how we can miss it actually.

Youre right, and 2 weeks ago I would have laughed at you for this statement. The Lakers and Portland (after trading McCollum) have just folded.

[Dex]

I have thought almost everyone here has underrated the cap room the Spurs have this offseason all year. In fact, I think people have underrated how much flexibility the Spurs have in general this offseason. The amount of first round picks, young prospects, and tradable contracts is pretty damn amazing. This time last year, no one thought either James Harden or Ben Simmons were getting traded. In fact everyone was show someone like Beal would be moved and dude is still a Wizard. Same with Llilard. The Spurs are a pretty long way from true contention because they don't have a true #1 option on this team barring someone on this team takes a Ja Morant type leap (and then some tbh) this next season. Chances of that are low, but chances that someone in the first four picks is that player are also low. Yeah, those chances are higher than at the 8th or 10th pick, but I'm not sure the difference is that meaningful.

I wouldn't have cared if this team tanked because they just weren't good enough but I am happy that the young guys on this team and the few vets are playing hard and trying to win. Think of how many stars who started on losing teams are never any good. The culture of trying to lose is a horrible one for player development, IMO. Too many people spend too much time trying to plan out a perfect path to getting back to contention when the best thing to have is flexibility so that you can take whatever opportunity presents itself.

This team from the start of the season never going to be a 20 win team despite how many people here said the same. Go back and look at the preseason discussions. There were a handful of us that kept telling you this team was likely to win somewhere in the mid 30s, and guess where we're at. Some of you idiots said they woudn't win 20 fucking games! Truly a stupid take to those of you who thought that. So many people are worried about the Spurs being on a "treadmill" but they always seem to ignore that we have tradeable assets, caproom, and a front office that is willing to make deals in order to improve their team (a lot of y'all got that wrong too). If you were expecting a top 5 pick this season, I think you were delusional. Even after trading Derrick White, the improvement from other players on this team has kept them at .500! This is the first year they tried with the youth movement, and they are in a pretty good position. I don't understand how people can be worried about a treadmill when you look at teams like OKC, Philly who have tanked for half a fucking decade. THAT is a treadmill and it doesn't come with guarantees. The guy NOLA tanked for is likely to leave there after next year! THAT is a treadmill.

Preach.

The problem with being a true tank team is that you develop a losing culture, you end up with a bunch of disgruntled players because athletes hate losing, and you will be lucky to get maybe one or two pieces you can build around.

It's hard to turn around a team with just two young talents and a bunch of shitty players who have never won anything.

Spurs caught lightning in a bottle by getting Tim while still having a solid core (Robinson, Elliott, Avery) around him...then did it again by drafting Tony and Manu. That shit was magical.

People keep expecting that the Spurs will win 15 games, get a top 3 pick, and pull the same rabbit out of a hat but that's not always how it works out.

[exstatic]

Even if we catch lighting in a bottle and still jump into the top 4, if that player is on a star track, it won't happen for like 3 years anyway.

[MultiTroll]

No, because they got two firsts and three seconds for them. They didn't eat that money for free. They rented out a ton of cap space and still put together a roster that might make the playoffs. That's good asset management, though as I said I'm not committed to the idea that it's (more) proof Pop's a great coach.Absolutely.
First time in 5 years (Pop without an MVP Era) that trades and maneuvers have made sense.

However that we're doing better on the Active Cap then LA without Lebron and AD is like woopie doo. LAs bread and butter is FAs looking to cash in along with rigged trades and rigged refs. Apples and oranges.

Regardless, here we are possibly in the play in. In barely squeaking by obviously tanking teams to get there is somehow meretricious in the minds of many a slurper is well, whatever. :lol

I'm good with whatever at this point. Hope it's not the worst of both worlds, get in the play in and get run out.

