Shams: J-Rich to the Pelicans

[exstatic]

they have the draft capital to reload quite a bit

It wouldn’t shock me if the Lakers made the playoffs. NO has the option to take either the LA 2024 OR 2025 pick, and I don’t think the Milwaukee picks will amount to any star quality guys. Giannis ain’t as old as LeBron.

[Chinook]

The Spurs should be using the seconds they're getting to trade for talent, not to draft people. In that vein, getting four picks in tge future is just better than getting two. And were those seconds even LAL's natural picks? I can imagine they've traded those away years ago.

[DPG21920]

It wouldn’t shock me if the Lakers made the playoffs. NO has the option to take either the LA 2024 OR 2025 pick, and I don’t think the Milwaukee picks will amount to any star quality guys. Giannis ain’t as old as LeBron.

Just saying that its at least debatable that LA picks are better or equal to NO, but one situation has us able to use 14M on a player Spurs actually like and still have 50M in space vs the other having one that we hope turns into a + value.

If the downside is missing out on 2 2nds but the upside is signing a player with more potential/better long term fit? Yes, it’s a small detail, but one I would prefer. But it’s all good. Nothing to truly be upset about.

But once LA deal was passed on, I get it. Can’t rewind time so have to deal with what is vs what maybe “could have been”.

[DPG21920]

The Spurs should be using the seconds they're getting to trade for talent, not to draft people. In that vein, getting four picks in tge future is just better than getting two. And were those seconds even LAL's natural picks? I can imagine they've traded those away years ago.

Why trade for a player using the picks, when you can just use the 14M allocated to Graham to sign a player you like better with more upside/fit and have the 2 picks from LA (or wherever they come from)?

Then in that case you still have 2 picks to trade (I agree with you there, 2RP for trading vs just all actual drafting) and hopefully a player that is more valuable than 2 2nds left over. But again, thats minutiae

[scott]

So you listed the dumps we missed out on…dont need to cover that.

I explained a lot why I disagree with just always defaulting to “who cares if guys have negative value and are overpaid” is wrong mindset and the costs (even if very minor costs). Don’t need to re-hash it. Spurs can have infinite cap space AND more interesting players was my over arching point. There is an opportunity cost there and in future value; yall just dont think it’s a big deal which I always said is fair. I just disagree with that POV.

Spurs didnt optimize their situation. Spurs did well overall. I believe both thing’s simultaneously but I no longer want to discuss because its pointless and just leads to stupidity (not from you)

At the end of the day, it just seems like this boils down to you not liking Doug, which is fine. However, at that point we are arguing over flavors of ice cream. It’s not like NBA2K were every player has a numerical rating and we just picked the best one. The Spurs clearly wanted Doug on the team. We may all think that is a terrible decision, but it doesn’t really matter. Signing Doug didn’t stop them from signing someone else, because they didn’t want to sign someone else. They signed the guy they wanted. Whether they are paying him the minimum, or if they would have been paying him $25MM/yr, it actually wouldn’t have mattered.

And as to the dumps we missed out on… we didn’t really miss out on them. Wiseman ended up not being a dump. The Warriors got positive value for him. The Lakers somehow managed to get positive value out of Westbrook. None of the other ones happened and we don’t know if they were even really on the table.

We can speculate as to what we missed out on, but we actually don’t know until someone comes out and definitively says “the Spurs had an opportunity to take Player X and get Asset Y and Z”, We haven’t even heard rumors of anything they missed out on, other than a hypothetical early Westbrook deal (which, let’s say it’s real… then we are arguing if Graham and two extra SRPs is worth $15MM. That’s debatable and everyone will have their own opinion. You prefer the Lakers deal, others will prefer the Pelicans deal, and that’s okay).

[scott]

That's not how trades work:rollin

NBA teams don't see a tweet and then tell their GM to get on the phone :rollin

That's like me saying Lebron is available and 28 teams start calling the lakers :rollin

The social media buzz around DJ being traded wasn’t some random dipshit on twitter putting a hypothetical post. It was legit NBA media saying there was smoke, and there were multiple teams rumored in the mix. If you’re an NBA GM who would have an interest in DJ, and you saw that and DIDN’T pick up the phone, that’s your own damn fault.

