Shams: J-Rich to the Pelicans

[BatManu20]

Later bud.

1623764919094067201

[Texas_Ranger]

The Pelicans are trading Devonte' Graham and four second-round picks to San Antonio, sources said.

[Seventyniner]

Four more seconds wtf

Spurs just want all the draft picks, doesn't matter where they are.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Spurs getting in on the 2nds parade.

[LeBowen]

The hell, Devonte never had a season with over 38% FG in his career.

We got our co-tank commander for Keldon. :king

[Seventyniner]

At least three of those seconds are the Pelicans' own. The only incoming second they have is Chicago's in 2024.

Since they're seconds I doubt there are any protections, but I haven't heard any info on that.

[td4mvp2k]

graham and 4 2nd rd picks...hmmm

[slick'81]

We rich bitches:rollin

[Mr. Body]

If you extended the trade deadline by a few hours, teams would be giving up eight to ten SRPs for players.

[spurraider21]

pelicans are a pretty loaded team with a lot of draft capital. those seconds are going to be ass

since dejuan blair, the only second round pick we've made who has become an actual contributor has been Tre Jones. unless you count Bertans as ours

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Not a fan of Graham's contract tbh. It's a shame they couldn't get a proper first, but 2nds is the cash today.

[slick'81]

This is the market for j rich

[Robz4000]

:lol we staaaaaaaaacked (with shitty seconds)

[objective]

Graham has a lot of money due him. Spurs have them a huge gift but eating that for 4 picks that might have 3 from 46-60

Weak

[R. DeMurre]

Half an hour to go-- time for 15 more SRPs to get redistributed around the league!

[Seventyniner]

It seems like the Spurs effectively got one 2nd for Richardson and 3 more for absorbing two more years of Graham.

[LeBowen]

Not a fan of Graham's contract tbh. It's a shame they couldn't get a proper first, but 2nds is the cash today.

Apparently only 2.8M guaranteed for 2024/25 season, so it's not bad. Some second rounders for taking on 12M for a year.

[slick'81]

Spurs filling out the bottom of the roster

[buttsR4rebounding]

Graham has 2 years and $25 million left after this year. Seems like Bran actually as a player.

[NASpurs]

Spurs filling out the bottom of the roster

Is the top part of the roster already filled out?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Apparently only 2.8M guaranteed for 2024/25 season, so it's not bad. Some second rounders for taking on 12M for a year.

Yeah it's not horrible. Eating about $15 mil for 3 seconds + sending JRich to a good place for another 2nd.

[rascal]

It's a giveaway. No market value for Richardson.

[timvp]

Uhhhhhhhh ... don't love it considering Graham's contract. I mean, I guess the Spurs could use a point guard but that Graham contract is tough.

Interestingly, though, the Spurs didn't use much cap room in this deal. Still should have like $23+ million. Guess we'll see if another shoe drops.

[slick'81]

So whats the value for mcdermoot? 12 srp's?

[heyheymymy]

Anyone wanna trade like seven 2nd rounders for one late first?

[Dverde]

We going to sell some of these picks for cash. That’s is a massive haul tho

[Spursfanfromafar]

Uhhhhhhhh ... don't love it considering Graham's contract. I mean, I guess the Spurs could use a point guard but that Graham contract is tough.

Interestingly, though, the Spurs didn't use much cap room in this deal. Still should have like $23+ million. Guess we'll see if another shoe drops.

I think their cap space went up after the Josh Rich trade. It should be slightly more than $25 million now.

[scott]

LOL, Spurs actually added cap space over the deadline (so far).

[Mugen]

Graham's contract is only partially guaranteed in the final year tbh

[timvp]

I think their cap space went up after the Josh Rich trade. It should be slightly more than $25 million now.

Yeah, you're right. Spurs actually gained cap space with this trade :lol

[Leetonidas]

I'll miss J-Rich. I honestly wish SA would have just kept him but i imagine he wanted to play for a playoff team. Dude was a good fit and solid vet presence in the locker room. Wish him well

[Ariel]

Uhhhhhhhh ... don't love it considering Graham's contract. I mean, I guess the Spurs could use a point guard but that Graham contract is tough.

Interestingly, though, the Spurs didn't use much cap room in this deal. Still should have like $23+ million. Guess we'll see if another shoe drops.
Graham's contract runs 2 more seasons: next at $12,100,000 and the following at $12,650,000 (only $2,850,000 guaranteed).
The picks involved should be 4 out of these 5: Pelicans '23 (31-45), Pelicans '24, Chicago '24, Pelicans '28, Pelicans '29

[FvckMavs]

Graham's contract is only partially guaranteed in the final year tbh

2.85m guaranteed in 2024-25 per Hoopshype.

[The Truth #6]

pelicans are a pretty loaded team with a lot of draft capital. those seconds are going to be ass

since dejuan blair, the only second round pick we've made who has become an actual contributor has been Tre Jones. unless you count Bertans as ours

But now we greatly increased our odds!! Lol.

[td4mvp2k]

So whats the value for mcdermoot? 12 srp's?
be surprised if a shooting needy team dont trade for him even with another yr left on his deal

[The Truth #6]

Austin Spurs gonna be stacked!!

[Mr. Body]

Spurs doing good by getting their players to good destinations.

[rascal]

With the current core youth of the team and several future first round picks it's not likely any of these 2nd round picks will be end up being a solid contributor or even make the team.

[timvp]

Eh, more I think of it, the more I like.

-Graham is an elite volume three-point shooter. He doesn't shoot the straightest but he'll launch threes. The Spurs continue to need three-point shooters.

-Gives the Spurs some an out if another team makes a run at Tre Jones. You can start Graham if needed.

-Graham helps with spacing but isn't good enough to hurt the tank.

-You can get rid of him after next season without much pain.

-It's possible that his value can be revitalized. In that scenario, he could become quite valuable a year from now. This year, his main issue is he's been stuck behind McCollum and Alvarado.

-If you look at this as signing Graham to a frontloaded two-year, $14 million contract in the offseason -- that's a fair-ish deal.

-I continue to think the Spurs will have more salary cap space than they'll know what to do with for at least another year.

-The second rounders aren't hugely important but the Pelicans are a Zion misstep or trade demand away from being a perennial cellar dweller.

[Mugen]

Contracts like Graham/McD might be useful in a year if the Spurs luck into Wemby and find themselves a trade away from a playoff spot next season tbh. Unlikely but they're not killers.

Getting something for a guy like JRich is a lot better than previous years' MO when they would just buy out guys because "culture" :lol

[DPG21920]

So whats the value for mcdermoot? 12 srp's?


Uhhhhhhhh ... don't love it considering Graham's contract. I mean, I guess the Spurs could use a point guard but that Graham contract is tough.

Interestingly, though, the Spurs didn't use much cap room in this deal. Still should have like $23+ million. Guess we'll see if another shoe drops.

Undoes a lot of the goodwill. Taking on 20m next year in Khem and Graham for 2nds and still not getting assets to get to floor is really wasteful. Rather have waived Josh tbh

[Dex]

Spurs just gonna draft the entire 2nd round and hope they catch a gem.

[DPG21920]

So whats the value for mcdermoot? 12 srp's?


Eh, more I think of it, the more I like.

-Graham is an elite volume three-point shooter. He doesn't shoot the straightest but he'll launch threes. The Spurs continue to need three-point shooters.

-Gives the Spurs some an out if another team makes a run at Tre Jones. You can start Graham if needed.

-Graham helps with spacing but isn't good enough to hurt the tank.

-You can get rid of him after next season without much pain.

-It's possible that his value can be revitalized. In that scenario, he could become quite valuable a year from now. This year, his main issue is he's been stuck behind McCollum and Alvarado.

-If you look at this as signing Graham to a frontloaded two-year, $14 million contract in the offseason -- that's a fair-ish deal.

-I continue to think the Spurs will have more salary cap space than they'll know what to do with for at least another year.

-The second rounders aren't hugely important but the Pelicans are a Zion misstep or trade demand away from being a perennial cellar dweller.

Improved No chances this year and cleared their cap for 2nds. Not great. Go eat Ben Simmons for something if this is your plan tbh

[Uriel]

Undoes a lot of the goodwill. Taking on 20m next year in Khem and Graham for 2nds and still not getting assets to get to floor is really wasteful. Rather have waived Josh tbh
We did waive Josh………………….

[Dex]

Undoes a lot of the goodwill. Taking on 20m next year in Khem and Graham for 2nds and still not getting assets to get to floor is really wasteful. Rather have waived Josh tbh

Kinda hints to me that ownership feels like this tank is gonna be a 2-3 year project (at least).

Obviously, it isn't realistic to believe a Wemby-type player instantly turns this squad into a contender...but Spurs seem content to take on more bad money for next season and reshuffle the deck for another deal.

[heyheymymy]

Do not like the Pels deal

Gotta get 1 FRP from NOLA out of the triple dip value Pels get

1. Graham sucks
2. Graham's contract sucks
3. JR does not suck like Graham sucks imo

[Atl Spur]

Gaining draft capital is never a bad thing…..second rounders become useful for taking flyers on overseas talent:)

[heyheymymy]

Kinda hints to me that ownership feels like this tank is gonna be a 2-3 year project (at least).

Obviously, it isn't realistic to believe a Wemby-type player instantly turns this squad into a contender...but Spurs seem content to take on more bad money for next season and reshuffle the deck for another deal.

Agreed. Writing on the wall.

Reminds me of when we first brought in guys like Doug. Clear indicator the FO doesn't want/plan to compete imo tbh

[stephen jackson]

Graham used to be good I remember

[BacktoBasics]

Graham can jack freely here. Inflate his stats and become a good piece to move a year from now.

[CGD]

Not in love with taking on Grahams salary next year, but its a position of need and Tre could be gone this summer.

[Seventyniner]

Graham can jack freely here. Inflate his stats and become a good piece to move a year from now.

Bruh find a better way to phrase that. We just went through the Primo saga.

[heyheymymy]

There had better be some under the table "considerations" from NOLA

[heyheymymy]

Graham can jack freely here. Inflate his stats and become a good piece to move a year from now.

Bruh find a better way to phrase that. We just went through the Primo saga.

In the end Graham did not fit Spurs culture

[horseshue]

Anyone wanna trade like seven 2nd rounders for one late first?

Nobody needs second round picks. All i see in last couple hours are massive amount of second round picks thrown around everywere.

[DPG21920]

2 steps forward(jak), 1 step back (Josh and lack of cap creativity)

Spurs really missed an opportunity here (despite a great Jak trade) imo. Should have done more and been in better shape salary wise for not doing anything with their space this year. Disappointing tbh outside of Jak.

If you’re punting swing big on Simmons. If you’re not? Do more this year to get assets and to salary floor. Spurs FO got lazy and mis played had some I think.

[mexicanjunior]

Meh

[DPG21920]

We did waive Josh…………………. no. If we waived Josh there’s not 14m on books next year.

[Uriel]

no. If we waived Josh there’s not 14m on books next year.
It was a joke about Primo.

[DPG21920]

Oh lol

[timvp]

2 steps forward(jak), 1 step back (Josh and lack of cap creativity)

Spurs really missed an opportunity here (despite a great Jak trade) imo. Should have done more and been in better shape salary wise for not doing anything with their space this year. Disappointing tbh outside of Jak.

If you’re punting swing big on Simmons. If you’re not? Do more this year to get assets and to salary floor. Spurs FO got lazy and mis played had some I think.

Eh, teams weren't trading firsts today. Everyone was just trading boatloads of seconds. I can't imagine it came down to the Spurs being lazy or uncreative. I don't see a trade that was completed that the Spurs should have gotten in on -- even in retrospect. Do you?

I know we can have dreams of first round riches for dumping a player like Ben Simmons -- but I don't see a comparable trade that actually happened today.

[timvp]

Tanking-wise, this has to help, right? Minute for minute, you could make the case that Richardson was the best basketball player on the team, tbh.

[Mr. Body]

Tanking-wise, this has to help, right? Minute for minute, you could make the case that Richardson was the best basketball player on the team, tbh.

Yeah, I don't see how the team scores now. This is gonna get ugly.

[spurraider21]

Eh, teams weren't trading firsts today. Everyone was just trading boatloads of seconds. I can't imagine it came down to the Spurs being lazy or uncreative. I don't see a trade that was completed that the Spurs should have gotten in on -- even in retrospect. Do you?

I know we can have dreams of first round riches for dumping a player like Ben Simmons -- but I don't see a comparable trade that actually happened today.
how many other teams had the capability of eating those types of contracts though? spurs were kinda uniquely positioned because we a) have the room now, and b) dont really need the room for next 1-2 years anyway

[spurraider21]

Tanking-wise, this has to help, right? Minute for minute, you could make the case that Richardson was the best basketball player on the team, tbh.
oh yeah. he was a more often not the steadying hand of the backcourt. this and the poodle trade cements us as a bottom 3 team

[spurraider21]

Yeah, I don't see how the team scores now. This is gonna get ugly.
wesley/graham backcourt gonna have plenty of sub 30% shooting games :lol

[Dverde]

I think the roster gonna appreciate their bonus check especially the players on the low end of the salary cap. Not a complete loss.

[rjv]

Eh, teams weren't trading firsts today. Everyone was just trading boatloads of seconds. I can't imagine it came down to the Spurs being lazy or uncreative. I don't see a trade that was completed that the Spurs should have gotten in on -- even in retrospect. Do you?

I know we can have dreams of first round riches for dumping a player like Ben Simmons -- but I don't see a comparable trade that actually happened today.

what you fail to understand is that some ST posters are more connected than woj or shams and apparently have access to all the trade scenarios that the spurs could have opted to take.

[timvp]

how many other teams had the capability of eating those types of contracts though? spurs were kinda uniquely positioned because we a) have the room now, and b) dont really need the room for next 1-2 years anyway

Good counterpoint. But, then again, teams had players of actual value on the table and no one was letting go of first round picks.

The Spurs getting a potential top ten pick for Poeltl looks like a minor miracle considering all these players who got traded today for second rounders. I mean Poeltl is good but is he that much better than Bey, Bones, McDaniels, Thybulle, Thomas Bryant, etc, etc?

[Robz4000]

Good counterpoint. But, then again, teams had players of actual value on the table and no one was letting go of first round picks.

The Spurs getting a potential top ten pick for Poeltl looks like a minor miracle considering all these players who got traded today for second rounders. I mean Poeltl is good but is he that much better than Bey, Bones, McDaniels, Thybulle, Thomas Bryant, etc, etc?

Yes.

[Dex]

Yeah, I don't see how the team scores now. This is gonna get ugly.

And losing Poeltl as the enforcer / glue guy. He didn't put up 20 PPG or anything, but the team looked better any time he was on the floor.

[Uriel]

Good counterpoint. But, then again, teams had players of actual value on the table and no one was letting go of first round picks.

The Spurs getting a potential top ten pick for Poeltl looks like a minor miracle considering all these players who got traded today for second rounders. I mean Poeltl is good but is he that much better than Bey, Bones, McDaniels, Thybulle, Thomas Bryant, etc, etc?
I love how optimistic you are that pick isn’t top-10 protected.

[JADG79]

Four 2nd for a player that you can use next year in a trade because the 2.8M guarantee in 2024/25 is really good.

Derrick White trade (Devonte, Romeo, Blake Wesley, 2028 FRP swap with Boston and four 2nd).

But the Inflation is affecting the NBA, those 2nd picks worth nothing.

[DPG21920]

Eh, teams weren't trading firsts today. Everyone was just trading boatloads of seconds. I can't imagine it came down to the Spurs being lazy or uncreative. I don't see a trade that was completed that the Spurs should have gotten in on -- even in retrospect. Do you?

