You're saying this isn't serious money?
It could've been 50 million like another small market or zero if some market without a team enters the chat.
That's just how it goes.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 10-17-2024 at 10:30 AM.
Definitely. The Spurs clearly have good relationships with several franchises and you'll often see other franchises often working with each other. I'd say the Spurs seem to have great relationships with Miami and Toronto. They probably have good relationships with Chicago and Sacramento. There may be others.
This is a consequence of Ainge being a hard-ass, btw, trying to win each trade. I don't think teams want to deal with him.
Seems like they like to pick up SRPs whenever possible. It's a weird paradox. They want to be very flexible to make moves in the future but also avoid making big moves in the moment. I'm not saying it's a bad strategy right now necessarily but sort of funny to me.
We'll never know what they were offering for Markkanen, but I'd argue that there were no other big moves to be made this offseason.
I expect a serious wing upgrade next summer and a good backup big.
Can't see us going for any guards in the foreseeable future.
acquiring SRPs is fun. spending them... not so much. they're going to need to be able to start using them as a form of currency (we did so to unload devonte graham in order to create the relevant space for paul/barnes). want to see them start using SRPs to try to move up in drafts.
We got 5 SRPs in 2025. Could easily move into late first round if there's a player they like.
Considering how few picks most teams have, SRPs will be useful for acquiring solid role players.
what team is going to want to trade for 5 SRPs in the same draft all at once?
2026*, not 2025, my bad.
They don't have to keep all 5.
Playoff teams with no cap space prefer early second rounders to late FRPs unless there's a player they really like.
I agree that they're looking at these picks as currency, and not necessarily trying to add a bunch of players at once.
Punting on #8 was bad in the moment, but the off-season was still progress.
Making moves just to make moves doesn't make sense. They still don't know precisely what they need and what works on this team. Why force trades when you're not ready?
My theory is that they were targeting absorbing Chris Paul with the cap. Taking the pick would have wiped that out.
And I think we'll see no player in that range will be worth that salary.
Yeah, if that's true, I'll take CP3 for a year and punt the pick. But the team needs talent infusion.
Tangent: for the eight pic I would have been very interested in taking dillingham if nothing else then as an asset because I think he will put up good offensive numbers, or a less popular idea, I would have taken Zach at 8, because even though he would have been a backup center I think that it's super valuable to not overplay victor, but also to have a credible second team, because without Victor we are the worst team in the league oftentimes.
Rob Dillingham himself said in a draft night interview that he was surprised by the pick until his agent told him about the trade, since SA hadn’t been interested. If we had kept the pick, it wasn’t going to be Dillingham.
I’m not at all down with taking a bench player, Dilly or Edey, with pick #8. I want someone who is going to be projected to start, and if they come up short,then maybe the bench or a trade, but drafting a bench player with intent at #8 isn’t OK with me. I would have had a problem with punting #8 if there was even 1-4 protection on the pick or swap, but a swap protected for #1 and a completely unprotected pick is fine. Gobert will age out, and Ant will leave like all of their stars eventually do. They’ll either be great assets, or something to dangle in front of Ainge to complete his set of Minny assets, so he can go after Ant at age 27, his athletic peak.
It's all relative. If the Spurs offered $10MM/year to PG13... would that have been serious money? I mean... it's $10MM right?
I'm not even faulting the Spurs... but I do think they should pony up a little more for the arena that will benefit them as the primary tenant. Honestly, I think the Spurs should just pay for the whole thing and completely own the concessions and rental revenue.... but I'll also admit I don't fully grasp the economics of such a thing. Surely someone on their staff does and that's why they aren't proposing it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote