Tonight is why trading Neal might not be worth it...

[Captivus]

When looking at Neal i dont look at his stats, like FG%. I dont have to, i have seen with my own eyes a lot of games where I find miself thinking:
"Ok...now if we could just score 2 points in the next 2 minutes I will be happy". In those situations theres no one like Neal. BAM!

PROS:
- Cheap
- Clutch
- Excelent shooter

CONS:
- Short for a SG - This for me is the main problem, because if you play him with Parker/Mills/Cory then the backcourt is very small...unless you play him with Nando
- 28 Years old - He is not going to play 50% better than he is now, i think he is reaching his peak
- Lacks defensive skill

Theres a rule in business and it works like this: You give something and you get something in return. The key is that the value for each party should be even.
You cant trade Bonner and get Millsap...you just cant. Not because of stats, not because of salary, because Millsap is worth more for them that Bonner.

Maybe you can trade Bonner/Blair/Mills/Cory....the question is obvious: Who need them, who assigns value to this players??
Maybe teams prefeer Cory/Mills rather than Neal...i mean...maybe they dont score like Neal (?) but they are younger, can play PG.
Blair is young too...the problem with him is that he is "big", i would be surprised if the Spurs could trade a "big" for a big (as centerpiece...they should probably give something more)

Ok...im rambling...better get to work!!!

I like Neal a lot...i would try to keep him.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Theres a rule in business and it works like this: You give something and you get something in return. The key is that the value for each party should be even.

Oh no, not at all actually - the rule is : buy low, sell high.

[letmk]

This at ude is why people on here propose so many unrealistic trades. You can't get good players by trading bad players. You have to give up something you'd rather keep in hopes that what you get back will offset what you let go. Neal is valuable to this team, and that makes him valuable to other teams. But the second-best offensive team in the league would probably be able to handle the loss of a shooter. No one is saying to just get rid of Neal. He should not be moved for a second-rounder or anything that won't help the team right now, but if the Spurs can trade him along with other pieces for the player they think puts them over the top, they have to do it.

What you are going is correct in principle and I don't disagree with that. Technically, you are right. Save for the Gasol rob, you can't get good players with bad players.

But in reality, a team can still get good trade when a player means less to you but more to your trade partner (or so the trade partner thinks). That's the key.

On the contrary, when a player means more to you than his market value, you are bound to make a bad trade. And I think Neal falls into this category.

[8FOR!3]

James Anderson's got to show a lot more offensively before you think about trading Neal. Not to mention his actual value to the team far exceeds his trade value. He's never tentative. Sure, it means stupid shots sometimes, but more often than not he's a big help to this offense.

[Texas_Ranger]

Gary Neal's defense is pathetic, he makes a lot of stupid decisions on offense, he can't run the point and he's too small for a PG/SG...... after all that I think it would be pretty idiotic to trade him, cause he's one of the guys that actually haves balls when it matters.

[Ice009]

Gary said in a interview after the game that Pop hasn't really said anything to him about his shot selection at all. He said he is out there to get buckets. His teammates expect him to shoot the ball.

[spurspokesman]

Gary Neal's defense is pathetic, he makes a lot of stupid decisions on offense, he can't run the point and he's too small for a PG/SG...... after all that I think it would be pretty idiotic to trade him, cause he's one of the guys that actually haves balls when it matters.

My thoughts exactly.

[Chinook]

Let's use a simple math even though it might be inaccurate. Basically, Neal means 7 to us at a very low price but only 3 to other teams. So he is nearly untradeable in this sense. It's not that you don't trade your LeBron or Durant. No, not at all.

So either you can't get players that can help Spurs more than Neal, or if the other team is willing to part with this kind of player, they want more than Neal.

That's not fair to say at all. Neal has a lower value with the Spurs than he does with other teams. That's because he can't consistently play shooting guard in the Spurs system, and because the Spurs' system can generate offense without having players like Neal who can get his own shot and shoot at an incredibly high percentage with defenders in his face. There are teams that desperately need players who can do this. (The Knicks used to be this way before this year, and teams like Minny need someone who's scoring isn't going to depend on him always having the ball in his hands.)

