'All-in'

Peter Holt and the Spurs have gone 'all-in', as the saying goes, and decided that the final years of the Duncan era would be a complete departure from their fiscally responsible ways in an attempt to capitalize on the chance to win another Championship or two; luxury-tax be damned, the franchise may never have the opportunity to see another Larry O'Brien once Tim's gone.

So, with that as the premise, and seeing as they're only capable of taking that approach for two, maybe three years at the most, what's a team to do?

Even if you're high on their prospects as-is, I think most would agree that they'd be served well to find some front court help. Now, with that being said, getting into the hypothetical realm, what do you do if you can't find it; the right help anyways. Something that's not significant enough to really bolster your chances. Do you upgrade your wing? Maybe just find the best talent available?

Given the uncertainty of Tim's health and how we as fans and the Spurs' organization viewed it coming into the season, it'd be a bit presumptuous to assume the Tim we're seeing now will be the same player next year; it's an assumption to think he's going to be the same player at the end of this season, given what we saw last year.

The time is now, the window still ever-so-slightly ajar, with the prospect of good health and the right move(s).

So that's the question I've posed to myself recently and I now pose to you: What's 'all-in' and what kind of effect, to what extreme, could it have on the roster; is it possible we see Manu or Tony moved if the expirings don't bring back the needed piece or pieces? Would 'all-in' force the Spurs to gamble on dealing players of that magnitude for a package they thought gave them the better, or right tools to get it done over this year, next and maybe, if they're lucky, the following; chemistry issues and roster-flux would put the team behind the proverbial 8-ball, but they'd believe they had the means to get it done if they did so.

And so I ask: Is that a gamble worthy of 'all-in'?

I say it's absolutely worth it..

There will undoubtedly be years of misery in the post-Duncan era, but there's only so many chances to win titles..we've been fortunate enough to watch 4 of these and watch a contender for every year, which is something EXTREMELY rare, and it's only been done for as long as we have by the 80s Lakers..

I would absolutely do anything possible, players like Tim Duncan, even at this age, don't come around often..

I don't think giving up Manu will be necessary, but I'd say it's a possibility if the team doesn't improve by the deadline..I don't think it'll happen though, and I think Manu still has some game in him..

I would give up any possible picks and I would give up the rights to Splitter if needed..we'll see if the expirings + Splitter + a 1st can net us a big man..if not, I would explore other parts of our team, but I don't believe the FO would do that..I think we just have to hope those assets can net us a realistic deal..

Didn't Pop/RC say the days of competing without paying are over because the West is so strong. So continue to see the Spurs spend with it's current owner.

The West isn't really stronger other than LA, our main guys just got older and worse..

I personally don't think there's a move to be made in the frontcourt that significantly puts us over the top. People have named Collison, Foster, Tyrus Thomas, Brendan Haywood but to be completely honest Haywood is the only realistic possibility that would actually improve the Spurs to some degree *IMO. To attain Haywood Spurs would possibly have to sacrifice one their best young assets that actually have a future ( Hill, Blair, Splitter). Is it worth sacrificing one of them for a player that at best would see the floor 25 minutes a game ( not even half the game). I'm not sure if that's the best decision, especially with the productivity the Spurs are getting from Blair whenever he gets quality time. If Spurs indeed made a move for Haywood, McDyess or Blair would recieve more time on the pine next to Haislip and Yanny.

My question is this: How much does Pop and R.C value of having a player next to Tim that can help defer points in the paint? Because they have someone on the bench that only plays once every blue moon that can help out with this very issue. His name is Theo Ratliff.

If Spurs plan on using Ratliff more come playoff time, I don't see how Haywood would catapult the Spurs above everyone in late April, May and godwilling June, more so than a starting caliber 2/3 guard that can see the floor at least 30 minutes a game and close games whenever RJ is rubbing one out.

All in all I think R.C is stuck in a pretty tough situation, yes we need more length inside if we were to play the Lakers, but what is out there that is really that much better than what we have (Blair, McDyess, Ratliff)?? NOT MUCH.

/\ /\

A main reason why I believe Haywood is the only realistic possibility that could actually improve the spurs to some degree is because he's the only one out of the bunch that could actually steal minutes from Blair and McDyess IMO. I don't think Foster, Thomas, Collison can. If your going to make a move to improve your team don't you think that player should play a significant amount of time ???? Not 8-15 mpg. Just my opinion.