I know we can have dreams of first round riches for dumping a player like Ben Simmons -- but I don't see a comparable trade that actually happened today.

No comparable trade could happen because it was ONLY SA with space lol…I dont understand not getting to the salary floor at all. There had to be opportunities Spurs passed on and if you arent going to get to floor this year, why murk up your books at all for no reason next year?

I would have much rather just done the Jak trade and kept Richardson if it means still having Doug and now Khem + Graham on the books for 35M next year for no reason. They arent assets at all. You dont, even if you can, put dead money on your books for no reason and the 2nds are not reason enough IMVHO.

Just shows a lack of creativity and feels like they focused so hard on Jak trade they didnt have the capacity to really get creative and do what needed to be done. Is it some disaster? Not at all. Jak trade good enough to where it’s a win. Just more of a symptom of SA leaving a lot of proverbial meat on the bone for no reason.

[rjv]

I love how optimistic you are that pick isn’t top-10 protected.

it's top six protected. catch up, man.

[Spursfanfromafar]

The key for the Spurs is to maximize their chances of winning the lottery. And that means staying within the bottom 3 and retaining that 14% chance. Once they secure that.. they can then bargain their way into getting another high draft pick based on which team is desperate enough to dump assets for cap relief.. during the draft. We shall see in four months' time.

[Mugen]

I love how optimistic you are that pick isn’t top-10 protected.

It's not. It's Top 6 protected.

[Uriel]

Oh, I missed that. Great news!

[slick'81]

Anyone know the entire 2nd round pic count the spurs have amassed ?

[Atl Spur]

The key for the Spurs is to maximize their chances of winning the lottery. And that means staying within the bottom 3 and retaining that 14% chance. Once they secure that.. they can then bargain their way into getting another high draft pick based on which team is desperate enough to dump assets for cap relief.. during the draft. We shall see in four months' time.

:)

[rascal]

it's top six protected. catch up, man.

That pick can end up in the 20s.

[Atl Spur]

https://www.si.com/nba/draft/.amp/draft-pick-tracker/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-spurs-future-draft-picks

[Chinook]

People just saw salary ballast rehab his value to get more picks. Graham cost NOP a first to acquire back in the day. He can have value again. I see him being traded either for value or at least as ballast a team likes enough to get back in a salary dump.

[CGD]

how many other teams had the capability of eating those types of contracts though? spurs were kinda uniquely positioned because we a) have the room now, and b) dont really need the room for next 1-2 years anyway

I share this frustration. The thing I will say is that, as a whole, there aren't as many shitty deals out there as there were in past year. The cap spike (an under appreciated factor this year I think) will make those that are out there (Fournier types) look less bad as well.

[rjv]

That pick can end up in the 20s.

sure it can but i don't see toronto becoming a top ten team by next year.

[Kevin]

A year ago not getting a first for J-Rich would have been pretty disappointing but clearly the market has changed a lot since then. Solid deal for the Spurs in this new market. Collins and McDermott will only fetch second rounders next year unless they are in a larger deal. Times have changed today.

[CGD]

People just saw salary ballast rehab his value to get more picks. Graham cost NOP a first to acquire back in the day. He can have value again. I see him being traded either for value or at least as ballast a team likes enough to get back in a salary dump.

Good point.

I also dont mind having diversity in contract sizes as we do these rebuilds. Having 1-2 on the 10-13M range and 1-2 in the 5-7M range (Birch) is good I think. Having a Simmons would have been difficult to move.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

People just saw salary ballast rehab his value to get more picks. Graham cost NOP a first to acquire back in the day. He can have value again. I see him being traded either for value or at least as ballast a team likes enough to get back in a salary dump.

I agree, especially with his tiny partial guarantee for '24/'25. We'll be talking about the Graham trade this time next year. Let's see how many seconds he will fetch :lol

[timvp]

No comparable trade could happen because it was ONLY SA with space lol…I dont understand not getting to the salary floor at all. There had to be opportunities Spurs passed on and if you arent going to get to floor this year, why murk up your books at all for no reason next year?

I would have much rather just done the Jak trade and kept Richardson if it means still having Doug and now Khem + Graham on the books for 35M next year for no reason. They arent assets at all. You dont, even if you can, put dead money on your books for no reason and the 2nds are not reason enough IMVHO.

Just shows a lack of creativity and feels like they focused so hard on Jak trade they didnt have the capacity to really get creative and do what needed to be done. Is it some disaster? Not at all. Jak trade good enough to where it’s a win. Just more of a symptom of SA leaving a lot of proverbial meat on the bone for no reason.

Salary cap space couldn't net anything of note this year even though they were the only team with cap space. Why, then, continue to horde it? The Spurs will still have plenty of space.

Quick calculation tells me the Spurs will still have like $50+ million in cap space even with Birch and Graham. How much cap space you want them to have, tbh? :lol

Add in all their expirings next year (McDermott, Birch, Collins, etc.) and the Spurs have like $90 million in easily tradeable assets (cap space + expirings).

I get wanting to horde cap space .... but, man, it's not like the Spurs lost a notable amount of flexibility. As I've been saying, the Spurs will still have more cap space than they'll know what to do with until at least the 2024-25 season.

[exstatic]

That pick can end up in the 20s.

It could. You know which picks cannot end up in the 20s? Those 55 second rounders that were traded at the deadline.

[timvp]

I agree, especially with his tiny partial guarantee for '24/'25. We'll be talking about the Graham trade this time next year. Let's see how many seconds he will fetch :lol

:lol Yeah, a year from now, Graham will fetch another three or four second rounders.

[Mr. Body]

Cap space:

Fish, or cut bait.

They opted to cut bait. Means they fish later.

[Seventyniner]

https://www.si.com/nba/draft/.amp/draft-pick-tracker/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-spurs-future-draft-picks

Nice resource. That's a lot easier to read than the RealGM version.

It doesn't have the four seconds from the Pelicans yet but I'll check later.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Nice resource. That's a lot easier to read than the RealGM version.

It doesn't have the four seconds from the Pelicans yet but I'll check later.

So many picks to count, I'm starting to feel like an OKC fan, but in the next 7 years the Spurs own 12 FRPs, 2 swaps and 18 SRPs.

[Chucho]

YAY! We got a sack of worthless 2nd rounders!!! WIN ALL DAY!!

[exstatic]

Nice resource. That's a lot easier to read than the RealGM version.

It doesn't have the four seconds from the Pelicans yet but I'll check later.

Actually, it’s crap,as it only shows the first year protections, and doesn’t show how many cracks we get at the pick, and the loosening of the protections. It’s also not real world, because our three draft cycles for the Chicago pick may not start until 2026 if Chicago jumps into the top 4, keeps their pick, and conveys toOrlando in2024.

[Atl Spur]

It could. You know which picks cannot end up in the 20s? Those 55 second rounders that were traded at the deadline.

If batched properly…… they might! :)

[spurraider21]

A year ago not getting a first for J-Rich would have been pretty disappointing but clearly the market has changed a lot since then. Solid deal for the Spurs in this new market. Collins and McDermott will only fetch second rounders next year unless they are in a larger deal. Times have changed today.
i thought if we could get a first for thad last year it was pretty reasonable to get a comparable pick for richardson. richardson right now is better than young, anyway

[CGD]

Cap space:

Fish, or cut bait.

They opted to cut bait. Means they fish later.

Well there is also the ability to use the space around draft time so that something to keep in mind.

[spurraider21]

i always liked this resource to look at all the future pick movement. hasnt updated today yet following the richardson trade

https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed

[KingKev]

Good to know Vassell and Keldon are worth aprrox 7 SRPs combined.

[heyheymymy]

The first picks resource link also appears to be missing the 2028 MIA 2RP yet the page looks updated as of 11 am this morning the 9th

[heyheymymy]

i always liked this resource to look at all the future pick movement. hasnt updated today yet following the richardson trade

https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed

I use a combo of that one and this one https://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/DraftTrades/Future/Spurs.htm

both are kinda hard to read lol - we need a better way of breaking down the picks future of teams

[jjspur]

I think the roster gonna appreciate their bonus check especially the players on the low end of the salary cap. Not a complete loss.

Wish I would have said that ... oh wait I did...last week. Spurs have a conservative front office who does most of its work during the off season. Surprised they made this many moves but it wasn't anything terribly radical. They traded who they really had to but not much else. At least they didn't let our impending free agents walk for nothing.

During the summer it may be a different story.

[Kevin]

i thought if we could get a first for thad last year it was pretty reasonable to get a comparable pick for richardson. richardson right now is better than young, anyway

I recall LJ saying in one of his articles last summer that the Spurs had lotto protected first rounders on the table for J-Rich. Looking bad they should have taken one of those offers. Oh well. Hard to predict since drastic market changes.

[KingKev]

I recall LJ saying in one of his articles last summer that the Spurs had lotto protected first rounders on the table for J-Rich. Looking bad they should have taken one of those offers. Oh well. Hard to predict since drastic market changes.

JRich isn’t very good. If he was worth that Boston would have traded him for value instead of a throw in.

[DPG21920]

Salary cap space couldn't net anything of note this year even though they were the only team with cap space. Why, then, continue to horde it? The Spurs will still have plenty of space.

Quick calculation tells me the Spurs will still have like $50+ million in cap space even with Birch and Graham. How much cap space you want them to have, tbh? :lol

Add in all their expirings next year (McDermott, Birch, Collins, etc.) and the Spurs have like $90 million in easily tradeable assets (cap space + expirings).

I get wanting to horde cap space .... but, man, it's not like the Spurs lost a notable amount of flexibility. As I've been saying, the Spurs will still have more cap space than they'll know what to do with until at least the 2024-25 season.

I guess I dont see it that way (at least not totally). Like big picture I agree that SA still has space and thats why I say it’s not a massive mistake or grave consequences. But looking at it as is and evaluating the value? It’s not good.

Did NO a massive favor (improved their team and cleared their books) for what? Is that really better than having Josh walk for nothing? I dont think so personally. They already have too many 2nds IMO. So they didnt gain anything. THey can even make all the picks lol.

Jak was a great job, but it was quite literally FREE MONEY to get to salary floor and they couldn’t find any deal? Could not have budged way into Lakers deal when that was offered earlier in season?

They held onto all the vets ,hurt their value and definitely missed out on deals that were there earlier in off season etc..

[Seventyniner]

Actually, it’s crap,as it only shows the first year protections, and doesn’t show how many cracks we get at the pick, and the loosening of the protections. It’s also not real world, because our three draft cycles for the Chicago pick may not start until 2026 if Chicago jumps into the top 4, keeps their pick, and conveys toOrlando in2024.

You're right, I didn't pay close enough attention. I just liked the layout.

The RealGM one is certainly the most detailed, it's just cluttered.

[rascal]

JRich isn’t very good. If he was worth that Boston would have traded him for value instead of a throw in.

Agree ST way over rated his value.

It was a non move bringing in little value and losing little value.

[DPG21920]

Sure, if they can flip Doug and Graham next year for + assets as expiring that is great - I’m just in a little bit of shock that SA couldn’t take advantage of free money when they had no competition and that they settled on the Josh deal for that package. Like play hard ball, demand a first by offering them 2nds and if they say no? Walk away lol. You dont have to help NO.

But Jak was a great job and all that matters IMO. I’m just talking semantics and details here…

[spurraider21]

I recall LJ saying in one of his articles last summer that the Spurs had lotto protected first rounders on the table for J-Rich. Looking bad they should have taken one of those offers. Oh well. Hard to predict since drastic market changes.
yikes if true

[KingKev]

Agree ST way over rated his value.

It was a non move bringing in little value and losing little value.

While we are in reality check mode Josh Richardson, Devin Vassell and Keldon Johnson are of similar talent levels.

[DPG21920]

I screamed to trade Jak/Doug/Rich in off season - to be more serious about taking on WB etc…they did miss out it’s hard to argue this IMO. But again,they avoided any massive mistakes which is great and all that matters. I just want this FO razor sharp and maximizing every single drop (But I’m not bitching big picture - I’m happy)

[Seventyniner]

I didn't pay close enough attention to the Pelicans' outgoing seconds. I had only looked at incoming and saw they're getting Chicago's second in 2024.

The Pelicans owe:


2023: 31-45 protected 2nd to the Hawks
2025: unprotected 2nd to the Grizzlies
2026: second round pick swap to the Pistons

The Pistons get the better of the Pelicans and Blazers second that year, the Pelicans get the worse


2027: unprotected 2nd to the Blazers


It looks like the four 2nds the Spurs are getting will have to come from the Pelicans' own in 2024/2028/2029, the Bulls in 2024, and maybe the pick swap rights in 2026 above. Technically the Pelicans could have included their 2023 second if it falls in the 31-45 range too.

[KingKev]

I screamed to trade Jak/Doug/Rich in off season - to be more serious about taking on WB etc…they did miss out it’s hard to argue this IMO. But again,they avoided any massive mistakes which is great and all that matters. I just want this FO razor sharp and maximizing every single drop (But I’m not bitching big picture - I’m happy)

They clearly never had much value.

[Atl Spur]

Derrick White trade has been plenty fruitful! Check those #’s / resources gained.

[Mnky]

They sent the guys where they preferred to go. Guys who were leaving for nothing in the summer. Got picks and another asset to possibly move or just release. They did great. They didn't lose anything, increased their lottery chances, and gained assets. People over value things. There's a reason the pacers ate their cap space with Turner. The market wasn't there to sell it. It's always hard for people to realize, standing pat is better than making a bad move just to make a move.

A win is a win.

[rascal]

They sent the guys where they preferred to go. Guys who were leaving for nothing in the summer. Got picks and another asset to possibly move or just release. They did great. They didn't lose anything, increased their lottery chances, and gained assets. People over value things. There's a reason the pacers ate their cap space with Turner. The market wasn't there to sell it. It's always hard for people to realize, standing pat is better than making a bad move just to make a move.

A win is a win.

Spurs fo can't afford to stand pat. They need to be aggressive and make good moves. Standing pat is considered a failure.

[Mnky]

Spurs fo can't afford to stand pat. They need to be aggressive and make good moves.

Because they're definitely competing for that ring..amirite.

[Ariel]

I didn't pay close enough attention to the Pelicans' outgoing seconds. I had only looked at incoming and saw they're getting Chicago's second in 2024.

The Pelicans owe:


2023: 31-45 protected 2nd to the Hawks
2025: unprotected 2nd to the Grizzlies
2026: second round pick swap to the Pistons

The Pistons get the better of the Pelicans and Blazers second that year, the Pelicans get the worse


2027: unprotected 2nd to the Blazers


It looks like the four 2nds the Spurs are getting will have to come from the Pelicans' own in 2024/2028/2029, the Bulls in 2024, and maybe the pick swap rights in 2026 above. Technically the Pelicans could have included their 2023 second if it falls in the 31-45 range too.
I think the list of Spurs future 2nd rounders goes something like this:

2023

Own (31-55, otherwise IND);
TOR;

2024

Own (31-55? otherwise BOS);
LAL;
best of CHI/NOLA

2025

Own;
CHI;
TOR

2026

Own (swap rights w/worse of IND/MIA)
worse of POR/NOLA

2027

Own;
worse of OKC/HOU/IND/MIA

2028

Own;
DEN (34-60);
MIA;
NOLA

2029

Own;
NOLA


Notes:

Spurs '23 own was conditionally traded to Indiana in a range that's unfeasible (56-60) so it's listed without restrictions
Spurs '24 own was conditionally traded to Boston in the Vonleh trade, but it's likely subject to a "fictitious" restriction (likely 56-60)

I think that's the easier recap.

[mo7888]

I guess I dont see it that way (at least not totally). Like big picture I agree that SA still has space and thats why I say it’s not a massive mistake or grave consequences. But looking at it as is and evaluating the value? It’s not good.

Did NO a massive favor (improved their team and cleared their books) for what? Is that really better than having Josh walk for nothing? I dont think so personally. They already have too many 2nds IMO. So they didnt gain anything. THey can even make all the picks lol.

Jak was a great job, but it was quite literally FREE MONEY to get to salary floor and they couldn’t find any deal? Could not have budged way into Lakers deal when that was offered earlier in season?

They held onto all the vets ,hurt their value and definitely missed out on deals that were there earlier in off season etc..

There's no such thing as to many 2nd's.... I thought the Nola trade was a great one for them and a good one for us... Graham gives us options + 4 picks vs options minus the 4 picks... in no world is there any opportunity cost here..

[DPG21920]

There's no such thing as to many 2nd's.... I thought the Nola trade was a great one for them and a good one for us... Graham gives us options + 4 picks vs options minus the 4 picks... in no world is there any opportunity cost here..

I do not agree with this…..but obviously some see it that way. I can maybe buy that it was not a “bad” trade. Tougher sell to tell me it was “good”. We will see next season I suppose.

[Atl Spur]

There's no such thing as to many 2nd's.... I thought the Nola trade was a great one for them and a good one for us... Graham gives us options + 4 picks vs options minus the 4 picks... in no world is there any opportunity cost here..

You stop that rational speech……. We missed out on a couple of 1st rounders :(. ��

[mo7888]

I do not agree with this…..but obviously some see it that way. I can maybe buy that it was not a “bad” trade. Tougher sell to tell me it was “good”. We will see next season I suppose.

I know you dint see it that way, but you haven't given a real argument to bolster your position...

[Atl Spur]

I do not agree with this…..but obviously some see it that way. I can maybe buy that it was not a “bad” trade. Tougher sell to tell me it was “good”. We will see next season I suppose.

If we hit on any of those 4 picks…… it was a good trade brother! Damn , I forgot graham busted our a** this year��

[DPG21920]

I know you dint see it that way, but you haven't given a real argument to bolster your position...

I literally did lol you just dont agree with it.

[DPG21920]

If we hit on any of those 4 picks…… it was a good trade brother! Damn , I forgot graham busted our a** this year��

Spurs need to be in bottom 2 or 3. He better not mess this up lol

[mo7888]

I literally did lol you just dont agree with it.

Not really that I saw...maybe I missed it though

[Atl Spur]

Spurs need to be in bottom 2 or 3. He better not mess this up lol

^agreed lol

[KingKev]

If we hit on any of those 4 picks…… it was a good trade brother! Damn , I forgot graham busted our a** this year🙈

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

[Atl Spur]

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

I actually like you…… be easy Kev���� On it boss!

[DPG21920]

Jak Trade: A

Josh Trade: D+ to C-

[mo7888]

Jak Trade: A

Josh Trade: D+ to C-

Lol

[DPG21920]

Lol

What do you give them

[mo7888]

What do you give them

I'm a little higher than you... I agree with you on the Jak Trade, but give them a solid B on the Jrich trade.

[poopbox]

They sent the guys where they preferred to go. Guys who were leaving for nothing in the summer. Got picks and another asset to possibly move or just release. They did great. They didn't lose anything, increased their lottery chances, and gained assets. People over value things. There's a reason the pacers ate their cap space with Turner. The market wasn't there to sell it. It's always hard for people to realize, standing pat is better than making a bad move just to make a move.

A win is a win.

I prefer us to send guys to places where we get the best value back. This is a basketball team, not a charity.

Lakers sent westbrook to utah even though he once had a fan thrown out and banned there for saying some racist shit to him. Pelinka didn't care.

This send me where I want to go shit has never done anything for the spurs. It doesn't get them free agents. It doesn't make players want to get traded here. All they are doing is taking less than what they could have possibly gotten somewhere else.

Just like the Dejounte trade. Sent him to Atlanta cause that is where he wanted to go. Then there was all the chatter about teams not even knowing that he was available.

Not the way you should be running a basketball team. It's like Pop wants to make sure players leave the spurs happy. In real life the second these players leave the spurs they don't think about the team or Pop every again.

[JPB]

Jak Trade: A

Josh Trade: D+ to C-

Nah, given the market Josh trade was OK. And that's just the best kind of offers they got.

[DPG21920]

Didnt LA offer WB to SA preseason or early in season and SA passed? Have to ask “why” and “for what”?

[Dverde]

So if J Rich gets hurt last night and can’t pass a physical, the Spurs get nothing. Why play him in a meaningless game?

[DPG21920]

Nah, given the market Josh trade was OK. And that's just the best kind of offers they got.

That may be true but best offer doesn’t mean “good” right? Can be the best offer and still be a bad deal. If SA can flip Graham for something + next year? Then deal goes to B.

[DPG21920]

So if J Rich gets hurt last night and can’t pass a physical, the Spurs get nothing. Why play him in a meaningless game?

Because the deals you had lines up like this are ass and theres no downside if it falls through :lol

But if he somehow drops a 40 piece maybe a team ups their offer.

[DPG21920]

I'm a little higher than you... I agree with you on the Jak Trade, but give them a solid B on the Jrich trade.

B?????? B-serious bruh lol

JK - I will give it a B if it leads to something + off season/next season

And I dont have them equally weighted either. Jak deal being such a win makes it a B+ trade deadline even with the D+/C- grade on Josh deal.

[JPB]

That may be true but best offer doesn’t mean “good” right? Can be the best offer and still be a bad deal. If SA can flip Graham for something + next year? Then deal goes to B.

Josh was UFA in 3 months. Something is better than nothing.

[mo7888]

Didnt LA offer WB to SA preseason or early in season and SA passed? Have to ask “why” and “for what”?

It was reported they tried to move him here without any 1st's...not sure what players they wanted, if any..

[exstatic]

Didnt LA offer WB to SA preseason or early in season and SA passed? Have to ask “why” and “for what”?

They wanted us to eat that bloated contract, and send back positive value players. No payment at all for the cap room.

[mo7888]

B?????? B-serious bruh lol

JK - I will give it a B if it leads to something + off season/next season

And I dont have them equally weighted either. Jak deal being such a win makes it a B+ trade deadline even with the D+/C- grade on Josh deal.

No doubt Jak's deal is MUCH more important if you're weighting the deadline. I'm very pleased where we ate from a 'picks'standpoint..

[DPG21920]

They wanted us to eat that bloated contract, and send back positive value players. No payment at all for the cap room.

Not so sure…thats right. But maybe timvp can shed some light there

[TD 21]

timvp already covered most of the points I was going to make, but another solid move.

Graham isn't good and is overpaid, but is ironically a near perfect (small) for this team. He gives them someone who can actually dribble, a volume (if mediocre) three-point shooter and overall organizer to slot the young guards into roles more conducive to their development, while not being good enough to positively impact winning.

By this time next season, he might regain some value or be useful salary ballast in another trade (ditto for Birch).

While the picks are unlikely to have value in and of themselves, they create more optionality.

[exstatic]

It was reported they tried to move him here without any 1st's...not sure what players they wanted, if any..


They wanted us to eat that bloated contract, and send back positive value players. No payment at all for the cap room.


Not so sure…thats right. But maybe timvp can shed some light there

Not the only one remembering it that way.

[DPG21920]

Not the only one remembering it that way.

Didnt say you were wrong - Trying to see if TIMVP has details

[DPG21920]

I just dont like guys that are on deals they are clearly not worth even if its not a big deal lol - pretty straightforward

Doug: Not worth his deal. If he was, he would have been valued by other teams.

Graham: Not worth his deal. If he was he wouldn’t have been buried and moved to SA with comp to take his bad deal on

Khem: Sure as hell not worth 7M

Ya - could these guys rehab value and maybe be used as ballast? Absolutely. But that sort of has to happen to make it ok and I dont like being in that position even if Khem/Doug/Graham are all functionally off the books after next season

[offset formation]

Its inarguable that our front office shit the bed quite frankly. If for no other reason than letting it be known very openly and publicly that they wanted far more for these guys than they actually got back.

Aside from the Thad Young/Demar deal, if it shakes out, we've taken the L on trade after trade going back to neph.

[tonight...you]

Didnt say you were wrong - Trying to see if TIMVP has details
Here is something upon the subject he said early in the season:

"According to a source, the Los Angeles Lakers have targeted Richardson and McDermott in a trade that would involve Russell Westbrook. However, talks haven’t gained traction because the Lakers are only willing to relinquish a pair of second round picks in return for both players."

https://www.spurstalk.com/latest-spurs-intel-joshua-primo-bombshell/

[DPG21920]

Here is something upon the subject he said early in the season:

"According to a source, the Los Angeles Lakers have targeted Richardson and McDermott in a trade that would involve Russell Westbrook. However, talks haven’t gained traction because the Lakers are only willing to relinquish a pair of second round picks in return for both players."

https://www.spurstalk.com/latest-spurs-intel-joshua-primo-bombshell/

So even then thats wayyyy better lol. I would have traded Josh and Doug (taking off 15M from Doug next year instead of having Graham money) and only get 2 less 2nd? Ya sign me up for that tbh…

[JuneJive]

Its inarguable that our front office shit the bed quite frankly. If for no other reason than letting it be known very openly and publicly that they wanted far more for these guys than they actually got back.

Aside from the Thad Young/Demar deal, if it shakes out, we've taken the L on trade after trade going back to neph.

Who shat in your cereal today?

Or every day, by the looks of it.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Meh….we could have lived without this deal happening. Maybe some of those seconds get used for a team wanting to trade down with us on draft day. I give this JRich trade a solid D+ on the surface.

[Raven]

good god

[mystargtr34]

Rich is an UFA this offseason so better the Spurs get something and four 2nd's is something. Ok you take on Devonte but its only 1 season at $12m and as timvp said at least he provides spacing for the young guys to operate and grow.

I give this deal a solid B.

[Leetonidas]

So even then thats wayyyy better lol. I would have traded Josh and Doug (taking off 15M from Doug next year instead of having Graham money) and only get 2 less 2nd? Ya sign me up for that tbh…

But why? Spurs are probably going to have ton of space they won't use anyway next season. I get not liking overpaid dudes but when it nets you extra assets for space you're probably not using anyway I don't see the problem

[RC_Drunkford]

So even then thats wayyyy better lol. I would have traded Josh and Doug (taking off 15M from Doug next year instead of having Graham money) and only get 2 less 2nd? Ya sign me up for that tbh…

not really logical. They got more for J-Rich and will still get more picks when they move McBuckets expiring next season. While the J-Rich deal is a C, that would be a clear D-

[JeffDuncan]

I have to suspect the Westbrook talk was only because the Spurs had cap space. Basically, clickbait stuff based on only that. I don’t think the Fakers were ever going to give the Spurs a good draft pick.

The JRich deal looks “good enough” under the circumstances.

[CGD]

I don’t know what else people wanted in the Richardson deal. We can quibble about the Graham money, but who cares? Clearly capspace is over rated after this experience, so why not use some of next years at a position of need? They’ll still have shit tons next year.

Also, I think they saw some value in Graham. We’ll see.

[DPG21920]

But why? Spurs are probably going to have ton of space they won't use anyway next season. I get not liking overpaid dudes but when it nets you extra assets for space you're probably not using anyway I don't see the problem

I would rather have the better picks (IMO Lakers picks are better potential), keeps NO with the bad contract instead helping out divisional opponent and rids SA of the negative Doug deal to take flier on better upside guy/younger guy and still have same money as we do now with Graham/Doug

[DPG21920]

not really logical. They got more for J-Rich and will still get more picks when they move McBuckets expiring next season. While the J-Rich deal is a C, that would be a clear D-

Lakers picks > NO picks, NO has messier cap situation & Spur have 2 less bad deals on the books. Nah. LA deal > NO deal and its not really close tbh…IMVHO

[DPG21920]

I don’t know what else people wanted in the Richardson deal. We can quibble about the Graham money, but who cares? Clearly capspace is over rated after this experience, so why not use some of next years at a position of need? They’ll still have shit tons next year.

Also, I think they saw some value in Graham. We’ll see.

Why would a team that hopes to make a run not only give up Graham for Josh if thats true, but 4 picks then?

[heyheymymy]

Yeah I bet Spurs can get Graham fixed up and contributing. They have that way with players and I could see them reclaim and restore Graham

[spurraider21]

Yeah I bet Spurs can get Graham fixed up and contributing. They have that way with players and I could see them reclaim and restore Graham
luckily, crappy young tanking teams are the best plays for guys to get a chance to shine

[tonight...you]

Lakers picks > NO picks, NO has messier cap situation & Spur have 2 less bad deals on the books. Nah. LA deal > NO deal and its not really close tbh…IMVHO
JMO, but I think that we shouldn't treat all of these 2nd Round picks as picks, in and of themselves.
We should treat them as weight for multiple things:
Picks
Trade ups in Drafts
Sweetening deals for X player(s)
Sweetening deals to take on Cap for better pick(s)

2nd Rd picks aren't just 2nd Rd picks.

I do get that better 2nd Rd picks are better for everything, but the NBA is so chaotic from year to year...
You never truly know what you can expect.

[CGD]

Why would a team that hopes to make a run not only give up Graham for Josh if thats true, but 4 picks then?

It’s situational. Dude’s fortunes changed when McCollum went to the team, while Alvarado has also carved a space ahead of him.

I’m not saying he’ll be a world beater or anything to be clear, but if he can be next year’s Josh Richardson that’s cool. Hey we can get 5 SRPs for him and the next bad contract lol.

[tbdog]

Not a fan of Graham's contract tbh. It's a shame they couldn't get a proper first, but 2nds is the cash today.


So even then thats wayyyy better lol. I would have traded Josh and Doug (taking off 15M from Doug next year instead of having Graham money) and only get 2 less 2nd? Ya sign me up for that tbh…

Because spurs are not using cap space next season, and both Doug and Graham are expiring after next season. Meaning they both could be traded for more picks.

[offset formation]

Who shat in your cereal today?

Or every day, by the looks of it.

Just no longer a pumper my friend. SRPs do nothing for me nor the franchise. And to the post you're responding to, do you deny our front office screwed up royally by so publicly talking about their expectations for the traded players that ultimately fetched nothing like they wanted? Thus creating a circumstance where other front offices know PATFO vlusters but will settle for less as the deadline looms closer? That makes me a guy with shit in my cereal??

[offset formation]

Not a fan of Graham's contract tbh. It's a shame they couldn't get a proper first, but 2nds is the cash today.

Who shat in your cereal negative Nancy?

[Chinook]

I just dont like guys that are on deals they are clearly not worth even if its not a big deal lol - pretty straightforward

Doug: Not worth his deal. If he was, he would have been valued by other teams.

Graham: Not worth his deal. If he was he wouldn’t have been buried and moved to SA with comp to take his bad deal on

Khem: Sure as hell not worth 7M

Ya - could these guys rehab value and maybe be used as ballast? Absolutely. But that sort of has to happen to make it ok and I dont like being in that position even if Khem/Doug/Graham are all functionally off the books after next season

This is so confusing. You want them to avoid signing players that they want in order to preserve cap space to take back bad salary in trade. But then after they take back the bad salary, you're annoyed that the guys they took are bad money? What do you think the Spurs were going to get in a trade. There are only so many Derrick White deals out there.

