Reply With Quote
Would have made no difference.
I wanted to swap Kawhi for Harris (actually shoots 3's), Harrell S&T, and a couple of the Clippers picks. Would've been the better trade, no?
Would have made no difference.
LOL.
OK.
You wanted an impossible trade. I thought LAC could offer a good deal for Kawhi as well, but you can't S&T a guy during the draft, even in a wink-wink kinda way.
The picks could've been not the ones from this year. And Harrell was not signed until very late and for basically nothing.
Can you guarantee the Clips even offered this trade? Also who would have thought Tobias would turn into Melo level scoring ability in 2 years. Might as well buy the winning lottery ticket.
Clips offered Harris/12/13 and "additional players" . . . this is what we should've asked for. But no, Pop/RC didn't want to trade with one team we had leverage with . . .
Pretty sure that only offered Toby and either the 12th or 13th pick
Spurs have had a lot of opportunities to go in different direction that they did going back to 2016. If you want someone to apologize write a letter to TC Buford.
They could possibly still make some moves this season. Not holding my breath tho.
I'm assuming also that most of what Cris Carter said including "Jerry West said he would move mountains . . . " is actually true. Also, it seemed a bigger issue was that Pop/RC themselves didn't think Clips had enough assets.
This true. Warriors should fall apart by next summer, we will have Murry back, internal improvements, and we should be able to get a big SF.
Anyone ready to admit that they should have traded LMA during the off-season? That was one of the main reasons I didn't like the Demar trade is because it meant they would keep LMA for a futile attempt at competing this season.
Spencer’s Dinwiddie was once cut from the Pistons (heh) and could have been had by any team. If anything I am most dissapointed by old rehashes like Marco.
LMA was at peak-value to be sure with the cheap contract extension.
What wrong moves did we make summer 2016? Also, summer 2015 there was no other way to sign LMA with cap space other than moving Tiago? Ask Tim and Manu to re-sign with the actual min?
Then that's a bad trade. You want to argue that Harris is within two lotto picks of DeRozan and Poeltl, I can understand. You want to argue that he's within a 2021 and 2023 first (likely somewhat protected), I can't ride with that. I don't want to sound combative, but if you were receiving push-back with your original idea, it's likely because it wasn't all the way thought through. Harris, 12, 13 and Harrell at $5 Million a season is a far cry from Harris, protected firsts at the nearest three and five years out and a Harrell at $7-8 Million.
Nah, I'm not in a rush to tear it down, and any path to contending any time soon involves getting a third star around LMA and DMDR and hoping guys step up. Of course, there were rebuild ideas that I did have interest in, especially since Memphis fans were interested in swapping Parsons and fourth-overall for LMA if the Spurs could have somehow acquired a lottery pick through a Leonard trade. My fantasy was Bagley/Bamba/JJJ at 4, Walker at 12 and Porter Jr at 18.
I had various iterations on it. Problem is Clippers picked without Spurs giving hints to who they'd want so trading 12/13 after the fact became less tenable. The other part is that because we don't need to add salary we don't lose Green.
Also, isn't the first draft with high school students again supposed to effectively be double the talent?
BTW, since in order to trade both 12/13 they need to be traded after the players are signed to their rookie deals. If you add up Harris/Harrell/SGA/Robinson's salaries right now they add up to slightly more than 125% of what Kawhi was making. Would we have been able to match with just cash or at Kawhi's 15% trade kicker?
I really think the reason Harrell took so long to get signed was West was exploring this move. It makes no sense otherwise.
But I guess we'll have to make do. The roster can probably be fixed next summer. Just a lost year.
There were possible iterations of a LAC trade that I would have preferred. , I was on here pretty early arguing for LAC deals in relation to Tatum trades from Boston. However, if you were extremely ambiguous in what LAC deal you were talking about, it's not surprising that you got a lot of disagreement. Each permutation has some point of contention, so having a nebulous package would make it easier to attack. In your defense, I do think a lot of folks here were either expecting to get a lot more for Kawhi they PATFO ended up getting or were so pissed at Leonard that they weren't willing to accept any LA deal. I specifically recall a lot of ideas for packages from LAC, PHL and other teams being portrayed as . , even the actual deal was pretty much , but up until it actually happened, I don't think anyone really believed it would get that bad. Add in how this year seems to be going, and we'll all be second-guessing the trade for years.
First draft is 2022, so this deal misses the critical year.Also, isn't the first draft with high school students again supposed to effectively be double the talent?
This isn't true. You can trade rights for players without signing them, as the team did with Kawhi Leonard. The Stepien rule doesn't apply after draft day begins. They still cannot have Harrell as part of the package on draft night, because the Spurs (and honestly the Clippers too), cannot legally have a deal in place before 7/1. That's tampering. LAC can't even give consent to bypass that, as Harrell was an upcoming free agent and not their player to control.
I am still not a fan of Harris. And I actually don't see him the top 2 best player for the Clippers. Clipper bench and depth is making them really relevant atm.
Well, my line of thinking was that sending Kawhi to LAC over LAL gives him what he wants while giving him the middle finger. Also, I thought even though their assets maybe weren't great it was the one location where his trade value hadn't been completely destroyed because Jerry West feels urgency to get Kawhi now rather than risk losing him to the Lakers in FA.
Any deal with PHI for me would've needed to be Saric/Covington/Fultz/Zhaire/Heat pick. This was still suspect to me because I thought Fultz was essentially a bust but I'd still want him over Chandler in terms of salary matching.
But they wouldn't do that-they're probably even use Bayless to match salary and only give 1 or 2 of Saric/Zhaire/pick because Kawhi really tanked his trade value. I really feel like I was the only one who was considering that angle.
BTW, my worst iteration was Harris/Harrell S&T/two future firsts and most high end was to include Mills and get back Harris/Harrell S&T/12/13/1 future first. Problem is again that Spurs really never tipped their hand as to who they would want at 12/13. I assume Kawhi for Harris/Harrell S&T/Robinson/1 future first might've been doable. We just got out of a logjam at PG and they love SGA.
He was an RFA. So they could've done the trade on 7/1 (Kawhi for Harris/Harrell S&T/12/13) and the only salary that would've counted on the Clips side was Harris/Harrell S&T? Not that it would've mattered-they could just attach BP3 to match. And it's fine about not being able to trade on draft night. The bigger issue is Spurs never hinted at who they'd want at 12/13.
I preferred him strongly to Lou who a lot of people were putting in Clips/Kawhi trades.
Harrell's restricted status doesn't bypass tampering rules. He could not be part of any trade discussions with those picks as picks. Yes, LAC could have drafted whatever players SA happened to want and then engaged PATFO on 7/1, but any talk about LAC drafting guys FOR PATFO (meaning, knowing exactly whom the Spurs preferred) is tampering. LAC shouldn't know they could add Harrell to the deal or what contract would make both Harrell and PATFO comfortable. There would be at least an implicit level of negotiation between PATFO and Harrell's agent, and that would preclude other teams from being able to bid on him. Even though no teams ended up wanting to give him and offer sheet, it's still against the rules to not give them a chance. We're not talking about announcing a signed at 12:01 here. We're talking about having a full contract agreed to days before free agency. It's beyond sketch and isn't worth defending.
Also, Paul wasn't tradeable, or at least his salary didn't count in trades.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