I don't know why people think it will take so much to get Haywood though(not directed to you, but at some in the trade speculation thread)..the only teams that would be willing to give anything up for a rental would be teams that believe they can win this year, and the only 2 teams I can think of that would realistically make an offer would be the Spurs and Blazers..MAYBE OKC if they feel like they need a C and just want to finally make the playoffs..

If the Wizards deal with another team, at least they would get a 1st round pick out of him, instead of getting nothing..it's not like they're going anywhere this season..

I think Portland would be the only team that can make a better offer than the Spurs from a realistic standpoint, since they desperately need a C..

The only other realistic option is if they threw Haywood in with a deal for Jamison, but I don't picture that happening..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

I say it's absolutely worth it..

There will undoubtedly be years of misery in the post-Duncan era,..

---

did you think the same thing about the end of D-Robs career? i trust the scouting and drafting that brought us Manu, Tony, Hill, Blair and countless others. Hill is going to be good. Blair is going to be very, very good if he stays healthy. i think with tony leading a young athletic team the spurs could make the playoffs the year after Timmy leaves.

I meant misery compared to what we're used to as Spurs fans..last year, I didn't even know how to react when we were out in the 1st round, it was just weird..the last time we were out in the 1st round, at least there was something to look forward to with a young Timmy on the team..

The deficiencies or places the Spurs could use, or need, an upgrade are pretty clear: defensive help in the front court and at the swing position (a more well-rounded swingman with good size, at least).

Now, there are no game-changing options, conceivably, out there. There are some nice options, some maybe even capable of bridging the gap to help the Spurs over the top, but there's a good chance that the Spurs' offered package doesn't net them their target. So that's kinda where this thread came from.

The Spurs most likely have this year, next year and if they're extremely fortunate, the following to get another title with Tim. The FO now has to weigh their decisions on a short-term scale; sacrificing potential for ready-made contributors is a very real option.

As Harlem mentioned, and I'm in agreement with his post, you don't have the opportunity to win titles very often; considerably less often when you're based out of a market like SA. Duncan is a transcendent player, the likes this town will likely never see again (Duncan following Robinson seems to have skewed that fact for some), and you've got to get it while it's good.

This 'all-in' approach is simply unsustainable for the Spurs. They're not the Lakers, Bulls or Knicks, and trying to be such, would be franchise suicide. But, be that as it may, they've got their chips in for the time being. And you've got to believe they're going to do everything in their power to upgrade this roster this year. But there's a very real possibility that their expirings aren't enough to land the right player(s) to put them over the top. In which case, they'd have to make a decision to roll with what they got (counter-intuitive to all-in) or part with Manu or Tony.

This team's run is surely in it's twilight and is faced with the reality that all great teams come to at some point: stick with the horses that brung you or trade in a few to take you home; it's a terribly difficult decision given the blood, sweat and tears shed over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdev82

did you think the same thing about the end of D-Robs career? i trust the scouting and drafting that brought us Manu, Tony, Hill, Blair and countless others. Hill is going to be good. Blair is going to be very, very good if he stays healthy. i think with tony leading a young athletic team the spurs could make the playoffs the year after Timmy leaves.

---

There's no comparison between now and the end of DRob's career. At the end of Robinson's career, the Spurs knew they had another two-way HoF player to build on, who was a proven champion, whose character was never going to be in question, and whose only focus would be on team and not individual accomplishments.

They don't have that now. In fact no one has really had one of those since . . . the Spurs in 2003.

Hill, Blair, etc. may turn out to be good enough to keep the Spurs in the playoffs, but they are going to need a lot of help, and they are not going to be another Duncan or Robinson.

The Spurs may very well blow up their supporting cast and stashed talent come trade deadline, if theres an advantageous deal out there. Last year at the deadline they were gunning for Camby and VC - because good deals were out there. During the summer, we got the All-Star formerly known as Richard Jefferson.

Do you part with Manu or TP? I personally don't think so and I don't think trading them is indicative of an 'all-in' moment. RJeff was brought in precisely to offset the age related game changes of Manu. He's no longer an offensive force, but as a distributor and creator and general disruptor he is immensely valuable. I think of him as the more talented wing version of Robert Horry. The difficulty with either of those players if that value just isn't out there for what they bring on the whole to the Spurs. Who can bring the intangibles and multi-faceted skills of (an albeit less explosive) Manu? Who, when healthy is truly a better fit for the Spurs as PG than TP? Other than Deron/CP3? Rose, maybe? A demonstrable upgrade to PG or Sixth Man (or commensurate talent) is just not out there for those two players, unless you really are just blowing up the entire makeup of the team and reloading for 2010-2011.

