Reply With Quote
Where will the points come from?
Schooled.
Where will the points come from?
I don't know why there is this assumption that moving one of those guys would hurt playoffs chances. I think LMA is the most important out of those guys, but the Spurs would be fine without DeRozan or Gay.
Is it possible that White/Lonnie/Murray pick up some of the slack and the defense improves more than the offense suffers? I don’t know..it’s a question of what the stats say vs reality and application of those stats.
I’m saying I think people need to stop thinking about the playoffs at all regarding these questions. Playoffs or not, you either believe in the DeRozan led Spurs or you don’t. Eeking into the playoffs playing .500 ball shouldn’t change anyone’s mind either way in my opinion.
That's how we got DDR in the first place. Toronto wanted to dump his bad contract. And they found a sucker. So you want to do it again, you say, because you think it's smart for the Spurs.
Or did you mean something else? Please clarify if so.
DDR will finish the season here. He will then look around. He can get $27.7 million by exercising his player option, to stay with the Spurs.
Short answer: Yes. Exactly.
Longer answer: No, this is not comparable to that. DeRozan was still viewed as an all NBA player and SA thought getting him with LMA would help keep them a contender. They were forced to trade Kawhi and chose win now. My example is SA would be missing the playoffs and use DeRozan to get a first round pick. If they have to take on a bad player with an extra year on their deal, it functionally doesn’t matter. The same way teams that have cap space and don’t use it, take on deals for draft capital.
What is the cost of that bad player, in your scenario? I mean, how much are you spending on the pick, and how much on the player? The number to match is, again, $27.7 million.
(Understanding that, in a trade, it would be pro rata this season, and the player option next.)
The pick, whoever it is, will be on rookie scale. Of course.
With the Spurs, the pick will spend a year in Austin, most likely. While that bad player will be on the Spurs roster. Are you taking that into account?
So you've skipped a chance at the playoffs in exchange for a rookie in Austin and a bad player in S.A. Hm.
In this scenario - SA is either missing the playoffs with DeRozan, or barely eeking in and getting bounced in the first round and then DeRozan walks for nothing. So lets say you don’t trade and let DeRozan walk, you’d be in the exact same position as if you made the deal with the bad contract in it, but no pick (because whether or not a bad contract is on the books, you aren’t using the money on another player anyways and aren’t a playoff team anyways)
So yeah, I would skip those two things for the chance at drafting the next Murray/White/Lonnie or the slim chance of it being the next TP/Manu. All day.
So the cost would be instead of having DeRozan opt out and his money off the books completely, you would have player “X” with his fully guaranteed deal next season and a first round pick.
SA would be rebuilding anyways, that player wouldn’t even have to play and you aren’t signing anyone with cap space anyways.
The issue is unless DD commits to a team we trading him for, that pick or prospect wouldn't be a good one. The best thing the Spurs could do is have DD commit to the Spurs, regardless what people think of him.
I really don't see a scenario where a trade happens. DDR's salary is too high. The possible teams who would consider a trade for him are either going for a le this year or a team that wanted to get rid of bad multiple year contracts. Teams that wanted to win this year would probably not have a good pick next year and unlikely to have a matching contract. We probably would not want multiple years of bad contract in exchange with DDR either.
Last edited by XDT76; 12-10-2019 at 06:57 PM.
I mean, I agree he isn’t likely to fetch a lottery pick, but all first rounders have solid value. Either via the pick itself (think of Murray, Lonnie, White, Manu, TP) or combined in a trade to move up.
I also agree that a team trading for DeRozan would likely want some assurances he would sign an extension, but I dont think that would be a major stumbling block with the teams mentioned who have interest in him.
DD is committed to the Spurs IMO; they just don’t seem to want to extend him. I’m 99% certain that if SA came with a large extension offer DeRozan would immediately sign it.
Not surprised. The West being unusually bad in the middle makes the playoffs more attainable than it otherwise would be for a team this bad. So they'll probably keep pretending and put off making a decision on DeRozan until the off season.
At that point, I'd imagine they'd work in concert with his agent on a trade, whereby he either agrees to opt in and/or extend with whoever acquires him.
As long as they're on the same page with them, nothing would change functionally. All the pieces that have discussed ad nauseam would still theoretically be in play, save for Gallinari, but they might have the cap space to sign him outright (Pistons will have the cap space to absorb DeRozan at that point), if they're so inclined.
Too bad he didn't define "hefty" for Aldridge and Gay. I still think the return would be modest enough that they'd prefer to keep them, so long as they're interested in staying.
I've been beating this drum for a while. They can continue along this path (at this point, I don't even mind because of the likely trade value of Aldridge and Gay), just make one of the theoretical DeRozan trades that have been discussed ad nauseam.
dear PATFO,
moving demar doesn’t mean you’re blowing up the team.
This. Boston let Flat Earther walk and got better.
Might as well get a pick or two for Derosian.
Only season it makes sense to go for mediocrity. Go get that record.
Looking at Magic, it would be unlikely Spurs could get Gordon and Founier for him unless DD has intension to resign. If he does not, Magic won't give up Gordon unless we give up a youth asset, ie White. It's a pretty big deal.
Sure, but that’s a very specific scenario- there are other teams.
Nice take and one I think about a lot. It's not simply the money you make or lose in one round of the playoffs. It cost as much money to see the Spurs play the Hornets on a Tuesday night with floor seats as it does to see the Stones on the front row basically.
Yep, fans are not going to continue supporting a team with fervour and their hard earned money if they don't feel like they are trying to win.