Say what you want about Doug. We don't need to worry about that argument again. But, yeah, this is basically your best-case scenario. They clearly got market value for a guy they took as salary ballast last year. They still have well over a max slot next year.

The Westbrook deal you assumed was there wasn't there. The Lakers were not going to give up real value in just getting rid of that contract. They got players the Spurs couldn't match and gave up an okay pick with hampered upside. I have no issue with the Spurs not wanting to cut half of the backend of their roster just to fill in some cracks for a couple more seconds. The world would not have ended had they moved on from KBD or Roby, but if those guys are practicing hard or fun in the locker room, whatever. It's not even like you wanted more seconds. I have a feeling you'd've given all seven of them up just to get off McDermott's money next year. All to have an extra $13 Million, to what? Buy more seconds they could've just kept?

It doesn't make sense.

[DPG21920]

Because spurs are not using cap space next season, and both Doug and Graham are expiring after next season. Meaning they both could be traded for more picks.

SMH just like Doug, when you overpay mediocre to bad players it’s hard to trade them. Stop using the excuse of having cap space to take on bad overpaid players. You can actually trade for decent players too or sign them…Spurs already had plenty of 2nd round picks tbh..

[DPG21920]

This is so confusing. You want them to avoid signing players that they want in order to preserve cap space to take back bad salary in trade. But then after they take back the bad salary, you're annoyed that the guys they took are bad money? What do you think the Spurs were going to get in a trade. There are only so many Derrick White deals out there.

Say what you want about Doug. We don't need to worry about that argument again. But, yeah, this is basically your best-case scenario. They clearly got market value for a guy they took as salary ballast last year. They still have well over a max slot next year.

The Westbrook deal you assumed was there wasn't there. The Lakers were not going to give up real value in just getting rid of that contract. They got players the Spurs couldn't match and gave up an okay pick with hampered upside. I have no issue with the Spurs not wanting to cut half of the backend of their roster just to fill in some cracks for a couple more seconds. The world would not have ended had they moved on from KBD or Roby, but if those guys are practicing hard or fun in the locker room, whatever. It's not even like you wanted more seconds. I have a feeling you'd've given all seven of them up just to get off McDermott's money next year. All to have an extra $13 Million, to what? Buy more seconds they could've just kept?

It doesn't make sense.

Of course you dont get my POV. It’s the least surprising thing of the day :lol Spurs turned down getting 2 2nds for WB for Josh/Doug. I would have rather done that vs hold out for this. I dont want Spurs to avoid signing players they want; I want them to not over pay them for 3+ years in order to get them to the point they are not tradable but instead viewed as negatives not worth their deals. Again, pretty straightforward as I’ve said.

Roby and KD are cheap. Doug is not. Graham is not. No I would have given all them up to get a first though.

[Chinook]

Just no longer a pumper my friend. SRPs do nothing for me nor the franchise. And to the post you're responding to, do you deny our front office screwed up royally by so publicly talking about their expectations for the traded players that ultimately fetched nothing like they wanted? Thus creating a circumstance where other front offices know PATFO vlusters but will settle for less as the deadline looms closer? That makes me a guy with shit in my cereal??

The Spurs didn't make anything public. Moreover, negotiations typically involve the two sides starting at one level and them moving together. The Spurs settling for a decent first and two seconds rather than two firsts isn't going to make people think the FO is hacked. Atlanta's FO constantly trying to pump Collins up every year but then not being able to get rid of him is another matter. Some of the teams that sold are happy to have kept their guys. A smaller group are likely not happy to have missed out on getting something. For the Spurs, a first and seven seconds for two expirings and some cap space isn't really a bad thing.

I totally get not valuing seconds in the same ballpark as firsts, but you just saw that a bundle of them can get a good role-player, and you never know when the Spurs are going to be in the market for one of those. These extra picks go out years. The Spurs may well be a contender again and still have like 10 extra seconds to use on deals. They might have many future opportunities to "improve" high seconds into later firsts like they did last year. We don't know if the new CBA is going to expand the minor-league aspect of the draft and d-league. The Spurs may well have developmental slots they can use their bevy of seconds on. There are a ton of reasons to have the picks.

[Chinook]

Of course you dont get my POV. It’s the least surprising thing of the day :lol

People aren't getting your POV because it's not logically consistent and everytime someone asks you make it seem like it's extremely nuanced and we just don't get it.


Spurs turned down getting 2 2nds for WB for Josh/Doug. I would have rather done that vs hold out for this. I

Why is that better? Would they have then needed that cap next year to get more than two seconds? How many more seconds does $75 Million in cap space get than $50 Million, especially given that they couldn't even use $30 this year?


I dont want Spurs to avoid signing players they want;

and


I want them to not over pay them for 3+ years in order to get them to the point they are not tradable but instead viewed as negatives not worth their deals.

are not logically consistent. You're assuming the Spurs, as they are, can get whomever they want while offering nothing more than any other team. What if signing guys they want requires signing them to long-term deals at above-market (though McDermott was actually market) rates? What if the Spurs don't care about trade value for guys they signed and instead just want them on their team? Your answer is "Don't sign them", which is what I said. We're not talking about you not wanting them to sign a guy to a cheap deal that they like where every team all of the sudden wants to trade for that player. We're not talking about unicorns. Relying on unicorn logic to try to create nuance isn't sustainable. The Spurs have to make trade-offs. The Spurs have to be willing to pay to bring in talent. They have to be willing to eat deals that hurt a player's trade value if they want to be compensated for taking on those deals. The Spurs got paid to take Graham, which is the best-case scenario for the additional cap space you wanted them to "save" by dumping McDermott.

And this is ignoring that the Laker deal you suggested probably isn't even real considering they did a much better trade and that the Spurs just took a player they got with an extra year and traded him for another disappointing player with an extra year and four second-round picks. Imagine choosing to trade White for some expiring and a first last year and thinking that was superior to Richardson, Langford and the swap because they would have an extra $18 Million in cap space. Clearly the Spurs got back more than that extra space was going to get them.


Roby and KD are cheap. Doug is not. Graham is not. No I would have given all them up to get a first though.

Again, this isn't an argument. Which firsts did the Spurs give up for those guys? The real deals didn't involve those. The slots we're talking about would've been used to absorb guys like Hill and Danny Green for some seconds. Any of us would trade KBD, Roby, McDermott and Graham for a first. What kind of counter-argument even is that? It's just inventing things to be mad at.

[DPG21920]

People aren't getting your POV because it's not logically consistent and everytime someone asks you make it seem like it's extremely nuanced and we just don't get it.



Why is that better? Would they have then needed that cap next year to get more than two seconds? How many more seconds does $75 Million in cap space get than $50 Million, especially given that they couldn't even use $30 this year?



and



are not logically consistent. You're assuming the Spurs, as they are, can get whomever they want while offering nothing more than any other team. What if signing guys they want requires signing them to long-term deals at above-market (though McDermott was actually market) rates? What if the Spurs don't care about trade value for guys they signed and instead just want them on their team? Your answer is "Don't sign them", which is what I said. We're not talking about you not wanting them to sign a guy to a cheap deal that they like where every team all of the sudden wants to trade for that player. We're not talking about unicorns. Relying on unicorn logic to try to create nuance isn't sustainable. The Spurs have to make trade-offs. The Spurs have to be willing to pay to bring in talent. They have to be willing to eat deals that hurt a player's trade value if they want to be compensated for taking on those deals. The Spurs got paid to take Graham, which is the best-case scenario for the additional cap space you wanted them to "save" by dumping McDermott.

And this is ignoring that the Laker deal you suggested probably isn't even real considering they did a much better trade and that the Spurs just took a player they got with an extra year and traded him for another disappointing player with an extra year and four second-round picks. Imagine choosing to trade White for some expiring and a first last year and thinking that was superior to Richardson, Langford and the swap because they would have an extra $18 Million in cap space. Clearly the Spurs got back more than that extra space was going to get them.



Again, this isn't an argument. Which firsts did the Spurs give up for those guys? The real deals didn't involve those. The slots we're talking about would've been used to absorb guys like Hill and Danny Green for some seconds. Any of us would trade KBD, Roby, McDermott and Graham for a first. What kind of counter-argument even is that? It's just inventing things to be mad at.

No - honestly. You just dont get it lol. I can’t explain it any more clearly over and over. Plenty of people on here see what I am saying but somehow you misconstrue and take things not in context and misapply it.

It’s kinda pointless to discuss anymore (between you and I). No hard feelings or anything; it’s just that you keep making it more complex when my position is pretty logical and straightforward and the nuance comes in the shape of thinking outside the box based on where SA is at and balancing getting assets and making sure you always keep that in mind. The fact Doug is still here, to me, shows they didn’t do that with him and he’s not an assset; he’s a negative and no I dont agree wit you that just having him around is enough value which is exactly the entire crux of where you and I diverge but you can’t grasp that point which every thing hinges on.

[DPG21920]

And you keep acting, despite me typing it out very clearly, that me not agreeing it’s a good deal or that I dont love it, that I’m making it out to be catastrophic. Which is what you use to try and paint what I say as inconsistent or illogical lol

I clearly understand what happened. I just dont think it’s great. That doesn’t mean I dont get it or hate it. I wanted Spurs to use their cap space to get draft capital etc…I just dont LOVE how they did it. Instead of taking on money this year, they took on money next year & the player they got isnt very valuable to flip later IMO due to his deal and not being good. He’s not worth his deal.

I’m fine seeing big picture and compartmentalizing things between judging the deal in a bubble vs also seeing broader value (like, money to spurs not mattering even though in the bubble it did NO a huge favor).

But what I wanted preferably was holding team to the fire for doing them said favors especially if the player is on a bad deal or walking away if you can’t use your 2nds to give to them for a firs etc..).


I dont like that they didn’t get to the salary floor, I dont like that they turned down WB deal earlier for this and I also dont think its a big deal. I’m just discussing the deal while also knowing it’s fine.

[mo7888]

No - honestly. You just dont get it lol. I can’t explain it any more clearly over and over. Plenty of people on here see what I am saying but somehow you misconstrue and take things not in context and misapply it.

It’s kinda pointless to discuss anymore (between you and I). No hard feelings or anything; it’s just that you keep making it more complex when my position is pretty logical and straightforward and the nuance comes in the shape of thinking outside the box based on where SA is at and balancing getting assets and making sure you always keep that in mind. The fact Doug is still here, to me, shows they didn’t do that with him and he’s not an assset; he’s a negative and no I dont agree wit you that just having him around is enough value which is exactly the entire crux of where you and I diverge but you can’t grasp that point which every thing hinges on.

Are people really 'seeing what your saying?' Or perhaps, do some people just agree with you in not liking the trade? There is a difference.... I still haven't seen you make a logical argument for your position...I've seen you make emotional pleas, but not logical arguments. I know you're a guy who recognizes supply and demand (I've seen that on twitter from you) but you seem reluctant to apply it to this trade for some reason... and understand, I realize you don't think this trade was catastrophic, I just haven't seen you (or anybody) make a logical argument as to why it's not a good deal... all I've seen is emotional platitudes about what other teams should/would have done that fly in the face of the reality of 'supply and demand'...

[DPG21920]

And the balance is signing players to flip or signing good players. Signing Doug types is what I dont like and it’s why I hated the deal the minute it was announced. He isnt a trade asset and he isnt that good or fit well.

Do one or the other I don’t care, but not the middle of that (Doug). I would be totally fine not trading Richardson and not having Graham and using that 14m to sign an interesting player for SA vs getting the 4 seconds.

[spurraider21]

kinda my thoughts on why i disagree with DPG on the whole mcdermott thing

1) i didnt like the mcdermott signing at the time it was done because i thought the spurs were still angling to build a winner around murray/white, etc, and i thought he was overpaid and not conducive to that plan

2) but if i knew we were about to head into tank territory, i wouldnt have minded it as much at the time. as a tanking (or rebuilding/developing, however you want to characterize it) team, its not like we are angling to use our cap space to stack our roster and maximize wins now. well defined role players like mcdermott still have an important function for teams like ours. a lot of times you will see point guards struggle to rack up assists in summer league in part because the supporting cast sucks, dont know how to cut, move without the ball, or cant knock down shots. having a guy like mcdermott on offense really helps young ball handlers by giving them a great catch and shoot outlet. it helps develop players, and equally importantly, helps evaluate them. its like when NFL teams try to give their young QB some good WRs to throw the ball to. even if you're not trying to "win now", having those guys helps your QB develop, and you cant really evaluate a player who has no help around him

3) also, yes. mcdermott with 3 years left on his deal, or 2 years left on his deal, is not going to be appealing to contenders trying to make a win now move. at least not enough for them to really pay anything worth a lick. they'd much rather grab guys who a) can help them on the court, and also b), are expiring deals that they dont need to make long term commitments to. for that reason, i fully expect mdcermott to get traded next season for some value. whether its a bundle of seconds or whatever, we will get something for him. obviously, it would be amazing if we could sign veteran role players on 1 year deals every year and constantly flip them for picks at the deadline. the problem is getting them to sign here. could the spurs have gotten mcdermott to sign a 1 year deal with them? probably not. and if a guy like josh richardson was a free agent, would he sign a 1 year deal with a rebuilding spurs team? probably not. he'd either sign with a contender on a short term deal like that, or if he had to be convinced to join a spurs like team, it likely would take more money or more years for the juice to be worth the squeeze. if we actually want to sign halfway decent players who would be coveted by contenders, its going to be very unlikely we get them on one year deals to begin with, so a multiyear commitment is probably necessary

basically, my takeaway from DPG is that we basically shouldnt be signing any players to anything more than 1 year deals, and just hope that we will find enough deals where we sell cap space for picks to fill up the roster. meanwhile, as we saw, the spurs were unable to do any of those types of deals other than dedmon lol. now we have 20+ mil in cap space that went to waste. what if we had instead used that cap space this past offseason to sign a decent mcdermott/richardson level player to a slightly overpriced 2-3 year deal, enabling us to later flip him? sure, we'd eat the 1-2 years, but would pay off later, all while giving the team a veteran locker room presence, etc

[offset formation]

The Spurs didn't make anything public. Moreover, negotiations typically involve the two sides starting at one level and them moving together. The Spurs settling for a decent first and two seconds rather than two firsts isn't going to make people think the FO is hacked. Atlanta's FO constantly trying to pump Collins up every year but then not being able to get rid of him is another matter. Some of the teams that sold are happy to have kept their guys. A smaller group are likely not happy to have missed out on getting something. For the Spurs, a first and seven seconds for two expirings and some cap space isn't really a bad thing.

I totally get not valuing seconds in the same ballpark as firsts, but you just saw that a bundle of them can get a good role-player, and you never know when the Spurs are going to be in the market for one of those. These extra picks go out years. The Spurs may well be a contender again and still have like 10 extra seconds to use on deals. They might have many future opportunities to "improve" high seconds into later firsts like they did last year. We don't know if the new CBA is going to expand the minor-league aspect of the draft and d-league. The Spurs may well have developmental slots they can use their bevy of seconds on. There are a ton of reasons to have the picks.

To the bolded portion above...I did??

Did Brian Wright or Pop come out and say we only trade Poeltl for two unprotected FRPs? No, or at least not to my knowledge, but it was reported in the way these things are -- through leaks to the NBA media and folks like LJ that repeated that demand on multiple occasions.for not only Poeltl but also Josh.

I saw it take 4 SRPs and a player to get Josh Richardson. I saw it take 3 STPs and a player to get Thomas Bryant. Again color me as unimpressed with what an average SRP does

What benefit have we gotten from a SRP being stashed in Austin or overseas?

Just going from the last 14 year's drafts for us.

2022 -- traded pick
2021 -- Joe Wieskamp -- gone
2020 -- Tre Jones -- wasn't stashed and won't likely be with Spurs long term
2019 -- Quindndary Weatherspoon -- gone
2018 -- Chimezi Metu -- gone
2017 -- Jaron Blossomgame -- gone
2016 -- No SRP
2015 -- Cady Lalanne -- gone
2014 -- traded both picks (both out of league though)
2013 -- Deshaun Thomas -- gone
2012 -- Marcus Denmon -- gone
2011 -- Adam Hanga -- gone
2010 -- Ryan Richard's-- gone
2009 -- DeJuan Blair
-- Jack McClinton --
-- Nandi de Colo --

And to clarify many to most of these guys never made it past their rookie seasons with us. Yet I had to go back to 2009 to find a somewhat impactful player. 14 Draft classes to find Dejuan Blair.

Again, SRPs then and today very infrequently turn into anything positive beyond 1 year down the road with the team that drafted them or any other NBA team.

And repeating, if it takes 3 picks and a player to rent a player for 27 games, what value di they really hold. I'd submit they're exactly what they sound like: 1/4 a Thomas Bryant.

Count me out but you guys have fun with those STPs.

[Ariel]

There's a caveat though: most of those draft picks were low 2nd rounders. At least several of these will be high 2nd rounders, some VERY high (almost late 1sts). The difference is HUGE. But yeah, if we're talking trash 2nds, might as well sell them or package them for something tangible.

[CGD]

This whole debate misses the point. SRPs are the grease that gets other deals done. Don't worry about where its the next Cady Lalanne or Joe Wieskamp.

If a few years when its our turn to go get another finishing piece like a Jakob, Kennard, Gordon, etc. etc. etc., its useful to have those two extra SRPs to throw into the deal.

[DPG21920]

Are people really 'seeing what your saying?' Or perhaps, do some people just agree with you in not liking the trade? There is a difference.... I still haven't seen you make a logical argument for your position...I've seen you make emotional pleas, but not logical arguments. I know you're a guy who recognizes supply and demand (I've seen that on twitter from you) but you seem reluctant to apply it to this trade for some reason... and understand, I realize you don't think this trade was catastrophic, I just haven't seen you (or anybody) make a logical argument as to why it's not a good deal... all I've seen is emotional platitudes about what other teams should/would have done that fly in the face of the reality of 'supply and demand'...

I’ve stated multiple times why it’s not a good trade. Both in the context of what they passed on (Lakers trade) and in isolation (getting another Doug like player for picks that dont move the needle vs say letting Richardson walk, not taking Graham on, signing someone more interesting than him for 14M with more upside).

I dont think it’s bad; they got some picks for taking on a bad deal. That’s all normal and understandable. I would have just preferred taking Lakers deal or using some of our 2nds to force NO to give us a first for helping them or walking away entirely and signing a better player for 14M that is more interesting that either fits better or would net us a first in a flip.

[spurraider21]

There's a caveat though: most of those draft picks were low 2nd rounders. At least several of these will be high 2nd rounders, some VERY high (almost late 1sts). The difference is HUGE. But yeah, if we're talking trash 2nds, might as well sell them or package them for something tangible.
those trash seconds are like hot potatoes. move them around. trade an asset your team doesnt (a vetaran) need for a few. then later trade those few for an asset you actually covet (a better pick, a risky younger player). but you dont want to be the team stuck drafting 10 players in the 50's over a 3 year span.

its like the beginning scene of wolf of all street. its a fugazi. you dont let somebody actually use their second round pick! because that would make it real. no what do you do? you get another brilliant idea. another stock to invest in. another pick/player you actually want. the team getting a billion second round picks thinks hes getting rich and he is... on paper. etc etc

[DPG21920]

kinda my thoughts on why i disagree with DPG on the whole mcdermott thing

1) i didnt like the mcdermott signing at the time it was done because i thought the spurs were still angling to build a winner around murray/white, etc, and i thought he was overpaid and not conducive to that plan

2) but if i knew we were about to head into tank territory, i wouldnt have minded it as much at the time. as a tanking (or rebuilding/developing, however you want to characterize it) team, its not like we are angling to use our cap space to stack our roster and maximize wins now. well defined role players like mcdermott still have an important function for teams like ours. a lot of times you will see point guards struggle to rack up assists in summer league in part because the supporting cast sucks, dont know how to cut, move without the ball, or cant knock down shots. having a guy like mcdermott on offense really helps young ball handlers by giving them a great catch and shoot outlet. it helps develop players, and equally importantly, helps evaluate them. its like when NFL teams try to give their young QB some good WRs to throw the ball to. even if you're not trying to "win now", having those guys helps your QB develop, and you cant really evaluate a player who has no help around him

3) also, yes. mcdermott with 3 years left on his deal, or 2 years left on his deal, is not going to be appealing to contenders trying to make a win now move. at least not enough for them to really pay anything worth a lick. they'd much rather grab guys who a) can help them on the court, and also b), are expiring deals that they dont need to make long term commitments to. for that reason, i fully expect mdcermott to get traded next season for some value. whether its a bundle of seconds or whatever, we will get something for him. obviously, it would be amazing if we could sign veteran role players on 1 year deals every year and constantly flip them for picks at the deadline. the problem is getting them to sign here. could the spurs have gotten mcdermott to sign a 1 year deal with them? probably not. and if a guy like josh richardson was a free agent, would he sign a 1 year deal with a rebuilding spurs team? probably not. he'd either sign with a contender on a short term deal like that, or if he had to be convinced to join a spurs like team, it likely would take more money or more years for the juice to be worth the squeeze. if we actually want to sign halfway decent players who would be coveted by contenders, its going to be very unlikely we get them on one year deals to begin with, so a multiyear commitment is probably necessary

basically, my takeaway from DPG is that we basically shouldnt be signing any players to anything more than 1 year deals, and just hope that we will find enough deals where we sell cap space for picks to fill up the roster. meanwhile, as we saw, the spurs were unable to do any of those types of deals other than dedmon lol. now we have 20+ mil in cap space that went to waste. what if we had instead used that cap space this past offseason to sign a decent mcdermott/richardson level player to a slightly overpriced 2-3 year deal, enabling us to later flip him? sure, we'd eat the 1-2 years, but would pay off later, all while giving the team a veteran locker room presence, etc

Pretty accurate; I just disagree that knowing it was a rebuild makes it better. Signing aging, no upside guys to longer term deals above market value is just bad business and pointless. The nuance is that while its not bad because I understand developing players and how Doug helps, that theres plenty of guys that can do that without the “fear” of him being a negative asset for when you want to move guys or take advantage. When you are using cap space, whether its to take a bad deal or sign someone I am of the opinion you always have to consider them assets first for future value.

Don’t sign terrible defensive aging guys to bad deals just because you can because you are wasting the cap space when you can have others help development and not have the other “issue” of them being a negative value.

I’m fine signing guys too without having mindset of flipping them - but if you are going to do that sign who you can for one year deals. You dont need to fomo or worry yourself too much about “losing out” on Doug for example because if he wont take a huge 1 year deal then there’s plenty of guys who can help the youth without any strings attached.

I would have been fine with Doug at market value for 3 years - but as evidenced by him not having any value outside of SA, they overpaid him. Enough to where he’s not an asset. That’s the balance.

[DPG21920]

This whole debate misses the point. SRPs are the grease that gets other deals done. Don't worry about where its the next Cady Lalanne or Joe Wieskamp.

If a few years when its our turn to go get another finishing piece like a Jakob, Kennard, Gordon, etc. etc. etc., its useful to have those two extra SRPs to throw into the deal.

Agreed. SRP isnt just about actually drafting. They allow you to trade a first that converts to 2nds if the first doesn’t convey. Or whatever. But Spurs have plenty of those already and is not some massive win taking on a negative player for those types of picks. But it’s also not end of the world. Just not my preference to get Doug like players back if thats the return. I’d rather just have the 14M to choose a player that is more interesting that could net a first instead of all those second and if they dont? At least you still have a player that you choose that fits core and timeline better with more upside.

[spurraider21]

Pretty accurate; I just disagree that knowing it was a rebuild makes it better. Signing aging, no upside guys to longer term deals above market value is just bad business and pointless.
what did the mcdermott signing prevent us from doing. what good FA pickup did we let slip away because he occupied that cap space. what were we going to do this year, trade for 2 russell westbrooks when we couldnt even trade for 1? we have 20+ mil of unused space this year. would it be better if we had 35+ instead?[/quote]


The nuance is that while its not bad because I understand developing players and how Doug helps, that theres plenty of guys that can do that without the “fear” of him being a negative asset for when you want to move guys or take advantage.
who else was there. forbes? i dont love mcdermott, but he's a competent NBA player with very well known strengths and weaknesses. i dont think of him as a negative asset though, just a future one. he probably doesnt have a lot of value to contenders now. but he will next year. we made the investment of having a guy who can help our guys develop for 2-2.5 years while becoming a flippable expiring veteran that contenders love after that point. if that requires eating 2 years salary that we werent going to be using productively anyway, so be it


When you are using cap space, whether its to take a bad deal or sign someone I am of the opinion you always have to consider them assets first for future value.

Don’t sign terrible defensive aging guys to bad deals just because you can because you are wasting the cap space when you can have others help development and not have the other “issue” of them being a negative value.
as i said above, i think we have considered him as an asset for future value. im pretty confident mcdermott will be traded. just wasnt likely this year.


I’m fine signing guys too without having mindset of flipping them - but if you are going to do that sign who you can for one year deals. You dont need to fomo or worry yourself too much about “losing out” on Doug for example because if he wont take a huge 1 year deal then there’s plenty of guys who can help the youth without any strings attached.

I would have been fine with Doug at market value for 3 years - but as evidenced by him not having any value outside of SA, they overpaid him. Enough to where he’s not an asset. That’s the balance.
but this goes right back to the point you are responding to.

what player was out there who

a) would be coveted by buyers at the deadline
b) would be willing to sign a one year deal with the spurs at market value

i dont really believe that exists. or if it does, would be a very fringe case. i think recognizing you arent getting those types on a 1 year deal is fine. you bring them over on a 2-3 year deal with the thought that they can help your development for a couple of years (for which sure, you might pay a premium... but who cares, you arent using that money anyway), and then near the end of his deal, he WILL have trade value as an expiring veteran with a defined role. its just a longer term play

[offset formation]

This whole debate misses the point. SRPs are the grease that gets other deals done. Don't worry about where its the next Cady Lalanne or Joe Wieskamp.

If a few years when its our turn to go get another finishing piece like a Jakob, Kennard, Gordon, etc. etc. etc., its useful to have those two extra SRPs to throw into the deal.

I think we both must sound like this to one another, "But Brawndo's got what plants crave...it's got electrolytes."

Look bro, I'll acknowledge that it greases the wheels on a trade.

However you must then acknowledge the context that flows from that: how many aversge SRPs (40-50) do you need to grease the wheels for an actual valuable asset? For example, we just got 7 or 8 picks from various teams, most of which look to be in that range as they convey.

Well if you do the math onthose picks with the real world value from today's trades, it works out that each one if those SRPs has the value of roughly 1/4 what's required to rent Thomas Bryant for 27 games, as he's in an expiring contract. Or 1/5th of Josh Richardson.

So in summary, and I'll leave this here, is it time to maybe step back from what we've all been led to believe from being fans, reevaluating, and using logic available to us through real world examples, to determine that really, SRPs are more often than not, just junk. And that's whether you actually use them to draft someone (as I've demonstrated, that pick is rarely helpful on the court) OR use it to grease the skids on your trade skis.

I've now beaten this horse to death and feel I've done as good a job as possible to demonstrate my POV. Obviously it's my view somebody you need to take the blue pill or whatever on SRP value.

[DPG21920]

what did the mcdermott signing prevent us from doing. what good FA pickup did we let slip away because he occupied that cap space. what were we going to do this year, trade for 2 russell westbrooks when we couldnt even trade for 1? we have 20+ mil of unused space this year. would it be better if we had 35+ instead?


There are plenty of guys that could have been signed for Dougs money or less that were at a minimum better swings/fits for a rebuilding roster. I dont see why this is controversial to say signing aging, terrible defensive players to expensive multi year deals in a rebuild is not a good idea *shrug*

This was not controversial when I said it in that thread. It’s as actually pretty much understood by a lot of people. Only now are people arguing with me about it which I find really odd considering its worked out pretty much exactly as I said at the time.

[Ariel]

those trash seconds are like hot potatoes. move them around. trade an asset your team doesnt (a vetaran) need for a few. then later trade those few for an asset you actually covet (a better pick, a risky younger player). but you dont want to be the team stuck drafting 10 players in the 50's over a 3 year span
Oh, I agree. Taking a player in isn't free, there's an opportunity cost associated with it, in terms of the players he's preventing you to develop (roster spots are scarce). So long term projects (players who will take 3+ years before you can tell whether they'll pan out or not) should be weighted in VERY carefully, there should be a special quota for that kind of players (Wesleys, Barlows, Primos, etc.). My 2nd round strategies, from most to least preferred (you move down if the previous alternative isn't possible or convenient):
1) Consolidate picks by moving up or trading for an established player.
2) Take a good prospect within reach. Usually in the 2nd round you'll find players who are slightly older or extremely raw. Favor the first kind: they offer a better return, speed up the rotation, and don't clog the pipeline.
3) Trade the pick for another one in the future. Or sell it, whatever is best.
4) Find the better draft & stash candidate and let him develop. If eventually he improves you bring him, if not you dump him.
That way you may make use of lots of second rounders without having the picks turn into a burden.

[DPG21920]

People keep framing it as “what did it prevent” or “we have space”. Ok, as I said, I get it, which is why I always say it’s not some catastrophic thing. So let’s get past that. I understand that framing

I’m saying evaluate it on its own - I think its shows Spurs heads are in wrong place, they are being absolute hawks on seeking value/picks and they arent OPTIMIZING their assets. I dont like what it signals, like signing Pau/Mills/Rudy etc… to deals (even though it didn’t set sA back). It’s just annoying and I want them sharp.

The fact they choose Doug, when it’s obvious he isnt good, sucks on defense and doesn’t have upside is what annoys me. But that is who’ the Spurs wanted and value and I personally disagree with that for all the reasons I state.

[K...]

I think we both must sound like this to one another, "But Brawndo's got what plants crave...it's got electrolytes."

Look bro, I'll acknowledge that it greases the wheels on a trade.

However you must then acknowledge the context that flows from that: how many aversge SRPs (40-50) do you need to grease the wheels for an actual valuable asset? For example, we just got 7 or 8 picks from various teams, most of which look to be in that range as they convey.

Well if you do the math onthose picks with the real world value from today's trades, it works out that each one if those SRPs has the value of roughly 1/4 what's required to rent Thomas Bryant for 27 games, as he's in an expiring contract. Or 1/5th of Josh Richardson.

So in summary, and I'll leave this here, is it time to maybe step back from what we've all been led to believe from being fans, reevaluating, and using logic available to us through real world examples, to determine that really, SRPs are more often than not, just junk. And that's whether you actually use them to draft someone (as I've demonstrated, that pick is rarely helpful on the court) OR use it to grease the skids on your trade skis.

I've now beaten this horse to death and feel I've done as good a job as possible to demonstrate my POV. Obviously it's my view somebody you need to take the blue pill or whatever on SRP value.

lets focus on the opportunity cost. Do you think the value of Richardson is greater than the trash value of 3 SRP? You seem to want something that wasn't for sale. Whats the alternative to getting SRP for non star players? It's been pointed out most teams are capped out of FRP?

