Lowe: Before Spurs extended Aldridge, thought him, plus Murray, 1st was interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poolboy5623

It still is bad..

---

I agree. Just playing for laughs - low hanging fruit. Nonetheless, Conley's is historically terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

He is massively overrating Gasol. :lmao..

Aldridge is a better scorer, rebounder, and might even say, have been a better defender since 2015 than Gasol. The latter is obviously a superior passer, shot-creator and has higher overall basketball IQ, but nothing that would somehow put him in a higher player tier which would require the worth of two first round picks to bridge the (non-existing) gap between two :lol..

Like you said in the other thread, the Memphis brass are hilariously overvaluing this Gasol/Conley core, and they are going to hit mediocrity and irrelevance sooner or later..They should get ahead of it to salvage something from the impending mess..

---

On cue.."big timers" :lol

Obviously you're going to say that in public, but the difference, I think, they actually strongly believe in it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

On cue.."big timers" :lol

Obviously you're going to say that in public, but the difference, I think, they actually strongly believe in it..

---

:lol...in before he changes his tune 2 seasons from now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

On cue.."big timers" :lol

Obviously you're going to say that in public, but the difference, I think, they actually strongly believe in it..

---

Actually I think the problem is that they can't wipe the cap clean unless they can dump both. So unless they can do a mega-deal that involves Conley and Marc leaving, they won't trade either separately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

He is massively overrating Gasol.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

:lmao

..

Aldridge is a better scorer, rebounder, and might even say, have been a better defender since 2015 than Gasol. The latter is obviously a superior passer, shot-creator and has higher overall basketball IQ, but nothing that would somehow put him in a higher player tier which would require the worth of two first round picks to bridge the (non-existing) gap between two

:lol

..

Like you said in the other thread, the Memphis brass are hilariously overvaluing this Gasol/Conley core, and they are going to hit mediocrity and irrelevance sooner or later..They should get ahead of it to salvage something from the impending mess..

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht

Fatsol is the most overrated player of the last decade. Has been considered the best Center for 5+ years yet no one ever gameplans for that soft finesse fuck :lol

That 2013 undeserved DPOY that belonged to Timmy <<<<

---

:tu

Agree, but in terms of this decade, Thompson has surpassed him.

Conley’s contract is putrid. He’s only had two seasons with a PER of 20 or more in his career, and he is in the top 10 contracts. He’s a good distributor, and a feisty defender, but doesn’t score much, sort of a high powered Patrick Beverley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Conley’s contract is putrid. He’s only had two seasons with a PER of 20 or more in his career, and he is in the top 10 contracts. He’s a good distributor, and a feisty defender, but doesn’t score much, sort of a high powered Patrick Beverley.

---

I don't think so. Dude was abusing the Spurs last playoffs. Dude is better than that.

Marc was the Spurs' first choice in free agency in 2015, but it seems clear that Aldridge is a better fit for them now. At best, Marc would be a Hyper Pau (something close to Pau's per-36 averages but with the minutes and playability to actually reach those numbers per game), but then Pau himself would have been useless. In a world where the team signed Marc in 2015 and then built the rest of their big-man rotation about it, I could see them being better or more stable. But if I'm dealing two picks for Marc, it's Pau who's the outgoing asset, not LMA.

Lowe's arrogance is so far out of balance at this point. He was fucking wrong on LMA. That should have been easy to admit. Instead he keeps calling a spade a pitchfork. The team wanted him. They wanted him long term but feared he'd walk. Getting Aldridge on an extension wasn't about moving him -- PATFO simply does't operate that way. They don't care about shit like trade value. That's for teams who suck and constantly turn over their rosters. They won't keep a guy they want gone for another year simply so they can get a chance at a better pick in a deal. That's really, really stupid.

If anyone did what I did and spent a few minutes working out a Pau-for-Marc trade, it would probably look like:

Pau
Murray
Bertans
First with like top-five protection only

For

Marc
Two of Selden, Chalmers or Rabb

I'd prefer Joff out and Davis in and either Forbes or White over Murray, but you can't have everything.

Parker, Green, Leonard, Aldridge, Marc
Mills, Ginobili, Gay, Anderson, Lauvergne
White, Forbes, Paul, (Memphis guys)

That's really not a bad roster, and Aldridge and Gasol would pretty much expire at the same time. The only real shame is that there's no path to a good guard after this. Even with his struggles, being able to turn Parker or Patty into Hill's three-year deal. Seems like a nice transition era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

I don't think so. Dude was abusing the Spurs last playoffs. Dude is better than that.

---

That was an aberration, as were a number of his stats, like PER, BPM, and VORP, If you look at his other seasons and other playoff runs, this is a clear case of contract year play. He went all Bonzi Wells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

That was an aberration, as were a number of his stats, like PER, BPM, and VORP, If you look at his other seasons and other playoff runs, this is a clear case of contract year play. He went all Bonzi Wells.

---

He's done it more than once vs the Spurs.

Is Marc so far ahead of Pau at this point to lose Murray over it Chinook? Just wondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

That was an aberration, as were a number of his stats, like PER, BPM, and VORP, If you look at his other seasons and other playoff runs, this is a clear case of contract year play. He went all Bonzi Wells.

---

I don't necessarily think it was an aberration. He was balling and has been good other times.. but I think at this point in his career he's too injury prone. That series he was healthy. Can't count on it anymore though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

He's done it more than once vs the Spurs.

---

I’m looking at his bbref page, and last year sticks out like a sore thumb. He never has sustained excelllence over a whole season plus playoffs until then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

Is Marc so far ahead of Pau at this point to lose Murray over it Chinook? Just wondering.

---

I'd rather not lose Murray, but the Spurs have to decide how good they think Murray is GOING to be during his tenure with the club -- not how good he can be if everything works out. I do think that upgrading from Pau to Marc is worth a lot, because Marc's a stable asset who should be good for a few more years whereas Pau could physically drop off at any moment.

There are two things to consider:

1) Who's the best young guard on the roster going forward? You got Murray, Forbes and White as the obvious candidates with Hanlan as a dark horse. Murray seems to be the favorite to be a 10, but he may forever be a three whereas White might just be a five or six. I'd keep Murray if I could for the upside, but he has a price tag. He'll need some consistent skills next year or else he may forever be irrelevant.

2) Does Marc make the Spurs a true contender (as in closer to GS than any other team is to them), and if not can they put together another trade to take them there? I think it's close but that they'd be closer to Houston than GS due to shaky back-court play. If they are going to trade a first or two and potentially their best young prospect, they have to go all-in and chase a guard using Parker or Mills and another precious asset or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I'd rather not lose Murray, but the Spurs have to decide how good they think Murray is GOING to be during his tenure with the club -- not how good he can be if everything works out. I do think that upgrading from Pau to Marc is worth a lot, because Marc's a stable asset who should be good for a few more years whereas Pau could physically drop off at any moment.

There are two things to consider:

1) Who's the best young guard on the roster going forward? You got Murray, Forbes and White as the obvious candidates with Hanlan as a dark horse. Murray seems to be the favorite to be a 10, but he may forever be a three whereas White might just be a five or six. I'd keep Murray if I could for the upside, but he has a price tag. He'll need some consistent skills next year or else he may forever be irrelevant.

2) Does Marc make the Spurs a true contender (as in closer to GS than any other team is to them), and if not can they put together another trade to take them there? I think it's close but that they'd be closer to Houston than GS due to shaky back-court play. If they are going to trade a first or two and potentially their best young prospect, they have to go all-in and chase a guard using Parker or Mills and another precious asset or two.

---

I might be ok letting Murray go in this case. I actually like white. His shooting is much better than Murray and his handles are probably better.
I also think Hanlan can be a dark horse in this too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

I don't think so. Dude was abusing the Spurs last playoffs. Dude is better than that.

---

Dont' agree with that comparison either, but Conley certainly isn't anywhere worth near the contract. He's probably a top 10 PG which is saying something in today's NBA but can't stay healthy; their stuck with him, for better or for worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

Is Marc so far ahead of Pau at this point to lose Murray over it Chinook? Just wondering.

---

That's a valid point; Pau Gasol has been fantastic this season, he isn't as good as his younger brother but I don't know if its by very much at the moment. I wouldn't give up Murray and/ or a first in a deal for Marc tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

Dont' agree with that comparison either, but Conley certainly isn't anywhere worth near the contract. He's probably a top 10 PG which is saying something in today's NBA but can't stay healthy; their stuck with him, for better or for worse.

---

I never said he's worth his contract. Just don't say he's a better Pat Beverly. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I'd rather not lose Murray, but the Spurs have to decide how good they think Murray is GOING to be during his tenure with the club -- not how good he can be if everything works out. I do think that upgrading from Pau to Marc is worth a lot, because Marc's a stable asset who should be good for a few more years whereas Pau could physically drop off at any moment.

There are two things to consider:

1) Who's the best young guard on the roster going forward? You got Murray, Forbes and White as the obvious candidates with Hanlan as a dark horse. Murray seems to be the favorite to be a 10, but he may forever be a three whereas White might just be a five or six. I'd keep Murray if I could for the upside, but he has a price tag. He'll need some consistent skills next year or else he may forever be irrelevant.

2) Does Marc make the Spurs a true contender (as in closer to GS than any other team is to them), and if not can they put together another trade to take them there? I think it's close but that they'd be closer to Houston than GS due to shaky back-court play. If they are going to trade a first or two and potentially their best young prospect, they have to go all-in and chase a guard using Parker or Mills and another precious asset or two.

---

All good points.
I wouldn't send Murray out in a trade unless the Spurs have an answer with their PG spot coming in from somewhere else. It's a definite weakness. Murray is the best chance they have to internally develop a starting caliber PG. I give them credit for not putting all eggs in that one basket and picking up other guards, as you say potential 5 or 6 or 7, whereas if Murray doesn't improve at all he stays a 3 or a 4. I also give the Spurs credit for allowing the youngins time to improve. They have showed patience with some of their previous young picks.

If they have an answer for their PG spot through some other means (a trade, or a FA) then I am more comfortable. But I understand it wouldn't make sense for the Grizz to take anything less, and they may not even like that trade at all anyways.

thanks for answering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Marc was the Spurs' first choice in free agency in 2015, but it seems clear that Aldridge is a better fit for them now.

---

Said it at the time and never wavered: Aldridge was always the better fit. Spurs needed a featured scorer and versatile defender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

If anyone did what I did and spent a few minutes working out a Pau-for-Marc trade, it would probably look like:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Pau
Murray
Bertans
First with like top-five protection only

For

Marc
Two of Selden, Chalmers or Rabb

I'd prefer Joff out and Davis in and either Forbes or White over Murray, but you can't have everything.

Parker, Green, Leonard, Aldridge, Marc
Mills, Ginobili, Gay, Anderson, Lauvergne
White, Forbes, Paul, (Memphis guys)

That's really not a bad roster, and Aldridge and Gasol would pretty much expire at the same time. The only real shame is that there's no path to a good guard after this. Even with his struggles, being able to turn Parker or Patty into Hill's three-year deal. Seems like a nice transition era.

---

Spurs more than likely wouldn't even consider this. One of the biggest myths in this league is the supposed (non exist) gap between the Gasol's. Honestly think if Pau were the exact same player but 3 years younger, no one would pretend otherwise.

I would be ok with trading Murray for Alex Len. I'd throw in Bertans as well to see if we could pry their second 1st round pick from them at 14.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I'd rather not lose Murray, but the Spurs have to decide how good they think Murray is GOING to be during his tenure with the club -- not how good he can be if everything works out. I do think that upgrading from Pau to Marc is worth a lot, because Marc's a stable asset who should be good for a few more years whereas Pau could physically drop off at any moment.

There are two things to consider:

1) Who's the best young guard on the roster going forward? You got Murray, Forbes and White as the obvious candidates with Hanlan as a dark horse. Murray seems to be the favorite to be a 10, but he may forever be a three whereas White might just be a five or six. I'd keep Murray if I could for the upside, but he has a price tag. He'll need some consistent skills next year or else he may forever be irrelevant.

2) Does Marc make the Spurs a true contender (as in closer to GS than any other team is to them), and if not can they put together another trade to take them there? I think it's close but that they'd be closer to Houston than GS due to shaky back-court play. If they are going to trade a first or two and potentially their best young prospect, they have to go all-in and chase a guard using Parker or Mills and another precious asset or two.

---

I think that is good, solid analysis. But PATFO would never pull the trigger on what would amount to 2 blockbuster (at least in Spurs terms) trades in short order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

Said it at the time and never wavered: Aldridge was always the better fit. Spurs needed a featured scorer and versatile defender.



Spurs more than likely wouldn't even consider this. One of the biggest myths in this league is the supposed (non exist) gap between the Gasol's. Honestly think if Pau were the exact same player but 3 years younger, no one would pretend otherwise.

---

What do you mean by this? If Pau was younger, there wouldn't be much difference between the two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Getting Aldridge on an extension wasn't about moving him -- PATFO simply does't operate that way. They don't care about shit like trade value. That's for teams who suck and constantly turn over their rosters. They won't keep a guy they want gone for another year simply so they can get a chance at a better pick in a deal. That's really, really stupid.

---

This is so absolutely true. Never for a second it crossed my mind that extending Lamarcus was about a trade. It was clear as day to any spurfan that the Spurs mended fences. They weren't keen to send Danny out in a firesale either.

They are more likely to hold on to their picks and develop them if they can or if they are not good, let them go than be dealing and wheeling... he should visit spurforum and verify that the PATFO critics always precisely mention how Pop doesn't think too far ahead when it terms to trades. He dealt dearest Georgie Hill, but he wasn't as machiavellian as to sign him to then deal him. The guys the lately traded out like Boris and Tiago were for moves to be made right at the moment. It wasn't like they were signed with the intention of getting moved in a year or two.

In fact, this may be real unpopular, but in the future, I am not sure Mills even finishes the 4 year contract in the Spurs necessarily, specially if none of the Spurs picks pan out like they hope and they have to make a trade to improve the roster... but if that eventuality were to happen, it doesn't mean that any point they thought of signing Mills with that intention, it's actually probably quite the opposite.

Lowe is just off. He was right that Lamarcus was disgruntled and those rumblings had footing, but once the Spurs laundered their dirty laundry at home, to keep on with that has to be about him saving face, no?