Pay Patty in the Off-season

[dabom]

Patty is part of the starting 5 closing out. Whatever anyone says, spurs ain't dropping him at the deadline.

[dabom]

Patty is the Spurs second highest impact player. Only a dumbass wouldn't trade him at deadline.

[cd98]

Patty, like most shooters, have hot and cold spells, but given the dearth of 3 point shooting on this team's backcourt players (and Murray is not a three point shooter), there is no way the Spurs are letting go of Mills. Maybe he should be on a shorter leash, but Pop is a big believer on shooters shooting open shots and if they miss, they miss. So I don't know that his minutes will change much even when he's struggling to make a basket.

[TheGreatYacht]

Only a dumbass wouldn't trade him at deadline.

I 100% agree. He has to go!

[SAGirl]

I know Im in the minority and I dont care, but Id trade him at the deadline.

I said at the start of the year, if Murray progresses to the point where hes deserving of a role by the trade deadline, then Id pack Mills bag myself and get a return for him before the Spurs let him walk in the offseason.

As I said millions of times now, Spurs would be dumb to pay Dana Barros/ Eddie House 40-50 million this summer when they have a 20 yr old PG with all the talent in the world making 1/12th of the estimated salary. Would be terribly inefficient allocating that much money to a 5'11" shooter that cant defend.

Frankly, I didn't see it at the time you initially posted it bc I didn't think Murray would progress this fast (and what a surprise that has been!), and also bc Mills is a well known Pop favorite. I thought after Manu's retirement they would prioritize re-upping him.

Right now though, the situation looks much different. Murray looks deserving of minutes and the Spurs have kept Forbes, though he's not playing much at all, bc they are developing him in the Mills' mold. Even if he's not as good as Mills, it doesn't matter bc Murray has the potential to be special.

I have changed my mind and I think Mills is now in the category of guys Spurs would like to keep, "but at the right price." Because Mills will get good offers, maybe roles, he's likely gone in which case trading him right now makes sense.

Spurs likely hold on to him though bc teams that are looking to win right now seldom give away rotation players and Mills is a significant part of the rotation right now and has produced very well for his role. Recent bad games notwithstanding, it's actually telling that his impact in the team is big enough that they can't win with him playing poorly... he's important to them.

[objective]

I know Im in the minority and I dont care, but Id trade him at the deadline.

I said at the start of the year, if Murray progresses to the point where hes deserving of a role by the trade deadline, then Id pack Mills bag myself and get a return for him before the Spurs let him walk in the offseason.

As I said millions of times now, Spurs would be dumb to pay Dana Barros/ Eddie House 40-50 million this summer when they have a 20 yr old PG with all the talent in the world making 1/12th of the estimated salary. Would be terribly inefficient allocating that much money to a 5'11" shooter that cant defend.

I'm for trading him.

I would have been against it if only to to keep LMA from pouting and being unhappy about his old friend getting traded, but LMA is already playing like he's miserable and uninterested. So I say screw it, dump Mills.

[DPG21920]

The problem is two-fold with trading Mills:

His salary is so low, you aren't going to get much back (unless you are just looking for a pick - which then clearly hurts the Spurs this year).

The second problem is that Mills is so different than Murray. Murray does not have a good 3-point shot (yet) and Mills shooting is really needed. I know SA would gain on defense and slashing with Murray, but SA would be down a shooter when they really don't have a lot of them with Manu being meh, Mills gone, Murray not a shooter and TP not a true 3PT shooter.

[MaNu4Tres]

The problem is two-fold with trading Mills:

His salary is so low, you aren't going to get much back (unless you are just looking for a pick - which then clearly hurts the Spurs this year).

The second problem is that Mills is so different than Murray. Murray does not have a good 3-point shot (yet) and Mills shooting is really needed. I know SA would gain on defense and slashing with Murray, but SA would be down a shooter when they really don't have a lot of them with Manu being meh, Mills gone, Murray not a shooter and TP not a true 3PT shooter.

Hard to quantify exactly how much of a positive one is over the other, but one thing is certain : Murray's 3 point shooting (as of late) is much better than the defense and play-making ability of Mills.

Also, Mills shooting can easily become non existent in a series as you saw vs. OKC because of variance and how shooters can go cold. However, Murrays D and slashing ability will always be a constant, game after game, series after series.

[mookie2001]

Ball handling aside Mills is just overmatched physically. Whether it's Matthew belladonna or Seth curry, opponents pick on his ass over and over again. Mills is the mark that the other team targets every time.

[DPG21920]

Hard to quantify exactly how much of a positive one is over the other, but one thing is certain : Murray's 3 point shooting (as of late) is much better than the defense and play-making ability of Mills.