So, from what I understand from you question, does 'all-in' include moving Manu or TP? No, it doesn't. Could it encompass moving some of their youth (Hill, Blair, Splitter)? Yes, most definitely.

So, for me, 'all-in' would not include dealing Manu or TP, but could include Hill/Blair/Splitter. But with the caveat that it demonstrably upgrades the Spurs (a cop-out I know). Trading Blair to get back Haywood? No. Trading Blair for Noah (pipe dream, I know)? Yes.

Blackjack has lost his composure.

While Spurs are clearly one step behind Lakers, they should avoid some impulsive reactions like:

- Adding talent just to add talent. Adding talent without looking at the team need(s) isn't a solution. It just doesn't work (see the 03-04 Mavs). For example, Spurs are one of the best offense in the league while Parker, Ginobili and Jefferson have all a so-so offensive production. If Spurs add an offensive talent, it won't really help the team because it will just take the ball off the hands of great offensive players.

- Blowing up the team. The more trades you do, the more times it will take for the team to reach his upside. Given that Duncan has a limited number of year left, it doesn't look like a good idea. The only big name I can see Spurs trading before the deadline is Ginobili if Spurs' staff thinks he is done. And I think it's very unlikely to happen (maybe a 10% odd).


As other people said, Spurs' biggest need is by far a defensive minded bigman. There should have a dozen of options more or less realistic/good. And most of these options aren't good enough to trade Blair or Hill. Expiring contracts and picks should be Spurs offer for these players. Spurs just need this little tweak to be again a legit contender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

As other people said, Spurs' biggest need is by far a defensive minded bigman. There should have a dozen of options more or less realistic/good. And most of these options aren't good enough to trade Blair or Hill. Expiring contracts and picks should be Spurs offer for these players. Spurs just need this little tweak to be again a legit contender.

---

You would consider trading that good defensive wing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.I.T

Trading Blair for Noah (pipe dream, I know)? Yes.

---

i seriously hope not! seriously!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Blackjack has lost his composure.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

While Spurs are clearly one step behind Lakers, they should avoid some impulsive reactions like:

- Adding talent just to add talent. Adding talent without looking at the team need(s) isn't a solution. It just doesn't work (see the 03-04 Mavs). For example, Spurs are one of the best offense in the league while Parker, Ginobili and Jefferson have all a so-so offensive production. If Spurs add an offensive talent, it won't really help the team because it will just take the ball off the hands of great offensive players.

- Blowing up the team. The more trades you do, the more times it will take for the team to reach his upside. Given that Duncan has a limited number of year left, it doesn't look like a good idea. The only big name I can see Spurs trading before the deadline is Ginobili if Spurs' staff thinks he is done. And I think it's very unlikely to happen (maybe a 10% odd).


As other people said, Spurs' biggest need is by far a defensive minded bigman. There should have a dozen of options more or less realistic/good. And most of these options aren't good enough to trade Blair or Hill. Expiring contracts and picks should be Spurs offer for these players. Spurs just need this little tweak to be again a legit contender.

---

No, Bruno, I've asked questions while acknowledging the hypothetical realm. I didn't suggest they should add talent for the sake of adding talent; talent that doesn't necessarily fit a need, a la RJ. What I asked is: What's a team with an all-in mindset to do, if circumstance doesn't dictate a realistic opportunity for a title. Maybe even realistic isn't the right word, but what if you just don't believe, as a FO, the ingredients aren't there for you to get it done? Or maybe, the ingredients, like Manu and Tony, could very well be out-of-date or tampered with and prevent them from being the players the Spurs need them to be to win a title come the end of the year?

We just don't know how bad this PF with Tony is or if Manu can become and sustain a level necessary for the Spurs to reclaim their perch atop the league; something the FO has to weigh into all of their decisions going into the trade market and whether or not making a seriously risky gamble would be something that had to be done for them justify the dollars spent.

This is simply a question; never was I here to advocate a Tony or Manu trade.

MaNu4Tres presented this reality:

Quote:

---

All in all I think R.C is stuck in a pretty tough situation, yes we need more length inside if we were to play the Lakers, but what is out there that is really that much better than what we have (Blair, McDyess, Ratliff)?? NOT MUCH.

---

So what if the need can't be addressed adequately enough to bring in someone to compliment the Big 3+1?