[DPG21920]

At the end of the day, it just seems like this boils down to you not liking Doug, which is fine. However, at that point we are arguing over flavors of ice cream. It’s not like NBA2K were every player has a numerical rating and we just picked the best one. The Spurs clearly wanted Doug on the team. We may all think that is a terrible decision, but it doesn’t really matter. Signing Doug didn’t stop them from signing someone else, because they didn’t want to sign someone else. They signed the guy they wanted. Whether they are paying him the minimum, or if they would have been paying him $25MM/yr, it actually wouldn’t have mattered.

And as to the dumps we missed out on… we didn’t really miss out on them. Wiseman ended up not being a dump. The Warriors got positive value for him. The Lakers somehow managed to get positive value out of Westbrook. None of the other ones happened and we don’t know if they were even really on the table.

We can speculate as to what we missed out on, but we actually don’t know until someone comes out and definitively says “the Spurs had an opportunity to take Player X and get Asset Y and Z”, We haven’t even heard rumors of anything they missed out on, other than a hypothetical early Westbrook deal (which, let’s say it’s real… then we are arguing if Graham and two extra SRPs is worth $15MM. That’s debatable and everyone will have their own opinion. You prefer the Lakers deal, others will prefer the Pelicans deal, and that’s okay).

Agree lol. I’ve explicitly said I understand that Spurs got what they wanted and it’s just me disagreeing with their logic, mindset and values. My only point is it was a clear overpay for no good reason and that it turned Doug into a negative asset for no reason when during rebuilds you should only be signing guys who you have an eye on flipping and/or clearly fit with rebuild/young core + potential. Thats it.

The Indy deal, as Hollinger pointed out, was a clear miss. We know LA offered Russ for Josh/Doug and 2 2nds earlier in year. So there was clear missed opportunities even if they are small. Which again, I know is not a big deal. Doesn’t mean it cannot be discussed or argued.

[heyheymymy]

Play him, of course, until some other player can take over as pg. An odd question.

I meant contractually speaking - Tre is a re-signing decision this summer

[heyheymymy]

Wonder if the Graham acquisition is in some small part a front office squeamishing on the prospects of Scoot in a Spur jersey as well though with Tre possibly signing elsewhere this summer it doesn't have to be more complicated than simply shoring up against Tre's possible departure

[Ariel]

The Spurs should be using the seconds they're getting to trade for talent, not to draft people. In that vein, getting four picks in tge future is just better than getting two. And were those seconds even LAL's natural picks? I can imagine they've traded those away years ago.
The high 2nds I actually like, every year there's a couple of interesting prospects that slip, and we're projected to have very good ones for at least the next 2 drafts. But yeah, as a general rule you can't use them all, either use them to land players (like the Clippers did with Bones Hyland), or to trade up, or maybe take a flyer on a draft & stash prospect (like Procida last year). There are only so many players you can develop at once.

[scott]

Agree lol. I’ve explicitly said I understand that Spurs got what they wanted and it’s just me disagreeing with their logic, mindset and values. My only point is it was a clear overpay for no good reason and that it turned Doug into a negative asset for no reason when during rebuilds you should only be signing guys who you have an eye on flipping and/or clearly fit with rebuild/young core + potential. Thats it.

The Indy deal, as Hollinger pointed out, was a clear miss. We know LA offered Russ for Josh/Doug and 2 2nds earlier in year. So there was clear missed opportunities even if they are small. Which again, I know is not a big deal. Doesn’t mean it cannot be discussed or argued.

I missed the Indy deal, which one was that? I actually see the value in the SRPs and I want as many free ones as I can get. As this deadline just proved, they are super helpful when we are actually a contender and need that vet role player (even if a half-season rental) for the playoff push. The ability to get a Josh Richardson or GPII (who GS clearly finds useful) for some SRPs is awesome to me, I want a stockpile just for that purpose.

[KingKev]

Tre Jones has basically been put on watch. Can’t have two backup level PGs making 12mm/year.

[Mr. Body]

Wonder if the Graham acquisition is in some small part a front office squeamishing on the prospects of Scoot in a Spur jersey as well though with Tre possibly signing elsewhere this summer it doesn't have to be more complicated than simply shoring up against Tre's possible departure

I have very little doubt the Spurs would pass on Scoot. Almost no doubt whatsoever.

[KingKev]

I have very little doubt the Spurs would pass on Scoot. Almost no doubt whatsoever.

You think they go for culture over talent? My biggest worry about us finally committing to a rebuild.

[scott]

If we land #2, certainly we can’t straight pass on Scoot, but we could look to trade out. What are some options for trading out if we really wanted to, and assuming other teams really have him graded as another generational talent.

I’d want to get someone like Ivey and whatever (not #1) pick DET has, or Mathurin plus Indy’s pick IF it were no lower than 6 (they’d have a long way to far from where they are now). Neither or those teams need to do that deal though, as they’re backcourts are in good shape. Any other high value prospects among other teams picking in the Top 6 we could do that kind of a deal with?

[Mr. Body]

You think they go for culture over talent? My biggest worry about us finally committing to a rebuild.

1. Scoot is probably overrated by a good amount. I don't get how people are spooging themselves over him. Very good? Yes. Generational talent? Best in ten years? Ehh...

2. He's AAU-god stuck on himself, very high opinion, "best player of all time" sort of shit.

3. Undersize combo-guard who is very, very high usage.

If the team lands the #2 spot, teams might offer treasure chests for him.

[DPG21920]

I missed the Indy deal, which one was that? I actually see the value in the SRPs and I want as many free ones as I can get. As this deadline just proved, they are super helpful when we are actually a contender and need that vet role player (even if a half-season rental) for the playoff push. The ability to get a Josh Richardson or GPII (who GS clearly finds useful) for some SRPs is awesome to me, I want a stockpile just for that purpose.

Was the Bucks-Nets trade where Indy netted 3 2nds for helping…I agree big picture about stockpiling assets. I want that as much as anyone and always push for that. It’s what shapes basically my entire view about not signing “bad deals” and always looking for ways to get more assets.

I agree SPurs got assets here too - I just dont like what they left on table and thought they maybe could have done better on Josh deal (either by taking LA deal earlier or letting Josh walk & signing someone to Grahams 14M this off season that would net better than those seconds IMO while still maintaining 50M in cap space etc.

So it’s not “bad” in the context of just being legit bad; it’s bad in terms of some opportunity costs and what ifs. But ultimately they did their job and moved on from vets and got picks. So thats good in my book.

[Mr. Body]

If we land #2, certainly we can’t straight pass on Scoot, but we could look to trade out. What are some options for trading out if we really wanted to, and assuming other teams really have him graded as another generational talent.

I’d want to get someone like Ivey and whatever (not #1) pick DET has, or Mathurin plus Indy’s pick IF it were no lower than 6 (they’d have a long way to far from where they are now). Neither or those teams need to do that deal though, as they’re backcourts are in good shape. Any other high value prospects among other teams picking in the Top 6 we could do that kind of a deal with?

I mean, landing at #2 is as highly unlikely as landing at #1. But I can see a team like the Wizards or Charlotte really wanting him, so trade down and ask how many future picks they each want to give up. I see Scoot as maybe like a Bradley Beale type, a guy who will score a ton, get assists at times, get talked about a lot, never win that many games.

[DPG21920]

I think it would be very, very hard for SA to pass on Scoot at 2 - lots of time left to see/watch prospects but as of now? Scoot is on paper a great fit.

[scott]

I mean, landing at #2 is as highly unlikely as landing at #1. But I can see a team like the Wizards or Charlotte really wanting him, so trade down and ask how many future picks they each want to give up. I see Scoot as maybe like a Bradley Beale type, a guy who will score a ton, get assists at times, get talked about a lot, never win that many games.

I would hate to trade down just for future picks, much preferred to get a legit young prospect to go with their pick to accelerate the rebuild. Unfortunately neither of those teams have jack shit to offer. I guess the good news is that neither of those teams appear an immediate threat to be a playoff contender (though you never know). I wouldn’t go from 2 to 7 just for one future FRP though. I’d need #7 from WAS (assuming that is where they landed) plus their 2024, 2026, 2028. If we land #2 it is definitely in our interest for the Scoot hype to hit high levels.

[Mr. Body]

I would hate to trade down just for future picks, much preferred to get a legit young prospect to go with their pick to accelerate the rebuild. Unfortunately neither of those teams have jack shit to offer. I guess the good news is that neither of those teams appear an immediate threat to be a playoff contender (though you never know). I wouldn’t go from 2 to 7 just for one future FRP though. I’d need #7 from WAS (assuming that is where they landed) plus their 2024, 2026, 2028. If we land #2 it is definitely in our interest for the Scoot hype to hit high levels.