[Chinook]

To the bolded portion above...I did??

Yes. Did you not look at this deadline? Basically every good role-player went for a bundle of seconds.


Did Brian Wright or Pop come out and say we only trade Poeltl for two unprotected FRPs? No, or at least not to my knowledge, but it was reported in the way these things are -- through leaks to the NBA media and folks like LJ that repeated that demand on multiple occasions.for not only Poeltl but also Josh.

That's not the same thing. It's not even a semantic thing. The Spurs may well have told teams that was their price and then came down slightly. But they weren't even pushing it to the big media members like Toronto was. I like timvp, but he's not Wright's mouthpiece. The extent to which LJ's article blew up belies the level of confirmation from other sources. It's not even that LJ was wrong, but if they were talking about it as much as you worry they were, it would've been directly reported or confirmed by more outlets.


I saw it take 4 SRPs and a player to get Josh Richardson. I saw it take 3 STPs and a player to get Thomas Bryant. Again color me as unimpressed with what an average SRP does

A player like Richardson may end up being more useful to the 2027 Spurs than the 2023 version. That they'd have plenty of seconds to make that move if necessary is why it matters. Without knowing if there was an alternative trade, the deal was to take his price in picks and push that out a few years while getting a guy who might be next year's version of Richardson. Just as Josh ended up being really good ballast for White, Devonte might end up being very ballast for Richardson.


What benefit have we gotten from a SRP being stashed in Austin or overseas?

Most of the post after this is just focusing on why using that many second-rounders to actually draft players is unlikely to yield great results. The heart of this is true in that players drafted in the second round aren't likely to pan out. But it ignores a couple of things. The first is that the history you're using is almost exclusively late-seconds compared to the mix of seconds the team is looking at in these trades. The other is that by having so many chances the Spurs might well be able to find the one or two solid rotation players that would make all of the chaff they'd have to sift through worth. This also ignores the other uses for the picks that I brought up, like using them and other elements to move up into the first round and potentially getting to take advantage of the new developmental environment by being able to take fliers on d-league teams. I know that doesn't sound fun now, but if teams like the Ignite and Elite continue to expand and take more top high-school prospects, there might well be an ability to use those picks to lock down the rights to intriguing teenagers who would've previously gone to college and been more highly drafted. It's not how it works now, they they have three picks in 2028 and two in 2029 already. The second-round may well be completely different by then (I actually think there could be three or four rounds by then).

[spurraider21]

There are plenty of guys that could have been signed for Dougs money or less that were at a minimum better swings/fits for a rebuilding roster. I dont see why this is controversial to say signing aging, terrible defensive players to expensive multi year deals in a rebuild is not a good idea *shrug*

This was not controversial when I said it in that thread. It’s as actually pretty much understood by a lot of people. Only now are people arguing with me about it which I find really odd considering its worked out pretty much exactly as I said at the time.
ignoring the fact that we were not planning on tanking and just flipping players for picks at the time of the mcdermott signing (were still ostensibly building around the murray/white), what players could we have signed for 1 year deals that could have then been flipped for a pick(s) instead?

[DPG21920]

ignoring the fact that we were not planning on tanking and just flipping players for picks at the time of the mcdermott signing (were still ostensibly building around the murray/white), what players could we have signed for 1 year deals that could have then been flipped for a pick(s) instead?

I dont care just about flipping for picks. But you have to have at least one of these two things to be signed and it should be clear at the time of the signing:

1) upside and fit with the younger core and immediate future with some room to grow

And/or

2) definite trade value which includes their contract and how much you pay them

Doug was neither. I said it then, and many agreed then. He was overpaid and that was going to be an issue (not for SA they have money, but for trading) and he was not an upside player or really good fit for a team going younger core

[offset formation]

lets focus on the opportunity cost. Do you think the value of Richardson is greater than the trash value of 3 SRP? You seem to want something that wasn't for sale. Whats the alternative to getting SRP for non star players? It's been pointed out most teams are capped out of FRP?

Aha. So there's the rub, I acknowledge that SRPs are currency. Just that they're like converting the world's dollar standard to DogeCoin or Peruvian Peso.

I get that there needs to be two rounds to the annual NBA draft, and from there flows the value of the SRP. However, given the failure rate of the SRP, what's done is like so eone mentioned above: Its like musical chairs where you don't really want to get caught with many of them, which in and of itself undescores the real world actual value to teams.

So is there an alternative to dealing in the currency of SRPs? No, likely not, unless the league decided to assign actual dollar values to them based on numerical position. But beyond that, SRPs will be what they've always been where you basically pass them off to someone else to maaaybe upgrade your roster for part of a season.

Now I will say this...I think the average talent base is improving as basketball ascends in popularity and you get kids playing the game year around the world over. Perhaps one day, more than 1 out of 300 picks will result in an all star or 10 year vet.

[DPG21920]

This was the original Doug thread. I said all these same things then and many agreed and saw these points. Nothing has changed outside of several people who understood then somehow changing their views now to argue with me.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297020&page=2


The key things from that thread: Yes, part of it was not committing to more of youth movement but that is part and parcel of my issue with his deal/age/abilities moving forward knowing SA was going younger. It was not only about direction and being stuck in middle, but about it being clear he was not worth his deal to anyone else but Spurs for some reason and that it was going to become obvious what direction SA needed to go.


You don’t pay guys like him for teams like SA, I’m sorry. He’s not young, has no upside and we aren’t competing for anything. It’s just valuing character and wanting to be “competitive” vs truly embracing a rebuild. It’s silly middle of the road stuff even if he’s a good player.

It’s not that complicated PATFO. Spurs dont need players that aren’t difference makers and/or that dont fit the timeline of growing w/the youth. Value/Fit aside, they needed a plan. They are stuck in neutral - not truly competing or rebuilding


This shit better be a 2 year deal with 3rd year team option or mostly non guaranteed.


Initial thoughts:

-I mean, value-wise it's not terrible. A quasi-starter for MLE-ish money is fine.
-A poor defender who turns 30 in January? For a rebuilding team? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
-I don't really regard McDermott as a special three-point shooter. His volume is too low for that. He's accurate but he doesn't shoot many compared to other notable sharpshooters.
-McDermott had a lot of success driving the ball but that skill isn't as valuable in SA where multiple younger players are better drivers.
-So Spurs obviously see Keldon more as a power forward. McDermott would be the small forward next to KJ -- but I imagine he just defends whoever the weakest offensive player is -- whether that be the SG, SF or PF.
-Main thought: The Spurs still have a lot of cap room. Depending on how they use it, this McDermott signing could get better or worse. You follow this up with a Collins offer sheet? Yeah, McDermott makes sense. You follow it up with re-signing Mills? OMG WTF


Simple - answer these questions:

1) Losing DDR/Mills/Rudy, does signing Doug help the Spurs truly elevate to the playoffs?

2) Is he young and fit well next to the youth to grow alongside them in order to build around them and have a ceiling as a team moving forward?

3) Does he help in aiding a rebuild if playoffs aren’t a real option?

If the answer to those aren’t Yes, Yes, Yes, then there is no reason to waste money on him just for the sake of wanting to appear to to bottom out.


I don't hate it but I don't like it, tbh.

I agree that the Spurs needed a shooter to space the court but paying above MLE for McDermott is tough to justify. A shooting big was preferred, not a 3 who is sometimes too slow to defend 3s so he shifts to 4. McDermott is a bad defender already and will only decline over the age of 30. Cap space is super valuable to a rebuilding team -- but this just needlessly eats away at it.

McDermott is better than someone like Korkmaz but I'll take Korkmaz at $5 million a year. At least he's young, has some upside, isn't locked into being a bad defender and doesn't eat as much cap room. Plus Korkmaz shoots threes at a higher volume. McDermott isn't even really a high volume three-point shooter. Walker shot threes more often last year and Walker would go possessions at a time without getting a touch :lol

In any of the previous 25 years or whatever, signing McDermott would have been okay. This summer? Ehh, I can't cosign.

I won't lose sleep because the Spurs reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally needed a floor spacer and McDermott is that (and signing him isn't nearly as bad as re-signing DeRozan, Mills or Gay) but it doesn't give me any confidence in this front office.

[XDT76]

Didnt LA offer WB to SA preseason or early in season and SA passed? Have to ask “why” and “for what”?


Players swap no picks or at least no FRP to us.

[DPG21920]

Players swap no picks or at least no FRP to us.

It was 2 2nds….

[offset formation]

Yes. Did you not look at this deadline? Basically every good role-player went for a bundle of seconds.



That's not the same thing. It's not even a semantic thing. The Spurs may well have told teams that was their price and then came down slightly. But they weren't even pushing it to the big media members like Toronto was. I like timvp, but he's not Wright's mouthpiece. The extent to which LJ's article blew up belies the level of confirmation from other sources. It's not even that LJ was wrong, but if they were talking about it as much as you worry they were, it would've been directly reported or confirmed by more outlets.



A player like Richardson may end up being more useful to the 2027 Spurs than the 2023 version. That they'd have plenty of seconds to make that move if necessary is why it matters. Without knowing if there was an alternative trade, the deal was to take his price in picks and push that out a few years while getting a guy who might be next year's version of Richardson. Just as Josh ended up being really good ballast for White, Devonte might end up being very ballast for Richardson.



Most of the post after this is just focusing on why using that many second-rounders to actually draft players is unlikely to yield great results. The heart of this is true in that players drafted in the second round aren't likely to pan out. But it ignores a couple of things. The first is that the history you're using is almost exclusively late-seconds compared to the mix of seconds the team is looking at in these trades. The other is that by having so many chances the Spurs might well be able to find the one or two solid rotation players that would make all of the chaff they'd have to sift through worth. This also ignores the other uses for the picks that I brought up, like using them and other elements to move up into the first round and potentially getting to take advantage of the new developmental environment by being able to take fliers on d-league teams. I know that doesn't sound fun now, but if teams like the Ignite and Elite continue to expand and take more top high-school prospects, there might well be an ability to use those picks to lock down the rights to intriguing teenagers who would've previously gone to college and been more highly drafted. It's not how it works now, they they have three picks in 2028 and two in 2029 already. The second-round may well be completely different by then (I actually think there could be three or four rounds by then).

Good stuff, Chinook. I hold to my POV but you make a solid rebuttal.

[Chinook]

This was the original Doug thread. I said all these same things then and many agreed and saw these points. Nothing has changed outside of several people who understood then somehow changing their views now to argue with me.

Someone who's open to introspection might come to conclusion that folks may not be disagreeing about whether the deal is bad or not. They might see there are extensions to your points that people are disagreeing with that you're refusing to acknowledge. They might realize that by refusing to accept the extensions, you've been placed in a position where you think your point is simple but also that a bunch of people can't seem to grasp it. Saying "I just want the good things and none of the bad things" in a world where everything is a mix of good and bad might force anyone trying to engage to slide of in frustration as they try to apply real-world logic and constraints to an ideal.

[DPG21920]

Someone who's open to introspection might come to conclusion that folks may not be disagreeing about whether the deal is bad or not. They might see there are extensions to your points that people are disagreeing with that you're refusing to acknowledge. They might realize that by refusing to accept the extensions, you've been placed in a position where you think your point is simple but also that a bunch of people can't seem to grasp it. Saying "I just want the good things and none of the bad things" in a world where everything is a mix of good and bad might force anyone trying to engage to slide of in frustration as they try to apply real-world logic and constraints to an ideal.

It’s very simple when SA controls it lol. They chose to use their cap space on Doug and as evidenced by that thread and what has transpired it was obvious.

There are literally plenty of avenues other than Doug if you just ask the questions: Is he a value deal that can be flipped and/or does he fit with a rebuilding team and have upside to grow in the event you dont want to trade him.

I’m not saying some impossible task lol - this is very doable and easy stuff. There are plenty of guys (yes I keep saying it) who can give you hard work and mentorship while not hamstringing you (yes, again, I know SA has cap space).

It’s just wasteful and obvious stuff. There is absolutely no real world constraints here - it was simply a poor choice and self inflicted. It’s not like they had a tough call to make and had to choose lesser of two evils or make sacrifices. None of that existed - they flat out made a mistake

The extensions you are discussing I have in fact acknowledged and they all boil down to “what did SA truly miss out on?” Or “sa has plenty of cap space” I understand that POV, have acknowledged and spoken on that too.

[Chinook]

Good stuff, Chinook. I hold to my POV but you make a solid rebuttal.

It also helps that as three-plus bundles of second-rounders become more the norm as a currency block, the chances of getting a contender to trade their first for such a bundle increases. If a contender thinks they can still make their win-now moves with a bunch of seconds, they might see trading a first for a player they want and a pile of seconds as basically maintaining their ability to make another win-now move. Most contenders don't care about the firsts for the players they pick. Many will even trade those players on draft night anyway. They might thing, "I can trade my first for Richardson and five seconds and then trade those five seconds for Crowder. In my mind, that's 100 percent why the Wolves got seconds back with Conley and why the Lakers traded Bryant for those seconds. The secondary market for those bundles as a hording item for contenders is already starting, and it wouldn't surprise me to see teams like LAL, LAC and MIA look to trade the rights to their firsts in June for packages that include those bundles.

I could see the Spurs, for example trading a bundle of picks and their second to LAC for their first and then trading the LAC first and another bundle to the Lakers for their pick. In that scenario, two bundles of seconds helped the Spurs jump into the middle of the draft. That second move might not happen, but moves like it (three seconds to move up into the first) have happened on previous draft nights, and I think that it'll happen more often during contenders' Stepien years.

[Chinook]

It’s just wasteful and obvious stuff. There is absolutely no real world constraints here - it was simply a poor choice and self inflicted. It’s not like they had a tough call to make and had to choose lesser of two evils or make sacrifices. None of that existed - they flat out made a mistake

You're concatenating two thoughts and then wondering why people are adding thoughts to what you said. The Spurs doing something you don't want is not "a mistake". A mistake has to be judged by what they were trying to do. Like drafting Primo was a mistake. They weren't trying to get a predator on their team. I'd even be willing to say drafting Vassell over Haliburton looks to be a mistake, because the team would've preferred a star to a non-star obviously. But if Doug is literally performing exactly like anyone can expect him to and is not incurring any opportunity cost, but you just don't like him, how is that a mistake? How are they failing at their goal? Hell -- how are they even failing at your goal? They literally got even more assets with their cap space than you wanted them to and still have plenty of room to have McDermott on the team. Every positive thing you asked for, they're doing. They just aren't doing the negative things you want since they have plenty of leeway to not do that.


The extensions you are discussing I have in fact acknowledged and they all boil down to “what did SA truly miss out on?” Or “sa has plenty of cap space” I understand that POV, have acknowledged and spoken on that too.

Those aren't the extensions. The extensions are like, "I want the Spurs to sign players they can trade, and I understand that they'll likely need to offer contracts in excess of what contenders would be able to offer in order to be competitive for those players." Or "I want the Spurs to constantly be looking to trade their vets and cap space for assets, and I understand that that means they'll be getting back bad deals that other teams will pay to get rid of." You're complaining about the bolded parts when it comes to Poeltl (since we're not focusing on Doug) and Graham, but the bolded parts are necessary for the non-bolded part to exist in the real world. It'd be one thing if you just were like, "I get that these deals being overpays was the only reason why we are in this position, but I just wish the world worked differently." But you're basically trying to do victory laps for thinking Doug is overpaid or that Graham is a bad contract. People are by and large not disagreeing with you on that. They're disagreeing with you basically ignoring that the bolded parts are always part of the equation, which is why optimize and idealize aren't the same word.