[rjv]

I'm on neither team tbh. Weather it's play in or tanking, I don't really care. The team is a lot better than at the beginning or even middle of the season and that's with Lonnie and McDermott out. As long as they find a way to fix the hole at the starting 4 position in the offseason I'm fine. They should be a playoff team next season.

i agree, and i'll add that a team can't play to lose. this team is on the brink of a play-in game in their first year without derozan, patty and LMA and so to be playing at a higher level at the end of the season is a positive sign. the spurs can't be blamed if there are 8 or 9 more teams out there that are pathetic (and have been for years). the basketball gods have declared that the spurs weren't created to tank. and yes, fix the frontcourt and go from there.

[widowmaker]

I’d expect our guys to play hard and Jak, Keldon, DJ have enough tenure to make this a game but the Pels trio of JV, BI and CJ is a tough matchup for us. Jak is going to be left on an island all night.


May the best team win bottom line but Spurs have beaten them before and they can beat them again. It’s doable.

[KingKev]

I have thought almost everyone here has underrated the cap room the Spurs have this offseason all year. In fact, I think people have underrated how much flexibility the Spurs have in general this offseason. The amount of first round picks, young prospects, and tradable contracts is pretty damn amazing. This time last year, no one thought either James Harden or Ben Simmons were getting traded. In fact everyone was show someone like Beal would be moved and dude is still a Wizard. Same with Llilard. The Spurs are a pretty long way from true contention because they don't have a true #1 option on this team barring someone on this team takes a Ja Morant type leap (and then some tbh) this next season. Chances of that are low, but chances that someone in the first four picks is that player are also low. Yeah, those chances are higher than at the 8th or 10th pick, but I'm not sure the difference is that meaningful.

I wouldn't have cared if this team tanked because they just weren't good enough but I am happy that the young guys on this team and the few vets are playing hard and trying to win. Think of how many stars who started on losing teams are never any good. The culture of trying to lose is a horrible one for player development, IMO. Too many people spend too much time trying to plan out a perfect path to getting back to contention when the best thing to have is flexibility so that you can take whatever opportunity presents itself.

This team from the start of the season never going to be a 20 win team despite how many people here said the same. Go back and look at the preseason discussions. There were a handful of us that kept telling you this team was likely to win somewhere in the mid 30s, and guess where we're at. Some of you idiots said they woudn't win 20 fucking games! Truly a stupid take to those of you who thought that. So many people are worried about the Spurs being on a "treadmill" but they always seem to ignore that we have tradeable assets, caproom, and a front office that is willing to make deals in order to improve their team (a lot of y'all got that wrong too). If you were expecting a top 5 pick this season, I think you were delusional. Even after trading Derrick White, the improvement from other players on this team has kept them at .500! This is the first year they tried with the youth movement, and they are in a pretty good position. I don't understand how people can be worried about a treadmill when you look at teams like OKC, Philly who have tanked for half a fucking decade. THAT is a treadmill and it doesn't come with guarantees. The guy NOLA tanked for is likely to leave there after next year! THAT is a treadmill.

We have great flexibility but the cap space probably won’t return much. My back of the envelop math says ~35mm assuming a 119mm cap and we let Walker walk. 10-12mm will goto those 3 FRPs who won't have an impact for another few years. The rest of the cap probably gets rented out or used similarly to last off-season given how weak this free agency is. A year from now we are probably right back in the same position with Keldon’s extension about to kick in.

This is the offseason to take risks via the trade market.

[BacktoBasics]

We have great flexibility but the cap space probably won’t return much. My back of the envelop math says ~35mm assuming a 119mm cap and we let Walker walk. 10-12mm will goto those 3 FRPs who won't have an impact for another few years. The rest of the cap probably gets rented out or used similarly to last off-season given how weak this free agency is. A year from now we are probably right back in the same position with Keldon’s extension about to kick in.

This is the offseason to take risks via the trade market.

We’re not letting Walker walk.

[baseline bum]

If Spurs eliminate The Lakers and LeBron leaves. They would have broken up two LeBron super teams

LeBron ain't leaving LA to go play in Orlando, OKC, here, etc

[ZeusWillJudge]

Have you SEEN this roster? We spent half the year playing Drew Eubanks and Bryn fucking Forbes

Yet, still somehow as good as a team with LeBron, Anthony Davis, and Russell Westbrook.

