Reply With Quote
The reason I think they'd balk at trading Green is that he signed for below market value for the team's benefit.
I can't see the FO trading a huge free agent acquisition one summer later, especially exiling him to a dying team in a small market. That's incredibly bad form and would impact their standing with future free agents. This is a non-starter.
The reason I think they'd balk at trading Green is that he signed for below market value for the team's benefit.
Can we just move on from Westbrook (unrealistic) and focus on the fourth big that we need??
Well expect the unexpected when the last 2 MVPs join forces on a team that won 73 games. It's about winning championships and getting Westbrook/Kawhi together long term should be the only concern.
They'd trade Parker over trading LMA. That's not the fan talking here. They'd lose way more on the court and off if they didn't. If their willingness to trade Parker was a 1/10, their willingness to trade Aldridge would be a .5/10.
Of course they are.If we trade Green, Mills, Anderson or whatever for Westbrook I dunno if we actually are good enough.
Westbrook, Parker
Anyone, Ginobili
Leonard, Simmons
Aldridge, Bertans
Dedmon, Gasol
That lineup works just fine and can be filled in rookies and ring-chasers as time goes on. Of course, with Green instead of Parker and with keeping Murray or Anderson, it looks almost ideal. But especially as rotations shrink, the Spurs will be better able to handle their lack of depth.
The only place it would happen is in your head.
I agree. Not to mention, there is actually a few nice vet min options that could fill out some of the holes. Shoot.. .we could have two 4 fingered guys in adding Green from Mia at SG (with lineup above in mind) for nothing just for his outside shooting and occasional drives/dunks. Not saying I want him, but there are definitely options and with the new big 4 (if it ever happened, which I strongly doubt there is anyway it would this year), they make role players look even better.
Yes, complete non-starter.
Yes, I really don't think they want to move him. He's probably getting up there with anyone who isn't the Big Three as far as money he's left on the table to stay a Spur. Usually the role-players they move are either overpaid or about to be. In the very least, they would let him pick his team and send the assets to OKC rather than dropping him off there.
If they're willing to trade Parker then I'm with you. But willing to give up Parker is one thing but it takes 2 to tango and who wants a 34yr old starting PG? I just don't see how OKC would accept that deal lol. And I'm also not comfortable putting "Anyone" at SG...especially when they've gotta be a 3/D guy..We've already got one of the best in the league.
Riiiiiight just like how everybody assumed KD would stay in OKC.
Expect the unexpected
Someone just offered Manu the same contract pretty much. Finding a taker for Tony isn't difficult in my eyes.
Eh, if they refuse to take anything less than LMA, they can screw themselves. There are other players the team could target to add to their core rather than to sacrifice the core for.I just don't see how OKC would accept that deal lol.
I mean, if you're thinking that the two-guard is going to sink the ship, then there's no reason to trade for Westbrook. As everyone knows, I'm a Danny homer and think he's every bit as important as Gasol. But the point of acquiring a star is that you don't have to rely on role-players as much. Westbrook/a tree stump, should be better than Parker/Green. If it's not, then then the Spurs have no business even inquiring.I'm also not comfortable putting "Anyone" at SG...especially when they've gotta be a 3/D guy..We've already got one of the best in the league.
Dude, KD did something kind of assholic and ish in the history of sports. You're asking the Spurs to do the same thing.
I mean we are talking about the same team that waived Rasual Butler in favor of keeping a male cheerleader in Matt Bonner...why they do that?
People couldn't believe they did Butler like that..I kind of did due to the Spurs true loyalty. While I'm sure they like LMA. He isn't the best PG that's ever played for you.
Again I'm not saying this should or will happen..I'm putting myself in Spurs/OKC shoes and the only middle ground I can see is LMA.
Sure you can always get a 3rd team but that team has to have an incentive and that can get tricky..
It's not assholic or ish when you're arguably getting the best PG in the league lol.
It's not assholic or ish when you're arguably getting the best PG in the league
I don't see the Spurs being that much better by subtracting LMA for Westbrook while Parker is also here. Seems redundant and weakens the PF position further than it already is. I see what you are saying, but don't see the Spurs trading LMA for anyone at this time especially when they just signed him last year. And you really can't compare the 14th, 15th player on the roster to loyalty to an LMA type player who is arguably the best PF in the game today, or at the very least top 3 with Anthony Davis as the best (when healthy).
