LMA Trade Talk

[raybies]

Ok, First off I'd like to apologize for another LMA trade thread, but I just had to get my thoughts out. I typically only write about things that sincerely interest me. So here is my science fiction like post about LMA and some thoughts and trade options.

Thoughts:
First off, watching Durant walk away for nothing should be a lesson to all decision makers. Sure on one hand you can keep it together for one last run and hope for the best, but if you fail, you risk losing a major piece for nothing. The effects of which can bring you down from a contender to a fringe playoff team like I believe OKC will ultimately become. This brings me to my first point. When you have a player that is homegrown and has those ties you can rest more peacefully at night because that's all they have known and you have a head start with relationships and favorable emotions. When we had Tim Duncan, we risked it all and banked on those relationships. And plus a guy like Duncan, you pretty much be crazy to trade. In our case, Duncan stayed and the rest was history. But Aldridge is different, he has no ties here. He signed as a free agent. He was not drafted by us. He has no fond memories of the past to fall back on when it hits the fan. Sure he talks up the organization but does it come off as insincere to anyone else but me around here. Does he really want to be here or is he here because nothing better was available. It's like being in a relationship because no-one better has arrived. You're not in love. In the end you either leave that person when you find someone else you love or you learn to love. I think the only way the latter happens is if we win the ship this year. But here's the problem. LMA's value is at it's highest right now because he has years on his deal and considering the current cap it's a bargain. So we risk a greater return for the lure of winning his affection. If we don't win, next year we'll have given teams with honest interest with assets the leverage needed to make a lesser bargain. You'd hope that a bidding war starts but then you have to take into account user preference. Where does LMA want to go. A class organization like the Spurs, can only salvage their image by appeasing his requests of location cause he's the one that has to resign. And I say salvage cause, how can a family org, that does things the right way, can't keep an FA, and that FA being the most important acquisition off the market in franchise history.

So you have to think from PATFO's perspective, is the juice worth the squeeze. Is he a player you want to risk possibly years of rebuilding for. Do you want to pay for his next max contract when it could exceed 30 mil(?Cap #s please). Is he the character that you want in the locker room or did you sign him for the same reason he signed with you. Are LMA and PATFO cuddle buddies, just not wanting to be alone and feel like someone is there. Did we sign him to remain relevant and extend the contender window or did you sign him because you believed he modeled your culture. Most know we sacrificed a lot for LMA. The built not bought moniker died. The beautiful game died. Wasn't that what are signature was?

You got to think about the future now. Right now San Antonio is a hot destination because of reputation. We are basically a living legend. The respect will never be higher imo. Pop is known as best coach in the game. The front office is seen with great regard to build contenders and a safe bet to succeed. And the organization is first class. Some believe that losing LMA would hurt our ability to sign FA's in the future but I disagree. Pop has at least four more years before he retires. He's coaching the next Olympic team for team USA. You have Kawhi as a centerpiece which is a legitimate MVP DPOY candidate but after that you have questions. Who will be the next Tony, Manu, Hill, or Kawhi. Is it Murray or Bertans? The time to build is now, because once Pop retires all bets are off. Then you hope we can hire the right minds. Will the same trust be there that is now when say an Ettore Messina is head coach and no experience is there. Is he the next Blatt. Man I hope we get Coach Bud back but I'm not gonna go on a tangent here. I'm sure we can get those C list players that can be B list players like say a Paul Millsap type. And we could probably unearth another Danny Green or Gary Neal, or maybe Jon Simmons. But we can safely assume we have a 3-4 year window before Pop is gone and how do you want to leave the franchise. Do you want to leave the franchise in rebuilding mode after a plan that was more short term than long term or do you want to already be on the rise with say a few pieces that are primed to enter their best stages of their career. Think about this cause this is what it is basically.

Some mention the Spurs conservative ways as keeping LMA but I'm here to say maybe it's more conservative to sell high and not risk losing him for nothing. IMO it's safer to start now long term wise. But could we remain compe ive now. Imo we can. I actually think Pau is a better offensive player than LMA even at his age. He can post and he can pass. LMA skill set killed the beautiful game, but maybe with the right pieces you could see it come back. Maybe I need to let it go. I think if you get a big back and a young prospect and a first you do it. So now that brings me to some trade scenarios.


