Reply With Quote
He was injured and playing through it. Had prp injection in his foot and an injection in his hand, he has a torn tendon with one of his fingers.
That’s a compe ive short term roster that gets you maybe the 5th or 6th seed in the west. Grant would be a nice addition but that’s too much to give up for him when you’ll have cap to sign him outright the following year.
That flexibility comes at quite the price for a moderately compe ive roster that will get considerably more expensive if you want to maintain or build on it in summer 23 when Jak and Grant are UFA’s and Keldon’s extension kicks in.
Last edited by KingKev; 04-27-2022 at 01:49 PM.
He was injured and playing through it. Had prp injection in his foot and an injection in his hand, he has a torn tendon with one of his fingers.
No thanks from me.
30 year old injury ridden guard who sulked his way out of Indiana. Even if he's a 20 point a game scorer, he helps the Spurs right out of the playoffs into a lame 8th seed to continue a treadmill of mediocrity. And if he's not, he's a waste of capspace.
Care to actually have a substantive conversation about this? Even if you think Collins sucks, you wouldn't be correct in saying he had a good year and then went back to sucking. He was about as good during that fourth year as he had been the previous years. If he didn't suck in that year, he didn't suck before that.
Injured player? That's when the Spurs pounce. His chance of signing here just increased dramatically.
A knee scope usually isn’t that serious but this could be the catalyst for the Bulls to not offer him a max pushing him closer to being in play this free agency.
I'm going to assume your post is in good faith and not just an exclamation you have no interest in defending. I do think Grant's a fit for the roster, and getting off McDermott's last year has value in this context where the Spurs are basically burning clean fuel making an honest effort to make Pop's final year a good one. I would love for it to be too much and for the Spurs to save on assets. I'd be willing to pay that much, though, to complete the rotation while basically leaving the future picks untouched.
As far as Kessler, Baldwin and Williams go, I don't care if you want to swap them out with other prospects. I think the Spurs have long-term needs at PG, PF and C, though, and they have the picks to get good but not great prospects. Given that the rotation is already full, I don't see any reason to worry about the win-now potential of any of the guys they're picking. Like most Spurs fans, I imagine, I have been spending whatever scouting energy I have on guys near the team's natural first. I don't have a ton of knowledge on the middle of the draft. But obviously good players will be drafted there. It's up to the Spurs to snag them.
You're saying both that the Spurs will have the cap space to sign Grant if he's not on the team but will have to worry about re-signing him if he's on the team. That doesn't make a ton of sense. If salary is something to worry about in 2023, it would be a bigger worry for a team using cap space rather than a team just trying to stay under the tax. That's ignoring that Grant would be most useful next season when the Spurs can afford to have him and Oladipo/some other guard as well as having Richardson in his final season of his deal. Waiting an extra season has a cost. I wouldn't even be completely sure on the team keeping Johnson anyway. I think he'd be a great sixth man, but he's also limited to such an extent that he can be 80/20'd by another player. I certainly would plan on keeping him, but I probably wouldn't have a ton of interest in extending him unless the team acquires some long-term contracts this summer.
I didn’t say that at all. I’m saying if you want to BUILD on that roster you most likely can’t in 2023 and you have up a #9 pick and another FRP along the way. Whereas you could keep your draft capital and have the same result ti start the 2023-24 season.
You said the 9th pick was too much to pay in part because the Spurs can just sign Grant the next year, but the Spurs are likely going to have less financial flexibility in 2023, especially with McDermott and the ninth pick on the books. That's more than $18 Million extra on the books, and rather than being able to use the full projected $154 Million of space under the tax to keep a team together, you can only to up to the $127-Million salary cap. Functionally then, the Spurs have and extra $45 Million (and can even be more if they were to convey their 2023 first as part of the trade) in 2023-2024 salary flexibility by making this trade versus not doing so. That alone is enough for the second year of Oladipo's option and the first year of a max extension for Grant, with a decent chunk left over. It's way easier to form a strong 2023-2024 team if they make the trade. They are missing out on whomever they would have taken at 9, true, but they are also getting that better team a year earlier and still have multiple chances to get young players.
The Capulator isn't working properly right now, so I can't export the mock off-season, but the Spurs should have a full roster with enough salary space to give Murray the renegotiation/extension needed to help keep the future cap healthy. I'd rather them do that after acquiring the long-term running mates he needs like say Lavine and our good friend John Collins or Sexton and Siakam or whatever. But regardless, it becomes way more possible if the team isn't committing almost $14 Million to McD and $5 Million to a pick.
In any scenario I’d hope McD is dumped. I could sit here and map out how we could easily get to the same opening roster in fall 2023 without giving #9 but going back and forth is a pretty useless exercise. I’ll acknowledge your scenario makes it easier to go over the cap to retain players. That flexibility cost you #9 and an FRP. We just rented out 20mm in cap space for a late 2022 FRP, so I can not see us paying that cost for Grant’s bird rights in any scenario.
Last edited by KingKev; 04-27-2022 at 03:50 PM.
