Reply With Quote
There's no one to trade for. You don't trade for the sake of trading.
it's not a bad deal at all but Spurs really need to trade LMA now, this deal makes no sense if Poeltl is going to continue playing 20mpg. You don't pay a backup C on a non-playoff team a premium to provide 20mpg. But then again the FO has been re ed for 4 years now so who knows
There's no one to trade for. You don't trade for the sake of trading.
Pot talking to a pair of kettles in the kitchen...
Dude don’t waste your breath........these clowns on this board aren’t hearing it.
Racist talking to some pots and kettles...
If Wiseman was available, sure I would be open to including other players to get it done. But their GM basically put to rest that they would ever trade Wiseman in a recent interview.
There's 450 players in the nba. I guarantee you there are people to trade for. And yeah you don't make trades just to make them you make them because you have a 26 mil expiring aging C and you just signed his backup to starter money and resigned his backup
I want to hear these ideas though. Like which specific players?
Again, people are upset at the contract because he won't be starting because of Aldridge. So the logic is that Aldridge should be the one being traded. Next, let's narrow down what type of player he should be traded for: a starting power forward. It doesn't make sense to trade him for any guards or wings with the roster make-up we have. Now, I want to hear which starting power forwards we should trade for.
Quit making excuses for our re ed front office. It's not my job to do Brian Wrights job and find players to trade for. And who says it has to be a PF? In case you haven't noticed the league is trending away from bigs. Spurs have Jak and Eubanks at C and Lyles/Gay/Luka all at the 4. They need wings not more bigs.
The proponents of maintaing as much cap space as possible don't seem to explain themselves regarding what they are expecting to be done with it.
Attract a top guy in FA?
Be a dumping ground for bad contracts as to get draft capital?
What?
I'm tired of hearing this ing for ing's sake.
PATFO has no direction? They are letting their young players develop in a try-to-be-winning environment.
What should they be doing? If they axe all of the vets they won't be that much worse, so there goes the tank aspect.
And obviously they can't contend with LMA / DMDR so even the eventual signing wouldn't change things much.
They are flexibile enough to accomodate any eventual FA, or a disgruntled player via trade.
What's more to do?
My point is, there is too much whining and not enough constructive ideas.
Seeing more of the contracts getting signed today, I don’t see how people can be upset by the amount he got. Other backup players with less history are getting even more. I know what direction the Spurs are tying to go in is confusing but we got off easy.
I'm not making excuses, I'm being realistic. I'm calling out all the exhausting effort made by people crying for a trade. Where we stand right now, there aren't many options to be done. Before some moves happened, sure. But right now? No. Maybe closer to the deadline like what TheDrewShow said? Sure.
I don't disagree with that. I hope they do change their minds.
So you think it would be better to play the season out and let LMA leave for nothing?
I get wanting to get a starting PF to replace him, but Spurs are not a good team and realistically are not aiming for the playoffs next year, so trading LMA to try and get pieces that fit is dumb. they should trade him for whatever they can get and start collecting assets to make other deals. you know, how teams with decent FOs do?
I still cant believe they traded Leonard for peanuts while Jrue Holiday and Paul George got massive hauls in comparison. Our FO just sucks, plain and simple
Interesting discussions.
One thing I always bring up in debates about Duncan's successes and the general success of the Spurs in the 2000s is that this team was routinely outspent by others. During the Shaq/Kobe era and then later during the Kobe/Pau era, the Lakers outspent the Spurs by many millions of dollars. The Miami Heat teams that the Spurs faced in back to back finals had significantly higher payrolls than the Spurs at the time. For an owner like Ballmer, the financial penalty of going over the cap means almost nothing. Minority owners of the Warriors are vastly wealthier than Holt family. It's just a different world that the Spurs inhabit financially.
what?
One thing I always bring up in debates about Duncan's successes and the general success of the Spurs in the 2000s is that this team was routinely outspent by others. During the Shaq/Kobe era and then later during the Kobe/Pau era, the Lakers outspent the Spurs by many millions of dollars. The Miami Heat teams that the Spurs faced in back to back finals had significantly higher payrolls than the Spurs at the time. For an owner like Ballmer, the financial penalty of going over the cap means almost nothing. Minority owners of the Warriors are vastly wealthier than Holt family. It's just a different world that the Spurs inhabit financially.the spurs are right at the luxury tax line with an incredibly poorly constructed roster. they spent money, just not very well at all. that Pau Gasol deal still makes me want to puke
You saw that klay is out for the season right? Golden state is no longer in win now mode without him on the court...
Ah, the random accusation of racism...
Right, but it seems obvious from their moves that not going above that line was very important to them. Naturally, that's going to limit decision making and chance taking. For Ballmer, a $30 million tax penalty is probably equal to about his daily fluctuation on investments. For the Holt group, that's a significant amount of money.what?
Nah. Guys like me and Timvp were crystal clear what the answer was. Don’t sign Poeltl
Nah. When it's easy to find evidence, it's not random.
the spurs pay roll was only 10 million less than LAC last year
He’s not taking a roster spot. He was waived, and actually played a few games for Houston afterwards.
It's a valid point. Fans here chose a small market team to root for. The issue is systemic and it's not like the organization's owners chose to be poorer than everyone else is. For a small market team that has performed the way it has done these past decades.... You can say that's impressive and unappreciated by most.
One thing I always bring up in debates about Duncan's successes and the general success of the Spurs in the 2000s is that this team was routinely outspent by others. During the Shaq/Kobe era and then later during the Kobe/Pau era, the Lakers outspent the Spurs by many millions of dollars. The Miami Heat teams that the Spurs faced in back to back finals had significantly higher payrolls than the Spurs at the time. For an owner like Ballmer, the financial penalty of going over the cap means almost nothing. Minority owners of the Warriors are vastly wealthier than Holt family. It's just a different world that the Spurs inhabit financially.
People can easily go root for a big market team like New York if they wanted to see a team be aggressive and pay players enormous amounts of money. But bottom-line is, they picked (and are actively picking) a small market team.
a lot of us who live/lived in SA grew up watching the Spurs didnt "choose" our fandom, its just how it is. you cant just turn your fandom off and watch another team instead, thats not how it works. at least not for most people i would imagine
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
