None of this sounds all that appealing
even with murray, the spurs odds of getting a high lottery pick are already high. this team, as constructed, is not going to make the playoffs in the west. the spurs could finish above the kings, rockets and OKC in the west. But that's about the highest i would place them unless the jazz really plummet or the lakers and blazers are all hurt again.
Yeah trade him and Gallinari to the Lakers for Westbrook then eat that expiring. Gets the Lakers out of the lottery too so one less team to be worried about tanking against.
I just see it differently. These are uncharted waters for the team, or at least since what feels like the 1990s. After Kawhi left, in my view the White, Lonnie, DJ group to build up and flip for value (we’re batting .500 there so far). Keldon and Jakob where unexpected additions flowing from Kawahi’s assness, but they are probably in that group too.
I can see the path to grabbing Ayton now as a good thing. But the real factor here is DJs looming 200M+ max, and whether the team wants to make that solo investment ala WAS with Beal, and if meh sub-stars like Ayton or Collins are worth the near max money to compliment him.
(Btw: A quick look and the 2023 crop doesn’t look too appetizing either even if they were able to open up space then. I wish the crop of FA was better this summer, but it’s not the card we drew)
So basically we are left hoping Vassell or Primo hits from then internal development path now, or giving them more space to grow while rebuilding around them and the 3 young picks while executing on flipping the aforementioned group for as much value as possible.
The Las Vegas Aces claim the Austin and Salt Lake City Starz. Becky Hammonds' arrival was treated as a homecoming.
The Raiders claim the Oakland and Los Angeles Raiders.
It's fine that you disagree. I think there's a difference between how a coach structures their scheme and how an FO structure's their roster. Even on a team like the Spurs, I think those are divergent things. The coach is going to structure their game plans after whoever they think their difference-makers are. That means that someone will always be at the center. For the Spurs, that translated into Murray, White, Walker and eventually Johnson being the featured people. That doesn't mean that the front office was "building around them" in the same way the would someone like Duncan. They added guys like McDermott to develop them, but the goal of that wasn't to win as many games as possible. Fans and the marketing team (which is yet another branch in this) wanted to believe that the young guys were a core, and we saw some of them on HEB commercials and everything. But the Spurs' willingness to trade White and entertain offers on Murray and Poeltl indicate they were not of the same mind.
I don't think the Spurs are banking on anyone developing into a franchise player. They've clearly taken a lot of lessons from the modern NBA and likely believe they will have to trade away guys to improve their long-term position. They're trying to make a good team that's flexible and can respond to the market to take advantage of opportunities to acquire elite talent. If Primo is a franchise player, awesome. Now they have the means to build around him. If he's not, it's okay. Trade him. There's no real timeline here. That can happen indefinitely if need be. It can stop tomorrow or go for another decade. If the Spurs are willing to trade Murray, they're willing to trade anyone. That's a much better result than if they were really concerned with timelines and were persuaded into giving a bunch of contracts to their young players in hopes they'd eventually become stars ala Denver and old Memphis.
ATL already owns the 2023 CHA FRP, and it’s protections are 1-16,1-14,1-14. Then it devolves to SRPs.
Getting unprotected picks is basically impossible nowadays.
Charlotte would be giving up their protection to move off that salary was how I took it..
The reason for roping Charlotte in is so the Spurs can get Charlottes unprotected pick and not just their lotto-protected pick. I don't actually think they're giving up enough in this deal, but I don't know that I'd value the 2023 Denver, and the Hornets shouldn't give up another unprotected pick to make this work.
That Rozier deal, ouch. But you have to think about it if it is in fact a completely protected FRP. Wonder if Hayward wouldnt make for sense if there were a way to make the deal bigger.
There will be less of those unappealing picks in the offers as his FA period approaches. Part of what is driving this is he’s on a real reasonable contract for two years of team control. That’s no longer the case next summer.
Top career WS players from 2016 draft class:
11 Domantas Sabonis
27 Paskal Siakim
01 Ben Simmons
09 Jakob Poeltl
05 Ivica Zubac
UN Fred VanVleet
03 Jaylen Brown
36 Malcolm Brogdon
07 Jamal Murray
02 Brandon Ingram
06 Buddy Hield
29 Dejounte Murray
That list indicates we should probably retire the stat
It's not that surprising. People seem to forget that DJM started out as bad as Primo then went years of improving by the eye test but still not statistically before finally becoming a positive player this past year. Some of those guys are just better than him, but most of it is just that they didn't have the same slow start.
Any stat that has Ivica Zubac ahead of Jaylen Brown is sus.
DJ also played one less season than all but Jamal Murray and Ben Simmons.
I much prefer WS/48 with minimum total minutes and minutes per game requirements to weed out the low-minute outliers (like 2015-2016 Boban).
Clippers just declined his option, and gave him a shiney brand new 3/$33M deal, so perhaps they’re better at talent evaluation than you. I was ing pissed off when the Lakers ing GAVE him to the Clippers after his rookie year.
He’s a perfectly fine center who can be a 1a or 1b at the position. A lot better than many alternatives and that contract is very reasonable.
When the Lakers gave him away I was dumbfounded. No idea what they were doing. For friggen Mike Muscala (and to dump Beasley?)
You aren't correcting bad information. You might think you are, but you aren't.
People see a rumor and react. The reaction given is a conditional, as in IF that's the trade, THEN here's what the response is.
I usually do put in qualifiers, more than most posters. But sometimes I don't, feeling that most good posters can figure it out. But they're there even if I don't put them. IF _____, THEN _____, FURTHERMORE __________. HOWEVER _________. Etc
And what's up with, "But you ignored other rumors!". So? It's a response to one rumor. IF this ONE rumor plays out in reality, THEN my reaction to that is THIS. Does everyone need to incorporate every rumor at every time in the past and future to have a reaction on a discussion board?
I don't have the numbers, but it feels like this forum has been busier than it has in years, and had been more fun with more draft discussion. Why be a buzz kill and forum police? And sometimes people inject rhetorical flourishes, jokes, etc to have FUN in a discussion board.
Did you know that when the Spurs sign camp body and someone posts "Power Shift!" or "They Scared Now!" or some other in-joke or meme you don't have to parachute in to Chinook up the thread with, "This narrative of a camp contract as being the key to the le is false. Here's 500 words why."
If someone jokes, "Just like the Spurs always do!" after they sign a player with a bulbous forehead, they don't REALLY mean that EVERY player ever signed or drafted had a bulbous forehead, it's a joke and part of the discourse. You might feel like defending the Spurs honor and correcting the record by pointing out players drafted without bulbous heads, but it's not necessary. It's really not.
1. I don't know what Toronto rumor you're talking about, I don't remember it, but even if there was a rumor that Toronto wanted a pick, what point do you think you're making? That someone thinking giving a pick in the deal would be bad .... Would be wrong to think so? That they couldn't respond to that rumor without a lecture?
2. That's your opinion. Just that.
3. The point was about the raised guarantee that was rumored. And to me, IF Gallo had more guaranteed money paid by the Spurs, THEN that would be funny and not good, to have to pay more than the previous guarantee.
Jake Fischer on Dunc’d On said the most recent he has heard is that John Collins is back in the talks to head to SA if Dejounte goes to ATL
Yeah, you sometimes feel you'd have to always write in blue font... NO need to take everything too serioulsy or first degree. Most people I guess come as much for the fun of arguing, sometimes being sarcastic or caricaturing just for the sake of it, trying to feel like you're so smart and get it, drinking your coffee in front of your laptop...
Take any poster and over time, you'll find them posting everything and its opposite. I know I do and, like litterally ANY poster, I post a lot of crap and eventually here or there a couple things that make sense... Then eventually common sense triumphs...
"It's only Basketball"
Gibbz says Jaylen Brown is a better player than Ivica Zubac.
the clippers give zubac a deal that is much less than what jaylen is making and your takeaway from that is that Gibbz is wrong with his evaluation? weird
I am, like,
So the rumors of the Toronto trade originally had the Spurs giving up the pick for Poeltl. Most of us thought that was absurd and completely wrote off the rumor in favor of the flashier ideas like Boston, Philly and LAC. It turns out, the rumor was wrong -- the pick went the other way -- but they were clearly on point about the talks. To say the Toronto trade was worse than the rumors is wrong. It was worse than the fantasy trades involving other teams (like both picks and Harris for Kawhi from LAC, Brown and Tatum and Boston, Simmons, Covington and 10 from Philly), and if you want to argue that the other packages that were actually rumored to be offered (12 and non-Harris filler, Covington and Saric, Deng, Ingram, Hart and a pick) that's another thing. But we aren't talking about every trade idea right now. We're talking about how to interpret the Atlanta rumor. Folks like you keep creating hypotheticals that aren't based in what is in the tweets, assuming that's what's being discussed and using that to create a strawman of what the front office is like to complain.1. I don't know what Toronto rumor you're talking about, I don't remember it, but even if there was a rumor that Toronto wanted a pick, what point do you think you're making? That someone thinking giving a pick in the deal would be bad .... Would be wrong to think so? That they couldn't respond to that rumor without a lecture?
My opinion has better support. Yes, you can put your head in the sand and cry about you having a right to believe whatever. I don't give a . But if you're going to come into a forum and throw the point out there, it's going to get challenged, and complaining about you not being able to say whatever without being criticized is just whining.2. That's your opinion. Just that.
He's raising his guaranteed to make the trade possible. That is good for the Spurs, because the Hawks could just guarantee the whole thing. That they're talking to him would suggest the Spurs would only take the minimum salary necessary, which is just better than taking an extra few million.3. The point was about the raised guarantee that was rumored. And to me, IF Gallo had more guaranteed money paid by the Spurs, THEN that would be funny and not good, to have to pay more than the previous guarantee.
So yeah, this is why a lot of this is based on bad information and a bad-faith interpretation.
No, it's not. The rumor that Gallo is part of the trade doesn't say anything about three picks or picks being protected. That came from different rumors. You're talking "Collins plus three picks" plus "Hawks wanted to lottery protect the picks but the Spurs said no", plus "The new package includes Gallinari and picks" and creating "The Spurs are deciding whether to take a package of Gallinari and three protected picks". That doesn't make sense. There's zero reason to believe the Spurs are losing ground in the negotiation to where they went from Collins and three picks was enough to believing there's a risk of the Hawks getting him for bad salary and protected firsts. The only reason to believe they did that is that you believe the Spurs inherently cave on their trades and make bad deals. That's why actually looking at recent history and seeing that not bearing out matters.And what's up with, "But you ignored other rumors!". So? It's a response to one rumor.
I don't give a about the fun the edgies want to have. You don't become that way if you don't inherently like drama. There are tons of folks who don't agree with the way the Spurs go, and that typically manifests in them not -festing all over the site. We're not in prime edging territory where guys are making a million threads to complain, and I'm grateful. But there are people who legit think they're making serious contributions to the discussion (like you), and that's what I'm commenting on. I've been on this forum long enough to know the difference between trolling and bad takes.If someone jokes, "Just like the Spurs always do!" after they sign a player with a bulbous forehead, they don't REALLY mean that EVERY player ever signed or drafted had a bulbous forehead, it's a joke and part of the discourse. You might feel like defending the Spurs honor and correcting the record by pointing out players drafted without bulbous heads, but it's not necessary. It's really not.
Simultaneously trying argue "Let posters post how they want to" and "Stop posting like you want to" at the same time is ridiculous. People will post as they wish, I'll criticize when I see fit, and you can critique that criticism if you want to. That seems fairI don't have the numbers, but it feels like this forum has been busier than it has in years, and had been more fun with more draft discussion. Why be a buzz kill and forum police? And sometimes people inject rhetorical flourishes, jokes, etc to have FUN in a discussion board.
Did you know that when the Spurs sign camp body and someone posts "Power Shift!" or "They Scared Now!" or some other in-joke or meme you don't have to parachute in to Chinook up the thread with, "This narrative of a camp contract as being the key to the le is false. Here's 500 words why."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