Last edited by montgod; 07-22-2016 at 09:54 AM.
Westbrook vs Curry
Green vs Thompson
Leonard vs Durant
Parker, Anderson, Manu anchor your bench.
If Spurs only give up Parker for Westbrook then duhhhhh you do it lol. I just don't see it though. But we can all pray/dream right?
No I am comparing Parker/LMA.
Can we maybe get a three team deal going between Philadelphia, OKC and the Spurs. Get one or two of those bigs to OKC and send Parker to Philadelphia to help Brett Brown out with a leadership role.
OKC is going to want more than just one of the bigs from Philly. And I doubt Philly gives up their picks if they're only getting Parker back. Spurs can give their picks but even that won't be enough.
I don't see a trade happening that sends Westbrook to SA, BUT... if you can get him and keep LMA, Kawhi, Gasol... then you have to do it. The rest you can piece together. Obviously keeping Green would be a huge positive, but if you have to let Green go then you figure out how to fill the spot for the year and then look next year at an upgrade, then you make it work.
Westbrook is arguably a top 5-7 player in the league. You don't get the opportunity to add that talent to your team often, much less in the prime of their career. So giving up guys that are projected to maybe be NBA role-players for him is a no brainer.
David Pick @IAmDPick
San Antonio Spurs stash Cady Lalanne, and Willie Warren, have both signed in China with Zhejiang Banks, sources said.stash
Yes exiling the only big FA that came here of his own desire is bad for the freanchise, specially when they are choosing that over trading Tony who is the man whose position is being taken. Doesn't make sense and Paul is old and might be a rental, LMA is in his prime and looked very dominant for parts of the season.
Everyone is en led to his opinion. I would remain really reluctant on Westbrook. He doesn't sound like a Spurs guy who will stay to win if they don't get it done in one season (unrealistic) and hoping to replace him (and what would be Tony or Manu in my trade scenario) the year after when we have already traded depth puts the Spurs in a very bad situation. It's a bad gamble that if it doesn't pay off will set us back for years, then LMA and Kawhi are up for their own contracts and will leave or need to be traded and we closed the door in anh championship possibilities and have to rebuild from scratch. I would veto trades unless Russ commits to an extension and he won't.
I think franchises that are in the Boston mold are better prepared to take risks bc they have a lot of assets we don't. May be even Miami.
I mean, I think the Spurs would have a viable starting lineup in the event Westbrook leaves.
Something like:
Parker, Leonard, Bertans, Aldridge, Gasol
or:
Murray, Green, Leonard, Aldridge Gasol
Or:
Parker, Leonard, Anderson, Aldrdige Gasol
And each of those comes with options for guys to bring off the bench and a max slot to add someone else. This shouldn't set the franchise back, though again, the ideal scenario of keeping Green and being able to roll out Westbrook, Green, Leonard, Aldrdige and Gasol/Dedmon for a few years is definitely the upside.
What it does do is put greater pressure on the non-A-level prospects to work out. Like if Murray is in the trade, can Arcidiacono, Hanlan or Forbes carve out a role as a rotational player? Or if Anderson is traded, can Bertans step up? Can Simmons his mistakes enough to be a useful player? And someone out of the Cady, LJC, Ndoye or Milutinov group become a third big? You get a Neal and a Baynes out of those guys, and you can continue to build your core despite losing the top prospects.
San Antonio Spurs stash Cady Lalanne, and Willie Warren, have both signed in China with Zhejiang Banks, sources said.
LMAO... that's better than saying, "Dump", and "jettison" would just confuse too many people.
Is it too late to stash Bonner?
It's a lateral move at best and goes into the super risky basket. We lose Russ and don't have LMA the following season and can't convince anyone to join the Spurs bc we did LMA like that.
The more I think about this the more I don't like it. I'd only trade Tony and prospects/picks and even that I don't like. Spurs won't trade anyone. Likely they talk to him next off-season like they did with Durantula.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
