It seems unlikely that Spurs and Wolves would spend time trying to work out a S&T if Spurs and Kirilenko were far on what his next contract would be.
Ok I can hear that line of thinking but I don't like it defensively.
Green is an incredible PG defender, a decent SG defender and not a very good SF defender...
It seems too small on the wings...
Compared to contenders like Indiana (Stephenson who is a bull, Granger and George) or the Bulls (Butler and Deng) it feels weak.
Again, we have absolutely no idea how much time was spent trying to work out a deal. I understand that you, as usual, present an interpretation that fits the facts. It's not the only plausible interpretation, at least IMHO.
I guess we will agree to disagree.
Agree, I don't like it too. It's just my guess on how Spurs FO see the roster.
But then there's the opportunity cost that comes with using cap space as opposed to a S&T. I know you understand better than most of us the benefits of trading for Kirilenko as opposed to signing him outright. I doubt the Spurs really cared about the actual salary they were paying Kirilenko. They probably weren't willing to give up so much flexibility for him, though. By using cap space, the Spurs would not have been able to get Pendergraph, and they would have had to give up Neal's rights. They would also had to get Ginobili to take a smaller deal.
By trading for him, the Spurs would have left all of those options open while also being able to give Kirilenko a bigger deal for the same player movement. Amnestying Bonner and trading De Colo for nothing would have given the Spurs $5.4 Million in cap space, while also killing their MLE. On the other hand, trading De Colo and Bonner for Kirlenko, would have given the Spurs $8.1 Million to offer.
To me, this signals that Mel_13 is correct that the Spurs just didn't want to pay that much for Kirilenko. As silly as it sounds, they may not have thought he was worth losing Neal's rights and potentially alienating Ginobili, not the mention the picks it would have taken to make it all work.
The Leonard trade was a big deal, but it wasn't supposed to be a big deal so quickly. It certainly seems like a slam-dunk deal now, but when it happened, it was very unclear how it was going to work out.
Fresh blood is pretty much change for change's sake. I have been a person on this site that has argued for the team to continue it's youth movement, so I definitely understand the benefit of bringing in new faces. But the team should not have moved players around just to hope something good happens. That's how teams like the Clippers do things. I was all in favor of getting a good piece (Lord knows I spoke about it many times in the Think Tank), but that doesn't mean that getting no one is a worst-case scenario. There weren't a lot of players out there that would significantly upgrade the roster.
Honestly, I feel good about the Spurs' chances next year. I think they would have made it to the Finals even if Westbrook and Bryant were healthy. Green and Leonard (and Splitter in the WCF), were improved enough to give me that confidence. Now without Martin, I don't think the Thunder make it out of the second round for the next two seasons. Obviously, the Lakers don't seem like much of a threat now, and the Clippers might be better, but the Spurs are still clearly ahead of them.
When it comes down to it, the Spurs are pretty much set in their top eight players, so there's really no one who was going to come in and make a big impact after the team signed Belinelli. The team also has plenty of assets to get some help mid-season if they need it. Also, if Duncan falls off next year, the Spurs are likely dead in the water anyway. So the Spurs pretty much have to cross their fingers either way.
OR Minnesota didn't want De Colo and Bonner.
The Wolves didn't need to take them. The Spurs could have paid a team like the Jazz to take Bonner, while just dumping De Colo to a team like Philadelphia. The Spurs just didn't want to pay that price.
The two positions are not mutually exclusive. You do highlight, however, the difficulties involved in executing a successful S&T. It's at least a three-sided affair, any one of which can kill the deal.
this.
if you don't feel you can get a top 6 or 7 player for your rotation via FA, why even try? there is a good chance that the current wing group can still improve. we assume that KL will, DG might slightly improve and Manu shouldn't fall under his 12-13 level. replacing Neal with Beli might as well result in a small improvement. so the best (the only?) chance for the Spurs will be a trade at dealine. till that point this group won't have a problem to carry this team to a good PO position and if they do have, the team can react more specific to the teams needs. at dealine they have the assets (expiring contracts in various sizes plus their 2014 pick). there will be teams that struggle and already focus on 2014 draft and free agency. (for example Denver. I think they will be out of the PO race at deadline and that there will be a good chance to get a player like Wilson Chandler.)
Something not to forget with Ginobili at SF is that while he could struggle against the biggest ones (and not that much because of his toughness), big SFs will struggles defending against him. Pair Ginobili with Belinelli at SG to avoid the other team to cross matchups and Spurs will put a lot of pressure offensively against a team with a big SF. At the end, Spurs will end up getting the better end of these mismatches most of the time.
My biggest issue with the lack of another true SF is when Spurs will have to go small. Spurs don't have a lot of mobility at the PF spot with players like Splitter, Diaw, Bonner or Pendergraph. It will force them to often go small and it that case a second true SF will be really missed. If Spurs could get a mobile PF which would allow them more to stay big, then the lack of a true backup SF would be way less problematic.