Also, Mills shooting can easily become non existent in a series as you saw vs. OKC because of variance and how shooters can go cold. However, Murrays D and slashing ability will always be a constant, game after game, series after series.

Probably agree overall although you have seen how hard it is to play non-shooters in the playoffs. It's really hard.

But even if the above holds true; what can you get for Mills that returns value?

[MaNu4Tres]

Probably agree overall although you have seen how hard it is to play non-shooters in the playoffs. It's really hard.

But even if the above holds true; what can you get for Mills that returns value?

It's hard to play non-shooters if they offer no threat at all (I.E Anderson). That's not the case with Murray, the threat is there to keep the defense honest to a degree. I'm basing this off a small sample size, but the kid lets it fly and has a smooth stroke which has translated to an efficient clip thus far.

I think Spurs can get a late 1st from a playoff team such as Washington (upgrade: Burke), Hawks (upgrade: Delaney), Bulls (esp if they buy out Rondo).

Or if fringe playoff teams wants to make a push for the 8th seed like Philly.

Spurs can also use him in a package in a 2 for 1 deal. I.E Dedmon/Mills +1st for Nerlens ( just an example).

[DPG21920]

It's hard to play non-shooters if they offer no threat at all (I.E Anderson). That's not the case with Murray, the threat is there to keep the defense honest to a degree. I'm basing this off a small sample size, but the kid lets it fly and has a smooth stroke which has translated to an efficient clip thus far.

I think Spurs can get a late 1st from a playoff team such as Washington (upgrade: Burke), Hawks (upgrade: Delaney), Bulls (esp if they buy out Rondo).

Or if fringe playoff teams wants to make a push for the 8th seed like Philly.

Spurs can also use him in a package in a 2 for 1 deal. I.E Dedmon/Mills +1st for Nerlens ( just an example).

So you think SA is likely to risk taking a step back from a contention standpoint this year (i.e. Losing Mills for just a pick) in order to get a late 1st which rarely works out? I mean, I get it if you think he's walking but is a late 1st worth weakening the guard play at all (even just a little)?

[GSH]

So you think SA is likely to risk taking a step back from a contention standpoint this year (i.e. Losing Mills for just a pick) in order to get a late 1st which rarely works out? I mean, I get it if you think he's walking but is a late 1st worth weakening the guard play at all (even just a little)?

Dumping Patty for a pick? The backup PG's going into the playoffs would both be rookies, and one of them barely qualifies as being on the roster. If the Spurs were going to throw in the towel on this season, they needed to do it in the offseason. Doing it now would be the worst of both worlds. How many different ways are there to say, "Not gonna happen"?

[picnroll]

Have to hope Spurs don't hamstring themselves signing Mills to a long term semi-expensive contract. He's not proved he's consistent enough to be worth it.

[MaNu4Tres]

So you think SA is likely to risk taking a step back from a contention standpoint this year (i.e. Losing Mills for just a pick) in order to get a late 1st which rarely works out? I mean, I get it if you think he's walking but is a late 1st worth weakening the guard play at all (even just a little)?

Do I think SA is likely taking the risk? Probably not as they are conservative on the trade market and very disciplined. However, I highly doubt Spurs are turning down calls for Patty with Murray showing he's ready for a role. I"m sure they are listening to offers, but they'd have to get an offer they'd like -- a 1st round pick would be worth considering IMO -- not sure what they'd think though.

As for the short term, I don't think Spurs take a step back from contention and they certainly would not be " throwing in the towel". As of right now, only one of Mills or Murray will get meaningful minutes in the playoffs as the back up PG. I don't think losing Mills would be a hit, as I think Murray has closed the gap since the start of the season.

Despite Murray showing everything he's showed the past month, despite his strengths on the defensive end and playmaking ( two major weaknesses on the team at the PG position), despite him confidently going toe to toe with Kyrie Irving on a national stage much like Parker did vs. Gary Payton -- being a rookie is everyone's excuse why Murray can't be a back up PG -- which is silly (imo). The ability, and most importantly, the confidence is there much like Parkers was as a rookie.

I think Murray fills the gap as nicely as you can ask for with strengths Mills has never had -- all while remaining a threat from three (like Mills -- just not to the degree of Mills.). Spurs have never relied on three PGs in a playoff run, so I'm not sure why some are worried about the depth past Murray. I can understand if there were an injury to TP, but that's thinking the absolute worse scenario. And even in that situation, Spurs can sign Norris Cole or Jarrett Jack as insurance. There's a lot of viable options as far as third string PGs go on the open market because of how talented the PG position is across the league.

[TD 21]

Hard to quantify exactly how much of a positive one is over the other, but one thing is certain : Murray's 3 point shooting (as of late) is much better than the defense and play-making ability of Mills.

Also, Mills shooting can easily become non existent in a series as you saw vs. OKC because of variance and how shooters can go cold. However, Murrays D and slashing ability will always be a constant, game after game, series after series.

Mills is a proven 40% three-point shooter. Even when in an extended slump, he has to be accounted for, which means when he's playing off the ball, he's a spacer.

Within' reason, the money is somewhat irrelevant because they're going to need someone to fill his role off the bench anyway. Yeah, it would be nice if it came in a package that was wing sized, but Murray is, so that's not reason enough to let him go.

It's fine to want him gone, but within' the confines of trying to continue to contend for a championship annually, which they're trying to do, where's the realistic path to improvement? Given the lack of someone ready to take on his roll and limited financial flexibility, I don't see it.

[MaNu4Tres]

Mills is a proven 40% three-point shooter. Even when in an extended slump, he has to be accounted for, which means when he's playing off the ball, he's a spacer.

Within' reason, the money is somewhat irrelevant because they're going to need someone to fill his role off the bench anyway. Yeah, it would be nice if it came in a package that was wing sized, but Murray is, so that's not reason enough to let him go.

It's fine to want him gone, but within' the confines of trying to continue to contend for a championship annually, which they're trying to do, where's the realistic path to improvement? Given the lack of someone ready to take on his roll and limited financial flexibility, I don't see it.

Just like Spurs have filled in the minor roles on the team for the past 20 years, they'll do the same for Mills " shooter" role without breaking the bank. I'm confident they'll be able to overcome him leaving. Mills isn't a game changer, Mills is a role player and an outlier. He's not a starter, he's not a two way player. He's a specialty guy.

The only two bench role players the Spurs have splurged on were Manu and Malik Rose in the past 20 years. Manu because he's a hall of famer, All- Star, a bad ass, and a game changer on both ends -- you can't compare Mills to that. And Malik because Lakers offered him a similar deal and Spurs didn't want to lose their best bench player at the time to a conference rival. The Spurs know better not to overpay for smaller role. If they do, they'd be making a mistake in my eyes. People here overrate Pattys' true ability. His value is strictly tied to shot making, everything else he's average to below average to really terrible. Spurs have found and developed role playing shooters off the bench who shoot 40% from three for decades... decades... and here we are worried about losing a 40% shooter after decades of recovering when losing players like Steve Kerr, Brent Barry, Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, Roger Mason, Gary Neal... I can go on and on.

[BillMc]

How many different ways are there to say, "Not gonna happen"?

"Tas nav gatavojas notikt."

[TD 21]

Just like Spurs have filled in the minor roles on the team for the past 20 years, they'll do the same for Mills " shooter" role without breaking the bank. I'm confident they'll be able to overcome him leaving. Mills isn't a game changer, Mills is a role player and an outlier. He's not a starter, he's not a two way player. He's a specialty guy.

The only two bench role players the Spurs have splurged on were Manu and Malik Rose in the past 20 years. Manu because he's a hall of famer, All- Star, a bad ass, and a game changer on both ends -- you can't compare Mills to that. And Malik because Lakers offered him a similar deal and Spurs didn't want to lose their best bench player at the time to a conference rival. The Spurs know better not to overpay for smaller role. If they do, they'd be making a mistake in my eyes. People here overrate Pattys' true ability. His value is strictly tied to shot making, everything else he's average to below average to really terrible. Spurs have found and developed role playing shooters off the bench who shoot 40% from three for decades... decades... and here we are worried about losing a 40% shooter after decades of recovering when losing players like Steve Kerr, Brent Barry, Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, Roger Mason, Gary Neal... I can go on and on.

How is co 6th man and sometimes finisher in close games a "minor role"? Mills isn't just a shooter, he's a scorer.

The players you listed were mostly old, spot up shooters; not off the dribble ones, like Mills. Even though it was only Summer League, Neal looked ready to replace Mason and Belinelli was a proven rotation player when he replaced Neal. I don't get that same sense with Forbes. They also still had Ginobili closer to his prime then, which lessened the load on the other perimeter reserves.

This would be a much more significant loss, especially with Ginobili also likely retiring and Lee probably being gone, they'd damn near be starting from scratch, for a 2nd unit on an aspiring contender.

[dabom]

Mills is 6th man. Not a "minor role".

[MaNu4Tres]

How is co 6th man and sometimes finisher in close games a "minor role"? Mills isn't just a shooter, he's a scorer.