You've already decided to go all-in, are you just gonna play the cards your dealt? Or are you going to trade in a few cards in hopes of bettering your odds?

That was the question, and it's a gamble either way..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

You would consider trading that good defensive wing?

---

I'm fine with what Spurs at SG/SF. A player like Bogans is nowhere near great but he is playing good Defense and is hitting 3's. An upgrade in that area isn't that necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

Maybe even realistic isn't the right word, but what if you just don't believe, as a FO, the ingredients aren't there for you to get it done? Or maybe, the ingredients, like Manu and Tony, could very well be out-of-date or tampered with and prevent them from being the players the Spurs need them to be to win a title come the end of the year?

---

Even if Parker and Ginobili aren't good enough, what Spurs can do?
Teams won't trade significantly better players for him; Spurs won't be able to get Paul for Parker or Joe Johnson for Ginobili.
Spurs could trade them but at the end, it will be quite a lateral move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

So what if the need can't be addressed adequately enough to bring in someone to compliment the Big 3+1?

---

Just take a look at who Spurs have to play with Duncan in the paint with the mindset that defense is the most important for these players:

- Bonner: From a Ludden article, "when the Detroit Pistons walked onto the floor after a timeout last month against the Spurs, Rasheed Wallace offered this reminder for his teammates: “Just give the ball to whoever Bonner is on.”". I don't think I need to add more.

- Blair: He has a great rookie year but defense isn't his strength. He is very average in that area. And he is very young rookie, playoffs for him won't be easy at all.

- Ratliff: He has been signed to play a Massenbirg/Willis like role. Hoping more from him is quite unrealistic.

- McDyess: He is solid vet but nothing jaw dropping.


Spurs are extremely weak when it comes to defense from their PF/C. They can surely find a player that will help them more in that area than the current Spurs players. I don't see how you could think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Even if Parker and Ginobili aren't good enough, what Spurs can do?
Teams won't trade significantly better players for him; Spurs won't be able to get Paul for Parker or Joe Johnson for Ginobili.
Spurs could trade them but at the end, it will be quite a lateral move.

---

I'm not saying there are sure-fire ways of bettering the team by moving Manu or Tony; if it should have to come to that. I'm simply asking if something came about that could arguably give you better odds, is it something this all-in mentality would force the FO to pull the trigger on given the short window to capitalize? Would something that isn't a no-brainer really be considered?

It's a question of the mentality more than anything..

Quote:

---

Just take a look at who Spurs have to play with Duncan in the paint with the mindset that defense is the most important for these players:

- Bonner: From a Ludden article, "when the Detroit Pistons walked onto the floor after a timeout last month against the Spurs, Rasheed Wallace offered this reminder for his teammates: “Just give the ball to whoever Bonner is on.”". I don't think I need to add more.

- Blair: He has a great rookie year but defense isn't his strength. He is very average in that area. And he is very young rookie, playoffs for him won't be easy at all.

- Ratliff: He has been signed to play a Massenbirg/Willis like role. Hoping more from him is quite unrealistic.

- McDyess: He is solid vet but nothing jaw dropping.


Spurs are extremely weak when it comes to defense from their PF/C. They can surely find a player that will help them more in that area than the current Spurs players. I don't see how you could think otherwise.

---

Your assessment is pretty spot-on with mine. And you're right, there's a very good possibility that they could better their front court.

But bettering and bolstering it enough to make a real difference, are two different things. The Spurs could conceivably get better in that aspect and still not be good enough; players like Collison, Thomas and Foster alone, aren't real difference-makers for the Spurs, imo.

Maybe the Spurs believe they are, which would answer my question and how they'd go about the trade market.

But, if they believe as I do, you've got to wonder if they'll ride it out with what they've got, even if they feel it's not enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

But bettering and bolstering it enough to make a real difference, are two different things. The Spurs could conceivably get better in that aspect and still not be good enough; players like Collison, Thomas and Foster alone, aren't real difference-makers for the Spurs, imo.

Maybe the Spurs believe they are, which would answer my question and how they'd go about the trade market.

But, if they believe as I do, you've got to wonder if they'll ride it out with what they've got, even if they feel it's not enough.

---

Let's suppose that Spurs try to get a defensive bigman before the deadline and the best one they can get is Collison with a Bonner+Mahinmi+Haislip for Collison trade.

To me, it's a trade that would improve Spurs chances to beat LA even if Spurs would still be the underdogs. That's why I would do this trade.

Your point is basically "Lakers are too good, Spurs need another great trade to be at their level. If there are only good but not great trades on the table, the better solution is to stand pat and to give up this season."

I sincerely hope Spurs FO hasn't the same mindset than you.
Their priority should be to build the best team they can and see what will happen in the playoffs after that.

Don't forget that part of 'building the best team' also has a lot to do with learning and understanding the Spurs defensive system. A good example would be gooden, who was a promising young talent to help TD, but Pop basically didn't play him because he was a slow learner on defense and a blackhole on offense.
That's why I simply don't see a high impact trade coming up unless it's a over the top Gasol-like trade. A no-brainer kind of deal that would improve us automatically because of superior talent.
I just don't see anything out there like that...

The Spurs aren't "all in". There is life after Duncan, and while it may not appear that way when the Spurs front office is willing to pay I seriously doubt the Spurs will simply stop operations when Duncan retires. They will still need to sell tickets at that point and there is a future after Duncan.

I understand the point you're trying to make but the fact of the matter is that life after Duncan will still be considered. I'm not sure if they're willing to strip the team down to a 2 year bare bones operation to win now unless it gives them a markedly better chance to win now.

The mistake you make is thinking the Spurs are in a win at all costs mindset. I would argue that isn't the case. They're in a win at higher costs mindset now but don't mistake Holt willing to pay more to win now as a lack of concern for what the Spurs team will have after Duncan.

An interesting note to ponder, do you think the Spurs make the trade deadline deal they had last season of Hill for Camby? I don't think they do.

I think they do, and that is a trade they should do again IMO (although I realize the Clips would not do it). If you can't start Hill with TP and play him enough minutes on Kobe then he does not really serve that big of a purpose against the team you have to beat.

Camby would play a lot more and help out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Don't forget that part of 'building the best team' also has a lot to do with learning and understanding the Spurs defensive system. A good example would be gooden, who was a promising young talent to help TD, but Pop basically didn't play him because he was a slow learner on defense and a blackhole on offense.

---

Gooden is a bad example.
Gooden was injured when he signed with Spurs. He has started to play with the team damn late in the season because of that. And with your own words he is "a slow learner on defense", if Spurs get a new player at the deadline, he will likely get it way quicker than Gooden on the defensive end.

And in 05, Spurs got Nazr, who isn't a BB genius, at the deadline. He significantly help the team to win it all that year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Gooden is a bad example.
Gooden was injured when he signed with Spurs. He has started to play with the team damn late in the season because of that. And with your own words he is "a slow learner on defense", if Spurs get a new player at the deadline, he will likely get it way quicker than Gooden on the defensive end.

And in 05, Spurs got Nazr, who isn't a BB genius, at the deadline. He significantly help the team to win it all that year.

---

Gooden is just as good an example as Nazr. Don't forget some people claimed he would fit right in with the Spurs since he played under Mike Brown, who supposedly had a very similar system. At the very end, it's a gamble that the Spurs took and it didn't work out. Nazr would be the counter example. But this is all in hindsight.
It's hard to prognosticate how a new piece is going to fit in. People keep pointing at Haywood or Camby, but neither is really a sure thing. There's many factors to consider and some players simply don't fit in. So, from a personal perspective, I really don't put all my eggs on one basket and wait for that trade that brings the savior... I think we can compete with what we have if we can stay healthy and play considerably better on defense. I think it's possible with this roster, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

The West isn't really stronger other than LA, our main guys just got older and worse..

---

There are 11 WC teams over .500. Every team in our division is at least 3 games over .500. Think again.

I disagree..their records are nice and all and they'll compete for the playoffs, but the main competition from years ago have all gotten worse other than the Lakers, including the Spurs..

Just a few years ago there were 3 serious contenders in the West in SA, Dallas and Phoenix..all 3 of those teams are all significantly worse IMO, and none of the current non-Lakers teams would be on the same level IMO..

Those teams from the top 6-11 currently have nice records and all, but none of them are a threat to anything, and it's also very likely that they don't all keep it up..

It doesn't really matter anyways, it's a subjective argument..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

The West isn't really stronger other than LA, our main guys just got older and worse..

---

How do you figure? Duncan is still a top five player, Parker, minus the plantar fasciitis, is a top twenty player. That just leaves Ginobili...

I always tend to hesitate when it comes to players of this caliber before saying they're fallen off, but much like Garnett, it certainly looks like Ginobili has fallen off. Is it simply a matter of his needing more time? I don't know if that excuse flies anymore. After tomorrow's game, the Spurs will have reached the half way point of the season. He's played in the majority of the games and in the past month has even played (for him) relatively heavy minutes, yet still the explosion at the rim and the shooting touch in general have not returned. Which begs the question: will they ever?