But I'm sure Tim Duncan carried them there, too. :rolleyes

We ain't winning a championship or anything and are lucky to even be in the playoff conversation, but give credit where it's due, dude


I'll make you a deal. Go look at this team's schedule and record for the season here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2022_games.html

Look at WHO they beat, for the most part. Nine of those wins were against the 4 worst teams in the league, who were essentially tanking after the first month. Four more wins came against New Orleans - would you be crowing about the team and coach right now if you were a Pelicans fan?

Yes, they scattered in a few wins against some of the better teams, which is going to happen in the course of a season. But even most of those were earlier in the season, and involved big games from White.

If you look at all that and still think that this is anything other than a very bad team, and if you still think that potentially getting the 15 pick and a 0% chance of getting a Top 4 pick is not so bad? I'll give you credit for being a true believer and just leave you alone. But in exchange, you should try really hard to avoid using this year's broken Lakers as your benchmark for "good".

And if the Spurs get out-tanked in the playin, and wind up out of the lottery, I'm going to bump this as a reminder. We Olympians can be fair, but also petty.

[Chinook]

The Spurs aren't going to be out-tanked from the lottery unless at least two of LAC, NOP/LAL and Minny decide they'd rather not make the playoffs. Making the play-in and losing one of the two games doesn't do anything to the lottery spot they got at the end of the regular season.

[KobesAchilles]

If it means the Lakers miss the play-in then I’m all for us making it. I love seeing them being a dumpster fire.

[BackHome]

First Le China ain’t making the playoffs AD has a hurt foot and Lebron has knee and ankle issues. So that makes us the 10th playing NO which is just a better team then we are so I guess I am all in on the Play In as it won’t much much regarding where we pick. But this team got lucky we have been pretty healthy all season and not for Stars being hurt on certain teams we probably easily looking at a top 5 pick.

Also Pop has publicly acknowledged that we are in a re build mode so I expect more trades after this season and certain players won’t be back - Unless they sign for cheap; Walker

[KingKev]

We’re not letting Walker walk.

Debatable. He has earned a QO. His cap hold may complicate things. We are deep at the 2 guard position. If your cap space is likely to go to waste maybe you pay up and match more than you would otherwise.

I don’t have a strong view here and think it’s very fluid. Too many variables here between 4 draft picks, cap flexibility, Langford, JRich, Vassell, Primo and Walker all battling for minutes.

[MannyIsGod]

Its possible Walker is let go in the offseason, but the only scenarios I see that being the case are a really over the top offer from another team that the Spurs just refuse to match (unlikely) and the other being his QO being pulled due to make room for a big ass signing. So its not really out of the realm of possibility the Spurs let him go to open up more cap room.

[BacktoBasics]

Debatable. He has earned a QO. His cap hold may complicate things. We are deep at the 2 guard position. If your cap space is likely to go to waste maybe you pay up and match more than you would otherwise.

I don’t have a strong view here and think it’s very fluid. Too many variables here between 4 draft picks, cap flexibility, Langford, JRich, Vassell, Primo and Walker all battling for minutes.
Traded maybe… let walk, no.

We’re not letting him walk. I’ll happily put money on that.

[BacktoBasics]

Its possible Walker is let go in the offseason, but the only scenarios I see that being the case are a really over the top offer from another team that the Spurs just refuse to match (unlikely) and the other being his QO being pulled due to make room for a big ass signing. So its not really out of the realm of possibility the Spurs let him go to open up more cap room.
If it’s an outrageous offer I would agree. I don’t consider that the same as simply letting him walk.

I don’t think pulling the QO is something this team would have to face. There’s nothing out there that they could obtain which would be more valuable than Walker on a QO. Yeah sure we can create and discuss all kinds of nonsensical scenarios but it’s wildly far fetched.

[MannyIsGod]

If it’s an outrageous offer I would agree. I don’t consider that the same as simply letting him walk.