It's all wishing and hoping right now. To your point, it would be great to get Mathurin or maybe Ivey, but I think Indiana is way too smart for that, dunno about Detroit. In this optimal other world, I can dream of trading down some spots, still getting the player we value (because I think the Thompson twins go high for some reason), and pulling multiple future picks. If teams bite on the 'generational talent' thing, then they would bid up a few unprotected firsts.

But this is just dreaming conjecture.

[DPG21920]

If Spur dont view Scoot as much better than someone else I would be fine with that type of thing if they get an insane package…Spurs draft well so I trust them. But man, I hope SA lands top 2 lol.

It would change everything potentially. Lots of options but even if its Scoot I would be thrilled as of today. I really, really, really, dont want HOU to land top 2. That would suck so bad.

[heyheymymy]

I feel like Spurs only pass on Scoot if there is a Leonard force out vibe. On the basketball court Scoot is the clear #2 selection as it stands currently.

[spurraider21]

with the state of our roster, looking at "fit" when it comes to draft picks is a mistake. if there's a talent gap, you take the better player, period. sure, if our roster/lineup was more filled out with "our guys" that we want going forward, yeah at that point you look to accommodate with fit.

im not looking at any draft prospect and thinking "hmm how is this guy going to mesh with tre jones and jeremy sochan" lol

i havent really taken a serious look at any of the big name prospects yet, probably will do so close to or after the lottery. but the consensus seems to be that its Wemby, gap, scoot, gap, and then some others. if thats the case, i'm taking scoot #2 and not thinking twice

[scott]

The way people talk about Scoot’s ego, I wouldn’t put it outside of the realm of possibility for him to demand a trade before he signs an NBA contract if the Spurs pick him.

[JPB]

You're always tempted to try to get 2 great players out of one, and be the smart guy out, which can be dangerous, but unless spurs really see a "personality" issue with Scoot or there's a trade "you can't pass", which wouldn't probably be there, as of today I believe you gotta pick and keep Scoot.

Maybe till the draft, some young guys will emerge and make a trade more appealing, but trades like that rarely happen because you don't wanna be that team who traded* that future star... Just trust your ability to MAKE him that star.

Edit: *traded not drafted ofc.

[Chucho]

YAY! MOAR worthless picks!

[TD 21]

Tre Jones has basically been put on watch. Can’t have two backup level PGs making 12mm/year.

Why couldn't they? A combined $22-23M annually (for probably only a single season) to cover a rotational spot is a relative pittance in today's NBA and they'll still have plenty of cap space.

The idea that there's going to be some robust market for a small guard who can't shoot and isn't dynamic in any area of half court offense, is absurd.

[Ariel]

It's all wishing and hoping right now. To your point, it would be great to get Mathurin or maybe Ivey, but I think Indiana is way too smart for that, dunno about Detroit. In this optimal other world, I can dream of trading down some spots, still getting the player we value (because I think the Thompson twins go high for some reason), and pulling multiple future picks. If teams bite on the 'generational talent' thing, then they would bid up a few unprotected firsts.

But this is just dreaming conjecture.
I was thinking there's no way Detroit picks Scoot having Cunningham and Ivey. But we just saw them add Wiseman to the already crowded pool of raw & athletic big men (with Duren & Bagley), so who knows. Troy Weaver seems to be obsessed with the same kind of players.

[spurraider21]

I was thinking there's no way Detroit picks Scoot having Cunningham and Ivey. But we just saw them add Wiseman to the already crowded pool of raw & athletic big men (with Duren & Bagley), so who knows. Troy Weaver seems to be obsessed with the same kind of players.
if i'm detroit picking #2 im still probably taking Scoot. stack the talent, let the pieces fall where they may. you could have all of these guys playing 30+ minutes per game rotating at different guard spots throughout the game. can just split the 96 combined minutes between the 3 fairly evenly. and if need be, can get a haul for one of them, like a wing + picks

[TD 21]

I was thinking there's no way Detroit picks Scoot having Cunningham and Ivey. But we just saw them add Wiseman to the already crowded pool of raw & athletic big men (with Duren & Bagley), so who knows. Troy Weaver seems to be obsessed with the same kind of players.

They'd still almost certainly select Henderson, the question is whether they'd keep him.

Depending on whether the Spurs land, with the Pistons lack of wing depth, trying to take a step towards respectability next season not exactly teeming with draft capital, something like Spurs 1st (4 is probably the lowest they'd entertain), Johnson and further draft capital could be appealing to them.

[Chinook]

Why trade for a player using the picks, when you can just use the 14M allocated to Graham to sign a player you like better with more upside/fit and have the 2 picks from LA (or wherever they come from)?

Then in that case you still have 2 picks to trade (I agree with you there, 2RP for trading vs just all actual drafting) and hopefully a player that is more valuable than 2 2nds left over. But again, thats minutiae

Because not every player you want is a free agent? And because the Spurs may not always have cap space?

The Spurs have enough cap space to sign some of the guys they want now use some to get future assets to trade or use later and still be under the cap. That won't always be the case, but it is for now, and they should be making hay while the sun shines instead of starving because they feel hay is suboptimal or whatever

[Ariel]

You 2 guys could go 12 rounds with Ali and still throw punches. I'd have dropped it 3 phone books ago.

[JeffDuncan]

I meant contractually speaking - Tre is a re-signing decision this summer


Tre Jones, qualifying offer of $5.2M, deadline of 6/29/2023.

This year’s salary, $1,782,621. The reason his QO is so relatively high is because he met “starter” criteria.

If the Spurs want to keep him they’ll just wave the QO at him. It isn’t a big decision, financially, with respect to the team overall.

And if the Spurs don’t want to keep him, then of course they don’t make the QO, and he’ll be unrestricted.

The way things look at the moment, I expect the Spurs will make the QO. But we’ll see.

[DPG21920]

You 2 guys could go 12 rounds with Ali and still throw punches. I'd have dropped it 3 phone books ago.

I mean, ya, but people act like we brought this up out of no where lol. It’s the trade deadline, is totally relevant and only been 24 hours. Like we can’t discuss these things in the moment on a message board? I get it if it’s like a month later but it’s one day of conversation

[Ariel]

I mean, ya, but people act like we brought this up out of no where lol. It’s the trade deadline, is totally relevant and only been 24 hours. Like we can’t discuss these things in the moment on a message board? I get it if it’s like a month later but it’s one day of conversation
:lol yeah, no problem, just saying. Type on!

[DPG21920]

Lol - don’t worry - I’m heading back to Twitter 99% of the time

[tonight...you]

^Reason I stopped posting as much on here tbh…too many idiots. Normally being an idiot is ok, but your personalities are so unpleasant & unfunny it’s not worth it. Can’t handle strong opinions & there is no real discourse outside of Chinook and a few other good posters which makes it vanilla and pointless to even try and enjoy things beyond “good shot!”
And to think it's a TON better than it used to be.

[tonight...you]

Agree lol. I’ve explicitly said I understand that Spurs got what they wanted and it’s just me disagreeing with their logic, mindset and values. My only point is it was a clear overpay for no good reason and that it turned Doug into a negative asset for no reason when during rebuilds you should only be signing guys who you have an eye on flipping and/or clearly fit with rebuild/young core + potential. Thats it.

The Indy deal, as Hollinger pointed out, was a clear miss. We know LA offered Russ for Josh/Doug and 2 2nds earlier in year. So there was clear missed opportunities even if they are small. Which again, I know is not a big deal. Doesn’t mean it cannot be discussed or argued.

For all we know, we might have tried to get in on the Indy deal and LA said: You know what? No. We'd rather deal with Indiana than you guys.
We just saw Kyrie traded to the Mavs in-part because Tsai didn't want to appease him by trading him to the Lakers.
It's a tough argument to sell because of the variables between so many parties.

[DPG21920]

For all we know, we might have tried to get in on the Indy deal and LA said: You know what? No. We'd rather deal with Indiana than you guys.
We just saw Kyrie traded to the Mavs in-part because Tsai didn't want to appease him by trading him to the Lakers.
It's a tough argument to sell because of the variables between so many parties.

Sure…but we cant deny there was opportunities and it ended up being sort of a let down they could not find a way to do more, no? Does it mean we burn the franchise down and fire everyone? NO. But what’s wrong with telling the truth even if the end result is still fine?

[tonight...you]

Sure…but we cant deny there was opportunities and it ended up being sort of a let down they could not find a way to do more, no? Does it mean we burn the franchise down and fire everyone? NO. But what’s wrong with telling the truth even if the end result is still fine?
I have no problem with your issues. You've said they're minor over and over and it's fine. I get it.
I get what you have a problem with. It makes sense.
I'm just saying we don't know what inner machinations were going on for said "missed opportunities" to have happened.
We're they lazy and uncreative? Maybe. Were they stopped at the door for one reason, or another? Maybe.
That's it. That's all.
Not trying to shut you up, or shut you down. I don't have the pieces, or want-to to do so.
Just bringing up alternative situations that might have been.

[DPG21920]

I have no problem with your issues. You've said they're minor over and over and it's fine. I get it.
I get what you have a problem with. It makes sense.
I'm just saying we don't know what inner machinations were going on for said "missed opportunities" to have happened.
We're they lazy and uncreative? Maybe. Were they stopped at the door for one reason, or another? Maybe.
That's it. That's all.
Not trying to shut you up, or shut you down. I don't have the pieces, or want-to to do so.
Just bringing up alternative situations that might have been.

I think when you see some people like Hollinger baffled - it paints some of the picture. He’s not the only one that saw the opportunity and came away surprised. I guess defaulting to “they tried” is just as fair as defaulting to “they got lazy or fat and happy with what they did”…


But when theres that much opportunity out there feels like it leans more they were a bit lazy….but ya, no one truly knows so they get that pass I guess

[tonight...you]

I think when you see some people like Hollinger baffled - it paints some of the picture. He’s not the only one that saw the opportunity and came away surprised. I guess defaulting to “they tried” is just as fair as defaulting to “they got lazy or fat and happy with what they did”…


But when theres that much opportunity out there feels like it leans more they were a bit lazy….but ya, no one truly knows so they get that pass I guess
Agreed.
Maybe they left meat on the bone.
Not the 1st time that has happened.

[Chinook]

Hollinger is baffled that the Morey Rockets and Hinkie Sixers weren't dynasties. No one should be citing him for good GMing

[DPG21920]

Hollinger is baffled that the Morey Rockets and Hinkie Sixers weren't dynasties. No one should be citing him for good GMing

Being wrong about some stuff doesn’t make someone wrong about everything all the time. Acting like Hollinger has zero eye or ability is just as silly as acting like everything he says is gospel

[rascal]

I wasn't too impressed with the trades.

Outside of doing nothing they got pretty much the minimum back in expectations in the trades.

[JPB]

I wasn't too impressed with the trades.

Outside of doing nothing they got pretty much the minimum back in expectations in the trades.

I think they simply got what they could. The market was kinda crazy, and I also believe spurs were well inspired to get the Jak trade done earlier. A few hours later and I'm not sure Raps first is sitll on the table or with a much worse protection, after the SRP frenzy all over the league.

I don't know if Wright sniffed it after what was then considered as a cheap offer from Boston (and mabe others he got) but if he did, great job. Available FRPs were a rarity this year outside of the 2 blockbuster trades.

[Chinook]

Being wrong about some stuff doesn’t make someone wrong about everything all the time. Acting like Hollinger has zero eye or ability is just as silly as acting like everything he says is gospel

It's not "some things". It's his entire philosophy that's sus, right down to PER sucking. He and Pelton have always been basically worthless as analysts in my eyes.

[DPG21920]

It's not "some things". It's his entire philosophy that's sus, right down to PER sucking. He and Pelton have always been basically worthless as analysts in my eyes.

I like his perspective on value extraction on bad teams but like I said, I would not trust him with a good team.

[spurraider21]

Hollinger is baffled that the Morey Rockets and Hinkie Sixers weren't dynasties. No one should be citing him for good GMing
Hinkie is a legend imho

he died for our sins

he never got to see the fruits of the embiid pick, and it was his successors that botched the draft where they traded an additional first to move up from 3 to 1 and take Fultz when they could have stood pat and taken tatum

[Chinook]

Hinkie is a legend imho

he died for our sins

he never got to see the fruits of the embiid pick, and it was his successors that botched the draft where they traded an additional first to move up from 3 to 1 and take Fultz when they could have stood pat and taken tatum

Don't get caught up in the Hinkie mythology.

He drafted multiple busts before drafting Embiid, and Joel was the third member of a three-player draft. There's no way of knowing if Hinkie would've taken him first overall or if he would've taken Jabari or Wiggins instead. Hinkie's biggest trade win was getting the SAC pick and swap. The swap apparently didn't end up mattering (I could've sworn that it had), so the Sixers took Simmons. I don't think that would've changed under Hinkie, as he was one of seemed to firmly believe shooting could be taught given their other picks. In the Fultz draft, Boston specifically agreed to the trade because the Sixers told them they weren't going to draft Tatum. Philly was basically going to end up with Fulz no matter what.

Hinkie sucked at drafting and building a team. He was great at making trades, though he burned a lot of good will in how he did it. The two most successful Philly draft picks are both deeply flawed players. At best, Hinkie might've tricked some team into giving good value for them. But I don't think he'd've been able to pivot the team into a winner.

[DPG21920]

Don't get caught up in the Hinkie mythology.

He drafted multiple busts before drafting Embiid, and Joel was the third member of a three-player draft. There's no way of knowing if Hinkie would've taken him first overall or if he would've taken Jabari or Wiggins instead. Hinkie's biggest trade win was getting the SAC pick and swap. The swap apparently didn't end up mattering (I could've sworn that it had), so the Sixers took Simmons. I don't think that would've changed under Hinkie, as he was one of seemed to firmly believe shooting could be taught given their other picks. In the Fultz draft, Boston specifically agreed to the trade because the Sixers told them they weren't going to draft Tatum. Philly was basically going to end up with Fulz no matter what.

Hinkie sucked at drafting and building a team. He was great at making trades, though he burned a lot of good will in how he did it. The two most successful Philly draft picks are both deeply flawed players. At best, Hinkie might've tricked some team into giving good value for them. But I don't think he'd've been able to pivot the team into a winner.

Him being great at trades and value is the point. Spurs need more of that and with their drafting and abilities it’s a nice thing to have. Spurs are doing much better in trades. I understand not needing to with Tim/TP/Manu so never bothered me much.

But when it became clear we were treadmill? Became way more of a focus to me.

[Chinook]

Him being great at trades and value is the point.

It's not the point. It's one thing a GM can do, and Hinkie was good at "winning" trades but never showed he knew how to use them to build a team. No one cares about value in and of itself. It's supposed to be a means to and end, and Hinkie not knowing how to get to that end matters way more than how much fuel he got from tossing his furniture into the blaze. Many other front offices have shown much more acumen for building teams than his despite not getting as much raw value in exchange.


I understand not needing to with Tim/TP/Manu so never bothered me much.

But when it became clear we were treadmill?

There are many different kinds of treadmills, or maybe treadmills can go at many different speeds. The Spurs were a treadmill them for two decades with Tim. The Pistons have been a treadmill team for a few years now. Just because you suck doesn't mean you're rising. Assets expire. There's a very real limit to how many you can accumulate. So you can churn your roster forever. If you don't hit, the roster ends up rotting. The Spurs aren't really doing much better or worse in trades. The same guy who did the Murray trade did the Leonard deal. It's that they were able to trade Murray after a good year, whereas they only knew they couldn't keep Kawhi after his worst year of his career. Before you say the Spurs should've recognized their situation and tanked, they got a lot of value out of not doing that (Murray, DeRozan and Poeltl are all examples of that) and there's been, what, like one superstar (two if you count Zion) drafted since the Kawhi trade. The Kings should've traded the second-overall pick for Leonard if offered. That legit would've worked out better for both teams. But assuming Kawhi couldn't bring that back, there's not really a realistic sequence of trades that would've netted the Spurs a top-two pick in 2019. For where the team was and what folks were offering, the trade direction was fine.

[Atl Spur]

we are all waiting for you to post Deveonte Graham and Khem Birch hype tapes.

Does tonight count? Asking for a friend? 🙈

[DPG21920]

I have no issue and never really have with Spurs not tanking fast enough. You know this. I only wanted youth playing more because I legit that the youth WERE BETTER lol.

Im talking only now that they have made the decision to tank/rebuild. Not bemoaning the past or how long it took.

[spurraider21]

Based Hinkie also brought in Covington on a good 5 year deal

not sayin he was a perfect gm but he was a visionary

[DPG21920]

Based Hinkie also brought in Covington on a good 5 year deal

not sayin he was a perfect gm but he was a visionary

And all I’ve said and what shapes some of my views is be a hawk like him and always seek out value at every opportunity. Always have that in mind and execute on trades often and high level.

That’s a good thing - just dont suck at drafting like him. Why cant we have both? SA has done pretty damn good at drafting and pretty good finally now that they have picked a direction to tank/rebuild on some trades. Keep it up - be creative and be absolutely relentless in accruing value to give your FO thats great at drafting the best shot

[RC_Drunkford]

I think Scoot is a lock to leave the team once he hits free agency

[Vince Carter's ankle]

I think Scoot is a lock to leave the team once he hits free agency
after 8 seasons?

