Spurs Historical Roster Continuity

[scott]

Based upon a comment that Dejounte made in the NBA Draft thread (paraphrased, the Spurs like to keep players), I thought it would be interesting to look at Roster Continuity over time among different eras. Data is sourced from here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/continuity.html

Definition of Roster Continuity: the % of a team's regular season minutes that were filled by players from the previous season's roster.

First, I looked at the Spurs in the in the Gregg Popovich Era (1994-95 thru Present), which I define not by Pop's coaching tenure but since he became GM in 1994. In a homerun confirmation of Dejounte's hypothesis, the Spurs Rank #1 in Roster Continuity at 76%, compared to a league average of 66% and a median of 65%. The table below outlines other eras I looked at:



Era
Rank
Spurs Avg
League Avg
League Median


Pop Era (1994-95 thru Present
1
76%
66%
65%


Duncan Era (1997-98 thru 2015-16)
1
77%
66%
65%


Pre Duncan Pop Era (1994-95 through 1996-97)
11
70%
65%
65%


Kawhi-Present Era (2011-12 through Present)
1
79%
65%
65%


Post Kawhi Era
4
75%
66%
66%


Pre Pop Era
25
65%
71%
71%


Drob Era Pre Tim
24
63%
69%
68%


Drob Era Pre Pop
27
59%
73%
73%



Observations:

No matter how you slice it, in the Pop era the Spurs have valued roster continuity. Even in the Post Kawhi era, they have been extremely stable in their roster continuity. The year immediately following Kawhi's trade, the fell to 63%, which would have been bottom half of the league, but then had several more years of very high continuity, save for the 2022-23 season, which we can call the "Pre-Tank" year that saw us trade away Derrick, DJM and others.
I included some pre-Timmy stats just for fun. Pop was a little more of a wheeler and dealer before Tim, but was still top half of the league in continuity.
Pre-pop, the Spurs were near the bottom in the league in continuity. Not surprising considering there was more FO/HC turnover.
DRob's early career sure dealt with a lot more turnover.
If you are wondering who has the worst roster continuity in the Pop era? It's New Orleans, at 59%. The Nets at 61%, the Bucks at 62% and the Wolves at 62% are right behind.
Worst in the Post Kawhi era? The Lakers at 51%


Conclusion: if you're expecting a huge roster turnover this offseason, it would be uncharacteristic of the Spurs to do so. Not saying it won't happen, just that it is outside of the PAFTO modus operandi.

[stnick2261]

I wonder if that has any causation from the Olympic talk when foreign national teams started competing with the US using worse players, because they were able to foster consistent chemistry

[Joseph Kony]

difference between then and now is the Spurs were generally had good teams or were contenders for the entirety of their existence until recently. There may be minimal turnover the last couple of seasons but the only player left from 2020 is Keldon, so the entire roster has been completely overturned in those 4 years and i expect something similar to happen in the next few years. shit, we only have 4 players left from the 2022 team :lol

[MannyIsGod]

difference between then and now is the Spurs were generally had good teams or were contenders for the entirety of their existence until recently. There may be minimal turnover the last couple of seasons but the only player left from 2020 is Keldon, so the entire roster has been completely overturned in those 4 years and i expect something similar to happen in the next few years. shit, we only have 4 players left from the 2022 team :lol

I do think this is actually the most important consideration. It's like up till 2 years ago people were still pointing to the history of never doing trades at the deadline as proof they wouldn't and then they did. This is a fundamentally different situation and they will act differently. That being said, I expect no more than 3-4 new faces coming in because its still just one offseason.

[Tyronn Lue]

This team is a completely different situation than any team since that 1st era. Pop can laud the effort all he wants, at the end of the day these guys cannot dribble, shoot, defend or pass like even a mid tier NBA team. If the Spurs stay with that I hope Victor walks.

[Tyronn Lue]

I wonder if that has any causation from the Olympic talk when foreign national teams started competing with the US using worse players, because they were able to foster consistent chemistry
Maybe they bought into their own system bullshit.

[JPB]

Based upon a comment that Dejounte made in the NBA Draft thread (paraphrased, the Spurs like to keep players), I thought it would be interesting to look at Roster Continuity over time among different eras. Data is sourced from here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/continuity.html

Definition of Roster Continuity: the % of a team's regular season minutes that were filled by players from the previous season's roster.

First, I looked at the Spurs in the in the Gregg Popovich Era (1994-95 thru Present), which I define not by Pop's coaching tenure but since he became GM in 1994. In a homerun confirmation of Dejounte's hypothesis, the Spurs Rank #1 in Roster Continuity at 76%, compared to a league average of 66% and a median of 65%. The table below outlines other eras I looked at:



Era
Rank
Spurs Avg
League Avg
League Median


Pop Era (1994-95 thru Present
1
76%
66%
65%


Duncan Era (1997-98 thru 2015-16)
1
77%
66%
65%


Pre Duncan Pop Era (1994-95 through 1996-97)
11
70%
65%
65%


Kawhi-Present Era (2011-12 through Present)
1
79%
65%
65%


Post Kawhi Era
4
75%
66%
66%


Pre Pop Era
25
65%
71%
71%


Drob Era Pre Tim
24
63%
69%
68%


Drob Era Pre Pop
27
59%
73%
73%



Observations:

No matter how you slice it, in the Pop era the Spurs have valued roster continuity. Even in the Post Kawhi era, they have been extremely stable in their roster continuity. The year immediately following Kawhi's trade, the fell to 63%, which would have been bottom half of the league, but then had several more years of very high continuity, save for the 2022-23 season, which we can call the "Pre-Tank" year that saw us trade away Derrick, DJM and others.
I included some pre-Timmy stats just for fun. Pop was a little more of a wheeler and dealer before Tim, but was still top half of the league in continuity.
Pre-pop, the Spurs were near the bottom in the league in continuity. Not surprising considering there was more FO/HC turnover.
DRob's early career sure dealt with a lot more turnover.
If you are wondering who has the worst roster continuity in the Pop era? It's New Orleans, at 59%. The Nets at 61%, the Bucks at 62% and the Wolves at 62% are right behind.
Worst in the Post Kawhi era? The Lakers at 51%


Conclusion: if you're expecting a huge roster turnover this offseason, it would be uncharacteristic of the Spurs to do so. Not saying it won't happen, just that it is outside of the PAFTO modus operandi.

Different times, different situation. You cant make a raw comparison (and conclusion) without bringing some context.

spurs had roster continuity for a while because they've been comptetitive and/or contending and/or satisified with what they got for a while... You don't change a winning team, or a few role players, when you already get your core or what is obvious can be your core. Why would you do that?

And the reason why spurs were above the league average is because they were precisely competing/contending/making the POs for 20 years in a row where other teams had more ups and downs and difficulty to build competitive teams.

I mean if you have rosters made of Tims/Drobs/Manus/TPs/Bowens/Barrys/Horrys/T,iagos/Borises/Finleys...in their prime, or as clear future valuable players, ofc you'll value continuity, it's not even a question. But that doesn't mean you necessarily will with a roster made of Wesleys, Branhams, Jones, Sochans or Keldons...

Flash forward today... Spurs are a bottom of the league team without a core and trying to see how they can find it out of a few youngsters, with only one player you know will stay here, Wemby... using 10, 20 or 30 years rosters without more context and data (what was the record of those teams, what was the age of the players, in their prime or youngsters, what was the actual value of these players) to conclude spurs will value continuity with today's roster is not a receivable analysis.

Specially that Pop ad RC have never been in the situation they are today, a rebuilding project from scratch, with suddenly a unique player falling in your hands waiting for help and a better environment to keep progressing then a bunch of youngsters who didn't show much after 2,3... 5 years that would let you imagine they could constitute your next core. Is Wemby gonna have to wait 4 years before playing with a guy who can make a lob or an entry pass?

[scott]

Different times, different situation. You cant make a raw comparison (and conclusion) without bringing some context.

spurs had roster continuity for a while because they've been comptetitive and/or contending and/or satisified with what they got for a while... You don't change a winning team, or a few role players, when you already get your core or what is obvious can be your core. Why would you do that?

