I really like the signings so far. Really need some good vets on the team and the Spurs got two great ones. CP3 has really shined in a mentor role, and I hope he can not only do that here, but also play great at the same time. I didn't know Harrison Barnes was so highly regarded as a person and teammate, so that is great too.
how do you know either asset is garbage? Did you have any other ideas? Did you know the options they had? Part of the trade calls, maybe?
C'mon, please be honest about this. The pissed-off-edness isn't that we didn't take the 8 pick or Dilly, it's that we gave it away for 7 year garbage. We could have gotten much better.
An unprotected pick and a #1 protected swap aren’t garbage, especially not from a historically bad franchise. That swap also gives us a best of 3 option in 2030.
C'mon, please be honest about this. The pissed-off-edness isn't that we didn't take the 8 pick or Dilly, it's that we gave it away for 7 year garbage. We could have gotten much better.
Honestly, I'm just glad the Spurs are doing SOMETHING.
The combination of Paul and Barnes isn't going to launch us into the contender category, but it's better than the front office sitting on their hands and sticking with the "we like what we have" mantra.
Still prayingdog.jpg for a Lauri deal, but that would seem too good to be true.
I mean, we should all just accept the Dillingham trade happened and move on, but the Spurs didn't need that trade to occur to do this trade. The only reason why they did this trade with cap space is because they created so much space (likely in an attempt to acquire Paul before he was waived) in the first place. Now knowing the major moves, it would have been to efficient to have stayed over the cap, drafted 4 and 8, and guaranteed Graham. Then, they could've paid a team the three or four seconds required to take Graham's contract and wrapped that trade up into this deal to take the difference via a trade exception rather than needing to get rid of the deep bench because Barnes didn't agree to give up his trade kicker. Then sign Paul via the MLE and re-sign/retain any of the deep bench you want.
If you want to say this is a decent salvage job, I think that's fine. But this was not a well managed off-season. Even if the Spurs valued the future draft capital over 8, they still should've stayed over the cap. It seems pretty clear to me that what we've seen since the moratorium began was basically a massive pivot from missing out one their primary trade target. happens, and you always need a pivot. But if their target was Paul, it's telling that they were clearing space to take him on at $30 Million when the rest of the league valued him at under the MLE.
I don't hate the acquisition at all, but I don't love the trade. The pick swap is fine (and how one should get such an asset rather than by trading a top-10 pick), but given what the trade will likely cost, there were possibly other pivot trades the team could've made like Lopez and Connaughton for Collins that could net a similar asset while leaving a lot of room under the cap for the deep bench.
The Spurs made out like bandits filling their hole at combo forward and getting that unprotected swap just by getting rid of Graham for a second round pick. They now have four unprotected FRP/swaps in the 2030’s when they should be contenders. Excellent moves by the FO.
No downside to this move. Great veteran pickup that creates compe ion with the young guys on the wing and steadies the locker room. The second year of this deal doesn't concern me because it's not untradable if the right deal comes along.
There’s no indication whatsoever that they created the cap space to clear $30M for Paul. That’s pure speculation, and obviously you know that. But that’s what your entire premise is based off of, that this move was a pivot off of that failure… which it isn’t a failure if that wasn’t the plan anyways. I find it hard to believe that’s what they valued Paul at, and just because things ended up the way they did (Paul being waived) doesn’t mean we’re at phase 2 of some plan B.
This line of thinking is as if building a house with nice architecture but without knowing what the foundation is. Which is fine, we’re just spitballing here.
1. Love everything overall. The team badly needs on-court mentorship and guidance. So much happening on the floor where these little kids are trying but failing to control, the runs of other teams, the way to win possessions on both sides. They got perhaps the best mentor of his era in Chris Paul and another very solid, great professional. For nothing.
2. Retains most of our flexibility going forward. Barnes and Collins can even be folded together for a larger salary and won't be too hard to move as expirings next summer.
3. They drafted the three college players I really enjoyed watching this year and traded two of them away. (The fourth was Knecht.) Dillingham doesn't look like a fit, and adding another roster guarantee would have been another headache. It's impossible that they saw the DeRozan-Sacramento situation coming, but it seems like they had ideas of how they wanted to use cap room.
4. I regret that we'll lose Champagnie, Bassey, and Mamukelashvili. Of course they're not long-term pieces, but they each add interesting depth to the team and needed depth. They can always be invited back.
All-in-all, if the object was taking on no long-term salary, retain flexibility, improve the product on the floor, this couldn't have gone better. Plus they got imo easily the best player in the draft, or close to it. And then laced some nice shots at adding young talent when we badly need it in the future.
Yeah, the stacking of the chances with the 3 options is a pretty great move. I think them seeing the odds on the '28 swap with Boston drop after the Celtics locked up a few players might've influenced that approach. Having 3 swings at a swap makes it very unlikely that it can be a complete swing & miss scenario.
We might be sacrificing cap space next offseason, but I think there’s a decent likelihood some win-now team out there would be willing to trade for him at the deadline…especially if he plays well. Not that hard to imagine a scenario where they can flip him for some draft assets (similar to how people have talked about CP3).
Even if there is no interest at the deadline, I don’t think it would be that hard for the Spurs to offload his contract should they need the extra cap space in the 2025 offseason. He’d be an expiring 17-18MM guy who is at least a good locker room presence and can hit 3s. Not like he’s such an albatross that we’d be giving up a FRPs to get rid of him.
Best case scenario he is just a great fit and we don’t even have to worry about trading him because we genuinely love having him on the squad.
Yes, I have another idea. Trade #8 for a prospect, or another FRP which is even next year, the year after or even 2027. Not just throw away a prime asset for sprinkles on your doughnut.
I can't believe we're even having this conversation, again. BWrong ed up.
Well put. Good players cost good money.
I know he is on his last leg, but the fact that we got Chris Paul for $11M when he was due $30M from the Warriors is a bargain no matter how you slice it.
I think we all agree that money wasn't going to bring in a magical piece to make this a win-now team, so might as well bring in a good player and great mentor to help build for the future
The NBA might not even exist as we know it in 7 years. I FRP in 2031 is garbage, especially when considering you're giving up #8 no matter how ty the draft.
Get back to me in 7 years, meanwhile, gfurs
Calm down, Nostradamus
No. We're here to witness and criticize what is happening and trading a front-lottery pick for peanuts is, and continue to be, bull
The foundation of my point isn't that they created the space for Paul. Yes, there are indicators that it was for him (though a determined poster would twist out of them, I'm sure), but the point was made multiple times that Paul being the target didn't matter. It was prioritizing creating tens of millions in space and ended up not actually needing any. If that was for Paul, it would've been a huge misevaluation of his market. If it was for some player they didn't get an audience with, that doesn't speak highly to their ability to appeal to players or to know which players they can appeal to. But now that we know the results, one should not conclude the Dillingham trade was necessary, because it was not. Maybe it would've been had the Spurs succeeded in their plan A, Paul or not. But they didn't end up making any moves the were particularly facilitated by that space.
Just to expand on what I said in the previous post, if you think that trade was the right thing to do, fine. It's done and not worth fighting over. But even if that trade was good, the cap-space part didn't need to happen. A Spurs FO who could foresee how this free agency was going to play out should have still stayed over the cap. No, I don't blame them for having to pivot without knowing for sure what they were pivoting from. But it's hard to stress how little having the hold from the eighth pick ended up mattering this off-season.
Not saying I agree or disagree but to say the trade is bad because the asset conveys further down the timeline is just weird given how many moving parts there are and how drafts are crap shoots. You talk as if they didn't explore options or you're sure someone else was willing to throw in picks for next year or 2027. I'd feel bad if this were the 8th pick on next year's draft but given the perceived talent for this draft it doesn't even sting a little. Your definition of a 'prime asset' is the 8th pick in a weak draft. Says a lot lol
How many players do we have which are top-8 in any draft? 1, and he looks ing awesome. The #8 in this draft should have gotten much more than some middle schooler. It's not that tough to wrap your small brain around.
I'm glad someone pointed this out, and I should have known it would be our main man Chinook. By wrapping this into the trade for #8, folks are just trying to justify the terrible return we got on #8. In isolation, that was a bad move on value, and in isolation, this was a pretty good move on value. The fact that they combine for a decent move on value should absolve the team from making the first bad move. Decent salvage job is a perfect descriptor.
I have some questions about rebounding in some of the proposed machinations of the rotations after this deal, but we'll just have to see how that plays out. Barnes is not a good rebounder, and I think that is reason enough to question the presumption that he'll be in the SL next to Sochan, not to mention I don't love the idea of forcing the #4 pick to the bench for Harrison Barnes.
Lastly, this move looks a lot better if viewed in the context of another move to come. Right now, it leaves the team's rotations a bit disjointed and lacking. If Barnes is starting, a bench unit of Tre/Castle/Champ/Keldon/Collins looks ing terrible. It's small with terrible spacing. Even with Castle's defending, that bench unit still gets dominated and will put us in a hole, just like last year.
And finally, this move creates some questions about the path forward, because of this comment from timvp in the article:
The Spurs also owe him approximately $40 million over the next two seasons. By doing this deal, San Antonio lost the rest of their cap space this summer and a good chunk of their projected cap space next summer.
The reports were (and maybe they were just completely made up) is that the Spurs wanted to keep their powder dry and maintain flexibility for the Summer of 2025. Unless Barnes gets re-routed (or Keldon or Collins do), that is greatly hampered. Is giving up that flexibility worth a 20131 swap? For Harrison Barnes? There are two pathways where I think this makes sense:
1) There is another move coming, where your short-to-intermedia term roster is set, and that growth comes from internal development of the youth, draft picks (of which we'll still have, even if we make a bigger move), and minor trades. I'm thinking of a scenario where you move for Lauri and you have a Wemby-Lauri-Vassell-Castle-SA25-ATL25 core going forward.
2) You aren't going to make another move, but you are leaning into the build-through-the-draft model. In which case, that 2025 cap space is less important because your next steps are going to be draft picks and we'll make periphery moves (like this one) to fill out the support pieces. This approach is somewhat undercut by punting on 8 and 35, but it's still on the table.
The last option is one I don't want to think about, because it's far more grim: that the Spurs don't have a bigger picture strategy, and just like opportunities to win individual deals along the way. This looks like good GM'ing on the surface, but it's what leads to things like Sam Quinn lumping the Spurs FO in with Boston and Dallas's FO and saying "these guys are just better at this than you are". The Spurs FO get all these flowery reviews from winning individual deals, but what they haven't won is any freakin' games. And at the end of the day, successful GM moves MUST eventually result in winning basketball, since that's the actual purpose of this sport.
No response on multiple moving parts? You've been 13 years here and yet. Some fans really enjoy crying over their shortsighted cliff jumping lmao
Bend over, I'll show you 1,556 multiple moving parts.
A pick return from the near future would probably not be as good, say, a CHI type FRP with protections. Why would we need that in 2027? We already have two that year. In fact, the team might have received offers like that and declined, until MN.
The MN package was exactly what they wanted. They clearly want to store up value picks when Wemby is in his prime. It takes impulse control to wait for them, but we already know what happens when a contending team doesn't have the ability to add new talent. Our dynasty was more or less over around 2010. We want to avoid that situation again.
If you're implying you want to have gay sex with me...I'm flattered but I don't swing that way. Belated happy pride month lmao keep crying
Body-to-PATFO
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