I go farther and argue the Spurs should sign guys they want and should care about putting a watchable product on the floor. But even in a Hinkie system, he wasn't afraid of having bad contracts on his team. He'd've kept his job with a couple more McDermotts and Collinses. But he wasn't trying to keep a clean cap sheet at the expense of assets.

[TDMVPDPOY]

even with capspace we didnt do shit

[DPG21920]

You're concatenating two thoughts and then wondering why people are adding thoughts to what you said. The Spurs doing something you don't want is not "a mistake". A mistake has to be judged by what they were trying to do. Like drafting Primo was a mistake. They weren't trying to get a predator on their team. I'd even be willing to say drafting Vassell over Haliburton looks to be a mistake, because the team would've preferred a star to a non-star obviously. But if Doug is literally performing exactly like anyone can expect him to and is not incurring any opportunity cost, but you just don't like him, how is that a mistake? How are they failing at their goal? Hell -- how are they even failing at your goal? They literally got even more assets with their cap space than you wanted them to and still have plenty of room to have McDermott on the team. Every positive thing you asked for, they're doing. They just aren't doing the negative things you want since they have plenty of leeway to not do that.

No…I know Spurs not doing what I want isnt a mistake. I have repeatedly said you love/understand what they did with Doug and I hated it and I know that is a direct contradiction to how Spurs see it. I just hate they see it that way and disagree with their vision which again, I have stated and understand.

But it was a mistake. It was not a mistake in terms of maybe what they expected on court, but it was a mistake in value. They overpaid. You can justify it, like your bolder parts below about “SA likely needs to over pay excess to get guys” but that is the mistake. It’s not a mistake to get your guys when they are really good players or sever a purpose more than “mentoring”. Overpaying mid players that become net - assets because of what you paid is the mistake. They overvalued Doug, overpaid him and didnt take into consideration my two questions I asked which leads to a real life issue (albeit not a grave one) that he’s not a + asset in a trade (regardless of if you think they want to trade him or not). This isn’t subjective; it’s an over pay. You may argue who cares because SA “needs” to overpay but that doesn’t change reality of it being an overpay.

The reason its a mistake is because they have Doug instead of another player who may not be a net negative and have netted something valuable in a deal and/or fit better with the young core and actually helped the team.


You keep dumbing down and mischaracterizing what I want (which is where the nuance part from me keeps coming in). I dont just want them to just their cap space no matter what and any activity doing so is a win in my book and in some direct conflict if I don’t like it. I dont like what they got for their cap space. I have made that clear with Josh deal. Again, you saying “they have plenty of room for Doug” does directly boil down to the extension “spurs have space - who cares if they overpay” or “what did it hurt?”





Those aren't the extensions. The extensions are like, "I want the Spurs to sign players they can trade, and I understand that they'll likely need to offer contracts in excess of what contenders would be able to offer in order to be competitive for those players." Or "I want the Spurs to constantly be looking to trade their vets and cap space for assets, and I understand that that means they'll be getting back bad deals that other teams will pay to get rid of." You're complaining about the bolded parts when it comes to Poeltl (since we're not focusing on Doug) and Graham, but the bolded parts are necessary for the non-bolded part to exist in the real world. It'd be one thing if you just were like, "I get that these deals being overpays was the only reason why we are in this position, but I just wish the world worked differently." But you're basically trying to do victory laps for thinking Doug is overpaid or that Graham is a bad contract. People are by and large not disagreeing with you on that. They're disagreeing with you basically ignoring that the bolded parts are always part of the equation, which is why optimize and idealize aren't the same word.

I go farther and argue the Spurs should sign guys they want and should care about putting a watchable product on the floor. But even in a Hinkie system, he wasn't afraid of having bad contracts on his team. He'd've kept his job with a couple more McDermotts and Collinses. But he wasn't trying to keep a clean cap sheet at the expense of assets.

Spurs didnt do that with Doug. They over paid and it made him a player THEY CANT trade. I understand overpaying for SA in their situation if the player fits the criteria: 1) does he have upside/fit with rebuild and/or 2) is he going to a + asset to trade post deal with SA. Doug, as I said when it happened fit neither. I have no issue taking back bad deals. I loved taking back Khem for Jak for example because I felt SA was properly compensated. So again you’re doing the thing of dumbing down/reducing my points to make yours and missing all the nuance there where its not about the “activity” itself; its about asset management and optimizing ROI. Sometimes that means taking on bad deals (Jak deal) sometimes it means preferring something else (Josh deal).

I dont just want them always flipping vets; I said you have to at least always be thinking about that aspect and being absolutely sharks and shrewd about it OR (you keep missing that part) signing players that have some upside and fit better with your rebuild (which then tend to be ok to flip if you need to but thats not why you sign those types). This isn’t some dream land either; those are both easily doable and at worst you can find a vet on a one year deal if you can’t find the other two criteria.

I’m not ignoring the bolded parts at all you just dont see my POV or agree with WHY I’m upset about it because you find it nitpicky or illogical when I admitted its nitpicky (inefficient but not major mistake).

So no, it’s not as simple as boiling it down to doing a victory lap on “Doug deal bad hurr durr” - it’s about overall mindset, not being wasteful because you can and not for no reason putting yourself in a spot you dont have to be in when you can accomplish goals without doing so and be better off (even if slightly). You just hate that I both nitpick it at that level and also understand its nothing to truly get riled up about big picture for some reason.

If you really think Doug is what makes this watchable vs signing a one year guy then I dont know what to say. It’s not a strong point or argument IMO and I’m glad you bolded those parts because I have acknowledged them and I don’t agree thats what I’m missing since I dont agree that its my take on the matter.

[DPG21920]

So yes, everyone knows Doug is a bad deal (yet you defend it under the guise of SA “needs to overpay” and “they have room for him”) but thats not the point. The point is that you think him playing out his deal is value enough, correct? You dont think SA needs to move him to justify what they paid or serve their purpose correct? Am I saying anything that does not accurately characterize your POV on the matter?

If I am accurate - then its not about me saying Doug deal is bad where everyone agrees on that despite everyone also understanding spurs have plenty of space and like Doug for what he brings on the court; its about saying Dougs deal is bad BECAUSE it represents TO ME a mindset that is faulty that raises some concerns, especially at the time.

Same thing for Graham. I’m not taking a lap on saying Graham deal being bad and calling it a day. I’m saying very specifically that while I want vets flipped for assets, that I don’t think SA was compensated well enough for Grahams bad deal. You see that distinction?

Spurs were compensated well for Jak/Khem. I dont think they were with Josh/Graham (even if its not terrible) and I personally prefer letting Josh walk for nothing and using Graham money (14M) on a more interesting player (that I then think can either 1) be flipped for more than 2nds and/or 2) make the team more watchable better

[DPG21920]

But honestly I’m tired of arguing about it. I’m fine knowing many don’t see things the way I do - I have my own perspective and how I want things but I’m fully aware that may not align with how SA sees things.

I’ also try to make very clear that even when I’m nitpicking that people know my broader stance; I am VERY happy with the FO and direction they have gone. My faith has been mostly restored and I think the future is bright.

My nitpicking has nothing to do with that and ultimately that is all that matters. Spurs have not done anything really bad, have done a lot of really good and this type of stuff is me thinking about the margins.

I also think I’ve called a lot of stuff when it’s happened pretty accurately and quickly identified the nuts and bolts of the moves and the pros/cons and the takes have aged pretty well which is only to say that I feel I have a good overall pulse on the situation even if the margins there are disagreements .

[DPG21920]

Side note (didnt see posted) here is Hollingers big picture take:

“The Spurs extracted a nice price for Poeltl, Richardson and Miami’s Dewayne Dedmon salary dump, reaping a lightly protected first and seven seconds, so give them credit for driving a hard bargain. However, I don’t understand why they didn’t do more given how much cap room they left on the table. San Antonio could have got in on the Bucks-Nets trade, for instance, and received three second-round picks for free; instead, that bounty went to Indiana. The Spurs would have had to cut players, yes, but it’s not like they lacked for candidates. If you’re a bottom-five team holding back on acquiring draft equity because you’re reluctant to waive Stanley Johnson or Keita Bates-Diop, you’re doing this wrong.

San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

[mo7888]

Side note (didnt see posted) here is Hollingers big picture take:

“The Spurs extracted a nice price for Poeltl, Richardson and Miami’s Dewayne Dedmon salary dump, reaping a lightly protected first and seven seconds, so give them credit for driving a hard bargain. However, I don’t understand why they didn’t do more given how much cap room they left on the table. San Antonio could have got in on the Bucks-Nets trade, for instance, and received three second-round picks for free; instead, that bounty went to Indiana. The Spurs would have had to cut players, yes, but it’s not like they lacked for candidates. If you’re a bottom-five team holding back on acquiring draft equity because you’re reluctant to waive Stanley Johnson or Keita Bates-Diop, you’re doing this wrong.

San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

[exstatic]

It was 2 2nds….

For over $30M in cap space rental. We got 3SRPs (I figured one was for JRich) for like $15M from the Pels.

[exstatic]

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

Morey is the same way. Never understood that a team is more that a collection of players that optimizes and balances your analytics equation.

[CGD]

Here are the SRP details: https://twitter.com/_Andrew_Lopez/status/1623888463908012032?s=20&t=bca1rPsNv1a8ffBLrh7NwQ

Looks like the SA beat reporter who said it was all NOLA picks was wrong.

[Mr. Body]

Side note (didnt see posted) here is Hollingers big picture take:

“The Spurs extracted a nice price for Poeltl, Richardson and Miami’s Dewayne Dedmon salary dump, reaping a lightly protected first and seven seconds, so give them credit for driving a hard bargain. However, I don’t understand why they didn’t do more given how much cap room they left on the table. San Antonio could have got in on the Bucks-Nets trade, for instance, and received three second-round picks for free; instead, that bounty went to Indiana. The Spurs would have had to cut players, yes, but it’s not like they lacked for candidates. If you’re a bottom-five team holding back on acquiring draft equity because you’re reluctant to waive Stanley Johnson or Keita Bates-Diop, you’re doing this wrong.

San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

Seems like he doesn't get it. Cutting players and using space seems like overkill when you just got... seven SRPs. You actually need players on your team. Even if they're not great, those glue guys like KBD and Stanley hero stability especially when you're losing. Those guys who will still play hard and not complain. You need a good locker room environment right now.

Better deals may pop up later when the season is over and teams look to the future instead of just the playoffs. It seems there weren't deals they liked with the space and I'm fine with that.

[CGD]

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

Agree. I also think he misses a few dynamics that happened yesterday.

- One of the podcasters made the good observation that there was no real mid-level contract trading happening yesterday for FRPs (eg. Bogdan for FRP), rather it was all bargain deals at one end and a few mega deals on the other. Spurs got 7 SRPs, did they need another 3 doing another bargain type deal?

- the impending cap going up definitely had an impact on deals in that middle ground.

- what makes SAS different than fellow dwellers CHA and HOU is that they are trying to meaningfully develop their guys (as opposed to just house a bunch of young guys). They got rid of two of their stable vets, and were probably looking to keep some continuity by keeping the KBDs of the world. I’m cool with that.

- draft day deals get done too, not just the CP3 type trades right before July 1.

[mo7888]

Good stuff on the Hollinger evaluation guys...

[Seventyniner]

Can the Spurs use their cap space on draft night to take on 2023-2024 (or beyond) salary in exchange for draft compensation (2023 or in the future)? If so, not using it all yesterday wasn't a complete mistake.

[KingKev]

Can the Spurs use their cap space on draft night to take on 2023-2024 (or beyond) salary in exchange for draft compensation (2023 or in the future)? If so, not using it all yesterday wasn't a complete mistake.

I’m pretty sure they can.

[DPG21920]

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

Ya - he definitely has his flaws. I dont agree with him on everything. I do think he’s really good at seeing value but he’s not someone I would particularly trust if a team was already good.

[DPG21920]

For over $30M in cap space rental. We got 3SRPs (I figured one was for JRich) for like $15M from the Pels.

I like LA firsts better than NO in terms of quality (may be arguable) and unlike Pels, the LA deal clears 15M off our books vs taking on 15M in Graham

[DPG21920]

Seems like he doesn't get it. Cutting players and using space seems like overkill when you just got... seven SRPs. You actually need players on your team. Even if they're not great, those glue guys like KBD and Stanley hero stability especially when you're losing. Those guys who will still play hard and not complain. You need a good locker room environment right now.

Better deals may pop up later when the season is over and teams look to the future instead of just the playoffs. It seems there weren't deals they liked with the space and I'm fine with that.

He gets it just fine; I echo his sentiment there. You can extract value and replace those easily replaceable guys to play hard, not complain. The KBD/Stanley’s of the world literally grow on trees and you shouldn’t hesitate to cut them and use your space more opportunistically

So while SA did well, as I said multiple times, they were not particularly creative or shrewd in maximizing their opportunities. Which is fine. As long as you dont make crippling mistakes and nail the most important moves (Jak) it doesn’t matter TOO much (it matters because NBA is a game of inches in a rebuild and every thing matters, but it doesn’t really matter lol)

Don’t love the deal for Graham because I dont think SA got compensated fairly, but they did get compensated some and that is a good thing and their heads are clearly in the right spot moving on from the older guys to get some value for them.

[Seventyniner]

I’m pretty sure they can.

That would certainly help the Spurs. If the luxury tax isn't determined/calculated until after the draft (June 30?), a team that wants to lessen or eliminate their tax burden could dump a contract or two to the Spurs on draft night. That's also when the Stepien Rule rolls forward, meaning a team that couldn't have traded its 2023 first yesterday (due to owing their 2024 first, even if on a contingent basis) could do so on draft night, and can also start to include 2030 draft picks.

[Mr. Body]

He gets it just fine; I echo his sentiment there. You can extract value and replace those easily replaceable guys to play hard, not complain. The KBD/Stanley’s of the world literally grow on trees and you shouldn’t hesitate to cut them and use your space more opportunistically

So while SA did well, as I said multiple times, they were not particularly creative or shrewd in maximizing their opportunities. Which is fine. As long as you dont make crippling mistakes and nail the most important moves (Jak) it doesn’t matter TOO much (it matters because NBA is a game of inches in a rebuild and every thing matters, but it doesn’t really matter lol)

Don’t love the deal for Graham because I dont think SA got compensated fairly, but they did get compensated some and that is a good thing and their heads are clearly in the right spot moving on from the older guys to get some value for them.

Yeah, everyone knows your standpoint here, but no one agrees.

[Mr. Body]

That would certainly help the Spurs. If the luxury tax isn't determined/calculated until after the draft (June 30?), a team that wants to lessen or eliminate their tax burden could dump a contract or two to the Spurs on draft night. That's also when the Stepien Rule rolls forward, meaning a team that couldn't have traded its 2023 first yesterday (due to owing their 2024 first, even if on a contingent basis) could do so on draft night, and can also start to include 2030 draft picks.

Good stuff.

[JPB]

The problem with guys like Hollinger is that they're entirely analytical, reason why he's not in the league anymore. Kinda same with journalists.

He misses the human part, the social part, the intangibles part. Because at the end of the day, teams are made of humans, not data. And you GOTTA understand that human, social and intangibles part, that part you can't convert into data, to build a team That would be too easy if that was just about analytics and THE right thing to do at any moment. This isn't NB2K. He's missing context, history and the reality of any organisation

There's also the "genius" syndrome of an expert who wants to show that he knows better, and justify his paycheck I guess. It's not funny if you just say, "yeah everything was just fine", so they might try to see things in a way they can be the one getting it vs. the ignorant ( we have specialists here)...