And the reason why spurs were above the league average is because they were precisely competing/contending/making the POs for 20 years in a row where other teams had more ups and downs and difficulty to build competitive teams.

I mean if you have rosters made of Tims/Drobs/Manus/TPs/Bowens/Barrys/Horrys/T,iagos/Borises/Finleys...in their prime, or as clear future valuable players, ofc you'll value continuity, it's not even a question. But that doesn't mean you necessarily will with a roster made of Wesleys, Branhams, Jones, Sochans or Keldons...

Flash forward today... Spurs are a bottom of the league team without a core and trying to see how they can find it out of a few youngsters, with only one player you know will stay here, Wemby... using 10, 20 or 30 years rosters without more context and data (what was the record of those teams, what was the age of the players, in their prime or youngsters, what was the actual value of these players) to conclude spurs will value continuity with today's roster is not a receivable analysis.

Specially that Pop ad RC have never been in the situation they are today, a rebuilding project from scratch, with suddenly a unique player falling in your hands waiting for help and a better environment to keep progressing then a bunch of youngsters who didn't show much after 2,3... 5 years that would let you imagine they could constitute your next core. Is Wemby gonna have to wait 4 years before playing with a guy who can make a lob or an entry pass?

You might note that no conclusions about the future were drawn in the original post, it merely provided a look at the past using different cuts.

With that said, if we only look at the last three years (no one would confuse those teams with contending), we would see:

2021-22: 73% compared to a league average of 65%
2022-23: 63% compared to a league average of 70%
2023-24: 82% compared to a league average of 70%
Avg 2021-2024: 73% compared to a league average of 68%

The two years proceeding those, where we also did not make the playoffs, we had 80% and 90% continuity rates, respectively.

The only below league average Continuity rates for the Spurs in the last 15 years occurred 1) after Kawhi was traded which coincided with Tony going to CHA and Manu retiring and 2) after the 2021-22 season which saw us trade away Derrick (during the season) and Dejounte (offseason) and saw another heavy minute contributor (Lonnie) leave.

There is limited history of PAFTO operating in a "bad team" environment, but in that limited history we haven't seen them be that much more aggressive in roster re-shaping relative to how the rest of the league conducts itself (which isn't good or bad, it's just an observation). This backups Dejounte's position that the Spurs generally like to keep players. It may, or may not, give us an indication of PAFTO's proclivity to move on from young projects like Sochan, Branham, Wesley and Champagnie.

If we want to make a forward looking prediction at the Spurs "reverse continuity rate"* in 2024-25:

If the Spurs brought back the entire roster next year (which they won't), they'd be starting off at a reverse Continuity rate of 96.1% (via the loss of Doug and the minimal impact of Mamadi Diakite's 3 GP)
If the Spurs ONLY move on from and replace Osman, Mamu, Graham, Bassey and Cissoko, the Spurs would enter next season with a reverse continuity rate of 85.3%
If the Spurs move Keldon, you can subtract 10.8 from the number above
If the Spurs move Collins, you can subtract 7.7 from the number in the second bullet
If the Spurs move Branham, you can subtract 8.1 from the number in the second bullet


My best guess is that

the Spurs do most of the things in bullet 1 (Bassey and Cissoko are wild cards, but their Continuity contribution is relatively small, as are Graham and Mamu's. Cedi makes up the bulk of the Continuity lost in Bullet 2)
The Spurs move one of Keldon, Collins, Branham. So my prediction would be that the Spurs enter next season with a reverse continuity rate of somewhere between 74-77%, which would still be above league average


PAFTO may in fact do more this offseason, but I think that 74-77% is the most likely from a roster prediction standpoint and just happens to mirror PAFTO's history. The actual continuity rate that results from that 74-77% reverse continuity rate I would imagine would then end up somewhere around 60-65%, which would be below or near league average the last decade or so, and the last few years the league average has trended higher so it would be well below. So that would be a welcome sign.

*"reverse continuity rate": actual continuity rate is the % of minutes played by guys on last year's roster... the "reverse continuity rate" is something I made up to help with being more predictive... this is the % of the previous year's minutes are on the next year's roster. I would expect the actual continuity rate to be significantly lower than the reverse continuity rate because we would expect certain players to have their roles reduced and those minutes eaten up by new players, especially if we add two top-10 picks.

[SPURt]

Numbers porn, my favorite! Thank you for putting this together! The D Rob era was messed up, this really highlights that. Between injuries (TC, Willie Anderson, Sean) and taking chances on high risk/high reward players (Rodman, Sweet Pea, Rod Strickland, etc) the Spurs struggled to find second and 3rd options to put around D Rob. That man was the ultimate big toe. It’d be interesting if you weighted coaching turn over and included it in your percentages, as coaching changes probably have a greater impact than changing one starter of average NBA starting ability.

i hope the Spurs learned from that time and have better luck with Wemby’s co-stars going forward.

[rascal]

Spurs during recent years are known to be a conservative(opposed to change) organization.

[scott]

Looks like our roster is pretty much set for the start of the season, barring any trades.

We're bringing back 80% of the roster from last year (12 of 15 players).

Our "reverse continuity rate" (which is my made up stat that I described in Post #8 above) going into next season if this roster holds will be 85.6%

[Dejounte]

Damn, great minds think alike. I was about to make a thread on this topic.

[ChumpDumper]

Looks like our roster is pretty much set for the start of the season, barring any trades.

We're bringing back 80% of the roster from last year (12 of 15 players).

Our "reverse continuity rate" (which is my made up stat that I described in Post #8 above) going into next season if this roster holds will be 85.6%

:tu

[JPB]

Looks like our roster is pretty much set for the start of the season, barring any trades.

We're bringing back 80% of the roster from last year (12 of 15 players).

Our "reverse continuity rate" (which is my made up stat that I described in Post #8 above) going into next season if this roster holds will be 85.6%

80% of that roster being non contender material and/or won't be there in 2 years.

Yup, we tanking again.

[TeKu]

Our "reverse continuity rate" (which is my made up stat that I described in Post #8 above) going into next season if this roster holds will be 85.6%

You'd expect actual continuity to be a LOT lower though right? The additions (CP3, Barnes, Castle) aren't many, but you'd expect will be eating a fair amount of regular season minutes as 2 starters/1 key bench. So, a much bigger change on-court than on-roster, which bodes well.

[baseline bum]

Looks like our roster is pretty much set for the start of the season, barring any trades.

We're bringing back 80% of the roster from last year (12 of 15 players).

Our "reverse continuity rate" (which is my made up stat that I described in Post #8 above) going into next season if this roster holds will be 85.6%

God I'm going to be pissed if Branham gets more minutes than Castle

[scott]

You'd expect actual continuity to be a LOT lower though right? The additions (CP3, Barnes, Castle) aren't many, but you'd expect will be eating a fair amount of regular season minutes as 2 starters/1 key bench. So, a much bigger change on-court than on-roster, which bodes well.

Definitely, my guess is probably somewhere around 65-70% if I had to guess, but a lot of that will depend on how many games CP3 plays.

Generally speaking, a new player displacing a starter and pushing that starter down to backup minutes should be worth about a 7 point drop in the C-rate, if they play 70-something games on typical minutes.

[scott]

God I'm going to be pissed if Branham gets more minutes than Castle

Please do not speak of such horrors, may your words manifest them into existence.

[MultiTroll]

https://news4sanantonio.com/resources/media/c176b4c5-6d2c-4a26-8aef-13f310c8ff42-large16x9_905744460612x612.jpg?1539723006854
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.197ae20d034d8e62f5f18ef656e75253?rik=qESDgGk8J4Z mIQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fcdn1.sbnation.com%2fimported_asse ts%2f1961495%2f20130608_rvr_ah6_165.0.jpg&ehk=3E5ouT38PsifF4CZXjdtIoKEhp%2bhc5nAvwlThLyHlCI% 3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

[ismael-robert]

Damn, great minds think alike. I was about to make a thread on this topic.

Scott and Dejounte alts confirmed

[Dejounte]

Next year will be the big year that tells us if the team is really about continuity. If the roster continuity is still over 60% to 70% and above, then the pro-turnover folks who keep saying that the roster around Wemby will be much different 3 years from when he was drafted were/ are full of shit.

[exstatic]

Next year will be the big year that tells us if the team is really about continuity. If the roster continuity is still over 60% to 70% and above, then the pro-turnover folks who keep saying that the roster around Wemby will be much different 3 years from when he was drafted were/ are full of shit.

If you do 20% 3 years in a row, that’s a 60% TO from the starting point. Someone pointed out that Keldon and Vassell are the only players left from the 2020-2021 team. That’s an 86.7 raw turnover from 4 years ago.

[Dejounte]

If you do 20% 3 years in a row, that’s a 60% TO from the starting point. Someone pointed out that Keldon and Vassell are the only players left from the 2020-2021 team. That’s an 86.7 raw turnover from 4 years ago.

I get that, but I believe had it not been their goal to find a foundational piece in Wemby that the percentages would even be lower. I don’t think the Spurs have another Dejounte/ White/ Poeltl level trade in them. Plus, I think we should be looking at this with the deep bench excluded. It’s kind of a given that that part of the roster will always see high turnover. Let me log into my scott (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=150) account to get that number for you guys.

[exstatic]

I get that, but I believe had it not been their goal to find a foundational piece in Wemby that the percentages would even be lower. I don’t think the Spurs have another Dejounte/ White/ Poeltl level trade in them. Plus, I think we should be looking at this with the deep bench excluded. It’s kind of a given that that part of the roster will always see high turnover. Let me log into my scott (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=150) account to get that number for you guys.

:lol

[The Truth #6]

Great work, Scott.

[scott]

Bumping this thread as we head towards the end of the season.

We entered this season with fairly minimal roster turnover, 3 out of the 15 main roster spots were new faces (CP3, Barnes, Castle) while all the rest were returning guys. 85.6% of our minutes last season returned this season (reverse continuity rate, which is all you can calculate in advance).

Those three newcomers, however, have ended up being the three guys leading the team in minutes (and in that order, CP3, Barnes, Castle). Additionally, we added Fox before the deadline, and as a result we're down to a 61% continuity rate (I'll update when the season is over), which would be the lowest for the team since 2009-10.

The Spurs have generally maintained low roster-turnover and above average roster continuity during this playoff drought. It will be curious to see how aggressive or conservative the team is at turning over the roster this offseason. We're more likely than not to lose our minutes leader (CP3) so that will have a big dent on the continuity rate (both the true rate and the reverse rate) right off the bat.

What do you all think: will we see the Spurs break from their typical approach, or will the team largely return most of the same guys next year? I'd be curious at both what everyone thinks WILL happen and what they WANT to happen.

[CGD]

^ More than any other recent season I’m ready for more roster turnover. It’s time.

- Vassell and Johnson’s contracts decrease for a reason. That’s gotta have some appeal to a cash strapped teams.

- Two FRPs incoming, or usable in trades to bring in a new face.

- Harrison, Wesley, Branham represent about 30M in potential expirings, which seem very movable.

- CP3 was always moving out, so they’ll have to address the backup PG in some way.

Bottomline, I think there is a chance this roster looks quite different to start next season.

[Seventyniner]

I would imagine that continuity positively correlates with winning. There was little reason for big roster turnover when the team was really good, and 2009-2010 was just about the nadir of the Duncan era.

Having this much continuity while the team is bad just means tanking. I hope to god there's only one more month of that in the next decade plus.

[Dejounte]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves :)

[exstatic]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves :)

Paul had a purpose until Fox was acquired. Glad he was here, but he’s now in the way of Castle starting.

[Jordan Jackson]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves :)


I’m leaning this way as well. They aren’t breaking up the Happy Tree Friends anytime soon. Front office will keep trotting these guys out there hoping for different results.

Better hope for more lottery luck. Going to need it.

[CGD]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves :)

I actually wouldnt mind it, but he needs to come off his "I need to start" crap. He'd be a good back up.

If continuity if their priority, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they brought Tre back as the backup PG . . .

[RC_Drunkford]

CP3 can go. He has been garbage since mid season

[exstatic]

CP3 can go. He has been garbage since mid season

I just don’t want him in Castle’s way.