I don't know what Neal's market value is, but I know it's higher now that it really should be. Kind of like with George Hill, who could do about as much as Neal can offensively (though he's not the same level of shooter, he had the ability to get his own shot in addition to fitting the Spurs' system better than Neal does), while being the Spurs' designated guard-defender. People argued whether what he brought was irreplaceable, and some people thought he was so valuable that the Spurs should have traded Parker instead. But what happened? The Spurs got a player they felt helped them more than Hill could while replacing Hill's production with Green and Neal. If Pop thinks the Spurs can weather the loss of Neal's offense (and I wouldn't shock me at all if he does) then Neal's value to other teams makes trading him a smart move.

The issue you really should be getting at is that Neal's contract is too small to bring back a good player. Other players have to go with him to make the numbers work. But that's a different argument than saying Neal player for player has a low value; he doesn't.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

That's not fair to say at all. Neal has a lower value with the Spurs than he does with other teams. That's because he can't consistently play shooting guard in the Spurs system, and because the Spurs' system can generate offense without having players like Neal who can get his own shot and shoot at an incredibly high percentage with defenders in his face. There are teams that desperately need players who can do this. (The Knicks used to be this way before this year, and teams like Minny need someone who's scoring isn't going to depend on him always having the ball in his hands.)

I don't know what Neal's market value is, but I know it's higher now that it really should be. Kind of like with George Hill, who could do about as much as Neal can offensively (though he's not the same level of shooter, he had the ability to get his own shot in addition to fitting the Spurs' system better than Neal does), while being the Spurs' designated guard-defender. People argued whether what he brought was irreplaceable, and some people thought he was so valuable that the Spurs should have traded Parker instead. But what happened? The Spurs got a player they felt helped them more than Hill could while replacing Hill's production with Green and Neal. If Pop thinks the Spurs can weather the loss of Neal's offense (and I wouldn't shock me at all if he does) then Neal's value to other teams makes trading him a smart move.

The issue you really should be getting at is that Neal's contract is too small to bring back a good player. Other players have to go with him to make the numbers work. But that's a different argument than saying Neal player for player has a low value; he doesn't.

Agree with all of this.

Gary Neal is 5th in the swingmen depth when everyone is healthy. He's good and he helps the Spurs, but he's by no means irreplaceable. Pop is very likely to go with 3 swingmen, mainly, in the playoffs, or 4 if some small ball is needed. We all know he's not too good at PG and compared to the 4 swingmen ahead of him he's the only one who cannot play at the 3 spot and he's easily the worst defender. Actually I'd say his main value is that he allows the Spurs to also explore trades for the other swingmen above him because he could seamlessly step up. He might likely have more value to another team in the Lou Williams/Jamal Crawford role.

[Fireball]

I was always iffy because of Neals defense ... this year he has shown improvement as does the whole Spurs team ... so I think we should keep him because with his contract we will not get something valuable in return. Neal should not be the backup PG when Kawhi returns though ...

[Jumi]

Some of you guys suffer from the "Green Grass Syndrome!" Neal does what he's paid to do and he does it quite well! I think of him as an "offensive specialist" in the same mode as other guys who are needed strictly for rebounding or perimeter defense. They fulfill a role on a sucessful team! You can't win consistently without'em! With Manu's health issues and other guys on the team choosing the worst possible times to forget how to play basketball (playoff chokers!), Neal service is invaluable!!!!!

[ElNono]

I don't understand why some people are so results oriented after one game. Especially after a single great offensive performance against one of the worst (if not worst) defensive teams in the league (before this game, Neal had been chucking up a whopping 39% from the field the past 11 games, attempting 12 shots per contest-- but hey lets make this thread after crushing the defenseless Rockets). By no means am I trying to rain on Neal's parade, he had a great game and took advantage of the opportunities he received tonight ( kudos to him), but it's pretty foolish for people to use this circus of a game as excuse for him being untradeable. Those wide open efficient shots/opportunities that Neal gets against these type of teams won't be there when games really matter (if there will be any, there will be very few).

Regardless of this game, Spurs should keep Neal on the trade market to see if the right trade comes along that can improve the team, especially considering how resigning Neal for 4-5 mil per year (around his market value) makes little sense considering their salary cap situation come summer time.

But of course, if nothing worthy materializes on the trade market for Neal/Blair's services, they're better off just keeping both players to make the best push possible come late spring/early summer.

I was gonna say... I swear I saw this thread 3 seasons ago and was called "Tonight is why trading RMJ might not be worth it..."

