Reply With Quote
Tanking doesn't necessarily work even when a consensus 'generational' player, such as Oden is available. Enough smart draft picks over a few years, combined with effective cap management, can produce a winner even in a small market.
Kings GM talking a lot about how committed they are to McLemore and only mentioned Thomas in passing. Who knows maybe Thomas is on the table.
Tanking doesn't necessarily work even when a consensus 'generational' player, such as Oden is available. Enough smart draft picks over a few years, combined with effective cap management, can produce a winner even in a small market.
Solid draft picks inside the top 15 usually helps, decent coach with a patient owner and a smart front office to get role players that fill in the gaps around your all stars. Need to be at least 2 deep in every position.
So we agree.
would be a perfect example of a sell high situation.
Yeah, that's how you do it. Presti put on a clinic on how to tank a few years ago. I'd like the team to follow that path ... when it's time. The Sonics were not nearly as good as the Spurs are now when they decided to blow it up. There was pretty much nothing to save. Meanwhile, the Spurs can make the playoffs and maybe even advance a round with an average PF replacing Duncan. They just have little hope of winning a le. I don't think Seattle would havw gone down the path they did had they earned the 27th pick instead of the 2nd.
Why is it so bad to be a decent playoff team for a few more years? Seems better than being Portland and drafting bust after injured bust. It took them ten years to even be as good as a Duncan-less Spurs would be. I just feel it's really hard to sell cold-hard tanking without at least a year of failed reloading. It's not like Love (for example) wouldn't have a ton of trade value in 2016.
McLemore is on the first year of a rookie contract while Thomas will be a restricted free agent this summer who figures to get a significant bump in salary.
1. Perhaps not, but a team built around Ray Allen, Durant, and the best FA's they could afford, might well have competed for a playoff berth. That team was only two years removed from taking the 2005 Spurs to six tough games.
2. That's just my perspective. This fan base needs a clean break with the Duncan/Pop Spurs (once Tim retires, I'm not calling for them to blow it up before Tim is ready to go). A couple of really bad seasons, then a new team on the rise to generate a buzz again. To me that's better than some 45 win seasons where getting to the second round is the best you can hope for.
There was a report that they were peddling both to Boston for Rondo. Boston didn't bite.
Tony Parker - DNPCP
At least we're positioned to do that better than a lot of the other teams that are topping out these days who have completely mortgaged their futures by sending away half of their future first round picks with no other assets to deal (at the very least, TP, Kawhi, Tiago and Green would have positive value if they completely blew things up after this year).
Not too bad for having no top 20 picks of our own since Duncan was drafted.
Here's the problem with the idea of tanking pertaining to the Spurs. We don't have a fan base that will financially stick it out through the bad years. If we go 4...5...6 years without making the playoffs, it's gonna create a very bad situation for our Spurs staying in San Antonio. I'm showing my age here but we were very close to losing the Spurs to Kansas City and then David Robinson arrived and saved the franchise staying in San Antonio. We aren't a city that has a decent per family income and people will not spend their money here on average to watch a bad Spurs team. It's the reason the Alamodome sits empty today. We built it for the Spurs and even with them winning les, we couldn't even fill it half way....that's why they had to build the SBC center. You got cities like Seattle salivating to get another team and can financially support them through the bad times.
If ownership and RC stay in place, then it's 2-3 years at most. I'll only worry about the long term future of the Spurs in San Antonio if the current ownership sells the team.
Landry Fields will be in uniform tonight after returning from wrist surgery, while this might not have been the issue, it will be interesting to see how his shooting looks now.
Fields will be out for three weeks after he “underwent a minor surgical procedure yesterday to address the ulnar nerve release on his right wrist,” the team announced Wednesday.
Probably not enough time between now and trade deadline to show if he has his shot back.
Fair enough. Certainly a reasobable position. So where does that put you on the question of taking on long-term salary this deadline?
Depends on the player. I wouldn't be interested in a Gerald Wallace, for example. I'd be ok with a Jason Thompson.
If rumors are true, then the question is, why not pay to keep a young player who is getting better and is a twenty point scorer. Perhaps because they see him only as a scorer and would rather have a more traditional point guard. Maybe his height is an issue, under 6 feet, or they know that his trade value is sky high and don't want to waste this opportunity to cash in.
It's the Kings, they make ty deals all the time.
Take a look at their payroll for next season.
I guess the only way would be for Gay to opt out and sign for less next season but with a long term contract. That's not going to happen.
The Spurs will get a scrub with a weird name and cool hair
Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLine
Hearing Charlotte continues to pursue Bucks guard Gary Neal, who has been openly shopped by Milwaukee since January
Or they move one of Thompson, Landry or Williams for expirings. Landry would be easiest to get but has a horrible deal. Williams is the best but will cost the most. Thompson is a happy medium.
No Wallace even with picks being included? Renting space is a big way Seattle/OKC got so many picks in the first place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