The players you listed were mostly old, spot up shooters; not off the dribble ones, like Mills. Even though it was only Summer League, Neal looked ready to replace Mason and Belinelli was a proven rotation player when he replaced Neal. I don't get that same sense with Forbes. They also still had Ginobili closer to his prime then, which lessened the load on the other perimeter reserves.

This would be a much more significant loss, especially with Ginobili also likely retiring and Lee probably being gone, they'd damn near be starting from scratch, for a 2nd unit on an aspiring contender.

6th man isn't as clear cut as years past when Spurs had younger Manu leading the way. Any given night this year, its someone different who sticks out.. This Spurs team, like last year, has more of a 6th man by committee -- meaning every niight its someone different.

Mills isn't a dynamic scorer, he's a shooter that can get off his shot vs. lazy defenses who go under or gets stuck on screens. He can't get off any shots without a screen. A scorer, in my opinion, is someone who can create opportunities in a mul ude of different ways.

We just have a different opinion of Mills. You prefer the Spurs re-sign him because you think Spurs can't replace what he brings. I strongly disagree. Nothing you say will alter my way of thinking. If Spurs didn't draft Murray, and if Bertans never came over, then I'd be inclined to agree with your concern. However, that's not reality. I think Spurs will be just fine giving the keys to Murray as he will provide the scoring Mills provided AND will give the Spurs defense and play-making ( what true scorers do -- something Mills is not). They'll also have Bertans off the bench as the shooter to space the floor for Murray to do what he does.

We just have a different opinion of Mills and the demand for him on the Spurs.

No shame in that.

Spurs will be just fine without him after next year. IMO.

[poeticism707]

How is co 6th man and sometimes finisher in close games a "minor role"? Mills isn't just a shooter, he's a scorer.

The players you listed were mostly old, spot up shooters; not off the dribble ones, like Mills. Even though it was only Summer League, Neal looked ready to replace Mason and Belinelli was a proven rotation player when he replaced Neal. I don't get that same sense with Forbes. They also still had Ginobili closer to his prime then, which lessened the load on the other perimeter reserves.

This would be a much more significant loss, especially with Ginobili also likely retiring and Lee probably being gone, they'd damn near be starting from scratch, for a 2nd unit on an aspiring contender.

This and this.

Pay the man.

[TheGreatYacht]

There's dozens of Paddy's in the D-League, tbh....

[HarlemHeat37]

I value Mills more than Manu4Tres does, but I agree that I wouldn't want the Spurs to retain him..I'm a big fan of his and I still believe he will bounce back and some team will overpay him(PG is the deepest position in the NBA, but there are still several teams that desperately need a player there), but the Spurs desperately need a change at that position..

If Parker was gone, then I'd keep Patty, but unfortunately, TP will be starting until he's 40..since that's the case, I'd rather get a more conventional PG or SG(along Murray, who will probably be a combo guard IMO) off the bench that can run the offense with Manu retiring..

[TD 21]

6th man isn't as clear cut as years past when Spurs had younger Manu leading the way. Any given night this year, its someone different who sticks out.. This Spurs team, like last year, has more of a 6th man by committee -- meaning every niight its someone different.

Mills isn't a dynamic scorer, he's a shooter that can get off his shot vs. lazy defenses who go under or gets stuck on screens. He can't get off any shots without a screen. A scorer, in my opinion, is someone who can create opportunities in a mul ude of different ways.

We just have a different opinion of Mills. You prefer the Spurs re-sign him because you think Spurs can't replace what he brings. I strongly disagree. Nothing you say will alter my way of thinking. If Spurs didn't draft Murray, and if Bertans never came over, then I'd be inclined to agree with your concern. However, that's not reality. I think Spurs will be just fine giving the keys to Murray as he will provide the scoring Mills provided AND will give the Spurs defense and play-making ( what true scorers do -- something Mills is not). They'll also have Bertans off the bench as the shooter to space the floor for Murray to do what he does.

We just have a different opinion of Mills and the demand for him on the Spurs.

No shame in that.

Spurs will be just fine without him after next year. IMO.

He's basically co 6th man and with Ginobili on the verge of retirement and Lee likely gone too, it'll be more clear cut, barring a quantum leap from Murray.

I didn't say he was a "dynamic scorer", but he is a scorer; not just a spot up shooter, which is much easier to replace. Either way, one floor spacer on a unit isn't enough.

If "true scorers" provide play making, then by that logic, Leonard and Aldridge aren't true scorers.

You see this as an either or between Mills and Murray; I don't. It's not so much that I think Mills has to be kept at all costs, it's the unappealing alternatives, which is either the non shooting trio of Murray-Simmons-Anderson or only one of the latter two and an inexpensive shooter. Good luck trying to maintain a top 2-4 team that way, especially with Parker and Gasol another year older.