Neal improvement this season is palpable in certain areas, which include hustling on defense, but this raises another question: Is it actual season-to-season improvement or is it because it's a contract season for him?

I love Gary, wish the Spurs can retain him, but I understand he should test the market if he keeps playing like this.

[Raven]

How do you feel about Donatas Motiejūnas? I hear he's pretty good and put up great numbers in summer league.

bargnani.

[Captivus]

How fast can the Spurs "way of playing" adjust if they get a big and they lose a shooter or more?
Thats also something to think about.
What about rebuilding the team? When do the Spurs start to do that?
We have young players that will be starters sooner than later.

Just to give an example: What if the Lakers call and want to trade Gasol for Neal, Nando and Blair (didnt check if possible)
What then? How much would the Spurs risk their future in order to have a higher chance of winning this year?

Maybe trading Jackson (contract), Neal and Mills/Corey is a good way of getting young talent...although not increasing winning chances this year.

[Raven]

if he scores another 20+ point in the next game, i say trade him for a top 8 pick if someone gives it.. otherwise, just keep him.

[Chinook]

How fast can the Spurs "way of playing" adjust if they get a big and they lose a shooter or more?
Thats also something to think about.
What about rebuilding the team? When do the Spurs start to do that?
We have young players that will be starters sooner than later.

Just to give an example: What if the Lakers call and want to trade Gasol for Neal, Nando and Blair (didnt check if possible)
What then? How much would the Spurs risk their future in order to have a higher chance of winning this year?

Maybe trading Jackson (contract), Neal and Mills/Corey is a good way of getting young talent...although not increasing winning chances this year.

[Seventyniner]

Q: Why is Gary Neal always early to practice?
A: Because he gets all green lights along the way

[Captivus]

You know what i meant...trading old for young, thats the scenario...
Just for fun i try to make it...i didnt work...this is the closest i got, without giving up all the young players:

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=9wqofvk (NOT SERIOUS!!)


Or what about this!
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=baz6p5z (NOT SERIOUS!!)

My question remains...trading young for old to increase chance this year...i dont know...

[ffadicted]

Reading this thread hurts my brain.... I think I'm actually dumber now from having read it all

[superbigtime]

Might not be worth it? Ya think? Trading Gary Neal would be a tragic mistake. Trade one of the best pure shooting ice cold mofo 2 guard ballers in the league? How ing stupid is that? Neal is one of those diamond in the rough finds this franchise is known for and made of. Absolutely stupid. Trading G Neal for someone to 'put the spurs over the top?' Neal IS that guy who will help this team get it done. Splitter, Kawhi, Jax, Neal and Green ... these are the guys. The only players who should be considered tradeable are Bonner, Blair and Mills. And there won't be any trades anyway.

[Obstructed_View]

yeah, let's trade someone that actually ing helps the win column......

ing shoot me already..

Following one good idea with an even better one. Well done!

[benefactor]

Neal keeps Pop's inner Don Nelson satisfied. That's pretty important tbh.

[Gagnrath]

Gary Neal is a middle aged player on a rookie contract. His primary NBA skill 3, point shooting does translate fairly well to older players. That said no one is going to give you a cheap athletic big man with potential for any 28 y/o 3 point specialist on his contracts last year. The idea that a team would is a complete joke, and that is all his contract value can't match that of a proven big man. The spurs don't have a bunch of big trade exceptions to package either.

[Paranoid Pop]

Gary Neal is a middle aged player on a rookie contract. His primary NBA skill 3, point shooting does translate fairly well to older players. That said no one is going to give you a cheap athletic big man with potential for any 28 y/o 3 point specialist on his contracts last year. The idea that a team would is a complete joke, and that is all his contract value can't match that of a proven big man. The spurs don't have a bunch of big trade exceptions to package either.

If they make a trade they can't go for someone proven, but a player doesn't have to be proven to be better than Blair.

In hindsight drafting Joseph when we could have taken Parsons was a very big blunder, would have made our roster so much more balanced and we could have shipped SJax without thinking twice. Instead we're stuck with 4 back up point guards and our turds tower that can't play in the playoffs so SJax is the best back up PF by defaut.

[Gagnrath]

Heck proven is even of a big stretch; a rough big man with a good at ude, and the athletics to have potential are usually at a contract higher than Neal's current one.