[spurraider21]

Paul has been about as good as he's been all year. but suddenly with Vic gone (and now Fox), his inability to score isn't masked anymore, so he looks/feels a lot worse. prior to fox being shut down, his fixture in the starting lineup was frustrating because Paul/Fox was suboptimal and he was getting in Castle's way. thats not the case anymore.

but there's no reason we shouldnt be giving Wesley a lot of run down the stretch off the bench

i wouldnt necessarily hate the idea of Paul comimg back but it would definitely be in a reduced role. and im sure from his perspective if he's going to agree to play in a reduced role, it would probably be somewhere besides SA

[ginobilized]

Thanks for bumping this scott.

I guess we'll see what happens. I know that I'm ready for continued reshuffling of this deck.
I'll be very disappointed if we draft 2 unheralded under-sized SGs ala Forbes/Neal/WalkerIV......the list goes on.
On the flip side, Naz/Aldama plus LaRavia coupled with 2 of Fleming, Essengue, Kneuppel, Newell, Queen or Murray-Boyles would be the dream, barring extreme lotto luck.

[rjv]

I have seen models that show the teams with less changes to their starting five have higher winning percentages but I don't know how many models are out there that show how roster changes as a whole impact winning/losing. I would tend to think that that there is more winning in consistency. And, yeah, why would the spurs have made drastic changes during the Duncan/Manu/TP era? Or even in the Aldridge/DeRozan era, at least initially? And how is change defined? I would argue that the Spurs did make drastic changes but changes that resulted in losses as opposed to wins. This was intentional; dumping DeRozan, Aldridge, D White, Poeltl and Murray were all part of a plan and, ultimately, that plan made the team better. As another poster mentioned, the intention was to see what this team had in the current roster once Wemby was on board and then reevaluate after his rookie season. The Spurs made minor changes this past summer but they've already made one significant change before this off-season has even started. Lastly, this is the first year of the apron era and it sure will be interesting to see how many teams make changes under these new cap restrictions. Surely, that is going to impact change in the NBA as a whole.

[scott]

I have seen models that show the teams with less changes to their starting five have higher winning percentages but I don't know how many models are out there that show how roster changes as a whole impact winning/losing. I would tend to think that that there is more winning in consistency. And, yeah, why would the spurs have made drastic changes during the Duncan/Manu/TP era? Or even in the Aldridge/DeRozan era, at least initially? And how is change defined? I would argue that the Spurs did make drastic changes but changes that resulted in losses as opposed to wins. This was intentional; dumping DeRozan, Aldridge, D White, Poeltl and Murray were all part of a plan and, ultimately, that plan made the team better. As another poster mentioned, the intention was to see what this team had in the current roster once Wemby was on board and then reevaluate after his rookie season. The Spurs made minor changes this past summer but they've already made one significant change before this off-season has even started. Lastly, this is the first year of the apron era and it sure will be interesting to see how many teams make changes under these new cap restrictions. Surely, that is going to impact change in the NBA as a whole.

This begs the question... do teams win because they maintain a consistent starting 5... or do they maintain a consistent starting 5 because they are winning? I'd argue (pretty strongly) it's the latter. The Spurs didn't start losing simply because they made changes to the start 5... they started losing because they became a worse team (and changing the lineup was part of that). Likewise, the Spurs won't magically start winning by just having continuity... they'll start winning when they become a better team. That can happen by the same players improving or by replacing them with better players.

I could be wrong, but I'm not counting on some of these folks improving enough to transform us into a winning team on their own. That's just my opinion.

Congrats on your 10,000th post, btw!

[rjv]

This begs the question... do teams win because they maintain a consistent starting 5... or do they maintain a consistent starting 5 because they are winning? I'd argue (pretty strongly) it's the latter. The Spurs didn't start losing simply because they made changes to the start 5... they started losing because they became a worse team (and changing the lineup was part of that). Likewise, the Spurs won't magically start winning by just having continuity... they'll start winning when they become a better team. That can happen by the same players improving or by replacing them with better players.

I could be wrong, but I'm not counting on some of these folks improving enough to transform us into a winning team on their own. That's just my opinion.