Hollinger isn't in the spurs organisation and doesn't know what's going on there nor about spurs intangibles. He's just looking from outside saying: Hey, why didn't they make that? Of course, spurs thougt about it, but there's a reson they didn't. First because maybe there wasn't any opportunity or because they have another plan. There's more context to put into their decision than just analysing it in a vacuum.

[DPG21920]

Yeah, everyone knows your standpoint here, but no one agrees.

Hollinger does lol and so do many others. I’ve gotten messages they agree and on Twitter too. Dont confuse the same 4 people responding to me that dont agree as “everyone”.

There is a balance with data and “human” but Spurs and ST is like inverse Hollingers; put wayyyyyy to much emphasis on culture and stuff like that. Bad teams are fine and it’s not important that its “Doug” doing mentoring. There’s plenty of others that would be just fine with marginal difference in results right? Doug isnt helping SA win games (which thank goodness) - but its hard to say you can’t find another cheaper guy who gives you 85% of what Doug does from mentorship perspective.

It’s why SA sucked for so long with Mills/Gay/Gasol and loyalty contracts and SO many here were cool with it and wanted to keep DeRozan because they didnt understand that our youth could do and was ready for more and they believed too much in culture/good guys etc…theres a balance but on bad rebuilding teams you should always lean more data driven/asset driven because you’re losing anyways.

You just dont want to be Rockets with no good vets and no development. As long as you avoid that? It’s ok

[DPG21920]

That would certainly help the Spurs. If the luxury tax isn't determined/calculated until after the draft (June 30?), a team that wants to lessen or eliminate their tax burden could dump a contract or two to the Spurs on draft night. That's also when the Stepien Rule rolls forward, meaning a team that couldn't have traded its 2023 first yesterday (due to owing their 2024 first, even if on a contingent basis) could do so on draft night, and can also start to include 2030 draft picks.

PER Hollinger: “San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

[heyheymymy]

Man after some research I have done an almost complete 180 on this Graham deal.

Graham is exactly the kinda fit Spurs max up into a solid player. Perfect reclaim type.

Graham also fills a positional need with pretty good ball handling skills but as a SG/PG you can slot in either the 1 or 2.

Makes me think it's insurance to Blake Wesley's development timeline or lack thereof. Spurs maybe think Wes isn't ready yet or his timeline is slow which makes the previously burdensome contract issue with Graham start to make sense. That contract is less of a problem since it stretches over Wesley's potential failure track as insurance to Wesley if he doesn't click.

Wonder what the Spurs plan to do about Tre Jones?

But Graham coming in kinda reminds me of JR coming in this time last year and kinda felt like a throw in but ended up being a pretty good value and contributor up until he was sold high before he walked for nothing.

Bet Spurs flip Graham in about the same way once it is all said and done.

[DPG21920]

The problem with guys like Hollinger is that they're entirely analytical, reason why he's not in the league anymore. Kinda same with journalists.

He misses the human part, the social part, the intangibles part. Because at the end of the day, teams are made of humans, not data. And you GOTTA understand that human, social and intangibles part, that part you can't convert into data, to build a team That would be too easy if that was just about analytics and THE right thing to do at any moment. This isn't NB2K. He's missing context, history and the reality of any organisation

There's also the "genius" syndrome of an expert who wants to show that he knows better, and justify his paycheck I guess. It's not funny if you just say, "yeah everything was just fine", so they might try to see things in a way they can be the one getting it vs. the ignorant ( we have specialists here)...

Hollinger isn't in the spurs organisation and doesn't know what's going on there nor about spurs intangibles. He's just looking from outside saying: Hey, why didn't they make that? Of course, spurs thougt about it, but there's a reson they didn't. First because maybe there wasn't any opportunity or because they have another plan. There's more context to put into their decision than just analysing it in a vacuum.

Why do Spurs FO get credit for “just passing” or thinking about it vs making a mistake? How do you know? At a minimum, because we are not in the organization, we know only one thing: It was at best a missed opportunity. That doesn’t mean they idiots or we should hate them. But it’s just a fact.

You can say they missed opportunities and still think they did a good job. That’s not mutually exclusive.

[DPG21920]

Man after some research I have done an almost complete 180 on this Graham deal.

Graham is exactly the kinda fit Spurs max up into a solid player. Perfect reclaim type.

Graham also fills a positional need with pretty good ball handling skills but as a SG/PG you can slot in either the 1 or 2.

Makes me think it's insurance to Blake Wesley's development timeline or lack thereof. Spurs maybe think Wes isn't ready yet or his timeline is slow which makes the previously burdensome contract issue with Graham start to make sense. That contract is less of a problem since it stretches over Wesley's potential failure track as insurance to Wesley if he doesn't click.

Wonder what the Spurs plan to do about Tre Jones?

But Graham coming in kinda reminds me of JR coming in this time last year and kinda felt like a throw in but ended up being a pretty good value and contributor up until he was sold high before he walked for nothing.

Bet Spurs flip Graham in about the same way once it is all said and done.

Tre is a big question in the off-season. How is he valued by the Spurs and the market and what should Spurs pay him? Is there a line you dont cross no matter what? Is it dependent on draft and depth?

It will be a big question that I’m not sure where I land just yet. He’s a good player but I’m not sure how much I would want to pay him or why.

I do agree about Wesley. He’s no where near ready. I’m usually wanting the youth (like Derrick/Dejounte) freed pretty early but he’s just not ready.

[heyheymymy]

Also wonder if now with Jones/Graham locked in as PG corps can you run Blake Wesley at SG to mute his difficulty with ball handling primarily and just let Blake run.

Blake could still work on bringing it up occasionally but still have an official PG out there too so it's not his full duty. He can run and get exp in a more controlled environment and maybe stumble upon his confidence and discover his PG skills without being thrown into the lions den completely which could stunt his development

[DPG21920]

Also wonder if now with Jones/Graham locked in as PG corps can you run Blake Wesley at SG to mute his difficulty with ball handling primarily and just let Blake run.

Blake could still work on bringing it up occasionally but still have an official PG out there too so it's not his full duty. He can run and get exp in a more controlled environment and maybe stumble upon his confidence and discover his PG skills without being thrown into the lions den completely which could stunt his development

I would bet Blake gets a lot of time in GLeauge. I don’t think, that unless Tre is injured that Wesley gets many minutes at all even with Josh gone. At least not until very end of season last 10 games or something. Spurs seem pretty committed to getting him lots of PG reps in Austin while Branham/Sochan have clear roles with main club.

[Mr. Body]

Man after some research I have done an almost complete 180 on this Graham deal.

Graham is exactly the kinda fit Spurs max up into a solid player. Perfect reclaim type.

Graham also fills a positional need with pretty good ball handling skills but as a SG/PG you can slot in either the 1 or 2.

Makes me think it's insurance to Blake Wesley's development timeline or lack thereof. Spurs maybe think Wes isn't ready yet or his timeline is slow which makes the previously burdensome contract issue with Graham start to make sense. That contract is less of a problem since it stretches over Wesley's potential failure track as insurance to Wesley if he doesn't click.

Wonder what the Spurs plan to do about Tre Jones?

But Graham coming in kinda reminds me of JR coming in this time last year and kinda felt like a throw in but ended up being a pretty good value and contributor up until he was sold high before he walked for nothing.

Bet Spurs flip Graham in about the same way once it is all said and done.

Most players need some buffer or connective tissue in order to develop. Normally you can't just throw players in there. Certainly not for later picks who need to grow. You can easily defeat some players by not giving them a chance to learn and succeed. I'd hate for Wesley to just be thrown to the wolves.

I like your thoughts. The team doesn't need a Josh Richardson type (and he was gone anyway), they now need ballhandling as a lead guard.

As for Tre Jones I think he gets resigned. SpursTalk has decided they hate him, which I don't understand. He's been a good Spur who did way better stepping in for Dejounte this year than I expected. He'll get a bump in pay but I don't think anything overwhelming.

Graham does fit a need! And his partially guaranteed deal will be useful the summer following this.

[JeffDuncan]

…
Wonder what the Spurs plan to do about Tre Jones?
…


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

[JPB]

Hey guys, I have people backing me up on Twitter and Instagram!

Tik Tok even!

hell, I've got approval messages on Pornhub!

Can't be wrong tbh.

[KingKev]

Man after some research I have done an almost complete 180 on this Graham deal.

Graham is exactly the kinda fit Spurs max up into a solid player. Perfect reclaim type.

Graham also fills a positional need with pretty good ball handling skills but as a SG/PG you can slot in either the 1 or 2.

Makes me think it's insurance to Blake Wesley's development timeline or lack thereof. Spurs maybe think Wes isn't ready yet or his timeline is slow which makes the previously burdensome contract issue with Graham start to make sense. That contract is less of a problem since it stretches over Wesley's potential failure track as insurance to Wesley if he doesn't click.

Wonder what the Spurs plan to do about Tre Jones?

But Graham coming in kinda reminds me of JR coming in this time last year and kinda felt like a throw in but ended up being a pretty good value and contributor up until he was sold high before he walked for nothing.

Bet Spurs flip Graham in about the same way once it is all said and done.

If he can show any ability to consistently run traditional PG duties it makes it much easier to not overpay Tre Jones this summer which as it stands might make sense for the sake of continuity and team development.

Wesley, if even shows a propensity to become a PG is 2 years away from being 2 years away. Branham is probably best suited as an instant offense combo guard.

[DPG21920]

Hey guys, I have people backing me up on Twitter and Instagram!

Tik Tok even!

hell, I've got approval messages on Pornhub!

Can't be wrong tbh.

You’re an idiot. How is anyone “wrong” here? Not I nor you are wrong. This is subjective. You seem very upset that I have my takes that you dont agree with. You cannot be wrong, its is me and Hollinger that just dont understand and have invalid perspectives! And when someone points out that they in fact do have others that agree with them it’s them saying they can’t be wrong even though I’m exhibiting the same behavior.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

[DPG21920]

^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!”

[scott]

I prefer us to send guys to places where we get the best value back. This is a basketball team, not a charity.

Lakers sent westbrook to utah even though he once had a fan thrown out and banned there for saying some racist shit to him. Pelinka didn't care.

This send me where I want to go shit has never done anything for the spurs. It doesn't get them free agents. It doesn't make players want to get traded here. All they are doing is taking less than what they could have possibly gotten somewhere else.

Just like the Dejounte trade. Sent him to Atlanta cause that is where he wanted to go. Then there was all the chatter about teams not even knowing that he was available.

Not the way you should be running a basketball team. It's like Pop wants to make sure players leave the spurs happy. In real life the second these players leave the spurs they don't think about the team or Pop every again.

If teams didn’t know DJ was available, then that is on their dumb asses, considering it was talked about on social media for days before it happened. Surely every team has at least one person with a Twitter account on their staff.

[scott]

I just dont like guys that are on deals they are clearly not worth even if its not a big deal lol - pretty straightforward

Doug: Not worth his deal. If he was, he would have been valued by other teams.

Graham: Not worth his deal. If he was he wouldn’t have been buried and moved to SA with comp to take his bad deal on

Khem: Sure as hell not worth 7M

Ya - could these guys rehab value and maybe be used as ballast? Absolutely. But that sort of has to happen to make it ok and I dont like being in that position even if Khem/Doug/Graham are all functionally off the books after next season

So… you’re just upset some people are overpaid? It’s not like it’s your money. And despite what we want to pretend, there isn’t an opportunity cost to their salaries. Spurs effectively have infinite cap room.

I understand wanting to use our Cap/Floor space, which we totally DID NOT do despite people on this message board condescendingly insist we would. That also is what I wish we could have done better… but I’m also not sure what salary dumps were really out there. Wiseman was the obvious one, but the Warriors somehow, someway, managed to get positive value for him - which is amazing to me. I would have needed FRPs to come with him to bail out GS.

What we do not know, and will never know, is if any salary dump opportunities were really out there.

-Wiseman: Worries ended up with positive value
-Westbrook: Somehow, the Lakers managed to improve their team significantly and get off Russ’s deal, and the FRP they gave up is on terms that aren’t great for the receiving team (though still not the worst… way better than the CHA pick we have)
-Simmons: was there any deal? Marks may be looking at Ben being a valuable piece of their rebuild at this point, especially with the other surrounding pieces they amassed in blowing it up. I don’t think BKY is actually that bad, might actually be a fun team
-Hayward: have heard about him, but CHA is in no position to be paying to dump salary

What obvious salary dumps do we feel we missed out on? Atlanta can’t find a home for John Collins, but he still has what… 2 or 3 years left on his deal? That would have been tough to swallow, and what does ATL even have left to give us beside a zillion SRPs?

[scott]

Just no longer a pumper my friend. SRPs do nothing for me nor the franchise. And to the post you're responding to, do you deny our front office screwed up royally by so publicly talking about their expectations for the traded players that ultimately fetched nothing like they wanted? Thus creating a circumstance where other front offices know PATFO vlusters but will settle for less as the deadline looms closer? That makes me a guy with shit in my cereal??

Have you ever negotiated anything in your life? LOL

[exstatic]

I like LA firsts better than NO in terms of quality (may be arguable) and unlike Pels, the LA deal clears 15M off our books vs taking on 15M in Graham

THEY WEREN’T OFFERING THEIR FIRSTS. Shit, even Utah got only a one year shot at a 1-4 protected pick.

[poopbox]

If teams didn’t know DJ was available, then that is on their dumb asses, considering it was talked about on social media for days before it happened. Surely every team has at least one person with a Twitter account on their staff.

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

[DPG21920]

THEY WEREN’T OFFERING THEIR FIRSTS. Shit, even Utah got only a one year shot at a 1-4 protected pick.

Sorry meant I like LA 2nds better (even though it was only 2)

[DPG21920]

So… you’re just upset some people are overpaid? It’s not like it’s your money. And despite what we want to pretend, there isn’t an opportunity cost to their salaries. Spurs effectively have infinite cap room.

I understand wanting to use our Cap/Floor space, which we totally DID NOT do despite people on this message board condescendingly insist we would. That also is what I wish we could have done better… but I’m also not sure what salary dumps were really out there. Wiseman was the obvious one, but the Warriors somehow, someway, managed to get positive value for him - which is amazing to me. I would have needed FRPs to come with him to bail out GS.

What we do not know, and will never know, is if any salary dump opportunities were really out there.

-Wiseman: Worries ended up with positive value
-Westbrook: Somehow, the Lakers managed to improve their team significantly and get off Russ’s deal, and the FRP they gave up is on terms that aren’t great for the receiving team (though still not the worst… way better than the CHA pick we have)
-Simmons: was there any deal? Marks may be looking at Ben being a valuable piece of their rebuild at this point, especially with the other surrounding pieces they amassed in blowing it up. I don’t think BKY is actually that bad, might actually be a fun team
-Hayward: have heard about him, but CHA is in no position to be paying to dump salary

What obvious salary dumps do we feel we missed out on? Atlanta can’t find a home for John Collins, but he still has what… 2 or 3 years left on his deal? That would have been tough to swallow, and what does ATL even have left to give us beside a zillion SRPs?

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)

[exstatic]

Sorry meant I like LA 2nds better (even though it was only 2)

Zion is looking as fragile as ever, and by 2028, McCollum will be 37, ‘Chunis will be 36, and BI will be 31.

[spurraider21]

Zion is looking as fragile as ever, and by 2028, McCollum will be 37, ‘Chunis will be 36, and BI will be 31.
they have the draft capital to reload quite a bit