Spurs Historical Roster Continuity

[scott]

Bumping this thread as we head towards the end of the season.

We entered this season with fairly minimal roster turnover, 3 out of the 15 main roster spots were new faces (CP3, Barnes, Castle) while all the rest were returning guys. 85.6% of our minutes last season returned this season (reverse continuity rate, which is all you can calculate in advance).

Those three newcomers, however, have ended up being the three guys leading the team in minutes (and in that order, CP3, Barnes, Castle). Additionally, we added Fox before the deadline, and as a result we're down to a 61% continuity rate (I'll update when the season is over), which would be the lowest for the team since 2009-10.

The Spurs have generally maintained low roster-turnover and above average roster continuity during this playoff drought. It will be curious to see how aggressive or conservative the team is at turning over the roster this offseason. We're more likely than not to lose our minutes leader (CP3) so that will have a big dent on the continuity rate (both the true rate and the reverse rate) right off the bat.

What do you all think: will we see the Spurs break from their typical approach, or will the team largely return most of the same guys next year? I'd be curious at both what everyone thinks WILL happen and what they WANT to happen.

[CGD]

^ More than any other recent season I’m ready for more roster turnover. It’s time.

- Vassell and Johnson’s contracts decrease for a reason. That’s gotta have some appeal to a cash strapped teams.

- Two FRPs incoming, or usable in trades to bring in a new face.

- Harrison, Wesley, Branham represent about 30M in potential expirings, which seem very movable.

- CP3 was always moving out, so they’ll have to address the backup PG in some way.

Bottomline, I think there is a chance this roster looks quite different to start next season.

[Seventyniner]

I would imagine that continuity positively correlates with winning. There was little reason for big roster turnover when the team was really good, and 2009-2010 was just about the nadir of the Duncan era.

Having this much continuity while the team is bad just means tanking. I hope to god there's only one more month of that in the next decade plus.

[Dejounte]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

[exstatic]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

Paul had a purpose until Fox was acquired. Glad he was here, but he’s now in the way of Castle starting.

[Jordan Jackson]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

I’m leaning this way as well. They aren’t breaking up the Happy Tree Friends anytime soon. Front office will keep trotting these guys out there hoping for different results.

Better hope for more lottery luck. Going to need it.

[CGD]

Not much change is happening tbh. I think even Paul comes back. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

I actually wouldnt mind it, but he needs to come off his "I need to start" crap. He'd be a good back up.

If continuity if their priority, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they brought Tre back as the backup PG . . .

[RC_Drunkford]

CP3 can go. He has been garbage since mid season

[exstatic]

CP3 can go. He has been garbage since mid season

I just don’t want him in Castle’s way.

[spurraider21]

Paul has been about as good as he's been all year. but suddenly with Vic gone (and now Fox), his inability to score isn't masked anymore, so he looks/feels a lot worse. prior to fox being shut down, his fixture in the starting lineup was frustrating because Paul/Fox was suboptimal and he was getting in Castle's way. thats not the case anymore.

but there's no reason we shouldnt be giving Wesley a lot of run down the stretch off the bench

i wouldnt necessarily hate the idea of Paul comimg back but it would definitely be in a reduced role. and im sure from his perspective if he's going to agree to play in a reduced role, it would probably be somewhere besides SA

[ginobilized]

Thanks for bumping this scott.

I guess we'll see what happens. I know that I'm ready for continued reshuffling of this deck.
I'll be very disappointed if we draft 2 unheralded under-sized SGs ala Forbes/Neal/WalkerIV......the list goes on.
On the flip side, Naz/Aldama plus LaRavia coupled with 2 of Fleming, Essengue, Kneuppel, Newell, Queen or Murray-Boyles would be the dream, barring extreme lotto luck.

[rjv]

I have seen models that show the teams with less changes to their starting five have higher winning percentages but I don't know how many models are out there that show how roster changes as a whole impact winning/losing. I would tend to think that that there is more winning in consistency. And, yeah, why would the spurs have made drastic changes during the Duncan/Manu/TP era? Or even in the Aldridge/DeRozan era, at least initially? And how is change defined? I would argue that the Spurs did make drastic changes but changes that resulted in losses as opposed to wins. This was intentional; dumping DeRozan, Aldridge, D White, Poeltl and Murray were all part of a plan and, ultimately, that plan made the team better. As another poster mentioned, the intention was to see what this team had in the current roster once Wemby was on board and then reevaluate after his rookie season. The Spurs made minor changes this past summer but they've already made one significant change before this off-season has even started. Lastly, this is the first year of the apron era and it sure will be interesting to see how many teams make changes under these new cap restrictions. Surely, that is going to impact change in the NBA as a whole.

[scott]

I have seen models that show the teams with less changes to their starting five have higher winning percentages but I don't know how many models are out there that show how roster changes as a whole impact winning/losing. I would tend to think that that there is more winning in consistency. And, yeah, why would the spurs have made drastic changes during the Duncan/Manu/TP era? Or even in the Aldridge/DeRozan era, at least initially? And how is change defined? I would argue that the Spurs did make drastic changes but changes that resulted in losses as opposed to wins. This was intentional; dumping DeRozan, Aldridge, D White, Poeltl and Murray were all part of a plan and, ultimately, that plan made the team better. As another poster mentioned, the intention was to see what this team had in the current roster once Wemby was on board and then reevaluate after his rookie season. The Spurs made minor changes this past summer but they've already made one significant change before this off-season has even started. Lastly, this is the first year of the apron era and it sure will be interesting to see how many teams make changes under these new cap restrictions. Surely, that is going to impact change in the NBA as a whole.

This begs the question... do teams win because they maintain a consistent starting 5... or do they maintain a consistent starting 5 because they are winning? I'd argue (pretty strongly) it's the latter. The Spurs didn't start losing simply because they made changes to the start 5... they started losing because they became a worse team (and changing the lineup was part of that). Likewise, the Spurs won't magically start winning by just having continuity... they'll start winning when they become a better team. That can happen by the same players improving or by replacing them with better players.

I could be wrong, but I'm not counting on some of these folks improving enough to transform us into a winning team on their own. That's just my opinion.

Congrats on your 10,000th post, btw!

[rjv]

This begs the question... do teams win because they maintain a consistent starting 5... or do they maintain a consistent starting 5 because they are winning? I'd argue (pretty strongly) it's the latter. The Spurs didn't start losing simply because they made changes to the start 5... they started losing because they became a worse team (and changing the lineup was part of that). Likewise, the Spurs won't magically start winning by just having continuity... they'll start winning when they become a better team. That can happen by the same players improving or by replacing them with better players.

I could be wrong, but I'm not counting on some of these folks improving enough to transform us into a winning team on their own. That's just my opinion.

Congrats on your 10,000th post, btw!

probably a little bit of both. but even bad teams improve with consistency. they just hit a ceiling that is nowhere near championship level. but my focus isn't really on whether or not consistency is essential as much as it is on the history of the Spurs when it comes to roster changes. I don't think the Spurs refuse to make changes simply because they have a problem with change or because of some blind loyalty to players. The Spurs, in the Holt/Pop/Buford era come off as a franchise that develops a long term plan and does not deviate too quickly from that plan and I think that is generally a very healthy way for a franchise to operate. Kawhi was a catastrophe that wasn't expected and the spurs may have held on to Aldridge a year too long but even the tanking, from what I have read, was planned. It was a gamble but it paid off. We'll see what this summer brings but I think some of that will be steered by this new cap era and what kind of luck the Spurs have with the lottery.

Thanks on the congrats. Took me almost 16 years but I finally got to 10,000.

[LeBowen]

Cap is projected to rise by ~$14M next season, up to $154.6M.

As I said in some other topics, the more I look at this roster, the more I think it's underperforming because of subpar coaching.
Now that Wemby and Fox are out it doesn't really matter, but too many limited players are given freedom to do whatever they want.
I'd rather have a top level coach with this roster and '25 FRPs than someone like KD coached by Mitch or even current version of Pop.

Obviously I'd personally like to get rid of Devin and Keldon, but it probably won't happen.
I'd even be fine if Devin stays as the 6th man, but I just don't want to see him either push Castle to SF or even all the way to the bench.

Fox/?/Wesley
Vassell/Champagnie/?
Castle/Keldon/?
Barnes/Jeremy/?
Wemby/?/?

That's the most likely outcome, tbh. And I wouldn't mind it that much if there aren't any must have targets available.
As in I'd like to get Aldama or Naz, but it seems that their teams cleared cap space in order to keep them. PJ Washington would be a solid pickup if available, I don't really want any more max players.
We got our two max players, Castle will keep developing, after that we should load up on high end role players.

For PG position it would be nice if CP3 stays in a limited role that doesn't guarantee a lot of minutes. If he wants a bigger role, he can go. Just get another experienced backup.
That backup PG should never be together on the floor with Fox, it's just redundant. Wesley is showing some signs of life, keeping him for another year wouldn't be the end of the world.

I doubt we get two rookies unless there are two targets PATFO really like. Just get the best available big wing or even backup C if it's worth the pick.
Offer Mamu another minimum deal if he's interested and keep Biyombo as the third stringer. I'd get rid of Bassey, his knees are done. Branham also has to go.
Barnes simply has to start because he's by far the best shooter on the team.

Despite all the flaws the likes of Devin, Keldon and Jeremy have, I still think a good coach would easily get ~45 wins with this roster if they're healthy.
This starting lineup can work if Devin finally gets over himself and becomes a consistent 38-40% 3pt shooter, which I don't think will happen, but as I said, PATFO probably still believe in him.
I wouldn't offer anything more than 60/4 to Jeremy in his current state. If he wants $20M+ a year, he needs to develop his shot. No more charity cases.

I'd also get rid of Keldon, but family values etc will prevent it from happening. Maybe it's for the better because if we keep this roster even with Fox's extension we'll have a lot of cap space for 2026 FA.
But then again, I don't see anyone special in there.

Realistic 2025 FA targets:
Grimes (RFA)
Kennard
John Collins (if he opts out)
DFS (if he opts out)
LaRavia
Yabusele
Naz Reid
Aldama (RFA)
Brook Lopez
Capela
Adams
Horford
Sharpe (RFA)
Looney

[scott]

I agree with you LeBowen that a coach likely makes a bigger difference than incremental roster changes at this point. Been saying for awhile that I actually expect us to largely run back the same roster next year, except unfortunately I think we're likely looking at Mitch coaching while Pop holds the franchise hostage.

As such, I expect us to be better... but not by too much. No more than a play-in team if that is the case. It will get sold to us by the FO and the Sniffers as being patient, not skipping steps, etc. One way I'll be judging this team's performance in 2025-26: if the ATL swap fails to convey, it should be considered a massive failure to "stay on schedule"

Edit: that salary table has one mistake - we do not have an option on Bassey. He is a UFA, and I don't expect him back.

I would bring Mamu back as a deep bench PF (actually I'd try to find a way to play him more... but that doesn't appear in the cards), but I would not bring back Bismack as even a 3rd string C. He's not good, we are just enamored with him because we've been deprived of competent C depth for too long.

[RC_Drunkford]

I agree with you LeBowen that a coach likely makes a bigger difference than incremental roster changes at this point. Been saying for awhile that I actually expect us to largely run back the same roster next year, except unfortunately I think we're likely looking at Mitch coaching while Pop holds the franchise hostage.

As such, I expect us to be better... but not by too much. No more than a play-in team if that is the case. It will get sold to us by the FO and the Sniffers as being patient, not skipping steps, etc. One way I'll be judging this team's performance in 2025-26: if the ATL swap fails to convey, it should be considered a massive failure to "stay on schedule"

Edit: that salary table has one mistake - we do not have an option on Bassey. He is a UFA, and I don't expect him back.

I would bring Mamu back as a deep bench PF (actually I'd try to find a way to play him more... but that doesn't appear in the cards), but I would not bring back Bismack as even a 3rd string C. He's not good, we are just enamored with him because we've been deprived of competent C depth for too long.

yeah I'd much rather use our 2nd round pick on a C and add him with a guaranteed contract, not a two-way. CP3 can also go. I don't think there's much value in bringing him back. It would be nice to add one rotation player via FA and at least one through the draft. The ATL pick can be used in a trade or on a player who's more of a long-term project.

[exstatic]

yeah I'd much rather use our 2nd round pick on a C and add him with a guaranteed contract, not a two-way. CP3 can also go. I don't think there's much value in bringing him back. It would be nice to add one rotation player via FA and at least one through the draft. The ATL pick can be used in a trade or on a player who's more of a long-term project.

CP3 can stay IF he agrees to come off the bench. Can’t have him keeping Castle out of the SL.

[jjspur]

First of all, when healthy, we have a decent starting 5, its the 2nd and 3rd teams where we really need some improvement. Biyombo and Bassey, while they did help out in a pinch aren't anything more than temporary solutions. With them gone that opens 2 slots. C3P0 has great experience and gets to start, probably won't be back. Do yourself a favor, sign with a playoff team and retire gracefully. That's 3 slots. Branham is in the G-League. They'll pay his last year and he'll be gone. Four slots and counting. At this point Wesley is a bit of a toss up. He has some talent, but nothing special. Four, possibly five slots. Let's not forget Mamu. A decent player who the spurs should keep, but who may leave for greener pastures and lots more money. In total that's a third or the team possibly gone.

Now I understand the need for continuity. It definitely helps, but with this mediocre 2nd and 3rd team, running it back just isnt the answer. If the team really wants to improve, they simply need better talent than what we currently have. Now in the NBA anything can and does happen. No one can predict the future, but the team can make some wise choices with their salary and draft capital. Winning starts with making good choices.

We shot a big load this year to get Fox (great move), so I don't see any major moves, besides I think teams will be even more wary about trading with the spurs. That being said, here are a few players I think the spurs could use. No all stars, but players who could really improve our 2nd and third teams.

Jake LaRavia - Not the best defensively, but can make plays when needed .
Drew Eubanks - Former spur now on the Clippers. The Clips always have salary problems. We can trade a 2nd or two and take on one of their lower paid players.
Quentin Grimes - Will be a free agent. Dude can ball when given the chance- him and Castle would make a great combo guard team
Phoenix Suns players - A Durrant fire sale waiting to happen - lets help them out (lower salaried players only)
Any team without a first round pick. Sure its middling, but its better than nothing and we could possibly get a decent experienced player in return rather than waiting 2 plus years to develop.

The spurs rarely do big moves, but some of these and a decent draft could help them go in the right direction. I don't exactly know if these moves could be made, but its something to think about considering we won't be in the playoffs this year and we could use the improvement for next year.