Shams: J-Rich to the Pelicans

[Chinook]

Just no longer a pumper my friend. SRPs do nothing for me nor the franchise. And to the post you're responding to, do you deny our front office screwed up royally by so publicly talking about their expectations for the traded players that ultimately fetched nothing like they wanted? Thus creating a cir stance where other front offices know PATFO vlusters but will settle for less as the deadline looms closer? That makes me a guy with in my cereal??

The Spurs didn't make anything public. Moreover, negotiations typically involve the two sides starting at one level and them moving together. The Spurs settling for a decent first and two seconds rather than two firsts isn't going to make people think the FO is hacked. Atlanta's FO constantly trying to pump Collins up every year but then not being able to get rid of him is another matter. Some of the teams that sold are happy to have kept their guys. A smaller group are likely not happy to have missed out on getting something. For the Spurs, a first and seven seconds for two expirings and some cap space isn't really a bad thing.

I totally get not valuing seconds in the same ballpark as firsts, but you just saw that a bundle of them can get a good role-player, and you never know when the Spurs are going to be in the market for one of those. These extra picks go out years. The Spurs may well be a contender again and still have like 10 extra seconds to use on deals. They might have many future opportunities to "improve" high seconds into later firsts like they did last year. We don't know if the new CBA is going to expand the minor-league aspect of the draft and d-league. The Spurs may well have developmental slots they can use their bevy of seconds on. There are a ton of reasons to have the picks.

[Chinook]

Of course you dont get my POV. It’s the least surprising thing of the day

People aren't getting your POV because it's not logically consistent and everytime someone asks you make it seem like it's extremely nuanced and we just don't get it.

Spurs turned down getting 2 2nds for WB for Josh/Doug. I would have rather done that vs hold out for this. I

Why is that better? Would they have then needed that cap next year to get more than two seconds? How many more seconds does $75 Million in cap space get than $50 Million, especially given that they couldn't even use $30 this year?

I dont want Spurs to avoid signing players they want;

and

I want them to not over pay them for 3+ years in order to get them to the point they are not tradable but instead viewed as negatives not worth their deals.

are not logically consistent. You're assuming the Spurs, as they are, can get whomever they want while offering nothing more than any other team. What if signing guys they want requires signing them to long-term deals at above-market (though McDermott was actually market) rates? What if the Spurs don't care about trade value for guys they signed and instead just want them on their team? Your answer is "Don't sign them", which is what I said. We're not talking about you not wanting them to sign a guy to a cheap deal that they like where every team all of the sudden wants to trade for that player. We're not talking about unicorns. Relying on unicorn logic to try to create nuance isn't sustainable. The Spurs have to make trade-offs. The Spurs have to be willing to pay to bring in talent. They have to be willing to eat deals that hurt a player's trade value if they want to be compensated for taking on those deals. The Spurs got paid to take Graham, which is the best-case scenario for the additional cap space you wanted them to "save" by dumping McDermott.

And this is ignoring that the Laker deal you suggested probably isn't even real considering they did a much better trade and that the Spurs just took a player they got with an extra year and traded him for another disappointing player with an extra year and four second-round picks. Imagine choosing to trade White for some expiring and a first last year and thinking that was superior to Richardson, Langford and the swap because they would have an extra $18 Million in cap space. Clearly the Spurs got back more than that extra space was going to get them.

Roby and KD are cheap. Doug is not. Graham is not. No I would have given all them up to get a first though.

Again, this isn't an argument. Which firsts did the Spurs give up for those guys? The real deals didn't involve those. The slots we're talking about would've been used to absorb guys like Hill and Danny Green for some seconds. Any of us would trade KBD, Roby, McDermott and Graham for a first. What kind of counter-argument even is that? It's just inventing things to be mad at.

[DPG21920]

People aren't getting your POV because it's not logically consistent and everytime someone asks you make it seem like it's extremely nuanced and we just don't get it.



Why is that better? Would they have then needed that cap next year to get more than two seconds? How many more seconds does $75 Million in cap space get than $50 Million, especially given that they couldn't even use $30 this year?



and



are not logically consistent. You're assuming the Spurs, as they are, can get whomever they want while offering nothing more than any other team. What if signing guys they want requires signing them to long-term deals at above-market (though McDermott was actually market) rates? What if the Spurs don't care about trade value for guys they signed and instead just want them on their team? Your answer is "Don't sign them", which is what I said. We're not talking about you not wanting them to sign a guy to a cheap deal that they like where every team all of the sudden wants to trade for that player. We're not talking about unicorns. Relying on unicorn logic to try to create nuance isn't sustainable. The Spurs have to make trade-offs. The Spurs have to be willing to pay to bring in talent. They have to be willing to eat deals that hurt a player's trade value if they want to be compensated for taking on those deals. The Spurs got paid to take Graham, which is the best-case scenario for the additional cap space you wanted them to "save" by dumping McDermott.

And this is ignoring that the Laker deal you suggested probably isn't even real considering they did a much better trade and that the Spurs just took a player they got with an extra year and traded him for another disappointing player with an extra year and four second-round picks. Imagine choosing to trade White for some expiring and a first last year and thinking that was superior to Richardson, Langford and the swap because they would have an extra $18 Million in cap space. Clearly the Spurs got back more than that extra space was going to get them.



Again, this isn't an argument. Which firsts did the Spurs give up for those guys? The real deals didn't involve those. The slots we're talking about would've been used to absorb guys like Hill and Danny Green for some seconds. Any of us would trade KBD, Roby, McDermott and Graham for a first. What kind of counter-argument even is that? It's just inventing things to be mad at.

No - honestly. You just dont get it lol. I can’t explain it any more clearly over and over. Plenty of people on here see what I am saying but somehow you misconstrue and take things not in context and misapply it.

It’s kinda pointless to discuss anymore (between you and I). No hard feelings or anything; it’s just that you keep making it more complex when my position is pretty logical and straightforward and the nuance comes in the shape of thinking outside the box based on where SA is at and balancing getting assets and making sure you always keep that in mind. The fact Doug is still here, to me, shows they didn’t do that with him and he’s not an assset; he’s a negative and no I dont agree wit you that just having him around is enough value which is exactly the entire crux of where you and I diverge but you can’t grasp that point which every thing hinges on.

[DPG21920]

And you keep acting, despite me typing it out very clearly, that me not agreeing it’s a good deal or that I dont love it, that I’m making it out to be catastrophic. Which is what you use to try and paint what I say as inconsistent or illogical lol

I clearly understand what happened. I just dont think it’s great. That doesn’t mean I dont get it or hate it. I wanted Spurs to use their cap space to get draft capital etc…I just dont LOVE how they did it. Instead of taking on money this year, they took on money next year & the player they got isnt very valuable to flip later IMO due to his deal and not being good. He’s not worth his deal.

I’m fine seeing big picture and compartmentalizing things between judging the deal in a bubble vs also seeing broader value (like, money to spurs not mattering even though in the bubble it did NO a huge favor).

But what I wanted preferably was holding team to the fire for doing them said favors especially if the player is on a bad deal or walking away if you can’t use your 2nds to give to them for a firs etc..).


I dont like that they didn’t get to the salary floor, I dont like that they turned down WB deal earlier for this and I also dont think its a big deal. I’m just discussing the deal while also knowing it’s fine.

[mo7888]

No - honestly. You just dont get it lol. I can’t explain it any more clearly over and over. Plenty of people on here see what I am saying but somehow you misconstrue and take things not in context and misapply it.

It’s kinda pointless to discuss anymore (between you and I). No hard feelings or anything; it’s just that you keep making it more complex when my position is pretty logical and straightforward and the nuance comes in the shape of thinking outside the box based on where SA is at and balancing getting assets and making sure you always keep that in mind. The fact Doug is still here, to me, shows they didn’t do that with him and he’s not an assset; he’s a negative and no I dont agree wit you that just having him around is enough value which is exactly the entire crux of where you and I diverge but you can’t grasp that point which every thing hinges on.

Are people really 'seeing what your saying?' Or perhaps, do some people just agree with you in not liking the trade? There is a difference.... I still haven't seen you make a logical argument for your position...I've seen you make emotional pleas, but not logical arguments. I know you're a guy who recognizes supply and demand (I've seen that on twitter from you) but you seem reluctant to apply it to this trade for some reason... and understand, I realize you don't think this trade was catastrophic, I just haven't seen you (or anybody) make a logical argument as to why it's not a good deal... all I've seen is emotional pla udes about what other teams should/would have done that fly in the face of the reality of 'supply and demand'...

[DPG21920]

And the balance is signing players to flip or signing good players. Signing Doug types is what I dont like and it’s why I hated the deal the minute it was announced. He isnt a trade asset and he isnt that good or fit well.

Do one or the other I don’t care, but not the middle of that (Doug). I would be totally fine not trading Richardson and not having Graham and using that 14m to sign an interesting player for SA vs getting the 4 seconds.

[spurraider21]

kinda my thoughts on why i disagree with DPG on the whole mcdermott thing

1) i didnt like the mcdermott signing at the time it was done because i thought the spurs were still angling to build a winner around murray/white, etc, and i thought he was overpaid and not conducive to that plan

2) but if i knew we were about to head into tank territory, i wouldnt have minded it as much at the time. as a tanking (or rebuilding/developing, however you want to characterize it) team, its not like we are angling to use our cap space to stack our roster and maximize wins now. well defined role players like mcdermott still have an important function for teams like ours. a lot of times you will see point guards struggle to rack up assists in summer league in part because the supporting cast sucks, dont know how to cut, move without the ball, or cant knock down shots. having a guy like mcdermott on offense really helps young ball handlers by giving them a great catch and shoot outlet. it helps develop players, and equally importantly, helps evaluate them. its like when NFL teams try to give their young QB some good WRs to throw the ball to. even if you're not trying to "win now", having those guys helps your QB develop, and you cant really evaluate a player who has no help around him

3) also, yes. mcdermott with 3 years left on his deal, or 2 years left on his deal, is not going to be appealing to contenders trying to make a win now move. at least not enough for them to really pay anything worth a lick. they'd much rather grab guys who a) can help them on the court, and also b), are expiring deals that they dont need to make long term commitments to. for that reason, i fully expect mdcermott to get traded next season for some value. whether its a bundle of seconds or whatever, we will get something for him. obviously, it would be amazing if we could sign veteran role players on 1 year deals every year and constantly flip them for picks at the deadline. the problem is getting them to sign here. could the spurs have gotten mcdermott to sign a 1 year deal with them? probably not. and if a guy like josh richardson was a free agent, would he sign a 1 year deal with a rebuilding spurs team? probably not. he'd either sign with a contender on a short term deal like that, or if he had to be convinced to join a spurs like team, it likely would take more money or more years for the juice to be worth the squeeze. if we actually want to sign halfway decent players who would be coveted by contenders, its going to be very unlikely we get them on one year deals to begin with, so a multiyear commitment is probably necessary

basically, my takeaway from DPG is that we basically shouldnt be signing any players to anything more than 1 year deals, and just hope that we will find enough deals where we sell cap space for picks to fill up the roster. meanwhile, as we saw, the spurs were unable to do any of those types of deals other than dedmon lol. now we have 20+ mil in cap space that went to waste. what if we had instead used that cap space this past offseason to sign a decent mcdermott/richardson level player to a slightly overpriced 2-3 year deal, enabling us to later flip him? sure, we'd eat the 1-2 years, but would pay off later, all while giving the team a veteran locker room presence, etc

[offset formation]

The Spurs didn't make anything public. Moreover, negotiations typically involve the two sides starting at one level and them moving together. The Spurs settling for a decent first and two seconds rather than two firsts isn't going to make people think the FO is hacked. Atlanta's FO constantly trying to pump Collins up every year but then not being able to get rid of him is another matter. Some of the teams that sold are happy to have kept their guys. A smaller group are likely not happy to have missed out on getting something. For the Spurs, a first and seven seconds for two expirings and some cap space isn't really a bad thing.

I totally get not valuing seconds in the same ballpark as firsts, but you just saw that a bundle of them can get a good role-player, and you never know when the Spurs are going to be in the market for one of those. These extra picks go out years. The Spurs may well be a contender again and still have like 10 extra seconds to use on deals. They might have many future opportunities to "improve" high seconds into later firsts like they did last year. We don't know if the new CBA is going to expand the minor-league aspect of the draft and d-league. The Spurs may well have developmental slots they can use their bevy of seconds on. There are a ton of reasons to have the picks.

To the bolded portion above...I did??

Did Brian Wright or Pop come out and say we only trade Poeltl for two unprotected FRPs? No, or at least not to my knowledge, but it was reported in the way these things are -- through leaks to the NBA media and folks like LJ that repeated that demand on multiple occasions.for not only Poeltl but also Josh.

I saw it take 4 SRPs and a player to get Josh Richardson. I saw it take 3 STPs and a player to get Thomas Bryant. Again color me as unimpressed with what an average SRP does

What benefit have we gotten from a SRP being stashed in Austin or overseas?

Just going from the last 14 year's drafts for us.

2022 -- traded pick
2021 -- Joe Wieskamp -- gone
2020 -- Tre Jones -- wasn't stashed and won't likely be with Spurs long term
2019 -- Quindndary Weatherspoon -- gone
2018 -- Chimezi Metu -- gone
2017 -- Jaron Blossomgame -- gone
2016 -- No SRP
2015 -- Cady Lalanne -- gone
2014 -- traded both picks (both out of league though)
2013 -- Deshaun Thomas -- gone
2012 -- Marcus Denmon -- gone
2011 -- Adam Hanga -- gone
2010 -- Ryan Richard's-- gone
2009 -- DeJuan Blair
-- Jack McClinton --
-- Nandi de Colo --

And to clarify many to most of these guys never made it past their rookie seasons with us. Yet I had to go back to 2009 to find a somewhat impactful player. 14 Draft classes to find Dejuan Blair.

Again, SRPs then and today very infrequently turn into anything positive beyond 1 year down the road with the team that drafted them or any other NBA team.

And repeating, if it takes 3 picks and a player to rent a player for 27 games, what value di they really hold. I'd submit they're exactly what they sound like: 1/4 a Thomas Bryant.

Count me out but you guys have fun with those STPs.

[Ariel]

There's a caveat though: most of those draft picks were low 2nd rounders. At least several of these will be high 2nd rounders, some VERY high (almost late 1sts). The difference is HUGE. But yeah, if we're talking trash 2nds, might as well sell them or package them for something tangible.

[CGD]

This whole debate misses the point. SRPs are the grease that gets other deals done. Don't worry about where its the next Cady Lalanne or Joe Wieskamp.

If a few years when its our turn to go get another finishing piece like a Jakob, Kennard, Gordon, etc. etc. etc., its useful to have those two extra SRPs to throw into the deal.

[DPG21920]

Are people really 'seeing what your saying?' Or perhaps, do some people just agree with you in not liking the trade? There is a difference.... I still haven't seen you make a logical argument for your position...I've seen you make emotional pleas, but not logical arguments. I know you're a guy who recognizes supply and demand (I've seen that on twitter from you) but you seem reluctant to apply it to this trade for some reason... and understand, I realize you don't think this trade was catastrophic, I just haven't seen you (or anybody) make a logical argument as to why it's not a good deal... all I've seen is emotional pla udes about what other teams should/would have done that fly in the face of the reality of 'supply and demand'...

I’ve stated multiple times why it’s not a good trade. Both in the context of what they passed on (Lakers trade) and in isolation (getting another Doug like player for picks that dont move the needle vs say letting Richardson walk, not taking Graham on, signing someone more interesting than him for 14M with more upside).

I dont think it’s bad; they got some picks for taking on a bad deal. That’s all normal and understandable. I would have just preferred taking Lakers deal or using some of our 2nds to force NO to give us a first for helping them or walking away entirely and signing a better player for 14M that is more interesting that either fits better or would net us a first in a flip.

[spurraider21]

There's a caveat though: most of those draft picks were low 2nd rounders. At least several of these will be high 2nd rounders, some VERY high (almost late 1sts). The difference is HUGE. But yeah, if we're talking trash 2nds, might as well sell them or package them for something tangible.

those trash seconds are like hot potatoes. move them around. trade an asset your team doesnt (a vetaran) need for a few. then later trade those few for an asset you actually covet (a better pick, a risky younger player). but you dont want to be the team stuck drafting 10 players in the 50's over a 3 year span.

its like the beginning scene of wolf of all street. its a fugazi. you dont let somebody actually use their second round pick! because that would make it real. no what do you do? you get another brilliant idea. another stock to invest in. another pick/player you actually want. the team getting a billion second round picks thinks hes getting rich and he is... on paper. etc etc

[DPG21920]

kinda my thoughts on why i disagree with DPG on the whole mcdermott thing

1) i didnt like the mcdermott signing at the time it was done because i thought the spurs were still angling to build a winner around murray/white, etc, and i thought he was overpaid and not conducive to that plan

2) but if i knew we were about to head into tank territory, i wouldnt have minded it as much at the time. as a tanking (or rebuilding/developing, however you want to characterize it) team, its not like we are angling to use our cap space to stack our roster and maximize wins now. well defined role players like mcdermott still have an important function for teams like ours. a lot of times you will see point guards struggle to rack up assists in summer league in part because the supporting cast sucks, dont know how to cut, move without the ball, or cant knock down shots. having a guy like mcdermott on offense really helps young ball handlers by giving them a great catch and shoot outlet. it helps develop players, and equally importantly, helps evaluate them. its like when NFL teams try to give their young QB some good WRs to throw the ball to. even if you're not trying to "win now", having those guys helps your QB develop, and you cant really evaluate a player who has no help around him

3) also, yes. mcdermott with 3 years left on his deal, or 2 years left on his deal, is not going to be appealing to contenders trying to make a win now move. at least not enough for them to really pay anything worth a lick. they'd much rather grab guys who a) can help them on the court, and also b), are expiring deals that they dont need to make long term commitments to. for that reason, i fully expect mdcermott to get traded next season for some value. whether its a bundle of seconds or whatever, we will get something for him. obviously, it would be amazing if we could sign veteran role players on 1 year deals every year and constantly flip them for picks at the deadline. the problem is getting them to sign here. could the spurs have gotten mcdermott to sign a 1 year deal with them? probably not. and if a guy like josh richardson was a free agent, would he sign a 1 year deal with a rebuilding spurs team? probably not. he'd either sign with a contender on a short term deal like that, or if he had to be convinced to join a spurs like team, it likely would take more money or more years for the juice to be worth the squeeze. if we actually want to sign halfway decent players who would be coveted by contenders, its going to be very unlikely we get them on one year deals to begin with, so a multiyear commitment is probably necessary

basically, my takeaway from DPG is that we basically shouldnt be signing any players to anything more than 1 year deals, and just hope that we will find enough deals where we sell cap space for picks to fill up the roster. meanwhile, as we saw, the spurs were unable to do any of those types of deals other than dedmon lol. now we have 20+ mil in cap space that went to waste. what if we had instead used that cap space this past offseason to sign a decent mcdermott/richardson level player to a slightly overpriced 2-3 year deal, enabling us to later flip him? sure, we'd eat the 1-2 years, but would pay off later, all while giving the team a veteran locker room presence, etc

Pretty accurate; I just disagree that knowing it was a rebuild makes it better. Signing aging, no upside guys to longer term deals above market value is just bad business and pointless. The nuance is that while its not bad because I understand developing players and how Doug helps, that theres plenty of guys that can do that without the “fear” of him being a negative asset for when you want to move guys or take advantage. When you are using cap space, whether its to take a bad deal or sign someone I am of the opinion you always have to consider them assets first for future value.

Don’t sign terrible defensive aging guys to bad deals just because you can because you are wasting the cap space when you can have others help development and not have the other “issue” of them being a negative value.

I’m fine signing guys too without having mindset of flipping them - but if you are going to do that sign who you can for one year deals. You dont need to fomo or worry yourself too much about “losing out” on Doug for example because if he wont take a huge 1 year deal then there’s plenty of guys who can help the youth without any strings attached.

I would have been fine with Doug at market value for 3 years - but as evidenced by him not having any value outside of SA, they overpaid him. Enough to where he’s not an asset. That’s the balance.

[DPG21920]

This whole debate misses the point. SRPs are the grease that gets other deals done. Don't worry about where its the next Cady Lalanne or Joe Wieskamp.

If a few years when its our turn to go get another finishing piece like a Jakob, Kennard, Gordon, etc. etc. etc., its useful to have those two extra SRPs to throw into the deal.

Agreed. SRP isnt just about actually drafting. They allow you to trade a first that converts to 2nds if the first doesn’t convey. Or whatever. But Spurs have plenty of those already and is not some massive win taking on a negative player for those types of picks. But it’s also not end of the world. Just not my preference to get Doug like players back if thats the return. I’d rather just have the 14M to choose a player that is more interesting that could net a first instead of all those second and if they dont? At least you still have a player that you choose that fits core and timeline better with more upside.

[spurraider21]

Pretty accurate; I just disagree that knowing it was a rebuild makes it better. Signing aging, no upside guys to longer term deals above market value is just bad business and pointless.

what did the mcdermott signing prevent us from doing. what good FA pickup did we let slip away because he occupied that cap space. what were we going to do this year, trade for 2 russell westbrooks when we couldnt even trade for 1? we have 20+ mil of unused space this year. would it be better if we had 35+ instead?[/quote]

The nuance is that while its not bad because I understand developing players and how Doug helps, that theres plenty of guys that can do that without the “fear” of him being a negative asset for when you want to move guys or take advantage.

who else was there. forbes? i dont love mcdermott, but he's a competent NBA player with very well known strengths and weaknesses. i dont think of him as a negative asset though, just a future one. he probably doesnt have a lot of value to contenders now. but he will next year. we made the investment of having a guy who can help our guys develop for 2-2.5 years while becoming a flippable expiring veteran that contenders love after that point. if that requires eating 2 years salary that we werent going to be using productively anyway, so be it

When you are using cap space, whether its to take a bad deal or sign someone I am of the opinion you always have to consider them assets first for future value.

Don’t sign terrible defensive aging guys to bad deals just because you can because you are wasting the cap space when you can have others help development and not have the other “issue” of them being a negative value.

as i said above, i think we have considered him as an asset for future value. im pretty confident mcdermott will be traded. just wasnt likely this year.

I’m fine signing guys too without having mindset of flipping them - but if you are going to do that sign who you can for one year deals. You dont need to fomo or worry yourself too much about “losing out” on Doug for example because if he wont take a huge 1 year deal then there’s plenty of guys who can help the youth without any strings attached.

I would have been fine with Doug at market value for 3 years - but as evidenced by him not having any value outside of SA, they overpaid him. Enough to where he’s not an asset. That’s the balance.

but this goes right back to the point you are responding to.

what player was out there who

a) would be coveted by buyers at the deadline
b) would be willing to sign a one year deal with the spurs at market value

i dont really believe that exists. or if it does, would be a very fringe case. i think recognizing you arent getting those types on a 1 year deal is fine. you bring them over on a 2-3 year deal with the thought that they can help your development for a couple of years (for which sure, you might pay a premium... but who cares, you arent using that money anyway), and then near the end of his deal, he WILL have trade value as an expiring veteran with a defined role. its just a longer term play

[offset formation]

This whole debate misses the point. SRPs are the grease that gets other deals done. Don't worry about where its the next Cady Lalanne or Joe Wieskamp.

If a few years when its our turn to go get another finishing piece like a Jakob, Kennard, Gordon, etc. etc. etc., its useful to have those two extra SRPs to throw into the deal.

I think we both must sound like this to one another, "But Brawndo's got what plants crave...it's got electrolytes."

Look bro, I'll acknowledge that it greases the wheels on a trade.

However you must then acknowledge the context that flows from that: how many aversge SRPs (40-50) do you need to grease the wheels for an actual valuable asset? For example, we just got 7 or 8 picks from various teams, most of which look to be in that range as they convey.

Well if you do the math onthose picks with the real world value from today's trades, it works out that each one if those SRPs has the value of roughly 1/4 what's required to rent Thomas Bryant for 27 games, as he's in an expiring contract. Or 1/5th of Josh Richardson.

So in summary, and I'll leave this here, is it time to maybe step back from what we've all been led to believe from being fans, reevaluating, and using logic available to us through real world examples, to determine that really, SRPs are more often than not, just junk. And that's whether you actually use them to draft someone (as I've demonstrated, that pick is rarely helpful on the court) OR use it to grease the skids on your trade skis.

I've now beaten this horse to death and feel I've done as good a job as possible to demonstrate my POV. Obviously it's my view somebody you need to take the blue pill or whatever on SRP value.

[DPG21920]

what did the mcdermott signing prevent us from doing. what good FA pickup did we let slip away because he occupied that cap space. what were we going to do this year, trade for 2 russell westbrooks when we couldnt even trade for 1? we have 20+ mil of unused space this year. would it be better if we had 35+ instead?

There are plenty of guys that could have been signed for Dougs money or less that were at a minimum better swings/fits for a rebuilding roster. I dont see why this is controversial to say signing aging, terrible defensive players to expensive multi year deals in a rebuild is not a good idea *shrug*

This was not controversial when I said it in that thread. It’s as actually pretty much understood by a lot of people. Only now are people arguing with me about it which I find really odd considering its worked out pretty much exactly as I said at the time.

[Ariel]

those trash seconds are like hot potatoes. move them around. trade an asset your team doesnt (a vetaran) need for a few. then later trade those few for an asset you actually covet (a better pick, a risky younger player). but you dont want to be the team stuck drafting 10 players in the 50's over a 3 year span

Oh, I agree. Taking a player in isn't free, there's an opportunity cost associated with it, in terms of the players he's preventing you to develop (roster spots are scarce). So long term projects (players who will take 3+ years before you can tell whether they'll pan out or not) should be weighted in VERY carefully, there should be a special quota for that kind of players (Wesleys, Barlows, Primos, etc.). My 2nd round strategies, from most to least preferred (you move down if the previous alternative isn't possible or convenient):
1) Consolidate picks by moving up or trading for an established player.
2) Take a good prospect within reach. Usually in the 2nd round you'll find players who are slightly older or extremely raw. Favor the first kind: they offer a better return, speed up the rotation, and don't clog the pipeline.
3) Trade the pick for another one in the future. Or sell it, whatever is best.
4) Find the better draft & stash candidate and let him develop. If eventually he improves you bring him, if not you dump him.
That way you may make use of lots of second rounders without having the picks turn into a burden.

[DPG21920]

People keep framing it as “what did it prevent” or “we have space”. Ok, as I said, I get it, which is why I always say it’s not some catastrophic thing. So let’s get past that. I understand that framing

I’m saying evaluate it on its own - I think its shows Spurs heads are in wrong place, they are being absolute hawks on seeking value/picks and they arent OPTIMIZING their assets. I dont like what it signals, like signing Pau/Mills/Rudy etc… to deals (even though it didn’t set sA back). It’s just annoying and I want them sharp.

The fact they choose Doug, when it’s obvious he isnt good, sucks on defense and doesn’t have upside is what annoys me. But that is who’ the Spurs wanted and value and I personally disagree with that for all the reasons I state.

[K...]

I think we both must sound like this to one another, "But Brawndo's got what plants crave...it's got electrolytes."

Look bro, I'll acknowledge that it greases the wheels on a trade.

However you must then acknowledge the context that flows from that: how many aversge SRPs (40-50) do you need to grease the wheels for an actual valuable asset? For example, we just got 7 or 8 picks from various teams, most of which look to be in that range as they convey.

Well if you do the math onthose picks with the real world value from today's trades, it works out that each one if those SRPs has the value of roughly 1/4 what's required to rent Thomas Bryant for 27 games, as he's in an expiring contract. Or 1/5th of Josh Richardson.

So in summary, and I'll leave this here, is it time to maybe step back from what we've all been led to believe from being fans, reevaluating, and using logic available to us through real world examples, to determine that really, SRPs are more often than not, just junk. And that's whether you actually use them to draft someone (as I've demonstrated, that pick is rarely helpful on the court) OR use it to grease the skids on your trade skis.

I've now beaten this horse to death and feel I've done as good a job as possible to demonstrate my POV. Obviously it's my view somebody you need to take the blue pill or whatever on SRP value.

lets focus on the opportunity cost. Do you think the value of Richardson is greater than the trash value of 3 SRP? You seem to want something that wasn't for sale. Whats the alternative to getting SRP for non star players? It's been pointed out most teams are capped out of FRP?

[Chinook]

To the bolded portion above...I did??

Yes. Did you not look at this deadline? Basically every good role-player went for a bundle of seconds.

Did Brian Wright or Pop come out and say we only trade Poeltl for two unprotected FRPs? No, or at least not to my knowledge, but it was reported in the way these things are -- through leaks to the NBA media and folks like LJ that repeated that demand on multiple occasions.for not only Poeltl but also Josh.

That's not the same thing. It's not even a semantic thing. The Spurs may well have told teams that was their price and then came down slightly. But they weren't even pushing it to the big media members like Toronto was. I like timvp, but he's not Wright's mouthpiece. The extent to which LJ's article blew up belies the level of confirmation from other sources. It's not even that LJ was wrong, but if they were talking about it as much as you worry they were, it would've been directly reported or confirmed by more outlets.

I saw it take 4 SRPs and a player to get Josh Richardson. I saw it take 3 STPs and a player to get Thomas Bryant. Again color me as unimpressed with what an average SRP does

A player like Richardson may end up being more useful to the 2027 Spurs than the 2023 version. That they'd have plenty of seconds to make that move if necessary is why it matters. Without knowing if there was an alternative trade, the deal was to take his price in picks and push that out a few years while getting a guy who might be next year's version of Richardson. Just as Josh ended up being really good ballast for White, Devonte might end up being very ballast for Richardson.

What benefit have we gotten from a SRP being stashed in Austin or overseas?

Most of the post after this is just focusing on why using that many second-rounders to actually draft players is unlikely to yield great results. The heart of this is true in that players drafted in the second round aren't likely to pan out. But it ignores a couple of things. The first is that the history you're using is almost exclusively late-seconds compared to the mix of seconds the team is looking at in these trades. The other is that by having so many chances the Spurs might well be able to find the one or two solid rotation players that would make all of the chaff they'd have to sift through worth. This also ignores the other uses for the picks that I brought up, like using them and other elements to move up into the first round and potentially getting to take advantage of the new developmental environment by being able to take fliers on d-league teams. I know that doesn't sound fun now, but if teams like the Ignite and Elite continue to expand and take more top high-school prospects, there might well be an ability to use those picks to lock down the rights to intriguing teenagers who would've previously gone to college and been more highly drafted. It's not how it works now, they they have three picks in 2028 and two in 2029 already. The second-round may well be completely different by then (I actually think there could be three or four rounds by then).

[spurraider21]

There are plenty of guys that could have been signed for Dougs money or less that were at a minimum better swings/fits for a rebuilding roster. I dont see why this is controversial to say signing aging, terrible defensive players to expensive multi year deals in a rebuild is not a good idea *shrug*

This was not controversial when I said it in that thread. It’s as actually pretty much understood by a lot of people. Only now are people arguing with me about it which I find really odd considering its worked out pretty much exactly as I said at the time.

ignoring the fact that we were not planning on tanking and just flipping players for picks at the time of the mcdermott signing (were still ostensibly building around the murray/white), what players could we have signed for 1 year deals that could have then been flipped for a pick(s) instead?

[DPG21920]

ignoring the fact that we were not planning on tanking and just flipping players for picks at the time of the mcdermott signing (were still ostensibly building around the murray/white), what players could we have signed for 1 year deals that could have then been flipped for a pick(s) instead?

I dont care just about flipping for picks. But you have to have at least one of these two things to be signed and it should be clear at the time of the signing:

1) upside and fit with the younger core and immediate future with some room to grow

And/or

2) definite trade value which includes their contract and how much you pay them

Doug was neither. I said it then, and many agreed then. He was overpaid and that was going to be an issue (not for SA they have money, but for trading) and he was not an upside player or really good fit for a team going younger core

[offset formation]

lets focus on the opportunity cost. Do you think the value of Richardson is greater than the trash value of 3 SRP? You seem to want something that wasn't for sale. Whats the alternative to getting SRP for non star players? It's been pointed out most teams are capped out of FRP?

Aha. So there's the rub, I acknowledge that SRPs are currency. Just that they're like converting the world's dollar standard to DogeCoin or Peruvian Peso.

I get that there needs to be two rounds to the annual NBA draft, and from there flows the value of the SRP. However, given the failure rate of the SRP, what's done is like so eone mentioned above: Its like musical chairs where you don't really want to get caught with many of them, which in and of itself undescores the real world actual value to teams.

So is there an alternative to dealing in the currency of SRPs? No, likely not, unless the league decided to assign actual dollar values to them based on numerical position. But beyond that, SRPs will be what they've always been where you basically pass them off to someone else to maaaybe upgrade your roster for part of a season.

Now I will say this...I think the average talent base is improving as basketball ascends in popularity and you get kids playing the game year around the world over. Perhaps one day, more than 1 out of 300 picks will result in an all star or 10 year vet.

[DPG21920]

This was the original Doug thread. I said all these same things then and many agreed and saw these points. Nothing has changed outside of several people who understood then somehow changing their views now to argue with me.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=297020&page=2


The key things from that thread: Yes, part of it was not committing to more of youth movement but that is part and parcel of my issue with his deal/age/abilities moving forward knowing SA was going younger. It was not only about direction and being stuck in middle, but about it being clear he was not worth his deal to anyone else but Spurs for some reason and that it was going to become obvious what direction SA needed to go.

You don’t pay guys like him for teams like SA, I’m sorry. He’s not young, has no upside and we aren’t competing for anything. It’s just valuing character and wanting to be “compe ive” vs truly embracing a rebuild. It’s silly middle of the road stuff even if he’s a good player.

It’s not that complicated PATFO. Spurs dont need players that aren’t difference makers and/or that dont fit the timeline of growing w/the youth. Value/Fit aside, they needed a plan. They are stuck in neutral - not truly competing or rebuilding

This better be a 2 year deal with 3rd year team option or mostly non guaranteed.

Initial thoughts:

-I mean, value-wise it's not terrible. A quasi-starter for MLE-ish money is fine.
-A poor defender who turns 30 in January? For a rebuilding team? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
-I don't really regard McDermott as a special three-point shooter. His volume is too low for that. He's accurate but he doesn't shoot many compared to other notable sharpshooters.
-McDermott had a lot of success driving the ball but that skill isn't as valuable in SA where multiple younger players are better drivers.
-So Spurs obviously see Keldon more as a power forward. McDermott would be the small forward next to KJ -- but I imagine he just defends whoever the weakest offensive player is -- whether that be the SG, SF or PF.
-Main thought: The Spurs still have a lot of cap room. Depending on how they use it, this McDermott signing could get better or worse. You follow this up with a Collins offer sheet? Yeah, McDermott makes sense. You follow it up with re-signing Mills? OMG WTF

Simple - answer these questions:

1) Losing DDR/Mills/Rudy, does signing Doug help the Spurs truly elevate to the playoffs?

2) Is he young and fit well next to the youth to grow alongside them in order to build around them and have a ceiling as a team moving forward?

3) Does he help in aiding a rebuild if playoffs aren’t a real option?

If the answer to those aren’t Yes, Yes, Yes, then there is no reason to waste money on him just for the sake of wanting to appear to to bottom out.

I don't hate it but I don't like it, tbh.

I agree that the Spurs needed a shooter to space the court but paying above MLE for McDermott is tough to justify. A shooting big was preferred, not a 3 who is sometimes too slow to defend 3s so he shifts to 4. McDermott is a bad defender already and will only decline over the age of 30. Cap space is super valuable to a rebuilding team -- but this just needlessly eats away at it.

McDermott is better than someone like Korkmaz but I'll take Korkmaz at $5 million a year. At least he's young, has some upside, isn't locked into being a bad defender and doesn't eat as much cap room. Plus Korkmaz shoots threes at a higher volume. McDermott isn't even really a high volume three-point shooter. Walker shot threes more often last year and Walker would go possessions at a time without getting a touch

In any of the previous 25 years or whatever, signing McDermott would have been okay. This summer? Ehh, I can't cosign.

I won't lose sleep because the Spurs reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally needed a floor spacer and McDermott is that (and signing him isn't nearly as bad as re-signing DeRozan, Mills or Gay) but it doesn't give me any confidence in this front office.