Most frustrating team I've ever seen

[Chinook]

The bolded part is a great point. I am sure his agent will bring that up.

Pau and Mills combine for $27 Million. I don't think it will be a great point. If anything, PATFO have a much better point in saying that had they let those guys walk, the team would be barely in the playoff race. People act as if Kawhi missing half the season doesn't affect his value. It absolutely does. A top-10 player playing a half-season does not have a top-10 impact. Kawhi still has work to do to make his current salary worth it this year. He has quite the task ahead of him to give the team $40 Million in value, or even $80 Million in the next seaon-and-a-half.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Golden State is literally willing itself to keep going despite the tax. If the cap crunches, I expect even them to fall back. Obviously Cleveland is losing money hand over fist, which is why they probably won't be too upset if James walks again. I don't think people really understand how bad the cap crunch can be. We're talking about situations where teams can end up with guys taking up half the cap and 40 percent of the tax threshold. And they can't "adjust" because those deals will already have been signed. Kawhi has one of the worst timings on his third contract possible. Maybe Davis only has a worst one but at least when that one comes, NOP will likely have a better idea what the next TV deal will look like.

GS will have tough decisions to make in the next three summers, having to pay Durant, Thompson and Green, with each deal pushing them further in the tax as a repeater. Paying $3.25(or $4.25?) for each $1 above the tax won't be fun even if they're making tons of money. They hit the jackpot getting Durant when the cap jumped so they're ahead of everyone when it comes to roster construction right now, but they'll have to make financially difficult decisions too, starting this summer.

The bubble we're looking at right now is actually kind of amazing. You have a generous deal combined with a league with very little intrigue, with resting "scandals" rearing their ugly heads. Combine that with the general cord-cutting trend, and it's no wonder the league is desperately trying to find other avenues to use to sell their content. I don't think the NBA has been a worse buy since Bird and Magic started playing. There's a very real possibility of the cap dropping into the low 90s or even high 80s. If that happens, I fully don't expect there to be basketball in 2021-2022 without the NBPA agreeing to revise extant contracts.

This is a very bleak outlook, there's nothing suggesting the NBA won't be making at least as much money as they do now for the foreseeable future. Sponsorship revenue keeps a trend of healthy rises by close to 10% each season, as well as the total NBA revenue. Team values keep increasing as well, everyone's making money. Even if the trend flattens a bit it'll still be a good business for everyone involved. Besides, people don't really care about parity or intrigue, it's only the NBA nerds on forums who don't want to watch GS vs LeBron in the finals every year. The new TV deal will be a great base for future revenue, and there are also teams that have long term local TV deals expiring soon, so they'll sign more lucrative ones. I don't see it as a league desperate to make ends at all.

[NameLess Scrub]

I like these kinds of threads.

[Seventyniner]

Any chance of a near-future CBA negotiation changing contracts to be percentages of the cap as opposed to fixed dollar amounts?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Any chance of a near-future CBA negotiation changing contracts to be percentages of the cap as opposed to fixed dollar amounts?

Not until after the 2022/23 season when either party can opt out of the current CBA.

[cutewizard]

Guys, this is a foolish question, but Im just curious......

If we traded Lamarcus for Marc Gasol, then got Clarkson......could we compete with GS?

Dont be mad at me,, just ruminating good Sirs.....

[Phenomanul]

GS will have tough decisions to make in the next three summers, having to pay Durant, Thompson and Green, with each deal pushing them further in the tax as a repeater. Paying $3.25(or $4.25?) for each $1 above the tax won't be fun even if they're making tons of money. They hit the jackpot getting Durant when the cap jumped so they're ahead of everyone when it comes to roster construction right now, but they'll have to make financially difficult decisions too, starting this summer.



This is a very bleak outlook, there's nothing suggesting the NBA won't be making at least as much money as they do now for the foreseeable future. Sponsorship revenue keeps a trend of healthy rises by close to 10% each season, as well as the total NBA revenue. Team values keep increasing as well, everyone's making money. Even if the trend flattens a bit it'll still be a good business for everyone involved. Besides, people don't really care about parity or intrigue, it's only the NBA nerds on forums who don't want to watch GS vs LeBron in the finals every year. The new TV deal will be a great base for future revenue, and there are also teams that have long term local TV deals expiring soon, so they'll sign more lucrative ones. I don't see it as a league desperate to make ends at all.

I wonder how much the corporate tax reduction will help NBA franchises in this number crunch?

[MaNu4Tres]

I can't believe there's people here that are questioning whether or not to give Kawhi the max.

Unbelievable.

[TD 21]

Complete bull . The Spurs were a top 2 team last year when healthy and are top 5 at worst right now.

I missed the part where I said anything to the contrary. They're a significant piece and stylistic shift away from championship contention.

I can't believe there's people here that are questioning whether or not to give Kawhi the max.

Unbelievable.

I know. Sure, he's proven to be somewhat injury prone, but less than the likes of Irving, Davis and Beal, who all got max deals. I get that this is a super max, but still; people act like he's Rose.