I don’t think pulling the QO is something this team would have to face. There’s nothing out there that they could obtain which would be more valuable than Walker on a QO. Yeah sure we can create and discuss all kinds of nonsensical scenarios but it’s wildly far fetched.

Uh what do you mean there's nothing more valuable than walker on a QO they could obtain? There are lots of free agents they could obtain that would be better. After the picks they make, they may have to choose between a Lonnie Walker QO and offering a max contract. Maybe maybe not, but this is part of the flexibility I mentioned above.

I am fully in favor of the Spurs trying to keep Lonnie and I think he's a worthwhile asset (assuming a good contract) but if they have to rescind his QO in order to use appropriate caproom then I'm OK with it. We don't know what that will be until the draft or at least the lottery. A top pick takes up a sizeable slot.

[KingKev]

Traded maybe… let walk, no.

We’re not letting him walk. I’ll happily put money on that.

His RFA status makes a sign and trade much less likely. You can’t simply match and than sign and trade him. Match and trade at a later date maybe. Walker will get MLE offers and the Spurs will have to make a decision. You aren’t getting shit back for Walker in a true sign and trade this offseason. He simply isnmt worth much.

[BatManu20]

Fwiw, I’d be shocked if Lonnie isn’t back next season. He’s playing the best ball of his career right now, he’s on record as saying he actually likes SA and wants to be here long term, he just bought a house here, and will likely re-sign on a team-friendly deal imo. If another team comes out of the woodworks and offers him something ludicrous, then so be it. Otherwise, I see him in Silver & Black next season.

[MannyIsGod]

Fwiw, I’d be shocked if Lonnie isn’t back next season. He’s playing the best ball of his career right now, he’s on record as saying he actually likes SA and wants to be here long term, he just bought a house here, and will likely re-sign on a team-friendly deal imo. If another team comes out of the woodworks and offers him something ludicrous, then so be it. Otherwise, I see him in Silver & Black next season.

Yeah I think Lonnie will sign a friendly extension. I do think this team's tightness will play into guys like Keldon and Lonnie signing team friendly deals but we'll see.

[TD 21]

I do think they'll come away with a prospect that ends up in the Rising Stars game (though more likely their second year). But someone is going to fall that ends up being intriguing, and while I don't doubt there will be one or two guys obviously better taken higher up, I think there will be a lot of worse players that SA may have taken over the player they get if they had the chance.

I'll believe a Spur in the Rising Stars game when I see it.

Of course they could end up with a steal/value pick, but they need an offensive centerpiece and the only two who look like they could conceivably be that right now are Banchero and Ivey.



a number solid prospects to go along with their cap space and expirings. but the Spurs have the latitude to bring in two All-Star --caliber players this summer without going into pick hell, and they're one of the few teams that could acquire a top-five pick that would have any real interest in doing so.

Only Johnson and Vassell can be called solid prospects. Primo is a project and no one else is worth mentioning.

Maybe so, but it's highly unlikely they'll bring in an All-Star caliber player. Collins is the only one who seems feasible; whether he's quite at that level or can get to it in this context is debatable.



I'm saying the idea of building from a single block isn't enough of a plan. How you get that block matters. There are a number of good scoring guards in the league in unideal situations (Mitchell, Nunn, Gary Harris and Sexton as youngish examples but also guys like Beal and Irving as unlikely free-agent wildcards). Murray's flexibility allows the Spurs to bring in guys at either position. The same interchangeability is there with Collins as well. Randle, Ingram, Siakam, Grant and Harris are other examples.

In this case, it is. Had they got Banchero, it's not unreasonable to think the core would have been mostly in place.

Mitchell, Beal and Irving are pipe dreams (the first two will only be traded if they request it and even then, the Spurs don't have the assets to acquire them nor the infrastructure to appeal to them), Nunn is a sixth man and Harris isn't a scoring guard. Ingram and Siakam are pipe dreams (no reason to think they'll be traded).

Harris is interesting. The Thunder have been speculated as a salary dump destination, but the Spurs should be interested. He could make sense now and would obviously have to come with a good amount of draft capital attached.

[exstatic]

I'll believe a Spur in the Rising Stars game when I see it.

Of course they could end up with a steal/value pick, but they need an offensive centerpiece and the only two who look like they could conceivably be that right now are Banchero and Ivey.




Only Johnson and Vassell can be called solid prospects. Primo is a project and no one else is worth mentioning.

Maybe so, but it's highly unlikely they'll bring in an All-Star caliber player. Collins is the only one who seems feasible; whether he's quite at that level or can get to it in this context is debatable.




In this case, it is. Had they got Banchero, it's not unreasonable to think the core would have been mostly in place.

Mitchell, Beal and Irving are pipe dreams (the first two will only be traded if they request it and even then, the Spurs don't have the assets to acquire them nor the infrastructure to appeal to them), Nunn is a sixth man and Harris isn't a scoring guard. Ingram and Siakam are pipe dreams (no reason to think they'll be traded).

Harris is interesting. The Thunder have been speculated as a salary dump destination, but the Spurs should be interested. He could make sense now and would obviously have to come with a good amount of draft capital attached.

Harris makes no sense at all for the Spurs. He generated a shit ton of buzz when he was making mid teens millions and had value at that price, but he will be 30 this summer, and is on a contract that will pay him ~$41M in it's last year, 2023-2024. You've shut every other door if you make this move.

[TD 21]

Harris makes no sense at all for the Spurs. He generated a shit ton of buzz when he was making mid teens millions and had value at that price, but he will be 30 this summer, and is on a contract that will pay him ~$41M in it's last year, 2023-2024. You've shut every other door if you make this move.

I'm not saying as a plan A. If enough of the things discussed ad nauseam don't pan out and of course depending on the quantity and quality of the draft capital the 76ers are willing to attach (this is a team primed to go off a cliff around the mid point of the decade).

He's basically a prime version of Gay. Outside of the albatross salary, he's both an on court and "cultural" fit.

[BacktoBasics]

Uh what do you mean there's nothing more valuable than walker on a QO they could obtain? There are lots of free agents they could obtain that would be better. After the picks they make, they may have to choose between a Lonnie Walker QO and offering a max contract. Maybe maybe not, but this is part of the flexibility I mentioned above.

I am fully in favor of the Spurs trying to keep Lonnie and I think he's a worthwhile asset (assuming a good contract) but if they have to rescind his QO in order to use appropriate caproom then I'm OK with it. We don't know what that will be until the draft or at least the lottery. A top pick takes up a sizeable slot.
Give me a few examples of realistic FA’s the spurs could acquire that would be worth pulling his QO. With the cap room we have I don’t see why this would be necessary.

If I remember correctly there isn’t much available this off-season.

[KingKev]

Give me a few examples of realistic FA’s the spurs could acquire that would be worth pulling his QO. With the cap room we have I don’t see why this would be necessary.

If I remember correctly there isn’t much available this off-season.

He will get the QO which is ~6.5mm but I’m not convinced we match much more than that. As you said it’s a poor free agency so he might actually get the MLE away. Not sure if that is worth matching and you can’t sign and trade him to the team who offers him that unless something is worked out before. I doubt anyone is giving up anything of value for him.

Either the Spurs are committed to Walker this summer or he is probably gone. Very little in between. We have Vassell, Primo, Langford and JRich who all have a value proposition at the 2.

[Chinook]

I'll believe a Spur in the Rising Stars game when I see it.

Keldon was a Rising Star selection just last year. Obviously with COVID the actual game didn't happen, but he got the votes. I think Jonathon Simmons was the last one to get a spot. It's a high but attainable bar for a Spurs player. Blair was a notable player to make it because of his status before being a Spur. There are a number of players the Spurs might draft who will have similar star power.


Of course they could end up with a steal/value pick, but they need an offensive centerpiece and the only two who look like they could conceivably be that right now are Banchero and Ivey.

Eh, while I don't think it's a crap shoot, the draft has a bit more nuance that than. I have those guys at the top of my board, but there are other guys who will probably get there. Moreover, the Spurs don't need an offensive centerpiece from this draft. There are a number of upgrades they can make as they put themselves into position to more directly target veteran offense. The goal should be to improve their position, not a homerun or bust.


Only Johnson and Vassell can be called solid prospects. Primo is a project and no one else is worth mentioning.

Not going to split hairs on prospect or project. I understand what you're getting at, but both are important for trade value. I'd put Jones in the list too as basically the other extreme from Primo. Tre has little upside if he doesn't start shooting threes, but he'd be a fine third-string PG. He doesn't have KBD's archetype, but he's a player who can fit into a roster, unlike say Romeo Langford whose best attribute is his mid-sized expiring salary at the moment.


Maybe so, but it's highly unlikely they'll bring in an All-Star caliber player. Collins is the only one who seems feasible; whether he's quite at that level or can get to it in this context is debatable.

It wouldn't shot me to see Randle get moved for a package the Spurs could match relatively easily. I don't think he's a very good player, but he can definitely score and is at least on paper able to provide the offense and front-court dynamism the team is lacking. It would be a huge commitment salary-wise, but the Spurs might be able to give themselves into a four-year competing window with Murray, Randle and some guard, which gives them a definite end while also leaving open more time to extend everything if it works.


In this case, it is. Had they got Banchero, it's not unreasonable to think the core would have been mostly in place.

I don't think so unless Banchero is a guy who'll be an MVP on his rookie deal. Even in my wildest draft dreams, I only see the Spurs winning the lottery and drafting well as them adding the second star to Murray. It's important to note that all three of the MVP front-runners have two max-level vets with them. I can't in good conscience even hope the Spurs draft the next GOAT-candidate, so I can't call drafting a superstar the only critical step. It alone is really insufficient.


Mitchell, Beal and Irving are pipe dreams (the first two will only be traded if they request it and even then, the Spurs don't have the assets to acquire them nor the infrastructure to appeal to them), Nunn is a sixth man and Harris isn't a scoring guard. Ingram and Siakam are pipe dreams (no reason to think they'll be traded).

Mitchell is supposedly trying to be traded to New York, which has worse assets than SA has. The only reason to move him there over SA is if the Spurs aren't willing to acquire him anyway. I'm not even in love with Mitchell, but I don't think he's out of the Spurs' realistic market. Irving and Beal are free agents and don't need to be traded. You're right about Harris -- I think I was thinking of Malik Beasley, who's not a free agent.

That still leaves Sexton, Irving, Beal to try to woo. Irving is the best fit but also crazy and expensive. It's a good thing he doesn't want to leave Brooklyn. Beal would make sense but is also really expensive and will likely soak up the A-list recruiting. Sexton makes a ton of sense as a relatively high-volume efficient scorer who can handle the ball while not needing to dominate it. The Cavs might not want to let him go, but they were willing to last summer and at least will likely be willing to play ball on an S&T as opposed to matching a max offer sheet. He's a solid plan C to the big-name guys and Lavine.


Harris is interesting. The Thunder have been speculated as a salary dump destination, but the Spurs should be interested. He could make sense now and would obviously have to come with a good amount of draft capital attached.

I doubt the Spurs can get Harris for much payment. They might be able to get him and get rid of McD's contract. If they're getting paid, it's because they're sending out someone like Richardson too. I think he is a good fit on the court. His contract probably puts him at the bottom of the PF wishlist though. I'd have Randle, Grant and probably Nance as being higher.

[TD 21]

Keldon was a Rising Star selection just last year. Obviously with COVID the actual game didn't happen, but he got the votes.

I said in the game. Blair was from a previous generation when the Spurs weren't viewed as the outpost they now are.



Eh, while I don't think it's a crap shoot, the draft has a bit more nuance that than. I have those guys at the top of my board, but there are other guys who will probably get there. Moreover, the Spurs don't need an offensive centerpiece from this draft.

I'm just saying right now it looks to be that way.

This draft could end up the best chance to get it for a while because of the 3 1sts, one of which looked like it could be 7-8 for a while, Poeltl, Richardson and the fact that there was no "generational prospects(s)" to where there was no way in the top few would trade their pick. That's a rare combination.


It wouldn't shot me to see Randle get moved for a package the Spurs could match relatively easily.

They're in a precarious position where trying to be pseudo competitive (and "owned"/run competently) is more important than a 10th pick because if they do those things, they should be able to attract A-listers. So they're better off holding onto him as a centerpiece of a Williamson or Mitchell package.


I don't think so unless Banchero is a guy who'll be an MVP on his rookie deal.

He wouldn't have to be, he'd just need to meet projections (Randle, late prime Griffin) sooner than later.


Mitchell is supposedly trying to be traded to New York, which has worse assets than SA has. The only reason to move him there over SA is if the Spurs aren't willing to acquire him anyway. I'm not even in love with Mitchell, but I don't think he's out of the Spurs' realistic market. Irving and Beal are free agents and don't need to be traded.

That still leaves Sexton. Sexton makes a ton of sense as a relatively high-volume efficient scorer who can handle the ball while not needing to dominate it. The Cavs might not want to let him go, but they were willing to last summer and at least will likely be willing to play ball on an S&T as opposed to matching a max offer sheet. He's a solid plan C to the big-name guys and Lavine.


The Knicks have better assets because unlike the Spurs, who'd almost certainly make Murray off limits, they more than likely wouldn't with either Randle or Barrett. They're also out of conference and would more than likely be Mitchell's preference and teams, especially small markets, want it to end well with superstars/stars for optics if nothing else.

Irving is re-signing and Beal will either extend or force a trade first. He's not making it to free agency.

Sexton would be a fine fit offensively, but a poor one defensively. I'd only heavily invest a small guard that's thought to have superstar/star potential or already is one. The Cavaliers would likely require the '22 1st (if they like the player), a loosely protected '23 one or Vassell to relinquish him.



I doubt the Spurs can get Harris for much payment.

Yeah, the 76ers already surrendered draft capital in the Harden-Simmons trade.

[Chinook]

I said in the game. Blair was from a previous generation when the Spurs weren't viewed as the outpost they now are..

I mean, sure, but Johnson made the USANT team for goodness sake. Technically he wasn't seen playing in the RSG, but he would have done so. That's about the level a player needs to reach to get it. I wouldn't be shocked to see Primo make it next year, especially seeing as he's not American and thus can make the World team.



They're in a precarious position where trying to be pseudo competitive (and "owned"/run competently) is more important than a 10th pick because if they do those things, they should be able to attract A-listers. So they're better off holding onto him as a centerpiece of a Williamson or Mitchell package.

...

The Knicks have better assets because unlike the Spurs, who'd almost certainly make Murray off limits, they more than likely wouldn't with either Randle or Barrett. They're also out of conference and would more than likely be Mitchell's preference and teams, especially small markets, want it to end well with superstars/stars for optics if nothing else.


I have these two tied together. I don't think Randle has a lot of value. He's signed to a huge deal and hasn't been very good to go with attitude problems. I don't think Utah wants him as part of a Mitchell deal. Barrett has had a good year, but New York hype makes him seem like a better prospect than he is. In reality, Barrett and Johnson are similar prospects, which Barrett scoring more (until recently) but Keldon being more efficient. The Knicks also have mostly bad ballast to add to their players while SA has good ballast, as you said earlier. Mitchell literally has four more years on his contract after this. Where he prefers to go isn't going to play a bigger role than it did for Deron Williams. I don't think he'll be traded at all, but I think if it is, the only way he goes to he Knicks is if they go all-in on him, which I would hope they're smart enough to not do.


He wouldn't have to be, he'd just need to meet projections (Randle, late prime Griffin) sooner than later.

If we're talking about six or seven years down the line, where SA's roster is now is basically irrelevant. They'll have cycled out everyone except maybe Murray by then. I don't see this roster as constructed being one player away unless we're talking about a GOAT candidate joining them. If Banchero isn't that kind of player, the Spurs would still need to make more moves. Even if he's Mobley good, the Spurs would be struggling to avoid the play-in rather than even a dark-horse contender.


Irving is re-signing and Beal will either extend or force a trade first. He's not making it to free agency.

I agree neither is likely, though they will clog up the main recruiting in free agency, which is good for the Spurs if they want to pursue secondary targets. Beal can't force a trade though. He's not extending because he can't make as much money by doing so. If he doesn't extend, he can't be traded.


Sexton would be a fine fit offensively, but a poor one defensively. I'd only heavily invest a small guard that's thought to have superstar/star potential or already is one. The Cavaliers would likely require the '22 1st (if they like the player), a loosely protected '23 one or Vassell to relinquish him.

I don't see the Cavs as having that kind of leverage. If they want to keep Sexton, they'll just keep him. If they don't, they aren't going to match a max contract offer. We're looking at something which is at best what the Spurs got for DeRozan. I think it only goes that far if SA doesn't want to use cap space on the deal. I might just max him and use my contracts on other pursuits and just accept it if it gets matched. Again, Lavine first, but if he says no, then moving on and trying to pry Colin away makes more sense to me.

[BacktoBasics]

He will get the QO which is ~6.5mm but I’m not convinced we match much more than that. As you said it’s a poor free agency so he might actually get the MLE away. Not sure if that is worth matching and you can’t sign and trade him to the team who offers him that unless something is worked out before. I doubt anyone is giving up anything of value for him.

Either the Spurs are committed to Walker this summer or he is probably gone. Very little in between. We have Vassell, Primo, Langford and JRich who all have a value proposition at the 2.

He’s debatably worth 8-9 mil.

But again I see no reason to pull a QO. There’s no one there that we would acquire that would have us needing to do that.

[exstatic]

Give me a few examples of realistic FA’s the spurs could acquire that would be worth pulling his QO. With the cap room we have I don’t see why this would be necessary.

If I remember correctly there isn’t much available this off-season.

The QO and the cap hold are not the same. Until his situation is resolved, he will count $12.4M against our cap. That would be worth pulling the offer if something like Lavine came up as available, or someone dropped onto the trade market, as we wouldn't have MAX room to offer.

[exstatic]

Give me a few examples of realistic FA’s the spurs could acquire that would be worth pulling his QO. With the cap room we have I don’t see why this would be necessary.

If I remember correctly there isn’t much available this off-season.

The QO and the cap hold are not the same. Until his situation is resolved, he will count $13.3M against our cap. That would be worth pulling the offer if something like Lavine came up as available, or someone dropped onto the trade market, as we wouldn't have MAX room to offer.

[KingKev]

^ a great argument why Walker IS NOT safe. Very fluid situation and probably over the minds of many on this board.

[exstatic]

^ a great argument why Walker IS NOT safe. Very fluid situation and probably over the minds of many on this board.

Now, it wouldn't cost us Bird Rights if we pulled the QO, but it would move his free agency from restricted to unrestricted. Not sure what happens to his hold in that case. Maybe 150% of current salary? The hold doesn't go away unless he is renounced.

[Drom John]

I wouldn't be shocked to see Primo make it next year, especially seeing as he's not American and thus can make the World team.

New format; the NBA got rid of the World team this year.

[Kevin]

Since Lonnie 2.0 emerged on February 12th he's averaging almost 19 points a game and yet his plus minus over that time still sits at -3.5. The man dropped a 30 bomb and his plus minus that game sat at zero.

Lonnie 2.0 has had 8 games of 20+ points and his plus minus was positive in only 2 games and one of those games was a +1.

My point being that despite his scoring surge its still very debatable if he actually helps that team overall.

All that said if he continues to score they almost have to keep him. If can become just a mediocre defender he's a Lou Williams, Jamal Crawford, Jason Terry bench scorer.