Reply With Quote
Ok... yeah... this is just pathetic.
lol wow 2016 protected 2nd round pick? geez
Ok... yeah... this is just pathetic.
A top-55 protected pick.
Only the Spurs could come up with stuff like this.
It's just accounting shenanigans... Most likely they won't see that pick... You just can't trade players for nothing...
Ya think?
Houston paid a heavy price for that trade by parting with Carl Landry and taking on extra salary in Jared Jeffries. If we were to hypothetically make a similar trade it would look something like this...
To Spurs:
Kevin Martin
Jared Jeffries
Jordan Hill
Hilton Armstrong
1st Round draft pick 2012
Switch 2011
To Sacramento:
Dejuan Blair
Ian Mahimni
Larry Hughes
To New York:
Manu Ginobili
Michael Finley
Matt Bonner
Roger Mason Jr.
Sergio Rodriguez
Would you really do a trade like that? I certainly wouldn't. The fact of the matter is, that the Spurs' current situation leaves little flexibility for trades. Part of this is the large salaries paid to the big 3. The other is of course Richard Jefferson. There simply wasn't a lot the FO could do to improve the team without crippling them in the long term or throwing in the towel and rebuilding. If there is any complaint with the FO it should be that their past decisions have now put us in a position with little flexibility to change or improve. A lot of that has to do with our spending this summer as I already mentioned, but while its easy to point this out in hindsight I don't think its realistic to blame them for this current predicament. At the time those trades were made they seemed logical quality moves that would give the team a legitimate shot to contend. It didn't work out that way and its unfortunate. We simply have to deal with it and try to make the best of it. We should NOT make rash trades that exacerbate the problem.
I like this trade, if only because it means Pop has no choice but to play Ian if he is desperate for shot blocking.
One of the writers at 48minutesof said it recently and they're right: the mistake wasn't bringing in Jefferson, McDyess, et al. no, the mistake would be (as of today, is) not rectifying this situation. Not only did the front office not do this, but they also sent an unmistakable message to the team and the fans: we don't think we can win a championship this season. If they really believed they could still win it, they'd have held onto Ratliff, just for the possibility that at some point they'll need him. Instead, they prioritized saving a couple of pennies.
That's about as good of conditions as we could have hoped for. Not having to pay any money makes this a good trade. The draft pick is extremely unlikely, however at least it's not impossible.
Good trade. Although obviously it's basically meaningless in the big picture. The best outcome is if it accidentally forces Pop to play Mahinmi or Hairston.
How would you go about rectifying the signings of Jefferson and Mcdyess? Its easy to talk but harder to do. Would you try and dump their contracts or make a basketball trade for them? Which team would agree to any trade involving them without you including a sweetener? How would you go about rectifying the situation? What trade would you have made that another team would realistically agree to? Make a trade proposal and I will tell you if its realistic or not, and whether that trade is a wise decision for the Spurs or not. You and several others complain that nothing was done but I have yet to hear any kind of reasonable trade the FO could have made to improve the team. If you can propose a trade that is both beneficial to the Spurs either now or in the future and that another team might realistically do then I might agree with you in regards to the FO failing the team but until then this is nothing but a bunch of useless ing.
This...I could care less if the Spurs never see a late second round pick.
Holt saved some money, shipped out a player that wasn't even worthy of Willis treatement, and opened up some limited opportunity for younger, more promising players.
In the context of what could or should have been done in the eyes of so many Spurs fans, I understand the disappointment. But the trade in and of itself is a winner.
If the Spurs could have acquired Thomas, they could have kept both he and McDyess for the rest of the season, or, seeing as how they're cheap, they could have moved him. Sure, they'd have gotten nothing back because of his contract, but I think he was movable, namely to the Bobcats and Nuggets (though I'd prefer they not trade him their).
Jefferson is another story. He clearly wasn't movable this season, but the Spurs could have worked around that, by dealing from their cadre of expiring contracts and even using their 1st round pick, if necessary, to change their team.
Thomas and Pargo for Mason, Bonner, Mahinmi, '10 1st round pick.
McDyess for Murray, Law and if need be, a throw-in like Graham. Then the Spurs could buyout/waive them and end up with a piece they need going forward (at least theoretically, in terms of his physical tools) in Thomas.
Why would Chicago do that when they had Charlotte 1st round pick which is almost certainly going to be better then the Spurs'? They wouldn't.
Why would Charlotte trade expirers for Mcdyess who has underperformed most of this season? It just doesn't make any sense.
Because what's the gap really going to be? A mere couple of spots. Big deal if you pick 16th or 20th in the draft; it's a crap shoot, for the most part, at that point.
My thinking would be: we're getting two knockdown shooters (which the Bulls need) on expiring contracts that can help them now, plus a young, athletic, inexpensive big man in return. The Bulls will be bringing in probably two big free agents this off season. You add them to what Deng makes and what Rose and Noah eventually will make and you know what that means? The Bulls will need cheap talent to fill out the rest of their roster. This is where Mahinmi becomes attractive. At worst, he could be their 5th big. At best, they could have found a long term backup to Noah.
Brown is obsessed with changing his roster, was desperate for a backup PF and loves taking on veterans who know how to play. He's almost assuredly a big fan of McDyess, since he's an old school player and he used to coach him (they just acquired Ratliff today, even though they don't need him).
The Spurs were clearly passive and on the periphery when it came to Thomas. With this much information, in this day and age, had they been the aggressors, like they should have been, we'd have found out. These trades didn't happen not because they're unrealistic; they didn't happen because the Spurs clearly were passive and probably got cold feet about changing their roster that drastically mid season and taking on a problem child like Thomas.
Because what's the gap really going to be? A mere couple of spots. Big deal if you pick 17th or 20th in the draft; it's a crap shoot, for the most part, at that point. If you can get value for now and potentially some down the line on top of that, then I think it's worth it to take the slightly lower pick.
My thinking is: they'd have been getting two knockdown shooters (which the Bulls need) on expiring contracts that can help them now, plus a young, athletic, inexpensive big man in return. The Bulls will be bringing in probably two big free agents this off season. You add them to what Deng makes and what Rose and Noah eventually will make and you know what that means? The Bulls will need cheap talent to fill out the rest of their roster. This is where Mahinmi becomes attractive. At worst, he could be their 5th big. At best, they could have found a long term backup to Noah.
Brown is obsessed with changing his roster, was desperate for a backup PF and loves taking on veterans who know how to play. He's almost assuredly a big fan of McDyess, since he's an old school player and he used to coach him (they just acquired Ratliff today, even though they don't need him).
The Spurs were clearly passive and on the periphery when it came to Thomas. With this much information, in this day and age, had they been the aggressors, like they should have been, we'd have found out. These trades didn't happen not because they're unrealistic; they didn't happen because the Spurs clearly were passive and probably got cold feet about changing their roster that drastically mid season and taking on a problem child like Thomas. But keep drinking the kool-aid.
I think it will be a larger gap then that but even so, that is a significant difference. Mason, Bonner and Ian are all scraps. They are players Chicago may use this season but its highly unlikely they will be in any long term plans. A better 1st round draft pick clearly preferable in this scenario because the talent both Charlotte and San Antonio is offering is negligible.
As for Charlotte taking on Mcdyess' contract, its pure madness. Ratliff is an expirer so it doesn't harm any future plans for Charlotte. No risk. Mcdyess is a 2-year contract and partial. They would be crazy to take it on considering how he is performing this year.
I will criticize the FO when they deserve it, not simply because I am frustrated with the current performance of the team. Perhaps you have no faith in the Spurs organization, that matters not to me, but after a decade of great success I am willing to give them a little patience in a turbulent time in NBA. Transition periods within a team (from the Duncan era to the next) are always difficult to handle. Taking everything into consideration I don't think they are doing a terrible job despite the fact that the Spurs aren't doing as well as I would have hoped for.
Depends on how you project the two teams to finish. They are all scraps, but did you not just read what I said? You can't have a team of 12 stars. Two fill immediate needs, one potentially fills a long term one, all the while ostensibly replacing the player they're giving up in Thomas. They're different players, but at the end of the day they're both primarily known as athletic big men. Teams are loathe to give them up generally and getting one back wouldn't have hurt.
Have you seen some of the trades the Bobcats have made since Brown took over? This had Bobcats written all over it. If worst comes to worst, the Spurs could have kept him and Thomas the remainder of this season, then dealt McDyess in the off season when they had more time to work out a more preferable scenario.
I was patient enough the past few years and you know what? Their track record in that time sucks. It didn't have to be this difficult, though, that's the frustrating part. They could have at least attempted to salvage this thing and they didn't even do that.
How are they not doing a terrible job? They just sent a message to the team today that they've given up on them, they have a roster with now two centers, only one of which plays and one athletic big man, who doesn't play. The composition of this roster is ridiculous. One true small forward, almost no size/athleticism and on top of that, with the pieces they do have, they've done a horrendous job of integrating them, particularly Jefferson. That's not an excuse for his poor play, but it is part of the reason for it.
I read your post, I just disagree with it. Ian would certainly not replace Tyrus or be a long term prospect for them. He simply isn't that good. Matt Bonner and Roger Mason may indeed fill current needs with the team but is a mediocre player like Mason or Bonner for one year worth a higher draft pick next year? I absolutely don't think so. Clearly Chicago didn't think so either.
Larry Brown is a good coach and they have made several solid trades in regards to this season. Trading expirers for an old-timer like Mcdyess would be a foolish move. If the Spurs made such an offer it would be turned down immediately, regardless of whether you agree with that or not. I really think you overrate a number of our scrubs.
The only point I may agree with is that Pop should be doing a better job of integrating the new players this season and helping gel the team together. He has not done this and I think more could be had out of the team we have. Some of his faults lie in his lineups (though i am not a mindless small-ball hater) and some of it may be individual coaching such as that with Richard Jefferson. Improvements can be made but that can be said for any franchise. All in all they have done a remarkable job for a small market team like the Spurs on a low budget. This is not LA or New York where dollars are meaningless. The Spurs have always needed a clear plan for the now and then, and for the past decade they have had one. I will give them the time they need to steer the Spurs through this transition period as well.
Yep Brown has no problem tearing up a roster, trading everything within reach, and packing his bags and leaving a team in the dust. Kudos for the Spurs not trading their 1st rounder.
How do you know for a fact he isn't that good? Seems to me he's a decent prospect and has a chance to be a rotation player in the league, only this team has a re for a coach who doesn't like young, big, athletic players. That's three strikes against Mahinmi. Maybe it's more than one year. People get so caught up in expiring contracts, but what's wrong with resigning a player(s) if they fill needs and are affordable? They Bulls could have actually used one or two of these guys, that's my point. And that is more valuable than picking 17th over 20th, which is a crap shoot. Did the Spurs even make a concrete offer? None was reported.
I'm not overrating any of them, I'm just saying the Bulls could have used a few and the Bobcats desperately wanted a backup PF. McDyess would have been a typical Brown acquisition.
I don't want to hear that crap. I don't care about the past or the success, the recent past has not been very good and that's in large part because the front office isn't doing their jobs. What the were they thinking with the Scola trade? So he's not a good fit next to Duncan, but McDyess/Bonner, they are? Nonsense. They're not steering this team anywhere, other than further into irrelevance.
I don't think you're wrong to feel the way you do, but I do think you're wrong. There's no evidence that our FO didn't try to move their pieces, only that they didn't move anybody in a way that satisfied you.
By the same token, the Scola trade is still shrouded in mystery. If you want to say it was inep ude that we let him get away, that's understandable, but you have no proof that a team that drafted him suddenly decided he couldn't play alongside Duncan. I tend to think something else happened.
[QUOTE=TD 21;4097401 Teams are loathe to give them up generally and getting one back wouldn't have hurt[/QUOTE]
Which should send a red flag as to why would the Bulls give up on Thomas, whose physical talent is off the charts, but is basically a knucklehead. Now if the Spurs could of gotten Thomas for expiring contracts, a 2nd rounder, or a combination of the two, then I would of jumped on it in a heartbeat. The Spurs are an old team and IMO need to keep their 1st rounders.
From what I have seen of Ian Mahimni he seems like an extremely foul prone and somewhat stupid athletic bigman. Not something Chicago is looking for as they are dumping Tyrus Thomas. As for Mason and Bonner. Maybe the bulls would resign them for a pittance if they wanted to fill out their roster after getting a fat free agent next summer but the bottom line is players like them are commonplace and they can get a similar player whenever they want. A better draft pick might make a difference while Ian/Mason/Bonner will not. That is the bottom line.
There is not much more to discuss about Antonio Mcdyess. You think the bobcats would trade expiring contracts for him, I do not. Not much more to say on this subject.
The problem is as a fan you are not privy to all the information. You don't know what the FO attempted to do during this trade deadline. You seem to take for granted they are fools and lazy and made no attempt to better themselves. I don't quite understand why you think like that. Their past accomplishments for me have shown they are competent. It simply seems unlikely to me that every member of the FO has gone senile and that this is why the Spurs are not performing as well this season and last. To me a much more logical reason is that our Core players, Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili mainly have simply declined and that is the main rason we are not doing as well. This past Summer our attempt to counteract their decreased talents was acquiring RJ. That hasn't worked out.
I'm really not certain what you are thinking. Do you think the FO has always been idiots and we are simply lucky to win four championships because we were able to draft Tim Duncan? Do think the FO became stupid in a timespan of 2-3 seasons? If so do you think that a likely and logical explanation or might their perhaps be another one? I really don't understand it.
Last edited by Pentagruel; 02-19-2010 at 03:00 AM.
TD 21 would be an ideal candidate for the Clippers GM job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