Looking at what the Spurs have done, I'm going to disagree that Manu will play the SF position much at all.... I expect him to back up Green at SG while Tony is still in there, and then take the backup PG role when Tony rests and possibly Bellineli comes in for him. Manu will play 20-25 mins a night, much like last season, and Tony will probably start getting his minutes shaved off here or there, so there will be time for a CJ/DeColo backcourt too... I expect Green to be the backup SF. We're thin in that position and can't afford an injury, but I suspect the FO will look for options mid-season to patch that hole.
Manu and Marco will rotate the backup of pg position come playoffs a line up of Manu/Marco/Green/Bonner/Diaw is very very likely.
I can't event think about playoffs right now, I think this roster has some big questions marks that will be unfolding as the season moves along.
I would be more willing to go with option two because if Manu is on the court at SF he will still want to bring the ball up the court and thus fubar the offense.
The downside to using the mobile site is that you can't see who replied to you.
Anyways, I get that. The problem is Bonner wouldn't be nearly as effective on a bad team as he currently is for the Spurs. That makes it pretty unlikely a team like the Jazz would be interested in him even as an expiring. De Colo is NBA fodder and I can't see any team wanting him even as the 15th man.
Last edited by Hoops Czar; 08-08-2013 at 01:08 AM.
Nah, you can't use Mel's response as a retort to what I was saying. Pretty much, Minnesota didn't have to take Bonner or De Colo, provided the Spurs REALLY wanted Kirilenko. However, if the Spurs didn't want to pay some team to take them, then a deal could not be struck. That's not Minnesota obstructing the deal so much as the Spurs pulling out.
Read it again.
Edit: just to your point about "if the Spurs didn't want to pay some team...." why the would the Spurs pay some team to take them? They could have just amnestied Bonner and De Colo is the Spurs little pet project. When that project fail miserably, don't expect another team to be there to bail them out. He's not an NBA caliber player. Any GM with working peepers already knows this. When his contract is up, it wouldn't surprise me if he goes back from which he came.
If the Spurs wanted Kirilinko, they shouldn't have misused the MLE.
Last edited by Hoops Czar; 08-08-2013 at 02:01 AM.
I didn't see that you actually said something when you quoted me and Mel. When I replied, your post only had our two quotes, so I thought you were using his as a response to mine. I apologize for the confusion.
As to your edit, I said in an earlier post that the Spurs actually have more financial flexibility by keeping Bonner than they would have by releasing him -- especially after they gave Ginobili his deal. The Spurs could trade him and De Colo for up to $8.5 Million in salary, whereas amnestying Bonner and salary-dumping De Colo would only have gotten them $5.4 Million. Therefore, if the Spurs and Kirilenko had agreed to, say, a $16 Million/2 deal, then it would best serve the team to trade for him rather than signing him, as it would effectively cost them $5.4 Million in a sign-and-trade, while it would have cost them about $13.6 Million to sign him outright when you count his first year, the lost MLE (replaced by the room exception) Neal's hold (which didn't amount to anything in retrospect but still was a consideration at the time) and the extra $2 Million they needed to keep Ginobili happy.
So it was the choice of AK versus Neal (at the time), Pendergraph or Belinelli and Ginobili's happiness. As weird as it may seem for the Spurs to not trade all that for Kirilenko, it would only highlight that the team did not really want him that badly.
EDIT: I agree on the Spurs wasting their MLE. I think they misread the market for Neal, which caused them to sign Belinelli for the same deal, which killed their MLE. People blame Pendergraph, but he wasn't the reason why the Spurs lost flexibility. They never intended to go under the cap this season. I don't think Kirilenko was willing to take the MLE at the time, though, so I don't blame them not getting him on that.
Last edited by Chinook; 08-08-2013 at 04:27 AM.
so many elaborated theories.......and still this might have been one of the more simple off seasons for the Spurs and they just did, what the check list required.
they needed to re sign Tiago, b/c they knew they won't find a replacement via FA, even with the cap space to offer a significant contract. they might have hoped, that this can be done slightly less expensive, but I'm pretty sure they were prepared to spend this number. (they knew at least one team will offer something in the 10M range and Blazers did). the number for the Manu extension isn't a surprise as well. so IMO there has never been an elaborated scenario that operated with the cap room.
it was as simple as this: re sign Tiago and Manu via bird rights, replace Blair and Neal via MLE. (the BAE wasn't available anyhow)
maybe plan A was to offer the full MLE to AK (let's assume they did) and when they learned he won't sign for the MLE (remember, before the infamous Nets deal, he was talking about 3 years at a per number close to what he left in Minny) they just turned to plan B.
I don't think MLE was wasted, I might turn out to have been well invested.
I can even see that the Spurs have been interested in Beli for quite some time. might have been a no brainer, when they could get this deal done at this number. so IMO the MLE was reserved for a Beli bid and they would have spend an extended share, if necessary to outbid an other team.
I'm quite interested how this team will work next season. I feel that Beli will fit well and Pendergraph will at least provide what Blair did. and at dealine they will to pull a quality player.
just heard the spurs were interested in Beno..... so many guards would blow my brain!! I guess the Spurs FO is pretty stupid.
on a slovenian site.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
