no on Mitc
No on Garland
Maybe on Trae
Possibly on Murray
4 distinctly different players. It really all depends on the team the Spurs are (re-)building.
Historically, when the Spurs have a ton of options, they do less than we in the peanut gallery would hope for.
Of course, pre-Wemby times might have called for different measures. My gut says next year is when the Spurs do a big acquisition.
Cade would be excellent, but it's not feasible (Pistons wouldn't trade him).
Murray would be the best available at a reasonable price.
I would be after a wing with potential or star level (Ingram?), even if I had to run another year with Tre as a starter.
no to mitc tbh. he went from being a good team player who played both ends to a guy who coasts on defense while his offense hasnt really gotten all that much better or more efficient. dont think he wants to play second fiddle and i dont think he wants to go back to putting consistent effort in on defense. phenomenal player but not what we need next to wemby tbh. he also just seems disgruntled with not being in a big city.
https://www.newsweek.com/sports/nba/...llapse-1901194
This may have been posted already but I’m too lazy to scroll up more than 3 posts to check.
Now that the Cavaliers are out, much larger decisions loom for Cleveland, including that Mitc 's fate. There had already been talk about Mitc potentially forcing his way out of town this summer and with another short playoff stint, that talk has now become more of a reality.
He has two years left on his current contract, including a player option on the final season, but many around the league believe he will leave Cleveland. The Cavs will likely offer him a large extension this summer but if the star guard rejects it, Cleveland will need to move him before he leaves for nothing. Assuming Mitc does reject an extension, here are five potential trade destinations for him this offseason.
Paying Garland $40 million/per sounds like an epic fail.
I'm not high on Garland, but any package like what you suggested should send out Collins and not Keldon. He's not a good fit for them, but that's their problem to work out. If they aren't desperate enough to do that, then don't waste a 2nd phone call with them.
Honestly, I might not even make the 1st call there...
Send both, tbh.
Salaries would perfectly match, I'd like to keep some cap space.
Collins, Keldon, '25 Chicago, '25 Charlotte and a handful of SRPs would be my offer.
I was really high on him a year ago, but he had a down year. I still think he's a good player, but that contract will be an overpay if he doesn't get back on track.
I've really soured on the idea of Trae (and am now firm in Camp No Trae) and yet somehow I'm ever less excited about Garland, who will cost about the same salary wise (but probably not asset wise)
Agreed. Those contracts are too big for their production.
I'd go for D'Lo in free agency. The best free agent we can get and after his disappointing playoffs with the Lakers, he can't ask for too much, probably around 20 to 25 million per year.
If we draft a guard, I'm perfect fine going with Tre and the rookie, so long as we upgrade the rest of the roster in some way. Unlike some, I don't see PG as the most pressing "must fix now" position on the court. I'm also on board with stopgap options like Brogdon, Tyus, or even CP3 on a 1+1 big salary to finish out his career. I'd rather not get tied up for 3-4 years at $20-25MM for a very "meh" solution like DLo. If we draft a guard in the top 10, I'm hoping they get some real minutes not be third string behind Tre and whoever we bring in.
Hmm, as I recall it the question was whether he could be extended or free agency was unavoidable due to his contract being too low even for a max extension to reach fair market value, to which I added Utah had the option to renegotiate and then extend over the renegotiated value, so it wasn't a given he'd hit free agency. I don't recall deadlines being involved, at least in what I said.
PS: I don't consider myself a capoligist, though.
My issue is that none of these point guard prospects are remotely ready.
Whoever gets drafted, we'd need him to be good enough to start and contribute in 25-26 season.
Tre is nice, but he can't shoot. Shoot as in noone will ever chase him over a screen or even rush a closeout when he gets the ball.
I wouldn't give D'Lo (or any veteran that's not the final solution for that position) a long deal, just three years, in line with Wemby's extension.
Brogdon sounds nice in theory, but he played just 142 games over past three seasons, always has lingering injuries.
D'Lo would enable us to draft Castle because there would be no pressure on Castle to be the point guard right away. He could transition into the role.
If PATFO wants Castle, that is.
I'm afraid nor Keldon, Malaki or Zollins have that much value (no matter tha way) in other teams eyes, not enough anyway to trigger a trade...
I'm also afraid Garland's money if what you have ot pay to get that type of player nowadays. Same for Trae's, both in salary and trade, or even just for good role players.
You have to overpay no matter to get some talent. There's no trade where you feel like you paid the right price, or it was a fair trade. If it feels like it's a fair trade for you, that's certainly means the other team is not interested. It has to hurt.
Too much for Garland after the disaster playoff he had
Sometimes, but not always. Usually if it feels like a trade hurts too much, it's a sign it's lopsided, and believing any worthwhile trade must hurt is the best way to get yourself in deep trouble.
people's Ideas in here of value of current players, the draft picks this year, and other players on other teams, are severely out of whack.
I dont like Garland the player all the much, but if its not picks, but salary it not as big of a deal to me. I’d much rather pay Garland than Keldon+Collins so if it were something like those 2 players for Garland and like 1 first I think that’s a win as despite not liking Garland, we are already spending Garland money on Keldon+Collins.
I can see that argument, but then you still have to pay to replace Keldon (if we took two wings, Matas and Holland, for example, then I think this concern is extinguished and I'm good at SF). Collins can easily replaced by someone making less than $5mm/yr. If Bassey could stay healthy I think he'd actually be an upgrade over Collins, but I digress.
Man, I just hate the idea of building around Garland (who we'll have locked up for 4 years at 25% of the cap).
Agreed, but at end of the day we are already spending the money and I would rather have Garland + Draft pick v Keldon + Collins for the same pool of money. The issues is Collins is only 2 years and Garland is 4 so that math only works for 2 years before Garland becomes a legit cost factor
I'm imagine a draft day trade:
Spurs get: Dejunte Murray
Thunder get: 2014 #1 pick - Sarr(to form scary Chat-Sarr frontcourt), Bogdan Bogdanovic
Hawks get: Josh Giddy, Zach Collins, Spurs 2015 first round pick via Atlanta, two Thunder future first round picks
If y‘all want Garland just draft Dillingham. They are similar in height and there‘s a decent chance that Dillingham becomes the better player
It would have been the perfect opportunity for Garland to shine. But he the bed. I don’t want either.
A lot of these guys don’t play. You gotta play to win.
awful trade
Dillingham's numbers at Kentucky were better than Maxey's when he was there.
The amount of crap hes getting for being his size is insane.
Explain
There are currently 18 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 15 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