I don't know why you continue to act like only the 2023 season matters. They aren't paying the pick just for the flexibility. They're trading it to get a good player now and to free up 22 cap space. I'm not even saying it's Grant in particular. I just think Grant is the most "gettable" of the middle-class PFs on the market. It doesn't hurt that he's expiring and a good defender. If you prefer someone the Spurs can't just sign (which has always assumed the Spurs would be able to sign anyone they had enough cap space to keep), then swap in Collins, Randle or whomever. Doing Oladipo and Grant is the conservative path that still leaves $11 Million in space. They can bump that up to Lavine and Collins without much sweat, and neither of those guys is going to be attainable for cap space in 2023.
Of course, I'm not telling you the Spurs have to trade that pick. There are other pathways. But that's a way for them to be aggressive while also still continuing to fill their coffers for the future. It's a rare moment of flexibility when a team can make huge strides in both directions at once.
So offer up a better ending roster. Just (please) don't make it based on getting ping-pong balls, and don't have one of the Top 4 still miraculously on the board at #9.
For the record, I absolutely think PBjr would be worth a throw with the second pick, and Kessler is big enough to actually provide some muscle in the middle that the Spurs desperately lack. I get that you would like to see something better from that 9 pick. Toss out who you think would be available, and how you would spend some of that cap money. I'm not throwing rocks at people for anything that looks possible.
That's why I liked it. Parameter based, and checks most of the boxes for what they need to do, and what they can't do. They really can't get in the position of having to spin off DJ without the best return because they can't afford to pay him. He may not be a franchise, but he's definitely someone they need to keep around unless the perfect deal comes up. And you're right, you have to count the rookie scale of the #9 pick in the math.
Skimming through this, I get that this is just an example of a scenario to pursue, but that offer isn't getting it done for Grant (word awhile back was that the Trail Blazers would need to add a second significant asset to their projected 1st to get it done) and Siakam isn't available.
My guess is the Pistons would want 9/10, one of 20/25 or a future protected 1st projected to be equal or greater and Richardson.
As for this notion of Johnson as a 6th man or maybe future piece, be prepared for something similar to the White extension on the eve of next season.
He's the linchpin of the off season . . .
- Jump into the top 4 (yeah right) and extending him becomes a virtual no brainer.
- Stick at 9 or drop to 10 and extending him could still makes sense as they could take that + some combination of the Raptors/Celtics 1sts and Richardson to slightly move up and/or target Collins, Grant, Barnes, etc.
- Or they could instead attach him to 9 or 10 and utilize that as the vehicle to add a significant piece(s) while reorienting the core.
Last edited by TD 21; 04-27-2022 at 04:59 PM.
Last thing - if Grant gets back to full strength, you probably trade (or S&T) him later. He would be a solid trade chip if that happens. But if he doesn't the Spurs aren't saddled to a huge long-term deal. There are worse outcomes.
I don't think there's any way this team rises so quickly from the ashes that a step-wise approach should be rejected. I think that team could at least get to the second round, which looks pretty much unattainable at this point. With a little luck, maybe even the WCF. If you're thinking about another year of play-in and the #7-9 pick next year, say so. Another thread I've wanted to start has to deal with the horizon, and whether people would be willing to toss off another season to look much better in two. I'm not against that, but I think I'm in the minority.
Look at the thread le, and talk about WHOLE offseason rather than individual players. I'm all ears to whatever people are thinking.
Maybe the most interesting to me, though minor, part of Chinook's proposal was drafting Alondes Williams with the SRP. Wasn't famililar with him but he looks to be very interesting, and hopefully other teams get worried about his age and he falls to us as a possibility.
Yeah, he feels like a really good pick in the middle of the draft. I didn't know much about him either and still don't, but as cheap depth, he checks a lot of boxes. I also think people tend to undervalue production in college. Both Alondes and Trevion Williams are guys I'd be very intrigued with the Spurs taking with their final pick, despite their age
I know zip about Alondes Williams. Nada. He never appeared on my radar. I keep seeing his name on mocks, some even into the late teens. But a lot of those mock draft guys want to show that they "discovered" some standout in the upcoming season. They don't get hammered for being wrong, but if they hit the player lotto they get to come back and crow (and get more hits on next year's dozen mock draft articles). It looks like Chinook did some homework on him, and I definitely have not. Hard to go too wrong with a SRP, so once again I didn't nitpick.
Didn't really check him out but if we take a look at those mock draft scouting report we would be wondering why is everyone not a top 3 prospect. There is a site stating this guy with 16 strengths and the only concern are catch and shoot and age. However like you say for a SRP hardly any issue if things does not work out
That's pretty funny. Maybe Top 10, but your point is well taken. Any guy who's played a year or two of college ball without seven or eight plays for a highlight reel is a true scrub. So you're either totally worthless, or a contender for the lottery. That's the world of YouTube.
Not saying this happens, but there surely there will be some guys traded this summer.
And not that the Spurs need him for anything, but it might affect all those “trade Jakob” few fans. I’d place Adams in the potential trade block as well if I were Memphis.
I expect Memphis to make a splash. They will be a coveted free agent destination with their recent rise and because of Ja. Lots of draft capital and they can clear up good cap soce this summer if they move Adam’s expiring deal.
We've talked a good bit about signing Lavine (or getting him in a S&T) but, what about Donovan Mitc ? There a real chance he goes on the market this summer.... would you rather have Mitc or Lavine?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions