There is Markannen to Spurs Buzz

[DPG21920]

As someone who has bought and sold a lot of houses - and created a lot of personal wealth from those transactions - I'm the opposite. I've never bought at the top of my budget and I've always gotten value that creates near instant equity. And that's the same approach here. I'm not focused on the price of Lauri, I'm focused on the value. And at the deal I've proposed (which is only a SA28 different from the deal you have proposed, which unless things are going very poorly, should be a pick in the mid 20s. I'm not going to let a Blake Wesley get in the way of closing the deal) in my mind creates the value.

At the end of the day, it obviously is about the perceived value of the player. I see a highly efficient 7-footer who has routinely posted 50/40/90 seasons and averages 24pts and 8reb. It's not like those are flukes either, he's almost a career 50/40/90 guy, and he only got more efficient with increased volume. Are there durability concerns? Yes, but I feel comfortable with those based on how he's been shut down two years in a row to tank. Are there defensive questions? Yes, but I feel comfortable with those based on the rest of the roster construction.

But anyway, I'm not going to convince you otherwise and that is fine. Maybe we'll get lucky in the draft and get a guy who maybe can become a 50/40/90 guy on his own. We probably won't be getting a 7-foot wing who posts 50/40/90 - because those are pretty rare.

I look at a guy like Jabari Smith Jr, who went #3 and was talked about going #1 in a pretty strong class at the top of the draft... and his 99% offensive outcome is... Lauri Markkanen. I'll take the sure thing every time.

What I find incongruent is you saying Im biased while simultaneously admitting I proposed deals that aren’t that far off from yours.

[DPG21920]

Jabari has 10x the defensive potential as Lauri. This cannot be simply handwaived. Nor can his level of assisted buckets and FT rate/self creation for supposed offensive hubs etc…

[DPG21920]

No worst case is you get Primos and Sochans. Not so lucky, not so unlucky case you get a Vassell with one of the picks. Even if you get lucky and land a top 4 there's still plenty of chance you get a Derrick Williams or even worse a James Wiseman. Markannen you know what you're getting, and that's a guy probably good enough to be a #2 option on a good team. You can tank for draft position when you have nothing to lose, when your core is Keldon Johnson and Vassell and you're not going anywhere anyways; doesn't make sense to when you have the guy who has shown himself to be the best young player we have seen in 25-30 years. Moving assets for Markannen isn't rushing things. Moving them for someone like Kevin Durant would be since you'd have to win right now making that move, but Markannen will likely be in his prime for entire contract the Spurs would give him plus the year he'd be on his current deal. Your reasonable price can't be hey Ainge, bend over, because he can do better elsewhere.

Im not paying 4-5 firsts and young players and 40M on the “maybe hes a number 2”. If you’re paying that price alongside forgoing draft potential and other trades you cannot guess. Not with this roster currently.

[DPG21920]

As someone who has bought and sold a lot of houses - and created a lot of personal wealth from those transactions - I'm the opposite. I've never bought at the top of my budget and I've always gotten value that creates near instant equity. And that's the same approach here. I'm not focused on the price of Lauri, I'm focused on the value. And at the deal I've proposed (which is only a SA28 different from the deal you have proposed, which unless things are going very poorly, should be a pick in the mid 20s. I'm not going to let a Blake Wesley get in the way of closing the deal) in my mind creates the value.

At the end of the day, it obviously is about the perceived value of the player. I see a highly efficient 7-footer who has routinely posted 50/40/90 seasons and averages 24pts and 8reb. It's not like those are flukes either, he's almost a career 50/40/90 guy, and he only got more efficient with increased volume. Are there durability concerns? Yes, but I feel comfortable with those based on how he's been shut down two years in a row to tank. Are there defensive questions? Yes, but I feel comfortable with those based on the rest of the roster construction.

But anyway, I'm not going to convince you otherwise and that is fine. Maybe we'll get lucky in the draft and get a guy who maybe can become a 50/40/90 guy on his own. We probably won't be getting a 7-foot wing who posts 50/40/90 - because those are pretty rare.

I look at a guy like Jabari Smith Jr, who went #3 and was talked about going #1 in a pretty strong class at the top of the draft... and his 99% offensive outcome is... Lauri Markkanen. I'll take the sure thing every time.

Well me too. I buy and sell homes and have done well and been fair. So I feel my approach is more than justified.

[RC_Drunkford]

He is a subpar defender. He’s not branham/keldon bad at his position but he’s not what you want. Yes he had athletic traits to make splash plays on highlight reels here and there but it’s not reflective of his level of play on a consistent basis

He‘s also 7 feet tall. And his C‘s were Kelly Olynyk and John Collins, both players who ain’t shotblockers

[objective]

Something people don't seem to consider when comparing proposals to the Dejounte trade, and differently with the N.O. Dejounte trade ...

Spurs got the picks, sure, but few ever remember that they had to eat a load of dead salary in a washed and torn knee Danilo Gallinari. They cut him but still had to eat over 10 million in dead money because he couldn't even play anymore.

That's why Atlanta gave so much in draft capital (not enough imo), is they weren't sending useful players or promising prospects. There was no Okongwu in the deal.

If Keldon is in any deal, that knocks a pick out of the deal at least. Even when New Orleans traded for Dejounte and people talked about how cheap it was on the pick side, they ignored that Atlanta got Nance and Daniels, who were at least 20 minutes a game role players who could contribute or moved later, unlike Gallinari.

Even Zollins can at least play and take up minutes, he's not elderly or injured & out for the season.

Any matching salary players need to be accounted for fairly in a trade. Seeing stuff like Keldon and 4-6 firsts is joke. Gobert at least was a Hall of Fame defensive player, Markannen is being overvalued

[baseline bum]

Im not paying 4-5 firsts and young players and 40M on the “maybe hes a number 2”. If you’re paying that price alongside forgoing draft potential and other trades you cannot guess. Not with this roster currently.

I forgot what you'd pay for him. Are you in that fair price for him is two lottery protected firsts + Keldon crowd? I personally like Scott's proposal of 26 Spurs pick with unprotected ATL swap, 28 Spurs pick with top 1 protected BOS swap, 30 Spurs with unprotected DAL swap / top 1 protected MIN swap, 31 Minnesota unprotected + salary ballast, but I'd pivot to changing that 28 Spurs pick to the 27 Atlanta if it has to be done.

[scott]

What I find incongruent is you saying Im biased while simultaneously admitting I proposed deals that aren’t that far off from yours.

I never said you were biased (that might have been somewhere else). I said you seem to value winning deals on an individual basis above the bigger picture. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just an observation I made going back to last offseason. With every trade, it seems like you were really focused on extracting maximum value out of each deal.

What I'm suggesting is that for a move like Lauri (or whomever the top target is going to be), I'm okay losing a little value on the deal, because the true value doesn't come from saving an extra mid-20s FRP, it comes from making Wemby + Lauri + Devin + Castle + SA25 + ATL25 my long term core. I don't care if I lose out on an extra Blake Wesley, because that is easily replaced.

On deals like Cam Payne or Reggie Bullock, I agree, getting as much value out of the deal itself is important, because there is no other intrinsic value - you HAVE to get the value up front. But with Lauri (or insert player of your choice), the price isn't as important because the real long-term value comes elsewhere. To use the house example, it's like haggling over $5,000 on a house that's $100,000 under market. I'm not going to let that last $5,000 kill the deal where because I'm only getting $95k of instant equity instead of $100k.

A more adept example would be from what I do in real life, which involves buying and selling businesses. If a deal creates long term strategic value FAR in excess of the price, then haggling over long-term rounding errors isn't the name of the game.

But, if you don't think Lauri is worth it - that is fine. I disagree. I think a 7-footer with his offensive skillset is rare. I don't need him to be a defensive stud, only passable (which I think he is) and I think his defensive metrics would vastly improve in a lineup with CP3-Devin-Castle-Wemby. I don't need a team with five all-defense guys, and I think the lineup I'm proposing would be a pretty damn formidable defensive unit because of the way they fit together.

[scott]

Theres ZERO chance IMO spurs trade all the ATL picks (and especially alongside the MIN picks) for Lauri. They would be idiots to do so.

ATL 25 + MIN 31 + MIN 30 swap and a player. Thats it (outside of seconds or something like CHA pick)

This is the DPG best offer I was thinking of. I actually wouldn't do the ATL25.

But really the main difference between him and I is that SA28 pick (which I think should be valued in the mid20s).

I also have Collins being the ballast in mine, and if they want Keldon instead of Collins then SA26 becomes a swap instead of a pick.

In reality though, I'd probably still do those 4 picks I mentioned plus Keldon, because I personally don't rate Keldon that highly. I do recognize that he fills an important role, it's just a role I think we could easily replace.

[DPG21920]

I never said you were biased (that might have been somewhere else). I said you seem to value winning deals on an individual basis above the bigger picture. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just an observation I made going back to last offseason. With every trade, it seems like you were really focused on extracting maximum value out of each deal.

What I'm suggesting is that for a move like Lauri (or whomever the top target is going to be), I'm okay losing a little value on the deal, because the true value doesn't come from saving an extra mid-20s FRP, it comes from making Wemby + Lauri + Devin + Castle + SA25 + ATL25 my long term core. I don't care if I lose out on an extra Blake Wesley, because that is easily replaced.

On deals like Cam Payne or Reggie Bullock, I agree, getting as much value out of the deal itself is important, because there is no other intrinsic value - you HAVE to get the value up front. But with Lauri (or insert player of your choice), the price isn't as important because the real long-term value comes elsewhere. To use the house example, it's like haggling over $5,000 on a house that's $100,000 under market. I'm not going to let that last $5,000 kill the deal where because I'm only getting $95k of instant equity instead of $100k.

A more adept example would be from what I do in real life, which involves buying and selling businesses. If a deal creates long term strategic value FAR in excess of the price, then haggling over long-term rounding errors isn't the name of the game.

But, if you don't think Lauri is worth it - that is fine. I disagree. I think a 7-footer with his offensive skillset is rare. I don't need him to be a defensive stud, only passable (which I think he is) and I think his defensive metrics would vastly improve in a lineup with CP3-Devin-Castle-Wemby. I don't need a team with five all-defense guys, and I think the lineup I'm proposing would be a pretty damn formidable defensive unit because of the way they fit together.

Im more than fine “losing” a deal for the right guy at the right time. You nailed it; I simply dont think Lauri is that guy. So it’s not a price thing nor is it a bias or mentality thing; it’s a player thing.

[DPG21920]

This is the DPG best offer I was thinking of. I actually wouldn't do the ATL25.

But really the main difference between him and I is that SA28 pick (which I think should be valued in the mid20s).

I also have Collins being the ballast in mine, and if they want Keldon instead of Collins then SA26 becomes a swap instead of a pick.

In reality though, I'd probably still do those 4 picks I mentioned plus Keldon, because I personally don't rate Keldon that highly. I do recognize that he fills an important role, it's just a role I think we could easily replace.

Ya - to me this is losing the deal but still getting your guy. Im not just tossing in Keldon + another first like it’s nothing. Then it gets into getting bent over territory and risky territory due to my opinion of Lauri.

[benefactor]

ST....the place that is obsessed with lockdown defenders

Explain to me how that worked in the playoffs. And explain to me how that worked for teams that couldn't shoot when it mattered

[DPG21920]

I never said you were biased (that might have been somewhere else). I said you seem to value winning deals on an individual basis above the bigger picture. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just an observation I made going back to last offseason. With every trade, it seems like you were really focused on extracting maximum value out of each deal.

What I'm suggesting is that for a move like Lauri (or whomever the top target is going to be), I'm okay losing a little value on the deal, because the true value doesn't come from saving an extra mid-20s FRP, it comes from making Wemby + Lauri + Devin + Castle + SA25 + ATL25 my long term core. I don't care if I lose out on an extra Blake Wesley, because that is easily replaced.

On deals like Cam Payne or Reggie Bullock, I agree, getting as much value out of the deal itself is important, because there is no other intrinsic value - you HAVE to get the value up front. But with Lauri (or insert player of your choice), the price isn't as important because the real long-term value comes elsewhere. To use the house example, it's like haggling over $5,000 on a house that's $100,000 under market. I'm not going to let that last $5,000 kill the deal where because I'm only getting $95k of instant equity instead of $100k.

A more adept example would be from what I do in real life, which involves buying and selling businesses. If a deal creates long term strategic value FAR in excess of the price, then haggling over long-term rounding errors isn't the name of the game.

But, if you don't think Lauri is worth it - that is fine. I disagree. I think a 7-footer with his offensive skillset is rare. I don't need him to be a defensive stud, only passable (which I think he is) and I think his defensive metrics would vastly improve in a lineup with CP3-Devin-Castle-Wemby. I don't need a team with five all-defense guys, and I think the lineup I'm proposing would be a pretty damn formidable defensive unit because of the way they fit together.

You basically calling me Danny Ainge

[benefactor]

DPG weren't you on team Reed Sheppard? I need you to reconcile that with the fact that you don't give up assets for Lauri

[scott]

You basically calling me Danny Ainge

I mean... yeah! That's why I was saying that it's not an insult! Ainge is a master at winning deals! But, that hasn't exactly gotten him anywhere in Utah (yet).