Congrats on your 10,000th post, btw!

probably a little bit of both. but even bad teams improve with consistency. they just hit a ceiling that is nowhere near championship level. but my focus isn't really on whether or not consistency is essential as much as it is on the history of the Spurs when it comes to roster changes. I don't think the Spurs refuse to make changes simply because they have a problem with change or because of some blind loyalty to players. The Spurs, in the Holt/Pop/Buford era come off as a franchise that develops a long term plan and does not deviate too quickly from that plan and I think that is generally a very healthy way for a franchise to operate. Kawhi was a catastrophe that wasn't expected and the spurs may have held on to Aldridge a year too long but even the tanking, from what I have read, was planned. It was a gamble but it paid off. We'll see what this summer brings but I think some of that will be steered by this new cap era and what kind of luck the Spurs have with the lottery.

Thanks on the congrats. Took me almost 16 years but I finally got to 10,000.

[LeBowen]

https://i.imgur.com/kYf71Pa.png

Cap is projected to rise by ~$14M next season, up to $154.6M.

As I said in some other topics, the more I look at this roster, the more I think it's underperforming because of subpar coaching.
Now that Wemby and Fox are out it doesn't really matter, but too many limited players are given freedom to do whatever they want.
I'd rather have a top level coach with this roster and '25 FRPs than someone like KD coached by Mitch or even current version of Pop.

Obviously I'd personally like to get rid of Devin and Keldon, but it probably won't happen.
I'd even be fine if Devin stays as the 6th man, but I just don't want to see him either push Castle to SF or even all the way to the bench.

Fox/?/Wesley
Vassell/Champagnie/?
Castle/Keldon/?
Barnes/Jeremy/?
Wemby/?/?

That's the most likely outcome, tbh. And I wouldn't mind it that much if there aren't any must have targets available.
As in I'd like to get Aldama or Naz, but it seems that their teams cleared cap space in order to keep them. PJ Washington would be a solid pickup if available, I don't really want any more max players.
We got our two max players, Castle will keep developing, after that we should load up on high end role players.

For PG position it would be nice if CP3 stays in a limited role that doesn't guarantee a lot of minutes. If he wants a bigger role, he can go. Just get another experienced backup.
That backup PG should never be together on the floor with Fox, it's just redundant. Wesley is showing some signs of life, keeping him for another year wouldn't be the end of the world.

I doubt we get two rookies unless there are two targets PATFO really like. Just get the best available big wing or even backup C if it's worth the pick.
Offer Mamu another minimum deal if he's interested and keep Biyombo as the third stringer. I'd get rid of Bassey, his knees are done. Branham also has to go.
Barnes simply has to start because he's by far the best shooter on the team.

Despite all the flaws the likes of Devin, Keldon and Jeremy have, I still think a good coach would easily get ~45 wins with this roster if they're healthy.
This starting lineup can work if Devin finally gets over himself and becomes a consistent 38-40% 3pt shooter, which I don't think will happen, but as I said, PATFO probably still believe in him.
I wouldn't offer anything more than 60/4 to Jeremy in his current state. If he wants $20M+ a year, he needs to develop his shot. No more charity cases.

I'd also get rid of Keldon, but family values etc will prevent it from happening. Maybe it's for the better because if we keep this roster even with Fox's extension we'll have a lot of cap space for 2026 FA.
But then again, I don't see anyone special in there.

Realistic 2025 FA targets:
Grimes (RFA)
Kennard
John Collins (if he opts out)
DFS (if he opts out)
LaRavia
Yabusele
Naz Reid
Aldama (RFA)
Brook Lopez
Capela
Adams
Horford
Sharpe (RFA)
Looney

[scott]

I agree with you LeBowen (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=54457) that a coach likely makes a bigger difference than incremental roster changes at this point. Been saying for awhile that I actually expect us to largely run back the same roster next year, except unfortunately I think we're likely looking at Mitch coaching while Pop holds the franchise hostage.

As such, I expect us to be better... but not by too much. No more than a play-in team if that is the case. It will get sold to us by the FO and the Sniffers as being patient, not skipping steps, etc. One way I'll be judging this team's performance in 2025-26: if the ATL swap fails to convey, it should be considered a massive failure to "stay on schedule"

Edit: that salary table has one mistake - we do not have an option on Bassey. He is a UFA, and I don't expect him back.

I would bring Mamu back as a deep bench PF (actually I'd try to find a way to play him more... but that doesn't appear in the cards), but I would not bring back Bismack as even a 3rd string C. He's not good, we are just enamored with him because we've been deprived of competent C depth for too long.

[RC_Drunkford]

I agree with you LeBowen (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=54457) that a coach likely makes a bigger difference than incremental roster changes at this point. Been saying for awhile that I actually expect us to largely run back the same roster next year, except unfortunately I think we're likely looking at Mitch coaching while Pop holds the franchise hostage.

As such, I expect us to be better... but not by too much. No more than a play-in team if that is the case. It will get sold to us by the FO and the Sniffers as being patient, not skipping steps, etc. One way I'll be judging this team's performance in 2025-26: if the ATL swap fails to convey, it should be considered a massive failure to "stay on schedule"

Edit: that salary table has one mistake - we do not have an option on Bassey. He is a UFA, and I don't expect him back.

I would bring Mamu back as a deep bench PF (actually I'd try to find a way to play him more... but that doesn't appear in the cards), but I would not bring back Bismack as even a 3rd string C. He's not good, we are just enamored with him because we've been deprived of competent C depth for too long.

yeah I'd much rather use our 2nd round pick on a C and add him with a guaranteed contract, not a two-way. CP3 can also go. I don't think there's much value in bringing him back. It would be nice to add one rotation player via FA and at least one through the draft. The ATL pick can be used in a trade or on a player who's more of a long-term project.

[exstatic]

yeah I'd much rather use our 2nd round pick on a C and add him with a guaranteed contract, not a two-way. CP3 can also go. I don't think there's much value in bringing him back. It would be nice to add one rotation player via FA and at least one through the draft. The ATL pick can be used in a trade or on a player who's more of a long-term project.

CP3 can stay IF he agrees to come off the bench. Can’t have him keeping Castle out of the SL.

[jjspur]

First of all, when healthy, we have a decent starting 5, its the 2nd and 3rd teams where we really need some improvement. Biyombo and Bassey, while they did help out in a pinch aren't anything more than temporary solutions. With them gone that opens 2 slots. C3P0 has great experience and gets to start, probably won't be back. Do yourself a favor, sign with a playoff team and retire gracefully. That's 3 slots. Branham is in the G-League. They'll pay his last year and he'll be gone. Four slots and counting. At this point Wesley is a bit of a toss up. He has some talent, but nothing special. Four, possibly five slots. Let's not forget Mamu. A decent player who the spurs should keep, but who may leave for greener pastures and lots more money. In total that's a third or the team possibly gone.

Now I understand the need for continuity. It definitely helps, but with this mediocre 2nd and 3rd team, running it back just isnt the answer. If the team really wants to improve, they simply need better talent than what we currently have. Now in the NBA anything can and does happen. No one can predict the future, but the team can make some wise choices with their salary and draft capital. Winning starts with making good choices.

We shot a big load this year to get Fox (great move), so I don't see any major moves, besides I think teams will be even more wary about trading with the spurs. That being said, here are a few players I think the spurs could use. No all stars, but players who could really improve our 2nd and third teams.

Jake LaRavia - Not the best defensively, but can make plays when needed .
Drew Eubanks - Former spur now on the Clippers. The Clips always have salary problems. We can trade a 2nd or two and take on one of their lower paid players.
Quentin Grimes - Will be a free agent. Dude can ball when given the chance- him and Castle would make a great combo guard team
Phoenix Suns players - A Durrant fire sale waiting to happen - lets help them out (lower salaried players only)
Any team without a first round pick. Sure its middling, but its better than nothing and we could possibly get a decent experienced player in return rather than waiting 2 plus years to develop.

The spurs rarely do big moves, but some of these and a decent draft could help them go in the right direction. I don't exactly know if these moves could be made, but its something to think about considering we won't be in the playoffs this year and we could use the improvement for next year.