In my mind there's only two places and that's Boston and Phoenix.

Phoenix is the obvious one because that's what our comp was during our courtship. Maybe he really wanted to go there but he played it safe. In Phoenix or Boston he would be the first option. Maybe that's what he wants.

In Phoenix the trade scenarios would center around

Brandon Knight/ Tyson Chandler with a Middle filler like Pj Tucker a young big like Chriss or Bender and a first for LMA and pieces like Forbes and/or Anderson

I do not like this deal at all because Tyson is on decline and both lock up money for a few years. Knight is not the playmaker you want out of a point guard. He's more a shooting guard.

So this brings us to where all the rumors began and that's in Boston.

In Boston a scenario might look like this

Amir Johnson with a couple young players with upside for LMA and Anderson.

Now Danny Ainge is one of the best at extracting players on good deals. He's not going to let us do him like we did Larry Legend. So with that being said, he's not going to want to part with that first round pick if we choose a certain player.

Alex Kennedy AlexKennedyNBA
Yesterday, Jaylen Brown said that he met with the Celtics, Bulls, Hawks, Timberwolves, Kings, Spurs and Rockets while at the NBA Combine.

For some reason, we managed to meet with Jaylen Brown at the combine, but why? Every mock had him in the lottery so why did we meet him. What made us think we could acquire him. Perhaps this LMA story is farther along in the organization then we know. This would explain the leak from Boston's side to weaken the trade value so that way they wouldn't have to give the first and Brown. Well that's one theory imo. I'm having fun.

Also with Amir on a one year deal you retain flexibility while acquiring a solid starter that would fit with your SL. With his salary off the books you could feasibly have some room to either resign your free agents or go after someone like a Serge Ibaka. And this kid Brown is very intellectual and can ball. He has potential to be a two way player. Pair that with Kawhi and you could have the best wing play in years to come.

Edit: So would you take Amir Johnson, Jaylen Brown, and Jerebko with Brooklyn's first for LMA and Anderson for example?
Jerebko is on a one year 5 million deal. More flexibility. Jackson wouldn't work.
I would.

[Chinook]

No offense, man, really. But for s sake, you don't trade someone because you might not keep them in two years. If LMA signs with some one else, the Spurs didn't get nothing. They got three years of an All-Star big. How many All-Star years will they get in a trade? How many more will they get in a trade than they could have just gotten if they had just kept LMA and done something else?

The answer should just be no. There's no value in letting contracts dictate trades in most cases.

[raybies]

No offense, man, really. But for s sake, you don't trade someone because you might not keep them in two years. If LMA signs with some one else, the Spurs didn't get nothing. They got three years of an All-Star big. How many All-Star years will they get in a trade? How many more will they get in a trade than they could have just gotten if they had just kept LMA and done something else?

The answer should just be no. There's no value in letting contracts dictate trades in most cases.

Well, i must say i'm thinking out loud with this post. As I said Science fiction like, but I think it's something that has to be considered. I'm not PATFO and I do think they at least play this year out to possibly win his affection, but i ponder if it's worth the risk. You look at your chances vs a team like GS with a roster that is presently constructed and you like your chances. I think our strengths mesh well with there weaknesses.

Sorry man, just worked an 12 hour overnight and had some thoughts.

[SpursforSix]

Well, i must say i'm thinking out loud with this post. As I said Science fiction like, but I think it's something that has to be considered. I'm not PATFO and I do think they at least play this year out to possibly win his affection, but i ponder if it's worth the risk. You look at your chances vs a team like GS with a roster that is presently constructed and you like your chances. I think our strengths mesh well with there weaknesses.

Sorry man, just worked an 12 hour overnight and had some thoughts.

wtf

[Chinook]

Well, i must say i'm thinking out loud with this post. As I said Science fiction like, but I think it's something that has to be considered. I'm not PATFO and I do think they at least play this year out to possibly win his affection, but i ponder if it's worth the risk. You look at your chances vs a team like GS with a roster that is presently constructed and you like your chances. I think our strengths mesh well with there weaknesses.

Sorry man, just worked an 12 hour overnight and had some thoughts.