[benefactor]

You apparently agree this team needs shooting. Everything else he brings is just a plus. A big plus. Why you so afraid to give up assets for him? Why do you trust this front office to do something with those assets?

[DPG21920]

DPG weren't you on team Reed Sheppard? I need you to reconcile that with the fact that you don't give up assets for Lauri

Damn sure was

Reed was “no” risk (in context) since he was a rookie deal and a draft pick where we didnt give up a bunch of other picks to get him and player(s) on top of having to immediately pay him 40M+

I like Lauri as a fit - I do not like paying super all star prices for a guy who will have his role reduced on SA due to his skillset alongside punting the opportunity costs of getting to draft and/or trade for guys who may have better skillsets and upside alongside Wemby etc..

[DPG21920]

This is largely shaped by not only judging the prices some are willing to pay (4-5+ picks alongside conversations of Keldon and Sochan etc..) when I started looking at his numbers compared to other “stars” with regards to offensive hubs (which is why SA would get him and pay those prices).

Once I started doing the comps more on him and seeing the differences (ignoring defensive issues) purely on offensive side of the ball (how many of his baskets were self created vs assisted, his assist rate and creation off dribble, his ability to get to line and create own offense, where his shots came from and how) it’s just started to paint a picture of a guy who is really good but not worth the type of deals discussed here (I could be wrong! It’s just my opinion)

And yes, my “bias” may be that I have more trust in the FO with regard to future trades/drafts than many here have. I fully admit that may look foolish down the road and I wil be the first to call it out.

It’s not like I say nothing bad about the spur FO. I ripped the Primo pick. I ripped the Collins and especially Doug deal. I hated DeRozan for Kawhi deal. I questioned why they would punt 8th pick this draft without a bigger plan to do more than just add CP3.

Despite all of that I personally think they have done more good than bad

[scott]

I'm intrigued that you value self-creation with whomever we add to be our #2, DPG21920, because I actually view self-creation in this team structure as not really what we want. In the short term, I expect CP3, Devin and Wemby having the ball most of the time, with Castle eventually taking more and more of that himself overtime (and eventually naturally phasing out CP3 out completely as he moves on next year). Lauri's off the ball movement is ideal for me, because that's what fits those other guys. I don't really want a bunch of guys who are self-creators, because of our weaknesses of late seems to be a dire lack of off-the-ball movement, opening up the offense and providing spacing.

In my opinion, the ideal build will be:

Short run: CP3, Devin and Wemby doing the bulk of the playmaking. Castle with a little, but primarily an off-the-ball cutter to start; Lauri as your off-the-ball perimeter and cutter (both of which are his specialty).

Long run: Castle replaces CP3 in that playmaking role, hopefully developing a shot, and if you can get a 3-and-D wing next to Lauri who maybe isn't as potent offensively but has more on the defensive end (but still a capable 3pt shooter). I still think Lauri can easily put up 20+ ppg in that role, because the gravity of Wemby will free up so much. If teams want to try to take Lauri away, then it's just going to free up Devin (or that next 3-and-D SF when Castle moves to PG) on the perimeter.

IMO, not only will Lauri benefit from the unique fit in San Antonio, but Devin might see a big level up in efficiency with Lauri out there taking attention away from the D. Right now, teams can slack off of Sochan completely, and Tre almost completely. Champ is out there to try and provide a perimeter threat, but as much as I like Champ... he's only Champ. Wemby and Devin had to carry too much off the offense. That's actually why I think those end of season lineups without Devin and Sochan started to look good... there was a more distributed threat and teams couldn't just focus on limiting Wemby and Devin as much as possible.

So, I personally don't value much off-the-dribble self creation in this next piece, unless we're viewing that as an upgrade to Devin and we're going to look for a 3-and-D elsewhere (or turn Devin into an off-the-ball player, which I'm not sure best utilizes his talents).

[DPG21920]

I'm intrigued that you value self-creation with whomever we add to be our #2, DPG21920, because I actually view self-creation in this team structure as not really what we want. In the short term, I expect CP3, Devin and Wemby having the ball most of the time, with Castle eventually taking more and more of that himself overtime (and eventually naturally phasing out CP3 out completely as he moves on next year). Lauri's off the ball movement is ideal for me, because that's what fits those other guys. I don't really want a bunch of guys who are self-creators, because of our weaknesses of late seems to be a dire lack of off-the-ball movement, opening up the offense and providing spacing.

In my opinion, the ideal build will be:

Short run: CP3, Devin and Wemby doing the bulk of the playmaking. Castle with a little, but primarily an off-the-ball cutter to start; Lauri as your off-the-ball perimeter and cutter (both of which are his specialty).

Long run: Castle replaces CP3 in that playmaking role, hopefully developing a shot, and if you can get a 3-and-D wing next to Lauri who maybe isn't as potent offensively but has more on the defensive end (but still a capable 3pt shooter). I still think Lauri can easily put up 20+ ppg in that role, because the gravity of Wemby will free up so much. If teams want to try to take Lauri away, then it's just going to free up Devin (or that next 3-and-D SF when Castle moves to PG) on the perimeter.

IMO, not only will Lauri benefit from the unique fit in San Antonio, but Devin might see a big level up in efficiency with Lauri out there taking attention away from the D. Right now, teams can slack off of Sochan completely, and Tre almost completely. Champ is out there to try and provide a perimeter threat, but as much as I like Champ... he's only Champ. Wemby and Devin had to carry too much off the offense. That's actually why I think those end of season lineups without Devin and Sochan started to look good... there was a more distributed threat and teams couldn't just focus on limiting Wemby and Devin as much as possible.

So, I personally don't value much off-the-dribble self creation in this next piece, unless we're viewing that as an upgrade to Devin and we're going to look for a 3-and-D elsewhere (or turn Devin into an off-the-ball player, which I'm not sure best utilizes his talents).

Im going to bed but wanted you to know I saw this and will do my best to answer tomorrow where Im coming from on this.

[spurraider21]

Do the spurs need a self creating starting PF next to wemby, Vassell, castle (or insert eventual point guard of the future)

at some point it becomes worth adding a 7 foot MPJ type. I just wish Lauri had more consistent defense.

[rankingtear]

Do the spurs need a self creating starting PF next to wemby, Vassell, castle (or insert eventual point guard of the future)

at some point it becomes worth adding a 7 foot MPJ type. I just wish Lauri had more consistent defense.

The problem with a self creating 4 is the two-man game with the 5 generates no mismatch as opossed to a guard. Ideally you want a role player on that spot. The talent should be on the guard spot. Lauri on the other hand opens up the 3 man game of offensive juggernauts like DEN and GSW.

[objective]

MPJ is a good example of why selling the farm for Markannen would be a terrible idea.

MPJ is on an awful cap killing contract. If he wasn't on a contender then sure, maybe he'd put up bigger stats like Markannen. And as it is, he puts up fine numbers, 16-18 points a game on 40% from 3 or so these past 2 years with 6-7 rebounds.

But he's expendable and they could have spent their money better. Ultimately it's just overspending for three point shooting and spacing.

Money should be for Wemby and whoever is the on ball creator. Make everyone fit around that that. And no matter what moves they make this summer, there has to be enough money to pay for that non-wemby creator or enough assets to get him, via draft or trade, and Markannen ain't that guy.

Another example would be Towns. While he's become a great shooter at his size, he can't be counted on to generate for himself and is the most restrictive contract they have. the Wolves media guys I listen to were thrilled with Dillingham because they needed someone else to create and Towns couldn't. So a 160 pound rookie will have to carry the weight of all their dreams.

People might argue, pay Markkannen now and figure the other stuff later. Everyone's paying big, look at Boston! But No way the Holts and their minority partners are ever going to pay the kind of money that Boston has committed to, so much their owner is bowing out. They'll be 2nd apron with just the starters in a couple of years.

If a tall shooter is what the Spurs need, they could probably get Towns off the Minnesota books for a lot less next summer, same with Porter. Don't need to burn so much on Ainge's guy.

[Wilt Chamberlain]

Or players they could flip. Keldon showed he wouldn't stop a tank, but I would assume he wouldn't be in the deal if the Jazz were apathetic or against it. Johnson has more value to the Spurs as a player than a trade piece. However, the hypothetical scenario I was responding to had Keldon and Sochan as the outgoing players in the Markkanen deal. That's why I included him. The Spurs have the ability to basically take Mark into cap space, so they don't actually need to trade any particular ballast like so many ideas in this thread include.

Johnson's making over MLE on the bench. He has use to you if you don't think Castle or Sochan can't play the 3. KJ's on ball defense is atrocious.

It's hardly an albatross but the contract stinks. Unless Ainge needs to meet a floor, I just don't see Ainge not seeing that as value to the Spurs.

Sochan is on a rookie deal and can defend.

[RC_Drunkford]

spurstalk: "I don't want this guy, he needs the ball in his hands. We need Wemby to get as many touches as possible."

also spurstalk: "I don't want this guy, he has no self creation ability and needs to be assisted"