Reply With Quote
Well then, as I said, it might make sense to money-ball Patty into Clarkson's second year MLE salary. That's even more true since Mills may be less effective without Manu anyway.
My assumption is that they will want to retain the possibility of pursuing a big FA in 2017.
Well then, as I said, it might make sense to money-ball Patty into Clarkson's second year MLE salary. That's even more true since Mills may be less effective without Manu anyway.
You were right about the Kawhi extension in 2014 and pursuing LMA in 2015. I was wrong about both, so you've been much better at foreseeing the direction of the FO than I have. I still don't see Clarkson as a player worth the price he could very well command this summer.
The signing of LMA never struck me as the start of a new trend. It is such an outlier in the universe of Spurs FA signings that I don't really see us going after another big fish in 2017. Who do you think we want in 2017?
I haven't looked at that year's class. While I would agree that the LMA signing doesn't necessarily signal a new trend, creating windows of substantial cap space is something that the Spurs have been doing for the better part of a decade. With the exception of 2015, they have opted to use that flexibility to retain their own players, but creating the possibility of cap space would be very much the Spurs way.
Who knows with Pop, they are not completely averse to trades, but they don't let go of players they like lightly. It would have to be a need, which we don't have right now, since we have a nice record and all, and our guys are healthy.
Say next season though. Without Manu, its a whole other ballgame and a completely different scenario and a bit of a worry bc our two young guys are kind of reluctant 3 pt. shooters. I think our bench has a contingency plan that includes other bench players stepping up and Boban (is he projected for the bench I don't know, but he sure can score and make a difference). Only the 3 pt shooting really worries me with this group but we might have Bertans and/or Cady joining. It's really all speculation at this point.
The starters are different since if Tony/Danny decay for whatever reason, we are in trouble. I don't think there are any contingencies there and that might be some red alert stuff. There is also the possibility Tim is retiring. From one season to the next we could have so many holes that we really might not for at least a season be able to plug them all or afford a guy on an inflated contract, so we probably have to do our best to keep our guys, develop the ones who have upside, and see where we stand.
If there are trades they are likely to be next season.
I had not seen things from this perspective. thank you. always enlightening from an angle I overlooked.
Who knows what it would take to get it done. I think that is the question mainly.
It's not a great class, but it's a decent one for what the Spurs can expect to get. There are some big names like Griffin, Paul and Westbrook, but the most realistic top player would be Ibaka if OKC blows it up. Then, you have guys like Millsap and Randolph who would be old. And potential 2016 one-and-one guys like Durant and Horford. Finally, there is George Hill and Splitter as potential reunion signings.
The issue with going all in for a 2017 free agent is that the Spurs will almost certainly not have Duncan, Ginobili or West to take massive discounts to balance out the roster talent. The Spurs would be giving up Mills and Diaw, and potentially Simmons if that's a factor. They might also be reluctant to bring over some of their prospects/stash picks. That's why it might be preferable for them to get a guy on an Arenas deal, as it would allow them to essentially borrow 2018 cap for the 2017 off-season.
I don't disagree that Clarkson may not be worth his next contract. Looking at his stats, there's certainly a number that would be too high for my preferences. I was more talking about the financial aspect of trading for someone the Spurs have to pay this summer. I find it wiser than trying to replace up to four key rotation players with just cap space and the room exception.
I was only talking about Clarkson. Trades are likely to be part of transitioning the roster.
The other avenue for a trade this season would be if Anderson requests one. I think that could be a possibility, since his demeanor prior to getting drafted seemed to suggest that he has bit of a diva trait. He may not be willing to stomach being behind Simmons in the rotation. I think it would be Pop's preference to keep him anyway, but if they could turn him into a future sixth-man like Clarkson might be, I could see them pulling the trigger. That's a remote possibility, but I guess it's out there.
Once Manu goes out to pasture I am even more concerned about backcourt ball-handlers than I am 3-point shooting. Right now, Kawhi brings the ball up court some.
He was almost unquestionably the best player in that team at UCLA and when they gave him the ball finally in his sop re year they exploded from 50th to 20th in offensive efficiency despite loosing Shabazz Mohammed who was arguably the best college prospect of that class in 2012. He also took UCLA and won the PAC 12 tournament for the first time in like over 6 years (since maybe the westbrook/love days--but don't quote me on that I might be incorrect), and went up against none other than Aaron Gordon. He was a highly regarded player while in HS. All those guys are divas and need to have an ego. He should take this benching like a man and step it up big time when he gets an opportunity.
Long term though I can see him being traded although I like him a lot precisely bc his best assets are not being used currently and it may take more until his 4th season before they really need him if Manu returns next season. He was very humble in all interviews preseason, concerning expectations in role or what not. I think he's bought in... and beyond that, character wise, he's always been a team guy. Was not even the best scorer his years at UCLA, that was Adams, bc he really enjoys setting others up. Doesn't strike me as a stats guy, but he will want to play for sure. If he's not playing next season, I could see him request a trade.
I would do kyle plus 1st rounder for clarkson in a heartbeat
I'm sure you'd trade him fir a pack of peanuts. Would you trade Simmons and a 1st for him though. We speculated Kyle would be the most interesting prospect due to youth and resume, but with dangelo russell they already have someone similar and a better shooter and younger. Simmons could be a better project for the since he'd be a partner fir those passes as he's a great cutter and finisher. Kyle doesn't make sense for them. Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?
By the way I don't think Lakers take either or our low 1st.
Im sure you kind of see me as a KA hater but I just say what I see, and tbh, Kyle is very overhyped. I was high on him when we got him but no one can really say he has done anything special during his time here. Simmons hasnt done anything of importance as well but he's impressed a lot of people, including Pop obviously, and has taken the 4th wing spot in marquee matchups.
Lakers are rebuilding, having 2 first round draft picks wont hurt them. Dangelo is tradable as they said, they are only sure of randle in terms of the long term.
And if it comes to that, Id rather have 2 simmons (in your words) than a slot for someone who is unlikely to materialize.
lol ok, but you didn't answer the question. Kyle may not gather the interest we are speculating he might (bc UCLA guy, had an impressive resume up until this point, and is in a very good team with many playmakers that don't need his kind of skill right this moment, but he's played well and helped win some games, and has better defense than previously thought, still has untapped potential). He's still a niche guy, you kind of have to like what he can bring, and even among Spurs fans he's divisive. Simmons has more of a role, is athletic and has also helped win games in a good team. Same as you are picking him, so would the Lakers, since they could have a cheap Clarkson facsimile in him. That was the question.
Lakers are rebuilding, having 2 first round draft picks wont hurt them. Dangelo is tradable as they said, they are only sure of randle in terms of the long term.
And if it comes to that, Id rather have 2 simmons (in your words) than a slot for someone who is unlikely to materialize.
By the way, I have only watched a few minutes of Clarkson. He didn't play last time we played the Lakers, and I am not gaga about him. I would not trade a first and Simmons for him (or Kyle) but that may just be because I am not hyped up about Clarkson.
I answered. Id rather be redundant having 2 simmons type player than wasting a spot on a player who were basing on a potential that isnt even that high.
Id trade kyle and a first for clarkson, because its hard to find a player who already has the 6moty potential that deep in the draft
The question was to trade Clarkson for Simmons +1st. If you valued Clarkson enough it would be good enough for you. YOu obviously don't value Kyle at all, so you are only giving up a 1st and that would be ok to you. He may not generate interest is what I said... but Simmons +1 may get it done. That was my question, but you want to go in circles so fine. disregarded.
Let me rejoin the fray. Having seen very little of Clarkson, I am kind of basing my uninformed opinion on stats and the write-ups I read about the possibility of the Laker's moving him. So, with those disclaimers, I must say I am rather ambivalent. I like the potential of both Simmons and Kyle (even though we seem to be seeing less and less of Kyle). That said, I like the current level of play of Clarkson better. As for draft picks, I am even more ambivalent. I tend to think the pick we have in the late twenties (at best) is pretty worthless. On the other hand, I am kind of amazed when I look around the league at the guys who we have drafted late who went on to have journeyman careers. So the pick isn't as worthless as I imagine. That said, I suggested in a comment above that I doubt PATFO would be willing to part with both Kyle and our #1 pick (leaving us with potentially zero picks, iirc) for Clarkson. I am not certain we would even part with our #1 and Simmons, who Pop is really trying to push into a reliable rotation spot. (Frankly, I suspect Pop is about as nervous about the looming loss of Ginobili as some of us fans are!) Personally, as much as I like Simmons, I would rather see him depart in any deal for Clarkson. Kyle has so much fascinating potential. But ultimately Simmons seems like a raw (probably more athletic) Clarkson, but neither has a game or skill set remotely like Kyle's. Simmons and Clarkson would be rather redundant.
I would probably do our #1 plus Simmons for Clarkson. I would have to think a little longer on our #1 plus Kyle for Clarkson. But this is all probably fantasy league musing, anyway.
Clarkson will be a restricted free agent this summer, but the Lakers have significant leverage to bring him back.
"It's going to be virtually impossible for him to leave us," said Kupchak.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers...103-story.html
The picks are more valuable than ever with the steep salary increases. There have also been a number of very nice players picked late, Middleton, Parsons, Butler, Draymond, etc. It's not guaranteed of course that you will get a guy like that late, but even the one pick we traded to GSW for Stephen Jackson turned out to be 30 and at that spot GSW got Festus Ezeli, an important roleplayer for their bench. Late round picks are not usually going to net you a star (although Jimmy Butler right? you never know), but they can get you useful roleployers in cheap 4 year contracts which you kind of need to balance out a roster with some young legs and not just vets over the hill a the end of their careers (35+ guys like we have picked up cheap is not going to get it done with just Kawhi/Aldridge).
The picks should be doubly valuable for the spurs bc if the team falls down and stumbles without our vets when they retire, we'll want to have a pick to replenish talent.
Spurs have drafted a lot of overseas talent recently that didn't pan out, but they also were looking to not add salary and possibly skipped other guys they would have gotten. This season for example they could not afford at all to draft someone, even when R.J Hunter was there for the taking (a good candidate for the 4th wing spot if TD 21 had his way, since he is a dangerous 3 pt shooter). It tells you how high they were on Kyle that they picked him up a year they really didn't need anyone and were just going to slowly develop him to what they wanted. In a future where our TD/Manu are retiring soon and Tony may fall steeply all of a sudden, I want to keep my pick. Kyle/Simmons are actually kind of redundant in this trade, I actually personally value the pick more. I posited earlier that I would only see a trade for Kyle straight up, not with +1 attached and obviously either guy by themselves should not net much, both in salary and also established production.
Agreed.
I only used Simmons instead of Anderson, because I looked it from the Spurs perspective and since Clarkson would essentially be replacing Simmons, it would make more sense to offer him. I wouldn't be opposed to Anderson and a 1st though.
Have you seen Clarkson play much, because I admit that I haven't.
This was your question
I answered it by saying Id prefer both same type of players than a scrub. But if your question is would I trade Simmons plus a first for Clarkson, then that would be interesting, hard to answer.
Just going to take you for a troll sorry. NOt that you care anyways.This was your question
I answered it by saying Id prefer both same type of players than a scrub. But if your question is would I trade Simmons plus a first for Clarkson, then that would be interesting, hard to answer.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions