All have added one or two players to upgrade their roster and at least address some need. Memphis okc and phx have cheap owners but they did it anyway. Why is the spurs FO so reluctant?????
Printable View
All have added one or two players to upgrade their roster and at least address some need. Memphis okc and phx have cheap owners but they did it anyway. Why is the spurs FO so reluctant?????
Probably because they're coming off 2 finals runs (3 straight WCF appearances) with young talent that is still improving. And not to mention a proven system
Because all they really need to do is get healthy.
Here we go again.... That they haven't done anything doesn't mean they haven't tried and doesn't mean they won't do something.
If they've had talks but everyone demands Leonard or Green to do a deal, would you really be upset that the Spurs haven't made a deal?
The Spurs arent reluctant as much as theyre simply unhealthy. This team did just bulldoze the majority of their wins through to the championship. One shouldnt be surprised the rest of the best feels pressure to catch up.
More so now everyone is on the outside looking in. The Spurs just need to be healthy. Healthy AND motivated. That said, watch them pull of a surprise trade
So you know for a fact that they haven't tried? Who is your source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aremid
Seriously, given the improvement of Joseph, Baynes and now Ayers while others are out, it's hard to see the Spurs trying anything major unless Leonard is somehow out for the season. There is a possibility they jettison Daye and start auditioning D-League players or pick up a vet off waivers but it doesn't seem like they feel any pressure to make a big move at this point.
As long as Daye gets moved. Just a waste of roster space at this point.
Pop said it best: These guys were pretty good last year, so we thought we'd bring them back."
No tradeable assets. Team health is the issue not the personnel.
Those teams also have one ring between them in the last 15 years.... despite the fact that some of them have outspent the Spurs by many millions. What part of 5 championships, highest winning percentage in NBA, and most consecutive seasons with 50 wins do you think is pure dumb luck, and what percentage is having a really good Front Office and all around smart staff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You have enough reasons, yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aremid
Here's another one...
Atlanta, Golden State, and Portland are the only teams that are significantly ahead of The Spurs in the standings. The Spurs are within four or fewer games (in the loss column) of all the other teams in the league despite having had a much worse schedule than most teams (historically bad schedule), and lots of injuries, specifically to the area with the least depth (Kawhi). They have come from that far behind with worse rosters and fewer games remaining in the season if memory serves me correctly.
None of the teams you've mentioned that have made changes are in the three that are significantly ahead in the standings. Making the changes you are considering didn't put them in that elite three. If you are referring to the more recent changes at OKC, for example, there's no guarantee those changes will vault them into elite status, either, or at least no better than they were last year, which was already pretty darn good.
The Spurs pretty much just ran rough-shod all over the NBA last year.
If something works, you keep doing it until it doesn't work anymore. We won't know if this still works until every one is in shape and healthy.
Also, there's something called "organic growth". Even without new players, the players and team you already have can improve upon what was had six-twelve months previous. Just because they didn't bring in new players according to what your trade machine and analytics told you what would work and benefit them doesn't mean they can't improve.
I know that for a lot of you, it's the funnest part of being a fan, rearranging the team, etc. But, in general, it's dumb, unless there is a glaring need. There wasn't a glaring need. Sure, maybe a small forward backup for Kawhi if the right one could be had. Maybe a better guard than Joseph at third string, a better fourth or fifth big than Ayers? None of those were glaring holes during the championship run. You don't make changes just because. This isn't your fantasy league.
Does your boss rearrange you out of your job every year because there are better yous running around out there in the wild? I promise you there are. But, he keeps you.
I bet he shot himself in da face.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlecoyotecoin
There ya go....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bones
Houston and OKC made moves that made them worse, tbh:lol..
And the Mavs' move was largely irrelevant..
Memphis got a nice upgrade, although I'm not sure how Green fits with their team/style..Phoenix made the best move of the bunch, as they needed a 15 MPG backup C..
No tradeable assets besides picks, and I wouldn't throw those around when next year is rebuilding time. Besides, our rotation is basically set, like it or not.
PHX is the only team that certainly got better, and they're still a marginal gimmick team. Jeff Green gives Memphis another wing that can't shoot and a stretch 4 that can't rebound. Don't be fooled when teams trade for players with name-recognition that have started on 20 win teams for years like Green, Rondo, Smith. They're mostly losers or mediocre players that play in big markets. Shump, JR Smith, etc. If Cory Joseph had played for the Knicks they could probably turn him into a first rounder and make the fans think it was a big move.
:lol Yep, as I've been saying for years..NBA fans fall for name recognition more than any other sport, it's not even close..Quote:
Originally Posted by benstanfield
It's also dependent on the particular team that makes the move, like you said..the only person on mainstream media that has echoed this sentiment has been LeBatard, he said the Cavs are the only team that could have acquired shitty players like Shumpert, Smith and Mozgov and have everybody consider it as the "missing pieces":lol..
okc didn't trade Westbrook Durant or ibaka to fill a need. Houston didn't lose their young assets to address a need. It's clear that given kawhi and his health we NEED a backup sf... And if those aforementioned teams didn't have to give up much to get the players they needed, why can't we (when we HAVE good enough assets and draft picks). We were lucky kawhi was healthy last year but what about this year? Shouldn't we have a backup to spare him some minutes while still being able to win games and improve our position??Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
we have a great team, we just need to get everyone healthy and on the court...
frankly, there's no plug & play trade that would work for the Spurs, IMO... even 1st year players barely get playing time, due to learning the system and what Pop wants them to do out there.
Sorry but i'm not looking for another Richard Jefferson situation just because we had "to do something".
Joseph has played himself into being a tradable asset, but for what? You don't trade him for the sake of trading him. Other than a backup SF, when the team is healthy, all positions are covered.
According to Zach Lowe, Trailblazers are close to acquiring Wilson Chandler. Denver just waiting for POR to toss in a 1st rounder.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlecoyotecoin
Unbelievable. But we can't trade Marco and draft picks lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Johnny RIngo
we got Daye nigga. word up
Are you serious? What are the Blazers trading for Chandler? Darn, I was very interested in getting Wilson Chandler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny RIngo
Because when healthy, this roster -as is - will wipe the floor with whoever is in their way come playoff time.
It's nowhere near a done deal I think. Lowe's a legit source but he's no Woj when it comes to breaking news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice009
let's be more like the clippers and trade kawhi for austin rivers
I'm less concerned about his health given there are no recurring injuries - hand injury last year was a broken finger, this year it's the same hand but a different injury. Eye problem was another one-off issue. This hand injury seems a bit more murky, but I'll give the FO the benefit of the doubt for ensuring it heals 100%. His knee issues that he had in 2012-13 haven't flared up this year or really last year. I'd be more concerned with guys like Parker and recurring injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aremid
What I am concerned with is him going down for an extended stretch again. We are a .500 team without him, and run away with the best record in the league with him (excluding playoffs, I don't think he's missed a playoff game to date):
This year: 15-7 with / 8-8 without (56 win pace with him / 41 without)
Last year: 54-12 with / 8-8 without (67 win pace / 41)
2013: 43-15 with / 15-9 without (61 win pace / 51)
2012: 49-15 with / 1-1 without (63 win pace / 41)
Throughout his career, they're a 45 win team without him (32-26) and a 63 win team with him (161-49). Granted, there are games without him where other main guys didn't play but there are also games he played in where some starters rested. Needless to say, the FO knows this team should go at about 60 win pace once he's back, and rushing him back could spell doom.
:tu Nice post.Quote:
Originally Posted by cjw