And that's fine. I totally understand that. I'm just saying that value isn't what you could get in a trade. That's only part of it. LMA is valuable because of what he does, not because what he can fetch on the market. There is a type of value that is simply hoarded like Boston's picks or Philly's bigs. And there is value that is constantly being used, like star players

[raybies]

wtf

I'm going to bed lol

[offset formation]

No offense, man, really. But for s sake, you don't trade someone because you might not keep them in two years. If LMA signs with some one else, the Spurs didn't get nothing. They got three years of an All-Star big. How many All-Star years will they get in a trade? How many more will they get in a trade than they could have just gotten if they had just kept LMA and done something else?

The answer should just be no. There's no value in letting contracts dictate trades in most cases.

[MaNu4Tres]

And that's fine. I totally understand that. I'm just saying that value isn't what you could get in a trade. That's only part of it. LMA is valuable because of what he does, not because what he can fetch on the market. There is a type of value that is simply hoarded like Boston's picks or Philly's bigs. And there is value that is constantly being used, like star players

The variables and skill-sets with Star players are all different and complex though. Star players aren't always huge net positives as their PPG or " All- Star nomination" may imply. Aldridge made the All-Star team last year more because the Spurs had the 2nd best record in the NBA and coaches felt the Spurs needed a second representative out of respect. Aldridge didn't play great ball the first half of last year.

Also, you're forgetting that Spurs could get a piece or pieces that can help right now too, while still netting assets for the future. Those pieces they may attain to help now, may not be All-Stars on paper, but their skill-sets, efficiency on O, effectiveness on D, could be exactly what the Spurs need to still get the same returns or close to the same returns from a W or L perspective.

[K...]

generally, it would be terrible malpractice, like Cuban Tyson Chandler malpractice, to suggest trade issues so early. Simply being a top 4 team, that proved capable of beating the likely elite compe ion without their second best defender would suggest so. At least wait until Blake Griffin rapes him top freak out

This doesn't mean that lma is not "on the market" but there's no obvious trade to make us better that will be easily accomplished.

Also this rumor came from the Harlem/,apo trash mill. I'm inclined to use common sense over those "sources"

[MaNu4Tres]

generally, it would be terrible malpractice, like Cuban Tyson Chandler narrative malpractice, to suggest trade issues so early.

This doesn't mean that lma is not "on the market" but there's no obvious trade to make us better that will be easily accomplished.

Also this rumor came from the Harlem/,apo trash mill. I'm inclined to use common sense over those "sources"

Actually it was from me.. and the guy I've spoken with is reliable to me. Take that for what its worth even though I'm just an poster on Spurstalk.

[Chinook]

The variables and skill-sets with Star players are all different and complex though. Star players aren't always huge net positives as their PPG or " All- Star nomination" may imply. Aldridge made the All-Star team last year more because the Spurs had the 2nd best record in the NBA and coaches felt the Spurs needed a second representative out of respect. Aldridge didn't play great ball the first half of last year.

Also, you're forgetting that Spurs could get a piece or pieces that can help right now too, while still netting assets for the future. Those pieces they may attain to help now, may not be All-Stars on paper, but their skill-sets, efficiency on O, effectiveness on D, could be exactly what the Spurs need to still get the same returns or close to the same returns from a W or L perspective.

You underestimate the on-court value of star players. You don't make that up with role-players. Amir Johnson is not going to do anything close to what LMA can do, for example. He might put up some good stats, but he won't be able to put a team on his back and score 40 points in a playoff game. That's what makes LMA a five-time All-Star and why he was such a free-agent prize. Nothing the Spurs can trade for will provide that same potential for an immediate foundation piece. Like LMA, those guys aren't on the trade market.

[K...]

Actually it was from me.. and the guy I've spoken with is reliable to me. Take that for what its worth even though I'm just an poster on Spurstalk.

It's been suggested that there's a three team trade at issue. The spurs can't trade with warriors, clippers, cavs due to compe iveness.
There are only so many players better than lma and most play for those three teams. We lack assets to get Davis, Kat, etc

Unless the spurs really want Parker out, (to the extent they'd create a whole at pf, presumably starting dedmon) there is no good trade for lma

[sasaint]

Ok, First off I'd like to apologize for another LMA trade thread, but I just had to get my thoughts out. I typically only write about things that sincerely interest me. So here is my science fiction like post about LMA and some thoughts and trade options.

Thoughts:
First off, watching Durant walk away for nothing should be a lesson to all decision makers. Sure on one hand you can keep it together for one last run and hope for the best, but if you fail, you risk losing a major piece for nothing. The effects of which can bring you down from a contender to a fringe playoff team like I believe OKC will ultimately become. This brings me to my first point. When you have a player that is homegrown and has those ties you can rest more peacefully at night because that's all they have known and you have a head start with relationships and favorable emotions. When we had Tim Duncan, we risked it all and banked on those relationships. And plus a guy like Duncan, you pretty much be crazy to trade. In our case, Duncan stayed and the rest was history. But Aldridge is different, he has no ties here. He signed as a free agent. He was not drafted by us. He has no fond memories of the past to fall back on when it hits the fan. Sure he talks up the organization but does it come off as insincere to anyone else but me around here. Does he really want to be here or is he here because nothing better was available. It's like being in a relationship because no-one better has arrived. You're not in love. In the end you either leave that person when you find someone else you love or you learn to love. I think the only way the latter happens is if we win the ship this year. But here's the problem. LMA's value is at it's highest right now because he has years on his deal and considering the current cap it's a bargain. So we risk a greater return for the lure of winning his affection. If we don't win, next year we'll have given teams with honest interest with assets the leverage needed to make a lesser bargain. You'd hope that a bidding war starts but then you have to take into account user preference. Where does LMA want to go. A class organization like the Spurs, can only salvage their image by appeasing his requests of location cause he's the one that has to resign. And I say salvage cause, how can a family org, that does things the right way, can't keep an FA, and that FA being the most important acquisition off the market in franchise history.

So you have to think from PATFO's perspective, is the juice worth the squeeze. Is he a player you want to risk possibly years of rebuilding for. Do you want to pay for his next max contract when it could exceed 30 mil(?Cap #s please). Is he the character that you want in the locker room or did you sign him for the same reason he signed with you. Are LMA and PATFO cuddle buddies, just not wanting to be alone and feel like someone is there. Did we sign him to remain relevant and extend the contender window or did you sign him because you believed he modeled your culture. Most know we sacrificed a lot for LMA. The built not bought moniker died. The beautiful game died. Wasn't that what are signature was?

You got to think about the future now. Right now San Antonio is a hot destination because of reputation. We are basically a living legend. The respect will never be higher imo. Pop is known as best coach in the game. The front office is seen with great regard to build contenders and a safe bet to succeed. And the organization is first class. Some believe that losing LMA would hurt our ability to sign FA's in the future but I disagree. Pop has at least four more years before he retires. He's coaching the next Olympic team for team USA. You have Kawhi as a centerpiece which is a legitimate MVP DPOY candidate but after that you have questions. Who will be the next Tony, Manu, Hill, or Kawhi. Is it Murray or Bertans? The time to build is now, because once Pop retires all bets are off. Then you hope we can hire the right minds. Will the same trust be there that is now when say an Ettore Messina is head coach and no experience is there. Is he the next Blatt. Man I hope we get Coach Bud back but I'm not gonna go on a tangent here. I'm sure we can get those C list players that can be B list players like say a Paul Millsap type. And we could probably unearth another Danny Green or Gary Neal, or maybe Jon Simmons. But we can safely assume we have a 3-4 year window before Pop is gone and how do you want to leave the franchise. Do you want to leave the franchise in rebuilding mode after a plan that was more short term than long term or do you want to already be on the rise with say a few pieces that are primed to enter their best stages of their career. Think about this cause this is what it is basically.

Some mention the Spurs conservative ways as keeping LMA but I'm here to say maybe it's more conservative to sell high and not risk losing him for nothing. IMO it's safer to start now long term wise. But could we remain compe ive now. Imo we can. I actually think Pau is a better offensive player than LMA even at his age. He can post and he can pass. LMA skill set killed the beautiful game, but maybe with the right pieces you could see it come back. Maybe I need to let it go. I think if you get a big back and a young prospect and a first you do it. So now that brings me to some trade scenarios.


In my mind there's only two places and that's Boston and Phoenix.

Phoenix is the obvious one because that's what our comp was during our courtship. Maybe he really wanted to go there but he played it safe. In Phoenix or Boston he would be the first option. Maybe that's what he wants.

In Phoenix the trade scenarios would center around

Brandon Knight/ Tyson Chandler with a Middle filler like Pj Tucker a young big like Chriss or Bender and a first for LMA and pieces like Forbes and/or Anderson

I do not like this deal at all because Tyson is on decline and both lock up money for a few years. Knight is not the playmaker you want out of a point guard. He's more a shooting guard.

So this brings us to where all the rumors began and that's in Boston.

In Boston a scenario might look like this

Amir Johnson with a couple young players with upside for LMA and Anderson.

Now Danny Ainge is one of the best at extracting players on good deals. He's not going to let us do him like we did Larry Legend. So with that being said, he's not going to want to part with that first round pick if we choose a certain player.

Alex Kennedy AlexKennedyNBA
Yesterday, Jaylen Brown said that he met with the Celtics, Bulls, Hawks, Timberwolves, Kings, Spurs and Rockets while at the NBA Combine.

For some reason, we managed to meet with Jaylen Brown at the combine, but why? Every mock had him in the lottery so why did we meet him. What made us think we could acquire him. Perhaps this LMA story is farther along in the organization then we know. This would explain the leak from Boston's side to weaken the trade value so that way they wouldn't have to give the first and Brown. Well that's one theory imo. I'm having fun.

Also with Amir on a one year deal you retain flexibility while acquiring a solid starter that would fit with your SL. With his salary off the books you could feasibly have some room to either resign your free agents or go after someone like a Serge Ibaka. And this kid Brown is very intellectual and can ball. He has potential to be a two way player. Pair that with Kawhi and you could have the best wing play in years to come.

Edit: So would you take Amir Johnson, Jaylen Brown, and Jerebko with Brooklyn's first for LMA and Anderson for example?
Jerebko is on a one year 5 million deal. More flexibility. Jackson wouldn't work.
I would.

It briefly crossed my mind that - with your writing style - you might be an SAGirl alt ; I appreciate your thoughts. The ability to maximize the value of any asset - both in the present and in the future - is one of the most fundamental, important and and difficult skills for any FO to master. Contract considerations, player motivation/fit/compatibility, and alignment with other players and their ages/career trajectories and contractual demands all play an important role. Given those factors, several of us on ST believe it might be better to move LMA sooner rather than later - depending on the value the team could get in return now. Your observation about PATFO's interest in Jaylen Brown is interesting. It seems unlikely to me that it was advanced scouting in anticipation of a possible trade, but who knows?

[MaNu4Tres]

You underestimate the on-court value of star players. You don't make that up with role-players. Amir Johnson is not going to do anything close to what LMA can do, for example. He might put up some good stats, but he won't be able to put a team on his back and score 40 points in a playoff game. That's what makes LMA a five-time All-Star and why he was such a free-agent prize. Nothing the Spurs can trade for will provide that same potential for an immediate foundation piece. Like LMA, those guys aren't on the trade market.

You're making Aldridge sound like he's a LeBron or a top tier star. On the court value isn't all the same for star players. Sure he has value, never questioned that, but scoring the way he scores (in selfish ways), doesn't command double teams. He also doesn't apply pressure at the rim -- which isn't beneficial to the players around him. He doesn't make his teammates better like other star players can. And on defense and in other faucets of the game he's about average. We just have a difference of opinion on how great he truly is. He's a great elite shooter from mid-range but he doesn't make his teammates better around him and isn't the force he should be in other faucets of the game. He's the Melo of power forwards except Melo is a more versatile scorer.

[SAGirl]

It's a nice post... it summarizes concerns expressed by others guys recently like Manu4tres, who on top of what raybies said, would have liked to have seen the Spurs go a different direction in FA to begin with, and who also have had concerns with LMA as a franchise player. No need to say more if you read the concerns Manu4tres (and others) have had with LMA.

Frankly I can see both sides of the equation. It comes down to how happy both sides of the situation are. They both profess to be happy. LMA has said the right things, Pop has talked him up as a leader but with Kawhi as the best player. LMA entered the team last season in a deferral stage and talking of having joined to support Kawhi and help him be great, and that if he had joined to be the man, he wouldn't have come. Unless it is LMA who wants to be traded, it doesnt' make sense. The team did very well last season. The OKC loss was not on LMA strictly.

