Run for Play-In

[spurs10]

Have you SEEN this roster? We spent half the year playing Drew Eubanks and Bryn ing Forbes

Yet, still somehow as good as a team with LeBron, Anthony Davis, and Russell Westbrook.

But I'm sure Tim Duncan carried them there, too.

We ain't winning a championship or anything and are lucky to even be in the playoff conversation, but give credit where it's due, dude

Now you must remember Pop said mean things about the race-baiting Don of Mar-a-Lardo, so he just can't the most winning NBA coach in history. He just can't be!!

[BacktoBasics]

The QO and the cap hold are not the same. Until his situation is resolved, he will count $13.3M against our cap. That would be worth pulling the offer if something like Lavine came up as available, or someone dropped onto the trade market, as we wouldn't have MAX room to offer.

Thanks for that clarification. That is a bigger cap hold than I thought.

[exstatic]

Since Lonnie 2.0 emerged on February 12th he's averaging almost 19 points a game and yet his plus minus over that time still sits at -3.5. The man dropped a 30 bomb and his plus minus that game sat at zero.

Lonnie 2.0 has had 8 games of 20+ points and his plus minus was positive in only 2 games and one of those games was a +1.

My point being that despite his scoring surge its still very debatable if he actually helps that team overall.

All that said if he continues to score they almost have to keep him. If can become just a mediocre defender he's a Lou Williams, Jamal Crawford, Jason Terry bench scorer.

A bucket getter like that is a luxury unless you're a contender. It's just a bad idea to put Lonnie into a game where you're behind. Best case is that you hold on to the existing deficit. You're not going to close the gap at all in most cases, because he's a net negative player.

[Leetonidas]

Have you SEEN this roster? We spent half the year playing Drew Eubanks and Bryn ing Forbes

Yet, still somehow as good as a team with LeBron, Anthony Davis, and Russell Westbrook.

But I'm sure Tim Duncan carried them there, too.

We ain't winning a championship or anything and are lucky to even be in the playoff conversation, but give credit where it's due, dude

That's moreso a testament to how ty the Lakers are than anything else

[MannyIsGod]

This net negative argument is so stupid and shallow. Yes, if you play Lonnie with 4 replacement level players or below, he's not going to have good advanced metrics. I don't believe anyone is saying that Lonnie is capable of carrying bad players and making them good. But this is the same nonsense we heard for years with Derozan. Now, we see with the Bulls that when you put him in a situation with a big who can score and guards who can defend, Derozan is pretty ing good. You guys look at stats and try to think of them as the end all be all without thinking about the context they come in. Lonnie has shown growth in his ability to be a high level scorer. That skillset is VALUABLE. Lonnie is likely never going to be an MVP level player, and that is OK. He's probably never going to be the kind of player that makes others around him better, thats OK. He's probably never going to make an all defensive team. So what? What he has shown, is the ability to do the most valuable thing in the NBA game: Score. This is enough to be an asset. We all wish Lonnie was an elite player, but he's likely never going to be that. So what?

There have been a lot of "net negative" players who have been valuable parts of championship teams because they played a role and fit into the team.

[MannyIsGod]

Remaining games and win percentages per RAPTOR for each one.

Spurs

Portland - 97%
Portland - 95%
@ Denver 19%
@ Minnesota 20%
Golden State 42%
@ Dallas 20%

Lakers

@Utah 15%
NOLA 48%
Denver 54%
@ Suns 15%
@ Golden State 22%
OKC 87%
@ Denver 16%


Spurs floor on wins should be 33. RAPTOR believes out of the other 4, we will win 1 game. The percentages for that are good for 1 more win, but also Spurs could easily lose all 4.

Lakers floor is likely 32 wins. That OKC win looks solid, but otherwise, they could easily lose every single game other than that. Raptor believes they will win 3 more games, and end up at 34, same as the Spurs.

[slick'81]

Minnesota ,g.st and dallas wont be playing anyone by then

[MannyIsGod]

Minnesota ,g.st and dallas wont be playing anyone by then

We'll see. Maybe the final game, but all 3 have things to play for currently.

[TD 21]

I mean, sure, but Johnson made the USANT team for goodness sake. Technically he wasn't seen playing in the RSG, but he would have done so.

