What the San Antonio Should Plan to Do Heading Into Free Agency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mo7888

Yes, we've sucked at getting trades done...we are an outlier but, I can't look at it from the standpoint of 'I'm not going to do something because the FO sucks at turning it into value'. If I have to consider moves based on a weak FO and assume they can't possibly improve then all we can do is let contracts expire and draft....because we aren't good at trades...we aren't good at signing FA's.... we draft well and that's it... so if we are only going play to our strengths well.... I just can't think that way myself...

---

Sure, but if we are being honest. Cap Space for trade purposes > Poeltl for trade purposes. So no matter how you slice it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

timvp - here’s a perfect example of something that should be done. Thoughts:

Mills to Bucks for Robin Lopez + 2nd rounder. They could sign and trade Robin Lopez 3 years/39M (13M per) with only the first year guaranteed. It matched Mills salary, SA can let Poeltl walk and preserve cap space and have their one year replacement for Poeltl as well. Then waive Robin next season.

Robin agrees because he was making 5M so he gets a big one year deal and he gets right back into FA next year with more money.

Boom. Done.

---

I don't think a 3-year contract can have 2 unguaranteed years like that. Though I defer to anyone with more knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

I don't think a 3-year contract can have 2 unguaranteed years like that. Though I defer to anyone with more knowledge.

---

I’m insulted as to be insinuated I am not the person with that knowledge lmao

S&T contracts have to be at least 3 years, no longer than 4 but only need one year fully guaranteed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Sure, but if we are being honest. Cap Space for trade purposes > Poeltl for trade purposes. So no matter how you slice it...

---

I dont think that's the case next year because so many teams will have cap space it devalues it... 2 years from now I think cap space will be more valuable. Next summer I think players on reasonable contracts to trade to teams who struck out in FA is more valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan2k5

If we don't trade DDR and LMA, this is pointless

---

Yup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I’m insulted as to be insinuated I am not the person with that knowledge lmao

S&T contracts have to be at least 3 years, no longer than 4 but only need one year fully guaranteed.

---

Perhaps I put too much weight on my unreliable memory then. I really thought there could only be one non-guaranteed year on a contract now and was leaving myself an out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGD

Do we know yet if the trade deadline remains the same? (Feb)

---

I’m guessing that because the season is offset by a month, that everything else will be, too. Deadline will probably be in March.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Yeah, I've thought about that argument that if you sign Poeltl to a market value contract, it's justifiable because you could just trade him if you need the cap space. It makes some sense but it's too risky, IMO. Teams are already souring on traditional centers. If that accelerates, then you're stuck with a player who you have to attach draft picks to in order to salary dump. That's just worth the risk -- especially when the upside to re-signing him is limited in any of the most likely scenarios.

IMO, I didn't mention anything about max free agents.

I do have to better explain why cap room is important. That's a longer explanation that I'll probably turn into an article. Thanks.

---

You're correct. I read "max" into your post. I'm here for a plan of what the Spurs would do with 40M in cap space. I'll watch for the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Oh, yeah, absolutely. That shouldn't need to be said ... but it does need to be said, given the strange decisions the FO has made in recent years. You don't let Poeltl walk if you follow that up by wasting your cap space. If the Spurs want to, for example, trade Aldridge and DeRozan for bad contracts attached to multiple draft picks, that's an acceptable plan. But in such a scenario where the cap space will disappear, then just go ahead and re-sign Poeltl.

---

Better than the way I said it... of course. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

We were close - I have been leading the Twitter charge at 8M or less for Poeltl or you let him walk. Same basic reasonings. It’s very surprising how much push back I’ve been getting on that...People really A) like Poeltl and/or B) don’t see what has happened to Centers values. Im surprised at how many people think he may land a 12M+ offer? I don’t think that’s coming but it’s possible.

What I will be very upset at is if they give out any deals in FA using MLE or whatever that exceed 1 year. If you aren’t going to trade DDR/LMA for picks to help your future, the BARE MINIMUM is to protect cap space as you said. I don’t care if some decent vet will help you push for the playoffs; if you aren’t willing to extend LMA and/or DDR then you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT HAND OUT MORE THAN ONE YEAR DEALS for marginal low ceiling upgrades that are not part of a future.

Beyond that agree:

No Bryn
No Beli
No Metu
No Zeller

Ok with Lyles, but also good if he’s gone and Luka gets all his minutes, but my guess is Lyles is back.

Under no circumstances while LMA/DDR are on the team do you bring back Jakob for anything more than 8M. I’m fine letting him walk for anything that is not 1 year long honestly even though I like him.

---

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

My max is $7 million but if he gets like a 3-year, $20 million offer and the Spurs don't match, I won't be upset. Most Spurs fans would be hysterical but, meh, I'd be okay with that. (Assuming, of course, they stick to the masterplan of valuing salary cap space in 2021.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Spurs NEED TO TRADE. At a minimum this roster is clunky and messy and Mills should have + value. Spurs have the guards to give him up and get something back. If DDR/LMA are here you can still trade Mills fix the roster.

---

This is where you lose me a little bit. The Spurs don't need to trade if they are focused on the salary cap. Rearranging the deck chairs for the sake of getting a "better fitting roster" or whatever is not high on my list of priorities. It's not even on the list, tbh.

If you can get a first for Mills, you trade him. Do you trade him to get the elusive "better fitting roster" or do you milk that supposed veteran leadership for one more year? Personally, I don't care either way. The only way I care is if there's a real asset attached to Mills in a trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

My HOPE is they trade LMA and DDR for future assets (even if it’s just younger gambles and not picks). If they wait until the deadline they will have no value at all.

---

I'll go along with this as long as that asset is pick, a damn interesting young player who is worth eating cap space or someone on a one-year deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

But dont mess up your cap space if you aren’t willing to do the above under any circumstances.

---

*handshake reengaged*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

timvp - here’s a perfect example of something that should be done. Thoughts:

Mills to Bucks for Robin Lopez + 2nd rounder. They could sign and trade Robin Lopez 3 years/39M (13M per) with only the first year guaranteed. It matched Mills salary, SA can let Poeltl walk and preserve cap space and have their one year replacement for Poeltl as well. Then waive Robin next season.

Robin agrees because he was making 5M so he gets a big one year deal and he gets right back into FA next year with more money.

Boom. Done.

---

Meh. I wouldn't be upset with that deal but it doesn't excite me. I want more than the 59th or 60th pick for Mills. I also don't care about "replacing" Poeltl. If he leaves, Lyles, Eubanks, Jackie Butler or whoever off the street can fill the role, I don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

My max is $7 million but if he gets like a 3-year, $20 million offer and the Spurs don't match, I won't be upset. Most Spurs fans would be hysterical but, meh, I'd be okay with that. (Assuming, of course, they stick to the masterplan of valuing salary cap space in 2021.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

Also, unless you're going to utilize it as a dumping ground for dead money to extract draft capital, it's overrated. As long as you have an easy path to creating it if need be, that's all that matters.

---

Asset retention (at 3/$20M) is far more important. At some point, this organization needs to show a backbone and stop allowing the league to poach their RFA's so easily while embarrassing them in trades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurPadre

Baynes is also 9 years older. We can't have two aging bigs on the floor.

---

Year by year. Lots of bigs In next years draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Yeah, I've thought about that argument that if you sign Poeltl to a market value contract, it's justifiable because you could just trade him if you need the cap space. It makes some sense but it's too risky, IMO. Teams are already souring on traditional centers. If that accelerates, then you're stuck with a player who you have to attach draft picks to in order to salary dump. That's just worth the risk -- especially when the upside to re-signing him is limited in any of the most likely scenarios.

IMO, I didn't mention anything about max free agents.

I do have to better explain why cap room is important. That's a longer explanation that I'll probably turn into an article. Thanks.

---

I should say, I'm in general agreement with your post, as I tried to indicate. I would rather Drew Eubanks at 4M than Poeltl at 12M. Even Drew at 3 and Poeltl at 10 is a question mark. Maybe Eubanks.

I'm also hopeful Spurs do nothing this offseason, other than dip into their MLE or use the bi-annual. Splitting the MLE on two of Langston Galloway, Bruno Caboclo, or Josh Jackson would make me happy. Very easy to please on a 14th or 15th man who might be developable.

Starting off free agency on the right foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeusWillJudge

Ainge has been a vicious sonofabitch in free agency negotiations. That's not a complaint - it's exactly what I would like to see representing the Spurs.

I'll go one step further. Ainge would have gotten more value out of Kawhi. He just would have.

---

Which is why I'm not quite sure I agree with ATL Spur abouting wanting a piece of what he's planning. I can see our FO getting bent over a table...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pad300

Which is why I'm not quite sure I agree with ATL Spur abouting wanting a piece of what he's planning. I can see our FO getting bent over a table...

---

CIA Pop will make him cry.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Meh. I wouldn't be upset with that deal but it doesn't excite me. I want more than the 59th or 60th pick for Mills. I also don't care about "replacing" Poeltl. If he leaves, Lyles, Eubanks, Jackie Butler or whoever off the street can fill the role, I don't care.

---

It’s not just 59/60. It’s the guarantee not bringing Jakob back + that imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

It’s not just 59/60. It’s the guarantee not bringing Jakob back + that imo

---

I mean, not bringing back Jakob isn't exactly difficult. You just don't match the offersheet.

Boom.

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I mean, not bringing back Jakob isn't exactly difficult. You just don't match the offersheet.

Boom.

Done.

---

I’d rather have 59/60 + guaranteed not bringing him back than no pick. Especially if “goal “ is being 1 year competitive

If we are operating under premise competing this year is a thing? You get some value vs “leadership”. 2nd rounder > leadership imo

At a minimum isn’t that doing right by Mills? Go to a contender and possibly get minutes vs cheerleading for a team like Sa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I’d rather have 59/60 + guaranteed not bringing him back than no pick. Especially if “goal “ is being 1 year competitive

If we are operating under premise competing this year is a thing? You get some value vs “leadership”. 2nd rounder > leadership imo

---

Looking at what SAS has done for the last 20 years, PATFO disagrees; in their opinion, "leadership + culture" > late second round pick.

Well yeah they’ve been a** :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

At a minimum isn’t that doing right by Mills? Go to a contender and possibly get minutes vs cheerleading for a team like Sa?

---

Don't care what Mills wants. Need more than pick 59 or 60.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

Perhaps I put too much weight on my unreliable memory then. I really thought there could only be one non-guaranteed year on a contract now and was leaving myself an out.

---

Can only have one option year under the current CBA. You can sign a player to a five-year full non-guaranteed deal so long as you have Bird rights.