I can see both sides of this argument and I am kind of torn in not having a strong opinion either way. If you choose prospects and picks, etc... that is a rebuild in the middle of Kawhi's best years which are coming right up, apparently as soon as this season. At the same time, IMO they need to do something to improve the guard situation. They have some prospects right now, but that is all they are. I could frankly see this going either way.

I think they play out this season and next offseason you see what's up. You will know who tanked or blossomed during the postseason, either have won or come close to it, and if you underachieved then you know who has to go etc. I can see the trade in the offseason. He may have just one season on his contract at that point, but that is still in a good contract and he could agree to re-sign wherever. He would still have value. There are teams that would take him. Maybe you don't get much back, but you hardly get equitable talent when trading an all-star. Maybe PATFO is not getting offers that make the trade worthwile...

[K...]

Isn't it strange that there was no lma rumor of the summer?

[SAGirl]

Isn't it strange that there was no lma rumor of the summer?

The timing of the ESPN rumors started after the Zach Lowe 30 crazy predictions. It was very ill timed with the season about to start... I frankly didn't believe the trade rumors at that point, considering the roster TO and how much acclimating and adjusting Pop had to accomplish with so many new faces. Pop and the coaches have at this point designed what they want to do on both ends, counting on their personnel. Trading a foundational piece with the season about to start was senseless.... I never believed those rumors.

[playbonner15]

Let LMA walk / trade him for a decent PG. Start Dedmon. Then bring Lee / Bertans off the bench.

[sasaint]

It's a nice post... it summarizes concerns expressed by others guys recently like Manu4tres, who on top of what raybies said, would have liked to have seen the Spurs go a different direction in FA to begin with, and who also have had concerns with LMA as a franchise player. No need to say more if you read the concerns Manu4tres (and others) have had with LMA.

Frankly I can see both sides of the equation. It comes down to how happy both sides of the situation are. They both profess to be happy. LMA has said the right things, Pop has talked him up as a leader but with Kawhi as the best player. LMA entered the team last season in a deferral stage and talking of having joined to support Kawhi and help him be great, and that if he had joined to be the man, he wouldn't have come. Unless it is LMA who wants to be traded, it doesnt' make sense. The team did very well last season. The OKC loss was not on LMA strictly.

I can see both sides of this argument and I am kind of torn in not having a strong opinion either way. If you choose prospects and picks, etc... that is a rebuild in the middle of Kawhi's best years which are coming right up, apparently as soon as this season. At the same time, IMO they need to do something to improve the guard situation. They have some prospects right now, but that is all they are. I could frankly see this going either way.

I think they play out this season and next offseason you see what's up. You will know who tanked or blossomed during the postseason, either have won or come close to it, and if you underachieved then you know who has to go etc. I can see the trade in the offseason. He may have just one season on his contract at that point, but that is still in a good contract and he could agree to re-sign wherever. He would still have value. There are teams that would take him. Maybe you don't get much back, but you hardly get equitable talent when trading an all-star. Maybe PATFO is not getting offers that make the trade worthwile...

I admit I am little hurt for not getting mentioned as an opponent (along with ceperez to the LMA signing fron the get-go.

But on to more substantive issues: why characterize trading LMA as a "rebuild" - especially with Pau around to step right in? There have been teams that were capable of "re-booting" instead of "re-building". Is the vaunted Spurs organization that capable? At any rate, trading LMA now at the peak of his personal/contractual value would almost certainly bring very good value in return - not a rebuild at all, but a reboot. You should check out some of the scenarios Kawhistorm has suggested. (Btw, I am not trying to play semantic games with "rebuild" and "re-boot.)

P.S. - I've been saying that it was Kawhi who, unfortunately, was about to become "the bridge."

[Chinook]

You're making Aldridge sound like he's a LeBron or a top tier star. On the court value isn't all the same for star players. Sure he has value, never questioned that, but scoring the way he scores (in selfish ways), doesn't command double teams. He also doesn't apply pressure at the rim -- which isn't beneficial to the players around him. He doesn't make his teammates better like other star players can. And on defense and in other faucets of the game he's about average. We just have a difference of opinion on how great he truly is. He's a great elite shooter from mid-range but he doesn't make his teammates better around him and isn't the force he should be in other faucets of the game. He's the Melo of power forwards except Melo is a more versatile scorer.

Melo would put the Spurs over Cleveland, even at the expense of LMA. Don't let the narrative get in the way of reality there. So that should help you understand why LMA isn't on the block. All he has to do is pull his head out of his ass, and he's going off for 30/15 against the best teams in the league no matter what they try to do to stop him. Amir or Cole or Miles aren't doing that. You trade LMA, you get the Thunder now. Role-players don't win you real games unless they're super role-players like Danny and Iggy, and even those guys can't do it very often. If you were talking about moving LMA for two (2013-2015) Green-level players at PG and PF, maybe there's something to talk about. But there isn't when the guys aren't going to even be better than Lee and Dedmon.

You win with stars, even if they are faded stars and still-nebulous stars. They don't have to be top-five players, but they damned-sure need to be top-20 guys or at least be able to play like that in a way that Duncan and Manu were in 2013 and 2014.

[Chinook]

I admit I am little hurt for not getting mentioned as an opponent (along with ceperez to the LMA signing fron the get-go.

But on to more substantive issues: why characterize trading LMA as a "rebuild" - especially with Pau around to step right in? There have been teams that were capable of "re-booting" instead of "re-building". Is the vaunted Spurs organization that capable? At any rate, trading LMA now at the peak of his personal/contractual value would almost certainly bring very good value in return - not a rebuild at all, but a reboot. You should check out some of the scenarios Kawhistorm has suggested. (Btw, I am not trying to play semantic games with "rebuild" and "re-boot.)

Because LMA is like three times the player Pau and Pau is supposed to be a replacement for Tim. Ask the Thunder how going from two stars to one star and upgraded role-players feels.

[sasaint]

Because LMA is like three times the player Pau and Pau is supposed to be a replacement for Tim. Ask the Thunder how going from two stars to one star and upgraded role-players feels.

Man, the Thunder are the poster child for MY argument! They let Durant go for nada.

[SAGirl]

I admit I am little hurt for not getting mentioned as an opponent (along with ceperez to the LMA signing fron the get-go.

But on to more substantive issues: why characterize trading LMA as a "rebuild" - especially with Pau around to step right in? There have been teams that were capable of "re-booting" instead of "re-building". Is the vaunted Spurs organization that capable? At any rate, trading LMA now at the peak of his personal/contractual value would almost certainly bring very good value in return - not a rebuild at all, but a reboot. You should check out some of the scenarios Kawhistorm has suggested. (Btw, I am not trying to play semantic games with "rebuild" and "re-boot.)

Sorry, Manu4tres has been very vocal about the trade, and I know of you and ceperez not wanting to get LMA in the first place (Harlem, Apalisoc have been vocal about that too).. so you see there are many who didn't want LMA to begin with... but strictly championing the trade LMA cause, Manu4tres is the banner bearer. (I know there are others, but can't recall, some are not even regular posters... anyways, I'll put your name in the list lol)


I am just going by raybies idea... one includes a pick, that is clearly the future... a young prospect (he's not going to be KAT-level, he's going to be someone with potential and flaws too, hopefully with a high ceiling but will need time to get there) ... and a roleplayer that can play right away... That is a rebuild to me. There are no immediate stars in that package, and you have to hope either the prospect or the pick turn into a significant contributor at some point. The roleplayer is a roleplayer.... I don't see a package like that helping put the Spurs over the top this season IMO>

[sasaint]

Melo would put the Spurs over Cleveland, even at the expense of LMA. Don't let the narrative get in the way of reality there. So that should help you understand why LMA isn't on the block. All he has to do is pull his head out of his ass, and he's going off for 30/15 against the best teams in the league no matter what they try to do to stop him. Amir or Cole or Miles aren't doing that. You trade LMA, you get the Thunder now. Role-players don't win you real games unless they're super role-players like Danny and Iggy, and even those guys can't do it very often. If you were talking about moving LMA for two (2013-2015) Green-level players at PG and PF, maybe there's something to talk about. But there isn't when the guys aren't going to even be better than Lee and Dedmon.

You win with stars, even if they are faded stars and still-nebulous stars. They don't have to be top-five players, but they damned-sure need to be top-20 guys or at least be able to play like that in a way that Duncan and Manu were in 2013 and 2014.

So, are you saying the Spurs would be better off to trade LMA for Melo?

[gambit1990]

Melo would put the Spurs over Cleveland, even at the expense of LMA.