Final Grades of Spurs Transactions During Trade Deadline Season

[offset formation]

I want to leave aside DPG's nonsense aside. He's fine otherwise.

Watching the LAL-GSW right now. Ainge gave the Lakers two starters, gave away a good PG in Conley, and got nothing but a distant FRP years from now after the Lakers will probably have reloaded. I can only guess he wanted to dump players?

Just another example of the universe always putting the Fakers on 3rd base after their own incompetence should have struck them out. I'll never get over that BS trade of Pau to the Lakers for nothing practically other than his brother. All signed sealed and delivered by the Logo and Laker legend.

the Lakers all tge way down to their en led cores

[Sugus]

Yeah and I learned from doing so at an early age, letting it be public what I want beforehand , then caving at the last minute portends poorly for the next negotiation. In fact I was an expert at this by the age of 8.

It can't be the first time you've come across a team with valuable goods setting an initial, high bidding price. It just can't, I don't believe it.

Enlighten us: which teams, specifically and demonstrably, have been "bitten in the ass" by having "folded" on earlier trades, in later years? Any specific examples at all? Maybe that's just the way business is done through the league, and trades don't follow a hive-minded principle and are independent of each other?

I personally have a number of examples that go against your point, of teams who made mind-bogglingly bad trades that were negotiated publicly, too, and then followed that up with years of being a normal, non-"abused" trade partner. But let's hear your examples first.

[DPG21920]

I want to leave aside DPG's nonsense aside. He's fine otherwise.

Watching the LAL-GSW right now. Ainge gave the Lakers two starters, gave away a good PG in Conley, and got nothing but a distant FRP years from now after the Lakers will probably have reloaded. I can only guess he wanted to dump players?

Lmao - whether you like it or not, a real nba team did a trade VERY SIMILAR to the one I proposed. So personal opinion aside, calling it non-sense is just stupid. It legit happened. So you can argue that it was a dumb trade by UTA to get a shot a pick number 5 for role players and taking on shedding 15M in salary next season, but you cannot argue it’s as non-sense.

[Chinook]

Lmao - whether you like it or not, a real nba team did a trade VERY SIMILAR to the one I proposed. So personal opinion aside, calling it non-sense is just stupid. It legit happened. So you can argue that it was a dumb trade by UTA to get a shot a pick number 5 for role players and taking on shedding 15M in salary next season, but you cannot argue it’s as non-sense.

It's not that similar of a trade. Beasley is good money on his deal, and Vanderbilt is a coveted prospect. While Conley isn't great money, the Jazz also paid to turn his salary into Russell. I don't think the Spurs would've beaten that offer without something more valuable going out. It's hard to see anything but Poeltl fitting that bill.

[DPG21920]

It's not that similar of a trade. Beasley is good money on his deal, and Vanderbilt is a coveted prospect. While Conley isn't great money, the Jazz also paid to turn his salary into Russell. I don't think the Spurs would've beaten that offer without something more valuable going out. It's hard to see anything but Poeltl fitting that bill.

It’s similar in the context of volume and quality of players - Collins/Doug/Richardson (and I said Tre if needed/wanted) for Russ + 1 first. People were mad I was sending out “3 to 4 good players for one terrible contract!”

Its almost identical to what UTA did, both in quality of players (if you are arguing UTA players are better than SA then it makes their argument WEAKER that my idea was outlandish for SA) and how they saved money by unloading Conley where we would have saved exact same money in Doug.

It’s nearly identical in this regard compared to these yahoos crying about my idea being far fetched. Has nothing to do with regards to SA being able to beat UTA deal. They thought SA was giving up too much in my deal and that no one would do something like that.

Forgetting whether or not SA could have beaten UTA, functionally in principle:

UTA Sending: Mike Conley + Vanderbilt + Beasley and getting 1 LA first while saving 15M off of Conley for only taking on WB money this year is nearly identical in structure to

SA Sending: Collins + Doug + Josh Richardson (and I was willing to do Tre too) and getting 1 LA first while saving 15M off Doug for only taking on WB money this year

It’s the same exact type of deal/structure and logic that I proposed that Body cries over still today

Doesn’t matter if people think SA deal I hypothetically proposed was better than UTA offer or if UTA got fleeced; whole point was it was a SPOT ON structure and not at all unreasonable from a SA perspective

[Chinook]

It’s similar in the context of volume and quality of players - Collins/Doug/Richardson (and I said Tre if needed/wanted) for Russ + 1 first. People were mad I was sending out “3 to 4 good players for one terrible contract!”

Its almost identical to what UTA did, both in quality of players (if you are arguing UTA players are better than SA then it makes their argument WEAKER that my idea was outlandish for SA) and how they saved money by unloading Conley where we would have saved exact same money in Doug.

It’s nearly identical in this regard compared to these yahoos crying about my idea being far fetched. Has nothing to do with regards to SA being able to beat UTA deal. They thought SA was giving up too much in my deal and that no one would do something like that.

I had no issues with that deal if the Spurs wanted to trade those guys. They might covet Collins a lot, and he's playing well. I don't think it matters, because it's not the same as what LAL got. My issue isn't with that as much as it is with the deals with unprotected picks being pitched and then being used as a sign the Spurs are getting destroyed in trades.

Assuming the Spurs could do the LAL trade, I think it's justifiable that they didn't while I also think I would've done it personally. It's close. So long as we stay away from things like the suggested Simmons trade, we're probably on a good discussion track.

[DPG21920]

I had no issues with that deal if the Spurs wanted to trade those guys. They might covet Collins a lot, and he's playing well. I don't think it matters, because it's not the same as what LAL got. My issue isn't with that as much as it is with the deals with unprotected picks being pitched and then being used as a sign the Spurs are getting destroyed in trades.

Assuming the Spurs could do the LAL trade, I think it's justifiable that they didn't while I also think I would've done it personally. It's close. So long as we stay away from things like the suggested Simmons trade, we're probably on a good discussion track.

Sure I get that - it’s just all hypotheticals and paths. There’s not only one good trade to be made. I did value the Lakers pick more than about any other for my own reasons, but not getting it doesn’t mean it’s a failure if they do other deals that net similar or better.

I’m fine with a Simmons deal seeing that they have Khem + Graham honestly. Next year likely isn’t using cap space again and under the assumption that absorbing Simmons mostly would net the best quality assets in return? I’m ok with his “extra” year past Doug/Khem/Graham because next year doesn’t seem to “really” count from a Spurs perspective anyways it seems.

It debatable for sure - I’m not 100% sold myself, but BKY does have some players and picks now that would make me seriously listen I would say.

[Chinook]

Sure I get that - it’s just all hypotheticals and paths. There’s not only one good trade to be made. I did value the Lakers pick more than about any other for my own reasons, but not getting it doesn’t mean it’s a failure if they do other deals that net similar or better.

I’m fine with a Simmons deal seeing that they have Khem + Graham honestly. Next year likely isn’t using cap space again and under the assumption that absorbing Simmons mostly would net the best quality assets in return? I’m ok with his “extra” year past Doug/Khem/Graham because next year doesn’t seem to “really” count from a Spurs perspective anyways it seems.

It debatable for sure - I’m not 100% sold myself, but BKY does have some players and picks now that would make me seriously listen I would say.

I think you misunderstand. The Simmons deal isn't (in my opinion) realistic enough to discuss, because no one's trading unprotected picks to dump salary anymore. The Spurs aren't going to get that, and fans projecting it and making that a sign of a good trade are being unrealistic.

By far Brooklyn's best play in my mind is for them to try to rehab Simmons to at least the point that he's buoyant ballast. They have a ton of future value on their team and can afford to be patient. If the Spurs should be looking opportunistically at the Nets at all, it should be to try to snatch Cam Johnson from them in free agency. I still really like him in a rotation with Keldon and Sochan.

[DPG21920]

I think you misunderstand. The Simmons deal isn't (in my opinion) realistic enough to discuss, because no one's trading unprotected picks to dump salary anymore. The Spurs aren't going to get that, and fans projecting it and making that a sign of a good trade are being unrealistic.

By far Brooklyn's best play in my mind is for them to try to rehab Simmons to at least the point that he's buoyant ballast. They have a ton of future value on their team and can afford to be patient. If the Spurs should be looking opportunistically at the Nets at all, it should be to try to snatch Cam Johnson from them in free agency. I still really like him in a rotation with Keldon and Sochan.

I get that (the Cam part and agree - I am fine with SA adding talent they think is legit and good value and young). But I disagree on the Simmons part some; I do see what you are saying and I don’t disagree that the path you think makes sense in fact makes sense.

But BKY doesn’t own their own picks and have no incentive to tank. The trades they made seem to infer they want to compete and having a 40M albatross that seemingly ruins the vibe and doesn’t try hard can be seen as bad (especially if they want to keep Cam etc..). They can get a complete get out of jail free card and maybe meaningfully enough cap space to sign actual talent to be a playoff team for 1 unprotected pick and maybe some 2nds?

Not sure SA would do that and ownership pay all that money for a pick, but I do think BKY would need to strongly consider it if that was the price (and maybe with SA left dancing alone this deadline they will realize that even getting that one truly unprotected first is very valuable and SA is definitely in a better spot to rehab Simmons too). But again, that is just my perspective on that.

[KingKev]

I get that (the Cam part and agree - I am fine with SA adding talent they think is legit and good value and young). But I disagree on the Simmons part some; I do see what you are saying and I don’t disagree that the path you think makes sense in fact makes sense.

But BKY doesn’t own their own picks and have no incentive to tank. The trades they made seem to infer they want to compete and having a 40M albatross that seemingly ruins the vibe and doesn’t try hard can be seen as bad (especially if they want to keep Cam etc..). They can get a complete get out of jail free card and maybe meaningfully enough cap space to sign actual talent to be a playoff team for 1 unprotected pick and maybe some 2nds?

Not sure SA would do that and ownership pay all that money for a pick, but I do think BKY would need to strongly consider it if that was the price (and maybe with SA left dancing alone this deadline they will realize that even getting that one truly unprotected first is very valuable and SA is definitely in a better spot to rehab Simmons too). But again, that is just my perspective on that.

Did you look at their cap space before you went off on another 3 paragraph rant? Paying an unprotected FRP to get off of Simmons does nothing for them in 23-24.

[DPG21920]

Did you look at their cap space before you went off on another 3 paragraph rant? Paying an unprotected FRP to get off of Simmons does nothing for them in 23-24.

Yes. Did you smart guy?

[KingKev]

Yes. Did you smart guy?

Well paying to move Simmons really only helps them come 2024-25 if they decide to blow it up and focus on Cam Thomas and Bridges.

You were terribly wrong regarding KD and you are likely just as wrong here. Hold your L.

[MultiTroll]

Dougie McDermott for a 1st.

[DPG21920]

Well paying to move Simmons really only helps them come 2024-25 if they decide to blow it up and focus on Cam Thomas and Bridges.

You were terribly wrong regarding KD and you are likely just as wrong here. Hold your L.

Not falling for this lol