[dabom]

Every team in the league gives Kawhi the Super Max anytime without blinking. Players like him don't grow on trees.

[Chinook]

It's hard to say the Spurs need to shift paradigms when they are only not "championship contenders" because they might not be able to beat the Warriors. That's only a temporary obstacle. They would beat Houston and OKC in the playoffs, so it's not particularly clear that those teams have the right paradigm either.

The Spurs' weakness in their back court has nothing to do with Pop's philosophy for roster management. It has everything to do with the individual players declining. These guys in their 2014 forms would form an elite perimeter unit. The reason why that seems like a style other teams don't follow is that other teams don't have four backcourt guys who have been good enough and selfless enough financially to stay together that long. If the Warriors stay good for three or four more years, we'll stay to see them go the same way. Utah let their guys play forever. Nash and Hill were there until they were jerky. Memphis only let Carter and ZBo walk because they switched coaches, and they are clinging to Marc and Conley even still. Dallas with Dirk and Barea. We can keep going.

Mills isn't old, used to be dynamic and was important for chemistry. I wouldn't have kept him, but I don't think it was a bad move, especially independent from salary. Manu was iffy, but he's playing so well that isn't the problem. Parker played well to end his season last year and may still do so again. I've wanted them to upgrade the backcourt for years now, but I also think they are playing about as badly as they are going to play this year. The team drafted two guards in a row along with having a promising one in Forbes locked into an Arenas RFA situation. It's not like they don't have a semblance of a future there. The plan going forward is to get the most of out Parker/Murray, keep Manu on ice, get Green healthy and hope Patty can become more consistent. That's dicey, but it's not that much worse than hoping Gay and Kawhi are healthy, that Pau stays effective in May and that Anderson or Bertans can be a rotation player going forward.

[r0drig0lac]

I can't believe there's people here that are questioning whether or not to give Kawhi the max.

Unbelievable.

parallel universe of spurstalk

[spurraider21]

The Spurs' weakness in their back court has nothing to do with Pop's philosophy for roster management. It has everything to do with the individual players declining. These guys in their 2014 forms would form an elite perimeter unit.

that's horribly shallow analysis, imo. if you sit on the same roster for 8 years and let guys age, that has everything to do with your management. it's not as though the spurs are in the unique position of having players get a year older every year

[Chinook]

that's horribly shallow analysis, imo. if you sit on the same roster for 8 years and let guys age, that has everything to do with your management. it's not as though the spurs are in the unique position of having players get a year older every year

The whole point is that most teams aren't good enough for long enough to deal with an aging roster. It's not that Pop's doing something other teams wouldn't do -- he's just able to do something other teams can't do. Everybody who's around long enough keeps the players who help them get there for years and years. That's what the rest of my post that you cut off demonstrated.

[spurraider21]

The whole point is that most teams aren't good enough for long enough to deal with an aging roster. It's not that Pop's doing something other teams wouldn't do -- he's just able to do something other teams can't do. Everybody who's around long enough keeps the players who help them get there for years and years. That's what the rest of my post that you cut off demonstrated.

that reluctance to move along is still tied to their theory of roster management. it is something seen across the league? sure. but that doesn't mean it isn't a flaw in their roster management model

[Chinook]

that reluctance to move along is still tied to their theory of roster management. it is something seen across the league? sure. but that doesn't mean it isn't a flaw in their roster management model

Call it a flaw is one thing -- calling it archaic is another. Keeping the core together isn't some outdated strategy that doesn't work in the new age; it's just the inevitable result of sustained success. All of these teams would do the same in a heartbeat if they could get the chance. But of course they can't and won't, because they'll change coaches and GMs way sooner than eight years.

[spurraider21]

Call it a flaw is one thing -- calling it archaic is another. Keeping the core together isn't some outdated strategy that doesn't work in the new age; it's just the inevitable result of sustained success. All of these teams would do the same in a heartbeat if they could get the chance. But of course they can't and won't, because they'll change coaches and GMs way sooner than eight years.

i dont know that i called it archaic. im saying it's silly to pretend it's not a product of roster management

[TD 21]

It's hard to say the Spurs need to shift paradigms when they are only not "championship contenders" because they might not be able to beat the Warriors. That's only a temporary obstacle. They would beat Houston and OKC in the playoffs, so it's not particularly clear that those teams have the right paradigm either.

The Spurs' weakness in their back court has nothing to do with Pop's philosophy for roster management. It has everything to do with the individual players declining. These guys in their 2014 forms would form an elite perimeter unit. The reason why that seems like a style other teams don't follow is that other teams don't have four backcourt guys who have been good enough and selfless enough financially to stay together that long. If the Warriors stay good for three or four more years, we'll stay to see them go the same way. Utah let their guys play forever. Nash and Hill were there until they were jerky. Memphis only let Carter and ZBo walk because they switched coaches, and they are clinging to Marc and Conley even still. Dallas with Dirk and Barea. We can keep going.

Mills isn't old, used to be dynamic and was important for chemistry. I wouldn't have kept him, but I don't think it was a bad move, especially independent from salary. Manu was iffy, but he's playing so well that isn't the problem. Parker played well to end his season last year and may still do so again. I've wanted them to upgrade the backcourt for years now, but I also think they are playing about as badly as they are going to play this year. The team drafted two guards in a row along with having a promising one in Forbes locked into an Arenas RFA situation. It's not like they don't have a semblance of a future there. The plan going forward is to get the most of out Parker/Murray, keep Manu on ice, get Green healthy and hope Patty can become more consistent. That's dicey, but it's not that much worse than hoping Gay and Kawhi are healthy, that Pau stays effective in May and that Anderson or Bertans can be a rotation player going forward.

They would likely not beat Rockets and wouldn't be assured of beating Thunder in a series either. You act as if they're in another class than them and as if Warriors are old, when in reality their core is younger than Spurs'.

I know the back court has nothing to do with philosophy, but the style of play is archaic. No matter the efficiency, slow, ISO, 3 phobic offense won't generate enough offense to give even a league best defense a chance in a series vs Warriors and to a lesser extent Rockets and Cavaliers.

No such thing as independent from salary though. The future back court is highly questionable, particularly for a team with championship aspirations. Only Murray has starting potential, but that's almost entirely based on his physical tools. His offensive skillset isn't even close right now and he doesn't time well with Aldridge and to a lesser extent Leonard.

[Chinook]

i dont know that i called it archaic. im saying it's silly to pretend it's not a product of roster management

The post I replied to specifically referred to it as such.

[Chinook]

They would likely not beat Rockets and wouldn't be assured of beating Thunder in a series either. You act as if they're in another class than them and as if Warriors are old, when in reality their core is younger than Spurs'.

I know the back court has nothing to do with philosophy, but the style of play is archaic. No matter the efficiency, slow, ISO, 3 phobic offense won't generate enough offense to give even a league best defense a chance in a series vs Warriors and to a lesser extent Rockets and Cavaliers.

No such thing as independent from salary though. The future back court is highly questionable, particularly for a team with championship aspirations. Only Murray has starting potential, but that's almost entirely based on his physical tools. His offensive skillset isn't even close right now and he doesn't time well with Aldridge and to a lesser extent Leonard.

I think they would beat Houston and OKC without a ton of trouble. That first game means nothing when evaluating the teams.

The Spurs ended up with Leonard as their alpha and LMA as their second. I agree that Pop should work harder to fit their styles into the offense, but it's not like he got Curry and Durant. I can't imagine how awful the offense would be if he got like Russ and Giannis.

I am not worried about Murray's timing. He fits better with LMA than Kawhi did with Tim. And he's like five years younger than Leonard, which is less than Tim and Tony. I think he and LMA have good chemistry already, but he can't play with Kawhi unless he learns to shoot consistently and until Kawhi moves off the ball more.

Anyways, Patty's salary is an issue, but the reason why I ignored it was that him being signed for any real amount was giving him a rotation spot. Him for like $7 Million APY wouldn't have made that less true.

[spurraider21]

The post I replied to specifically referred to it as such.

and you specifically said it "has nothing to do with roster management"

[Chinook]

and you specifically said it "has nothing to do with roster management"

Yes. Don't be Chump Jr on this. TD himself understood what I meant in his reply.

[TD 21]

I think they would beat Houston and OKC without a ton of trouble. That first game means nothing when evaluating the teams.

The Spurs ended up with Leonard as their alpha and LMA as their second. I agree that Pop should work harder to fit their styles into the offense, but it's not like he got Curry and Durant. I can't imagine how awful the offense would be if he got like Russ and Giannis.

I'm not basing it on one regular season game. I just trust that their style, with a 2nd superstar and better defensive personnel than last season, will win out. Picking Spurs is fine, but saying "without a ton of trouble" is crazy.

We've seen plenty of superstars and stars change their game to suit a necessary role and/or style elsewhere. No one is asking Leonard to become James in terms of play making or Aldridge to become Love in terms of volume 3-point shooting or the ball movement to resemble the '12-'14 Spurs or '15-present Warriors, but essentially letting them do whatever they want isn't the answer either.

Aldridge, barring a career altering injury, should age similarly to Duncan and Gasol, but he'll still turn 33 this summer. Even if he holds up as a star through his mid 30s, Murray is the definition of a boom or bust prospect and even if he ends up the former, it's probably not happening until Aldridge is past his prime. If they're lucky, maybe they get 1 season of overlap.

[spurraider21]

Yes. Don't be Chump Jr on this. TD himself understood what I meant in his reply.

i think you're just being obtuse, but w/e

[Chinook]

i think you're just being obtuse, but w/e

No. I explained what I meant to you even though I wasn't talking to you, and you're trying to be a stickler. I said both why it not being archaic was the point I was making and why this isn't a style unique to Pop. So even if you weren't willing to grant that I was mostly talking about the style not being archaic, I answered your question. Staying the course isn't an issue with Pop's style. It's a feature of being good for years. I didn't agree with not upgrading, but I doubt most coaches would have done anything different had they been on the team the past eight years instead.