I was joking.

I have these two tied together. I don't think Randle has a lot of value. He's signed to a huge deal and hasn't been very good to go with at ude problems. I don't think Utah wants him as part of a Mitc deal. Barrett has had a good year, but New York hype makes him seem like a better prospect than he is. In reality, Barrett and Johnson are similar prospects, which Barrett scoring more (until recently) but Keldon being more efficient. Mitc literally has four more years on his contract after this. Where he prefers to go isn't going to play a bigger role than it did for Deron Williams.

Randle is a healthy pseudo star, in his prime, singed long term. That always has value to non glamour markets not interested in full-scale re-builds.

Agreed that the Jazz would prefer Barrett to him though and that he's similar in many ways to Johnson only with more hype due to the market he plays in. But because of his draft pedigree and the reality that he's ahead of Johnson in terms of being able to create for himself and others, they'd most likely prefer him.

Mitc 's preference obviously won't be the deciding factor, but if the packages are similar, that and getting him out of conference likely win out.

If we're talking about six or seven years down the line, where SA's roster is now is basically irrelevant. They'll have cycled out everyone except maybe Murray by then. I don't see this roster as constructed being one player away unless we're talking about a GOAT candidate joining them.

We're talking within' the next few years and about being a constant playoff (not play-in) contender with flexibility, since that appears to be the goal here.

Johnson, Vassell and Primo all probably stand a good chance to join Murray as long term pieces.

Beal can't force a trade though. He's not extending because he can't make as much money by doing so. If he doesn't extend, he can't be traded.

He could and probably will when eligible (1-2 years) after he receives the max from the Wizards.

I don't see the Cavs as having that kind of leverage. If they want to keep Sexton, they'll just keep him. If they don't, they aren't going to match a max contract offer. We're looking at something which is at best what the Spurs got for DeRozan. I might just max him and use my contracts on other pursuits and just accept it if it gets matched. Moving on and trying to pry Colin away makes more sense to me.

Uh, the Hawks just did so with Collins (who's likely to be traded this off season). It's called asset management.

Maxing Sexton makes no sense. This team remains sub par defensively because of their lack of length and strength, which limits their switch ability and leaves them susceptible to being overpowered (drives, post ups, box outs), shot over and vulnerable on the defensive glass. It's only worth exacerbating that for an offensive superstar/star and he's neither.

[Mr. Body]

Minnesota ,g.st and dallas wont be playing anyone by then

It's true on both sides of the equation.

[slick'81]

It's true on both sides of the equation.

We shall see

[Kevin]

This net negative argument is so stupid and shallow. Yes, if you play Lonnie with 4 replacement level players or below, he's not going to have good advanced metrics. I don't believe anyone is saying that Lonnie is capable of carrying bad players and making them good. But this is the same nonsense we heard for years with Derozan. Now, we see with the Bulls that when you put him in a situation with a big who can score and guards who can defend, Derozan is pretty ing good. You guys look at stats and try to think of them as the end all be all without thinking about the context they come in. Lonnie has shown growth in his ability to be a high level scorer. That skillset is VALUABLE. Lonnie is likely never going to be an MVP level player, and that is OK. He's probably never going to be the kind of player that makes others around him better, thats OK. He's probably never going to make an all defensive team. So what? What he has shown, is the ability to do the most valuable thing in the NBA game: Score. This is enough to be an asset. We all wish Lonnie was an elite player, but he's likely never going to be that. So what?

There have been a lot of "net negative" players who have been valuable parts of championship teams because they played a role and fit into the team.

Kinda throwing Lonnie's teammates under the bus. Devin Vassel plays with the same teammates as Lonnie and since February 12th his plus minus is over two points better than Lonnie's despite shooting 39% during that time. Lonnie is shooting 46% since February 12th.

Also still worried that this just might be a prolonged shooting hot streak. Lonnie still isn't getting to the line.

[Kevin]

A bucket getter like that is a luxury unless you're a contender. It's just a bad idea to put Lonnie into a game where you're behind. Best case is that you hold on to the existing deficit. You're not going to close the gap at all in most cases, because he's a net negative player.

This is the sunk cost fallacy at play but the Spurs invested four years of a development into Lonnie and cant let him leave now as beings to flourish. As others have said he only walks if another team makes a crazy offer.

Lonnie is risky contract but it almost has to be done unless the Spurs get very luck in the draft and land Ivey.

[exstatic]

This net negative argument is so stupid and shallow. Yes, if you play Lonnie with 4 replacement level players or below, he's not going to have good advanced metrics. I don't believe anyone is saying that Lonnie is capable of carrying bad players and making them good. But this is the same nonsense we heard for years with Derozan. Now, we see with the Bulls that when you put him in a situation with a big who can score and guards who can defend, Derozan is pretty ing good. You guys look at stats and try to think of them as the end all be all without thinking about the context they come in. Lonnie has shown growth in his ability to be a high level scorer. That skillset is VALUABLE. Lonnie is likely never going to be an MVP level player, and that is OK. He's probably never going to be the kind of player that makes others around him better, thats OK. He's probably never going to make an all defensive team. So what? What he has shown, is the ability to do the most valuable thing in the NBA game: Score. This is enough to be an asset. We all wish Lonnie was an elite player, but he's likely never going to be that. So what?

There have been a lot of "net negative" players who have been valuable parts of championship teams because they played a role and fit into the team.

And now we're seeing DeRozan revert to type, and Chicago plummet. Sows ears and silk purses.

Net negative is a thing, and it's a valid tool to evaluate players. If the other team, in the long term, scores more than your team WHEN YOU ARE IN THE GAME, even though you are scoring at a high rate, THAT'S KIND OF ING IMPORTANT. And it's not just because he's coming off the bench. In 148 games and about 2500 minutes as a reserve, his net Rtg is -16. In 56 games and about 1550 minutes as a starter his net Rtg is -18! He literally drags to any unit he plays for.

You're smarter than this, Manny.

[exstatic]

This is the sunk cost fallacy at play but the Spurs invested four years of a development into Lonnie and cant let him leave now as beings to flourish. As others have said he only walks if another team makes a crazy offer.

Lonnie is risky contract but it almost has to be done unless the Spurs get very luck in the draft and land Ivey.

I don't see that. People said that we could NEVER replace DeRozan's scoring, and I said it was possible, in the aggregate. Guess what? We did it, in the aggregate. Our ORtg last year was 111.0. This year it was 112.1. Our ppg last year was 111. This year it was 113, because of the higher pace. That was replacing 21.6 points. Lonnie's 12.1 would be a piece of cake. Keldon, JRich, Devin, and Primo all add 3 ppg. and don't break our ing defense when they're on the floor. Done.

[Dex]

That's moreso a testament to how ty the Lakers are than anything else

Fair point

[Robz4000]

Lakers getting both Lebron and Davis back. With that on top of the ridiculous officiating advantage they're gonna get the play-in spot is theirs. Good news imo.

[offset formation]

A bucket getter like that is a luxury unless you're a contender. It's just a bad idea to put Lonnie into a game where you're behind. Best case is that you hold on to the existing deficit. You're not going to close the gap at all in most cases, because he's a net negative player.

He is. Though his aggression and skill clearly has increased over the last several months. You make the QO and see if someone wants to pursue him beyond PATFO's line of spending comfortability. My guess is he is still a Spur next year.

[offset formation]

It's true on both sides of the equation.

LeBron isn't gonna sit unless unhealthy.

[KingKev]

He is. Though his aggression and skill clearly has increased over the last several months. You make the QO and see if someone wants to pursue him beyond PATFO's line of spending comfortability. My guess is he is still a Spur next year.

I agree with this take. We spent a ridiculous amount of dead cap this year. Huthison, Aminu and Thad’s 30mm returned us one mid to late FRP. I’m sure Walker gets his QO if we have nothing bigger lined up.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

L Train is off the tracks.

Time for guerilla warfare.

Where's No Limit Army Commander?

[Mr. Body]

LeBron isn't gonna sit unless unhealthy.

We're talking about the opponents of the Lakers and the Spurs.

[slick'81]

And down goes the lake show again

[tim_duncan_fan]

Who is LeGM going to pick when the Lakers draft 1st overall?

I don't think LeBron will be into Chet.

[007nites]

Who is LeGM going to pick when the Lakers draft 1st overall?

I don't think LeBron will be into Chet.

They have no picks lol