Who gives a flying if people here were anti-Mills or not? The Spurs had no idea what the PG market was going to look like and really couldn't wait to find out. They knew they could get Mills for $6.8 Million and built their plan around that. ing about what Hill and Tedosic are marking is total hindsight-driven pieces of bull . It has nothing to do with whether you wanted Mills back or not. I didn't want him back, especially not at 12:01, but I get it. There were even scenarios where I would have been fine with bringing Patty back, but that's not the point. Wanting Teague, Lowry, Paul or Hill instead of Patty is fine. ing about the Spurs not knowing Hill's market was going to evaporate isn't.
Your issue is you think I'm defending re-signing Mills in and of itself. I'm not. Especially after drafting White, I don't believe they needed to secure Patty if their plan was to go after Paul. But folks like you seem to fundamentally not understand what the Spurs did and why. And you all want to act like the Spurs would have been waiting patiently on 7/4 with no PGs on the roster besides Murray and trying to leverage players into signing cheap deals. That was not going to be the case.
Lol, if you think the ing about Patty and the unreasonable comparisons to contracts like Hill and Tedosic is a discussion, you must talk about very little. It's just complaining over and over again. I have done nothing to stop it. Me rejecting unreasonable what I believe is criticism doesn't prevent you from typing it (obviously). That the Spurs felt like keeping Mills was a priority is definitely questionable. But why they gave him a deal at 12:01 is not. If you accept the first argument, you have no reason to question the second. IF you reject the first, the second is irrelevant.