[KingKev]

Does tonight count? Asking for a friend? 

Lol did you see how much of a chucker he was?

[exstatic]

after 8 seasons?

We’ve seen that it doesn’t take 8 seasons if a player is sufficiently motivated to be elsewhere, and willing to act like a complete prick.

If he’s already giving indications of not wanting to be here, skipping gleague games against Austin, you trade back if you draw #2 overall. He’s a good enough prospect, but not generational like Wemby. It seems that every other draft, there’s a guard of this archetype available.

[Atl Spur]

Lol did you see how much of a chucker he was?

Context is King…… you know what I mean? At this very moment is our best ball handler and passer; he will be better for us once he learns the system. Your player assessments are shit homie! Lol. I may need to start keeping score….lol

[Atl Spur]

Scoot is the pick if we get #2 barring something crazy but my affinity for The Black Kid from Arkansas is growing

[exstatic]

Scoot is the pick if we get #2 barring something crazy but my affinity for The Black Kid from Arkansas is growing

You can trade back from #2, gaining additional assets.

[mo7888]

I've got Scoot #2 as well like everyone else, bit if he's not wanting to be here I'd look at trading back....especially with Orlando..

[BacktoBasics]

There is zero basis for Scoot not wanting to be here.

[Vince Carter's ankle]

We’ve seen that it doesn’t take 8 seasons if a player is sufficiently motivated to be elsewhere, and willing to act like a complete prick.

If he’s already giving indications of not wanting to be here, skipping gleague games against Austin, you trade back if you draw #2 overall. He’s a good enough prospect, but not generational like Wemby. It seems that every other draft, there’s a guard of this archetype available.
And if your compatriot hints in an interview or private conversation that he does not want to play for the Spurs, do we also need a trade back?

[Ariel]

And if your compatriot hints in an interview or private conversation that he does not want to play for the Spurs, do we also need a trade back?
It's being blown out of proportion. 1) I wouldn't take for granted that is true. The FO will definitely know it if this is the case. 2) Even if he's not enthusiastic about playing in San Antonio, if he's their top prospect by far I wouldn't pass on him. Players can change their mind, I remember Steph Curry telling GSW he didn't want to be picked by them because his preferred destination was NY, yet now he's the face of the franchise. It can grow over time. 3) Even if it doesn't grow over time, unless he's a complete jackass you're probably better served drafting him, building up his value for a couple of seasons, and THEN trading him for 4 unprotected picks + good youngsters, as it's the price for an all star.
So IMO unless there's concrete and irrefutable evidence he'll make life miserable for everyone in SA, I'd still take him even if he "hints" at not wanting to play for the Spurs.

[Ariel]

We’ve seen that it doesn’t take 8 seasons if a player is sufficiently motivated to be elsewhere, and willing to act like a complete prick.

If he’s already giving indications of not wanting to be here, skipping gleague games against Austin, you trade back if you draw #2 overall. He’s a good enough prospect, but not generational like Wemby. It seems that every other draft, there’s a guard of this archetype available.
We've also seen the teams hold leverage and getting a king's ransom out of (even disgruntled) top talent. So unless you're sure he'll be a cancer in the locker room, it's not worth passing on a better talent just because he might not remain with the team in 8 years. Plenty of time to change his mind, or flip him for a gold mine.

[Atl Spur]

There is zero basis for Scoot not wanting to be here.

I agree.

[heyheymymy]

Scoot is the pick if we get #2 barring something crazy but my affinity for The Black Kid from Arkansas is growing

lol there has got to be a better way to phrase that reference to Anthony Black

[heyheymymy]

Anyone know the deadline for Grahams 24-25 salary to guarantee the full 12.6mm? and what is the obligation before then, like 2.9mm?

[timvp]

Anyone know the deadline for Grahams 24-25 salary to guarantee the full 12.6mm? and what is the obligation before then, like 2.9mm?

Yeah, $2.85 million guaranteed. Fully guaranteed $12.65 million if not released by July 1, 2024.

[KingKev]

Anyone know the deadline for Grahams 24-25 salary to guarantee the full 12.6mm? and what is the obligation before then, like 2.9mm?

July 1, 2024 I believe. He will be easily movable at next year’s deadline.

[Atl Spur]

lol there has got to be a better way to phrase that reference to Anthony Black

Lol you are 100% correct