Calm down. It really looks like ownership's maximizing profits while they can.
The fact that the Spurs didn't see the value of taking Dalton Knecht at #8 and taking Dilly to trade him for...nothing...tells you everything you need to know.
The FO has other agendas besides winning basketball games next year. They sure didn't help the Spurs on the basketball court.
And a lot of these new breed Spurs fans seem just fine with that.
2017 offseason with 50 Mills and supermax Pau Gasol
For an example, it would be like if we traded our pick in the 2014 draft to the warriors in exchange for 20 and 21, in this scenario we would've gotten the #2 overall pick in 2020.
Things happen, and the drafts in 2030 will be better than the 2024 draft no question
Nephew definitely broke them.
Outside of dumb luck in last year's lottery, everything except for getting future assets has been poor.
I'm not going to on them just yet, but if we don't have a couple of good shooters in the wings on the opening night, it's going to be another painful season.
Saying that you don't like a single prospect that's left on the board at #8 pick and that you don't want to draft down either is a bold move.
If there's no trade for some actual help ready, it's a disaster.
Even if there's a trade and any of these wings that were available becomes a high level starter, it's a disaster.
I’m impressed by your ability to scout 11-year-olds.
The issues with the Spurs’ front office are hubris and lack of accountability. They’re convinced they’re smarter than everybody else because of things that fell in their lap and moves they made 10-25 years ago, and ownership has complete trust in them regardless of results.
It's a solid point. I suppose the follow up would be if the 8 pick would help improve the product and sell more seats etc cetera.
They can trade for those picks back, just like Brooklyn did.
I guess if we look from a homer standpoint, this is a win now move if we get a couple legit NBA players.
Castle and Jeremy are still projects that need developing.
Branham will surely get another chance, even though I think he's a lost cause.
Adding another fundamentally flawed project would've been too much.
They obviously don't want Dillingham, our guard rotation should be set and every wing option was a project. Either can't defend or can't shoot.
Some will say why didn't they pick Knecht, but I'm taking a FRP and a swap over Doug McDermott.
I would've traded into late teens to have a low-risk swing, but whatever.
On paper Carter looks like everything you could ask for, maybe even someone you'd have been willing to draft at #4. But that low release point and Slowmo-eque slow release are kind of frightening and gotta wonder if he'll be able to get that shot off in the NBA. Still remember how easily Rick Fox was able to close out on Danny Ferry who shot with a similar release on his 3 in the 2001 WCF.
Brooklyn was only able to do that because of trading Durant to Phoenix though. If Minnesota has to trade Ant to get their picks back even better.
If they traded Ant to Utah in 2027, they’d have a four year rebuild with their own picks before the 2031 pick would convey.
The Mills contract was ridiculous but they had to pay Gasol after he agreed to opt out to let them chase CP0. Can't imagine Gasol would have opted out of that $16 million he was due for 2017-18 if the Spurs hadn't promised him that 3 year deal if Paul didn't come.
I doubt it's a move to make a trade now since they have once again shown they want big point guards, so probably scratch Garland for example.
A front office that has been putrid since the salary cap was introduced in 1994 (yes, I realize they won le the next year)? They haven’t made a conference championship game in 29 years, while the Spurs have made it that far 10x in that same span (11 if you include the year the Cowboys also last made it).
One of the FOs has shown an ability to adapt and be forward looking, while the other trips over its own two feet every time they’re at the cusp of being compe ive.
I was going along the lines of getting some spacing on the wings.
As I wrote in Castle's topic, I'd be happy with Barnes/Harris for some veteran leadership and using a FRP on Cam Johnson.
I'm 100% on point Castle train, but we need spacing. Jeremy can't start.
Castle-Devin-Cam-Barnes-Wemby is a functional lineup without weak links on defense.
After sleeping on it, I'm still disappointed but not as much as I was last night. It's still frustrating because I want to see this team improve in the short term, and the draft is one of the best avenues for the Spurs to do so. The #8 pick in the draft doesn't come around every day. For two decades, we would've been ecstatic to have a #8 pick, so kicking the can down the road was disappointing even if this was a "weak draft". We've seen plenty of good players come out of bad drafts.
I don't expect the Spurs to make any real splash in FA, or any fantastic trades to be made with our current assets...so I'm afraid we will have another team stuck in neutral next season and worry about how that will sit with Wemby. He seems okay with being patient, but patience starts to wane if you are losing 60 games a season.
Will the Spurs be able to package these picks for another star? Time will tell, but the Bridges trade shows what kind of assets that will cost.
Will Minnesota fall off a cliff, or will they be revamped by 2031/2031 and those suddenly become late 20s picks?
A lot of ins, a lot of outs, but definitely not the excitement I was hoping for in last night's draft.
He's not afraid. He does exactly what Pop and RC tell him to do. And like any other time in Spurs history under Pop, when goes sideways, Pop will have his fall guy.
Wright is unqualified for this position. He even looked the other way on Primo's reported sexual tendencies. But he realized he can sweet talk Pop on politics and play the race card and Pop will never say a bad thing about him, until they need fall guy. They are perfect for each other, while the organization and Wemby will continue to suffer.
Nailed it.
The philosophy is to build through the draft. We have our centerpiece and history suggests your looking at 5-7 years out before the generational talent is winning les (Jordan & Lebron). Players won’t lose on purpose and you can’t produce fake injuries for an entire season. So with that in mind, if you are looking to stay in the lottery, develop your players and still keep your fan base interested what do you do? You play a non-shooting power forward as your point guard. You sell it is as trying to see what you have. You do it long enough to ensure the Spurs make the lottery and then you pivot to a real point guard to win some games and excite the fan base. Objective for the coming year will be similar (stay in the lottery). It won’t be done the same way. I don’t think we make any long term commitments this year to free agents so no big names. Next year in what is supposed to be a deep draft we have at least two picks possibly 4. I think that sets the young core. You run with that and then see what you need. That’s when I think the window for big trades and/or free agent signings start.
With Wemby you could very quickly build a team like the David Robinson Spurs where they are a contender but never quite good enough to win it all. The alternative is to sacrifice another year or two to get to the Tim Duncan Spurs and legitimately go for les.
With all the losing last year the arena was livelier than it had been for a very long time and they were fun to watch. I agree with the strategy and think it will ultimately pay off in a big way.
a week before the draft it was rumors of the Spurs shopping the 8th pick, so them trading the pick wasn't a panic option like many on here seem to think.
stopped reading when you can't figure out your vs. you're
hate to agree with this troll, but this is spot on.
ing Lakers got Knecht
Pop and RC may not be around in 2031. Seriously doubt B. Wright lasts another 2 years longer. Pop and RC think they’re smarter than everybody else, that they play chess when everyone else plays checkers. Spoiler alert - they're not. Looks like may be another long year.
This is the point the sniffers keep missing - develop which players? Blake? Branham? Champegnie? Zollins? They've all already had 2-3 years of development. Over the past 2 years, none has shown the promise you'd need to be something other than 9th, 10th, 11th men on the roster. They certainly haven't flashed more upside potential than Dillingham, Williams, or Clingan. Everything coming out of PATFO - and echoed in Brian's comments yesterday - are that they want to stick with that core, make incremental changes (e.g., Castle) and keep trotting out the same 20-30 win team. That's one thing if you have players showing star or near-star potential and you need to let the process develop organically. This team does not have that. Other than Vassel (and maybe even him) there is not a single player on this roster with the talent to play a major role on a le-contending team that features Wemby. I am not saying that the entire team is talentless. I am saying that PATFO has shown themselves committed to a long-standing pattern of over-valuing their own talent to the detriment of taking concrete steps to improve.
Conversely, there should be nothing preventing them from looking to incremental steps to improve talent. Taking Dillingham or Matas or whomever at 8 would not vaunt them into contention. It would not upset their glacial pace of progress. It would have been an incremental steps towards assembling more, and better, talent. That makes far more sense than going full Heinke and stockpiling assets for a trade the likes of which this organization has literally never made.
If you take a step back, it looks like this organization is shizophrenic. On the one hand, they're committed to organic growth, letting players develop, liking "what they have" etc.... That path leans on building through the draft to amass as much (in this case, middling) talent as possible. On the other hand, trades like last night are more in line with teams that throw a -ton of picks and other assets at disgruntled stars. Those are two diametrically opposing paths (built vs. bought). And the scary thing is that it shows that this organization does not have a plan, a clear vision of the future, or a method of executing said plan or vision.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