If Parker can somehow pull a Duncan in '06 and go to another level in the playoffs despite the plantar fasciitis, then you're talking about a duo that's capable of leading a team to a championship. Even with Ginobili in decline, because of the improved depth. Still, Ginobili is fairly reliable in the clutch, because he's still a good play maker and an excellent free throw shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Your point is basically "Lakers are too good, Spurs need another great trade to be at their level. If there are only good but not great trades on the table, the better solution is to stand pat and to give up this season."

---

This is where you've misunderstood; probably a poor job on my behalf. This isn't about my opinion or me stating what needs to be done for the Spurs to win a title. I'm simply shootin' the shit about a very unlikely hypothetical in order to see how far this 'all-in' mindset and approach of the front office could go.

My opinion's the same as it was the day we knew what the opening-day roster: if the team stays healthy and is playing some of their better ball come April and May, they're the second best team in the West. And, no, I don't think the Lakers are too good that the Spurs need some great, spectacular trade. They just need the right trade; a legitimate number-two big man being optimum and a more well-rounded wing could be beneficial, as well.

Honestly, I don't think the Lakers are as unbeatable or great as some like to claim or assume. I do, however, think they're a bad matchup for the Spurs; like I've said in the past, the Spurs' two biggest advantages aren't necessarily things I trust to take four-out-of-seven from the Lakers: Tony's health and history against the Lakers doesn't help me to exude great confidence, and a better bench doesn't carry the amount of weight in the post-season that it does in the regular-season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Let's suppose that Spurs try to get a defensive bigman before the deadline and the best one they can get is Collison with a Bonner+Mahinmi+Haislip for Collison trade.

To me, it's a trade that would improve Spurs chances to beat LA even if Spurs would still be the underdogs. That's why I would do this trade.

---

I'm all for making the best of what they can with what's available. Even if it's someone like Collison, a guy I don't believe to be a real difference-maker, I'd still want to improve the team to give them the best chance possible; there are no absolutes in pro sports and no one knows just how it will all play out. You build a roster and prepare your team to play the best at their best, but, often times, the scenario never plays out that way. Whether it's an injury, an early-exit or just a flat-out healthy bout of good fortune, there's always the possibility a team perseveres and finds a way. (The Miami Heat have a Championship..)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The Spurs aren't "all in". There is life after Duncan, and while it may not appear that way when the Spurs front office is willing to pay I seriously doubt the Spurs will simply stop operations when Duncan retires. They will still need to sell tickets at that point and there is a future after Duncan.

---

Literally speaking, no. They're not 'all-in'. Relatively speaking, as they've thrown caution to the wind and their business model (short-term, at least), yeah. They're 'all-in'.

What they're doing now is unsustainable. They make no secret about it and it will only last for the duration of Tim's viability as the centerpiece; as the foundation. They're savvy businessman who also happen to have the foresight to know that an opportunity to taste this kind of success doesn't come around very often. They'll take their shot while they can (even at the expense of some short-term tax or potential talent) and adjust the books and gameplan moving forward accordingly; there are going to be some big decisions to be made by the Spurs and players alike after Tim's gone, lean or less-than-stellar-years are inevitable given the hindsight of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The mistake you make is thinking the Spurs are in a win at all costs mindset. I would argue that isn't the case. They're in a win at higher costs mindset now but don't mistake Holt willing to pay more to win now as a lack of concern for what the Spurs team will have after Duncan.

---

Again, I probably did a poor job of putting forth the question. There was no mistake on my part, just an honest question about a hypothetical scenario; one that might give some insight into the mindset of the FO.

There will be life after Duncan. It's going to be a little rough and, depending on how much of the FO stays intact, it could get pretty bleak. But the Spurs aren't going about this recklessly; boldly seems better suited.

They're 'all-in' is a departure from business as usual. It's taking on tax like never before and being much more proactive and aggressive with their roster. But they're doing so in a strategic fashion, knowing this moment is fleeting; even RJ's an expiring contract next year.

They've got a gameplan they've set into motion, one that probably won't see much deviation, but one that coincides with Tim's window and won't prevent them from making just about any move that makes basketball sense over that span.

They're essentially going all-in with what they brought to the table, not all that they own.

bruno laying down tha knowledge in general