Tanking is intentionally trying not to win or 'be bad on purpose' as far as I know. Our losing streak had me wondering 'are we trying to lose or do we just suck' and 'what's the difference' is a reasonable answer. I agree that 'shaping up the roster' is always likely on their minds. The last few games (minus the Motor City Horror Show) has shown us DDR shooting 3's, a coming out party for Walker IV, and some tenacity at the end of games. As Pop said after the Rockets game 'This is the team we thought we had,' but I doubt he meant they don't have their antennas up.Fair enough. I don’t agree with that at all, but fair enough. Tanking to me means you are trying to be bad on purpose; SA is losing as is and the result is the same.
You’ve already seen the frustration boil up because of that..Lonnie, Murray specifically.
So losing is losing, and I doubt the young guys would see trading DeRozan/LMA as the franchise wanting them to lose. They would view it as the opportunity they’ve been waiting for to shine and grow and show what they could do.
They don't have to decide to build around DeRozan or blow it up. They can (and are planning to) play DeRozan to stay compe ive while growing their young guys. In that vein, yes, it's important that they are close to the seventh seed. It's completely unimportant that they are close to 13th. They aren't trying to avoid the worst record in the league -- they are trying to get a top-eight record in the conference.
They can afford to lose DeRozan for nothing. People keep acting like you sign or trade for players to keep indefinitely. But that's not the case. They made that trade specifically to remain a playoff team for two years. If they were so desperate to keep him, they'd've caved on an extension. Guys can walk. It's okay. The most valuable piece to Spurs' future is likely going to be the team's natural picks after bottoming out. Seriously acting like the team NEEDS to get say, Aaron Gordon rather than nothing is just bizarre. As I've said, I'm not against getting value for anyone on the roster. But worse role-players who are "better fits" with the inconsistent and underperforming guards on the team. Just get whatever draft or prospect capital you can and more one. If the guards pick it up, sign the role-playing forwards next year (there will be a number on the market). If they continue to disappoint, you get a higher pick and a clearer roster to rebuild.
Would I rather them make no moves? No. I think they should do something. They should consolidate the expirings on the roster into a legit rotation player. But I also think they are a better team than last season and will see the most improvement just by playing better. This is one of Pop's worst coaching jobs due in large part to missing the summer. If they can get on the same page, they'll make the playoffs. That's important to the team, especially more so than a middling role-player or even getting a high pick a year or so earlier than they're scheduled to.
Lol a grown man still believing media superstar hype. How long you gonna keep that up?
The article posted is not really going out on a limb. The Spurs rarely make in season moves (I know of the exceptions) and "pulling the plug" would be out of character for them. On the other hand, this is new for Pop and R.C. Those two have always had highly compe ive teams and have not been in the situation where they are managing a sub-500 team. They may be learning this on the fly.....
I would imagine if some player or piece became available, they would make a move but that will be closer to the deadline. I don't know what goes on in the front office but I wonder, do the Spurs typically make calls around the league to see who is available or do they generally take the calls? Maybe in the past they were getting the calls and now they have to be more proactive.
Sirius NBA Radio were talking hypotheticals about Kevin Love today who supposedly is going on the block and is said to want to end up in Portland. Maybe you get in on a three way that involves moving Love to another team and we help facilitate it.
Why you want a poor man's LaMarcus when LaMarcus isn't that good?
It’s not that Aldridge is bad he’s good however, when you have the youth in the wings and la being 35 it would be smart to package him
These days, you either need to convince 2-3 stars to come together to form a super-team (not happening in SA), or you need to put together a nucleus of 2-3 really good young (cheap) players within the span of a few years. They need to be close together so that you can afford to keep them all when their rookie deals begin to come up. It's almost impossible to do the latter without having a bad year or two, to get good draft picks. You don't have to tank - you can do the same thing by being legitimately ty. But the worst of all possible worlds is having two highly-paid players who are just good enough to get you to the playoffs, but not good enough to go anywhere. You can't afford to hire a top FA, and you can't get a decent draft pick.
Boston tanked (Ryan Gomes ratted them out in an interview) and parlayed the picks into a Championship. The Tank wasn't the only factor - they also made the decision to bite the bullet and commit to a rebuild, rather than settling for years of mediocrity by taking half measures. But it wouldn't have been possible to put the whole thing together without trading the pick they got from the tank.
Seattle traded away ALL their best players, and used the picks as the basis for the OKC team. They never won a 'ship, but that wasn't some kind of legacy of tanking. And they were sure as strong contenders for years. You may not count that as a "tank", but they stripped the team of any chance of winning by trading away those players.
You're right - rebuilding after a teardown often takes a lot of years, and sometimes never happens. But a lot of that has to do with the quality of the FO. As the saying goes - " rolls downhill." A solid, well-executed plan makes all the difference. And that means commitment and focus. As DPG has pointed out numerous times, the Spurs made a win-now move by taking DeRozan in that trade, but then didn't commit with their other moves. A lot of teams tank, but then start buying high-priced FA's too soon, and wind up with the worst of both worlds.
Pointing at teams that fail at rebuilding doesn't mean much. I knew guys who said that a college degree was worthless, because they knew people who got their degree and then wound up working at Radio Shack. Those people were going to be working at Radio Shack no matter what. And a lot of NBA front offices are going to fail no matter what kind path they take. A ty carpenter is going to fail, no matter which tool he picks up.
DeRozan and Aldridge are NOT a nucleus to build a championship contender around. The Spurs need to make a move. Or more than one move. And tanking for one season would add to that, not take away. You just can't over-estimate the value of a good first round pick.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions