The “two players and two draft picks is a lot of Fox” is amazing. �� just amazing
Funny, cuz this forum is like an insecure who will spread her legs for anybody and swear it'll be life changing. Same things when y'all swore we had to trade for John Collins, then swore we had to trade for Trae Young, swore we had to trade for Lauri Markannen, and every single one of you swore it was going to happen and then it never does. I'm sure this time it's totally different though.
fox is good and young enough that even if it doesnt completely pan out we can always trade him again and salvage it. look at the hawks with murray. fox isnt some 33 year old on the verge of falling off a cliff where he'd have no value or negative value
Not in general, but with the Spurs.
Carter doesn't project as a lead guard.
If they trade DeRozan for a better fit, they should remain pseudo compe ive.
Either way, the Spurs expendable assets are good enough to get whatever (within' reason) they'd want from a third team.
KD will be available this offseason. I’d rather go for him. I’d love for Hou to trade for Fox seeing as they are our biggest compe ors to get KD. Maybe we get KD and Hou gets Booker and Phoenix does an extreme reset? That would be my hope but either way I’d decline Fox for now.
Spurs are pretty stingy with their offers so I'm expecting a low ball offer that gets rejected and no trade happening.
I showed the work a few pages ago, but if the Spurs sent out Vassell for Fox, gave Jeremy $20MM/yr, and gave Fox a 30% max extension this summer, they could still have close to $55MM in cap room in the summer of 2026.
This is true, but it's not really that frequent, maybe a couple a year, but there are 30 teams. You aren't going to be perfectly situated for every one that comes available. Maybe that guy (like Fox has done here) says he has a destination in mind and won't extend with you? What if the next star who is suddenly available is a center that won't fit with Wemby? The opportunities that align for a team are actually few and far between. Now, that isn't a reason to make the trade in and of itself, but it is reason to not believe that you can just make a move like this any time.Things change fast in the NBA. Players we don't think would be availble suddenly come availble. Fox is the example. They were looking like le contenders just a couple years ago and he was the lead dog. Nows he's out?
We'll only start competing when our team is better. The team won't get better until we improve the talent. Doing nothing but drafting guys with mid-picks and hoping that they turn out is one strategy, but it's a lot lower probability of success, considering that the median outcome for the ranges we are likely to be drafting is not great.I'd rather have the assets since we aren't competing anytime soon. It sucks as a fan to watch, but business wise makes more sense to
The feces that occupies your cranium appears to be infected with Norovirus. Please seek help.
why are people here so stupid. Why give up all our assets for someone we can get for free in one year.
Good that would be the smart move
SAC would probably want Devin over Castle if I had to guess because he's more proven, theoretically, and a solid shooter. They're winning lately. Why totally rebuild?
Also I'd rather have Fox at $50 million then Devin + Zollins for $46ish. Granted, a new Fox contract affects future contracts for Sochan and Castle, but just saying.
Anybody but Castle and Wemby and I'm good with it tbh.
That argument though is to make a deal just to make a deal. Fox is not the best commodity coming up for free agency. Teams hardly let stars become free agents anymore and make deals.
There aren't really a lot of star bigs in the league. Wemby is it. The small guard is the easiest to find. Fox is not an uncommon archetype. If he was a forward, I'd be more inclined.
Like I said, I'd like to upgrade, but the price has to make sense. Wemby will continue to get better and so will one of the youngest teams in the NBA in the spurs. Just the same, aa we are seeing in the west, other teams will come down to the norm. Dynasties don't last anymore. Warriors were the closest thing but it was bought and still KD left. Easiest championship team broke apart.
The likelihood of success in trading for a star by giving up assets has for the most part not worked and the team usually ends up bad in 2-3 years with no draft picks. It's without a doubt safer to build through the draft if your team has any semblance of talent evaluation.
Going for a home run deal is inevitable with all the assets the spurs have, but for Fox? If you're shooting for the stars, just pay big and go for an established superstar. Don't pay big for someone you're comfortable walking in a couple years. That's the definition of a bad a deal. I'm okay with this guy walking away and having less draft picks when my team digresses once more. It's definitely a way you can go, but doesn't seem to be playing that way for most teams. Most compe ive teams in the NBA with any consistency comes from building through picks.
Posting this again, at the very end, the Kings guy who was the first who said "Kings fans should get used to the idea of a Fox trade" basically says he thinks Rich Paul is telling teams Fox will only extend with the Spurs. He comes on at the 1 hour 34 min mark if you want to listen to the discussion.
There's no doubt Fox will elevate our game
I don’t want to give up Wemby, Castle, or too many first-round picks. The Kings don’t have much leverage, since he won’t extend with them (or, apparently, most other teams). They can lose him for nothing (and risk having a disgruntled star until he’s gone), or they can get a few things in return. Otherwise, walk away and sign him (or someone else) without losing assets this offseason or next.
Having said that, it’s nice to see Wemby already has this gravity - and the pull for good players would only get stronger with a Wemby-Castle-Fox core.
I disagree with that characterization. My argument would be that Fox is a very good player (an All-Star and former All-NBA level player) that fits our needs and wants to be here. That's about the best I can ever ask for as we aren't a typical trade destination and I'm not super interested in finding out if Wemby has made us one (All Time Great Tim Duncan wasn't enough to make us one).
Can you name some better commodities coming up for free agency or likely to be available via trade? Because Fox is a Top 25-30 player. Who do you think might be available sooner? The only one I can think of is KD, who is 1) old and 2) you can still get him even if you land Fox.
Well, what's great about our situation is that we have an abundance of draft capital. There is no reasonable proposal fox Fox that leaves us with no draft picks. It's practically impossible.The likelihood of success in trading for a star by giving up assets has for the most part not worked and the team usually ends up bad in 2-3 years with no draft picks. It's without a doubt safer to build through the draft if your team has any semblance of talent evaluation.
What established superstar do you have in mind, and how much do you think they'll cost? If Mitc , Gobert, Bridges and KAT go for the prices they have, what do you think an "established superstar" will cost? There is the scenario where you are left with no draft picks.Going for a home run deal is inevitable with all the assets the spurs have, but for Fox? If you're shooting for the stars, just pay big and go for an established superstar. Don't pay big for someone you're comfortable walking in a couple years. That's the definition of a bad a deal. I'm okay with this guy walking away and having less draft picks when my team digresses once more. It's definitely a way you can go, but doesn't seem to be playing that way for most teams. Most compe ive teams in the NBA with any consistency comes from building through picks.
Why would Fox walk away in a few years? You think he'll just retire from the game if he decides he doesn't like breakfast tacos? The only way this trade happens is if he is extending (like the OG and Siakam deals).
I find the "most compe ive teams in the NBA with any consistency comes from building through picks" comment interesting. OKC's star came from a trade. BOS surrounded their big two with players acquired via trade. NYK is an entire roster full of guys they didn't draft. DEN has a key part of their core acquired via trade. Who are the consistently compe ive teams that built through their picks? The Rockets and Grizz are probably the best examples, but Houston is recently compe ive and the Grizz have been inconsistent due to injury.
Feels like some of y'all think the top 15-20 players in the NBA grow on trees and every Lotto pick will someday be counted among that group.
For example, I love Castle but there's a much better chance he'll never be that calibur of NBA talent than there is he will. IF all these rumors about Fox's tunnel vision for SA are true and not just a smokescreen, I don't think you can afford to waste a chance to nab and lock in a player like that, particularly when you're a market that doesn't usually attract that level of talent.
Only other similar player to Fox that I’ve seen come up recently is Anfernee Simons. He’s a better 3 point shooter than Fox, but I think I’d rather have Fox.
I like Castle but I don't see why he would be untouchable in a Fox trade. He can't shoot for , and until he learns to do that it won't be possible for him to get much better. When you look at the history of our young players most of their shooting has improved by much, and goes like Branhim and Tre came into the league better shooters than Castle did.
No way deal castle for foxx. Castle your moving to sg
You're using extreme situations now and just letting the arguments go.
Most of the teams you named all were built through the draft and they made a key trade to help. Their core was the draft outside of The Knicks which supports what I said. The draft is more successful than a big trade in getting and keeping a compe ive team. That's not even an argument. It is what it is. Trades can absolutely help, the right one. Look at what the Timberwolves did this past year.
I agreed with Fox being a good player that should be had for the right price. It's the overpay of picks that has been the only arguing point. He isn't a superstar. That's not who he is. He is drawing superstar fantasy drafts with 4 first rounders going out plus a vassel or cassel and more.
Fox is not that type of star. That's the argument.
As far as the Duncan thing goes, spurs never had big money to begin with. Their stars are known for takingbig pay cuts. Kidd was arguably the best player in the NBA at a point and he wanted to come but didn't because of Tony. There aren't many teams who just bring in superstars outside of a handful of big markets. That's always been a media spin.
The argument was presented, 'If it doesn't work out, it won't be too bad." And I responded to that. I'm not sure where you're getting the Fox wants to leave story. But it would make sense and follow your story of people nor wanting to be in SA according to you.
Reiterate once more, Fox would be a welcome addition for a good price, not a superstar price. History has shown trading a superstar price doesn't usually work out. Most compe ive teams built through the draft before making a play in free agency. We have two top 5 picks. We are two years into a legit rebuild. Manu said it best, they're 2-3 years away from competing. Those draft picks matter while they're not competing. They're more valuable than a play in spot player.
You implying Fox is a top 15-20 NBA player?
not that its some end all be all authoritative source, but the ringer has him #19
it wouldnt be an outlandish claim
Vassell also fits better with Fox, cause he won't be double teamed, ball denied and would get open shots galore.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
