Reply With Quote
Dotson played tonight and dropped 17.
Sorry Livio was decent until he got hurt and then he started to suck. I will say I was at a couple of Austin games last season and I can tell you he has improved greatly was kinda surprised they didn’t offer a two way or maybe they did but he took the Europe contract. For some reason I don’t think we have heard the last of Livio.
Drafting players has luck involved just ask Philly about the First Pick in the draft trying to be traded for late first or second round. Lol
Dotson played tonight and dropped 17.
Livio always sucked. Love the revisionist history around here to justify slurping every PATFO decision.
it's pathetic. Livio was about as average as one could be prior to the draft. PATFO fluffers justifying spending a first round pick based off a meaningless Nike Hoops summit game.
The Spurs are certainly good drafters but eventually those nice picks play for other teams getting paid much more PATFO could afford. So what's in it for the Spurs?
It's a problem if you don't think guys like Blair are good picks. DeJuan was a fantastic pick and would have been fine even it he had been drafted 25 picks earlier. I'm just going to assume you missed him and Anderson as picks in your range, though. The point is that if the Spurs are good at finding really good players after the lottery, and good players are often found in the early second, why would not think the Spurs are likely to mess up that range? Like sure, maybe they don't know guys like Jokic or Brogdon will be impact players before they break out. But even the guys GS and Phillly drafted there (with not a one of them becoming a star besides Draymond) are way better than Dotson.
What's the logic there? Why would it make more sense to trade those couple of cheap years for even fewer cheap years for Dotson?
It's not revisionist history. That would imply folks didn't like LJC and then changed their minds just to protect PATFO. In reality, folks liked him just fine back then, and some just refused to let go of that affinity. , even I held a candle for Livio until the end of last season.
There'd be nothing wrong with drafting an average player at 30. That you think he was already average at 18 suggests a pretty high ceiling or at least enough possibility of one that it would make sense to be excited.
I don't know much about Dotson but if we do have cheap years at good draft prospects' expense why haven't we used the rest of the budget getting medium tier free agents or high tier euro players? I don't see much difference between 2nd rounder and a young undrafted euro player with euroleague experience.
The Not So Great Yacht aka The Little Row Boat.
Bryn is the only player on the Spurs 15 that wasn't drafted. That compares to four second-rounders and seven total players drafted after 25 (but still drafted). UDFAs can obviously still come in and do well, but the Spurs have a long history of second-rounders doing well, whether PATFO were the ones picking or not. It's just much harder to find great UDFAs, because teams are just more likely to pick up all the stray talent once they have 30 more picks to do it. Obviously it happens somewhat every year, but I'd say most of the breakout former scrubs, especially those in the US, are former second-rounders more often than former UDFAs.
I don't think it makes sense to call out SA for not having mid-tier contracts when they currently have more than they have had in a long time. Mills, Gay, Bertans and Beli are all signed to such deals. They compliment the four guys on rookie deals (Murray, Poeltl, White and Walker) and Metu's contract. The Spurs may have a problem in what types of players they want in their system, but they don't have a problem in managing their contracts. If Pau wasn't getting $16 Million, someone else should have been. , there should be a third player making near $20 Million on the roster as it is. Having a system like Miami were they have five players in the $10M-$15M range next year is crazy.
I am pretyy much ok with Bryn, Mills, Belli, Gay and Bertans. I just don't get why we didn't try to get Len, Chandler, McGee or Beasley (if we couldn't get Randle) to help LMA. And I don't understand why we signed Pondexter and Cunningham for 4.3 and refused to pay Kyle Anderson 8.6. I am sure Gasol would have taken less than 16 and it still would look like classic loyalty contract.
Almost 100% nonsequitur. The question is whether trading a mid-30s second rounder for a known quan y is a good idea. The overwhelming majority of responses say no because the Spurs have some storied history of drafting in that range. I say let’s look at the past decade or so and see whether it’s worth it or not.
The truth is they’ve had two mid-30s picks in the past 12 years. One sucked (Williams). And one panned our for a few years (I never was a Blair fan and he was part of the 2008-2012 dark ages, but reasonable minds can differ). Notably, both those picks are from over a decade ago, so it’s not exactly fresh evidence.
Regardless, data is not the plural of anecdote. That one - one - pick in your mind was a good choice does not create some rich draft history in the 30s (Anderson was a first rounder and bringing him up is dishonest given we’re talkingg about a second round pick). So, actually, no, there’s not enough evidence to make the claim that the spurs are *really good* at finding players in the 30s and beyond, which is what the whole issue is in the first place.
I don't know Dotson at all, but I do not think the Spurs would go into next season with 3-4 rooks in their team.
I suspect one of the picks is traded, I don't know for who or with what strategy. It could be to move up, could be to package it with a current Spur to get someone else in a trade, it could be for a current young player they like, etc. There's many ways that asset can be used. Should it be used for Dotson? Honestly I don't know. I don't know this player at all. But I hope they are currently looking around for ways to get better this current season though. I wouldn't advocate that if it wasn't bc of Pop wanting to "stay compe ive" this year, which is clearly what they want to do.
Just seems like you don't want to admit you were wrong. YOU were the one who set the limit specifically from 30 to 40, so don't call others dishonest for bringing up a 30th pick, Anyway, no, 30 and 31 have much more in common than 31 and 55 do. The point I was making is that Blair was objectively a great pick when you look at his production in relation to his draft class. If you're of the "opinion" that he was a poor pick, it says more about your ability to judge picks than it does about the Spurs did.
Your whole framing of this issue has been wrong. Nobody but you set this limit where only 30(31) to 40 count. Everyone else just argued the Spurs were good at drafting. Secondly, yeah, nailing pick after pick in the late-20s is legit reason to believe they could do well with a 30s pick. Like what's your argument even trying to be here: That because PATFO wouldn't be drafting a first-round pick that they won't put scouting resources into players taken in this range? Or is it that you believe that PATFO just happened to have that last good guy fall to them at the end of the first and that they have no more board left by the time we're in the 30s?
Ultimately, one doesn't need a lot to go on to argue that they shouldn't trade a high-second for a random player. Sure, arguing for Dotson can be persuasive, but you didn't do that. You're making no claim that he's any good at all, just that SA should trade the pick because they have only drafted Blair in that range. That's "data" in your mind? I can't see that. To me, it's just an attempt to make an argument that has a lot of problems.
There was no reason to get Len or McGee after the Poeltl trade. The Spurs have a good center rotation now that LMA plays the five full time. Len hasn't been very good compared to the other centers. Javale is a very underrated player, but his problems are still there. I also don't think there was much of an option to sign him for cheap anyway. Beasley hasn't played well this year and also gave LAL a ring-chaser discount. Last year it was a better question in my opinion, because he outplayed Gay while making a lot less. That's no longer the case. I don't think it makes sense to lament either Chandler. Wilson was traded for pure cap space, which SA didn't and should have had lying around. Tyson doesn't fit in a healthy center rotation. He's a good defensive center even now, but his marginal value there has diminished with his mobility, and the team again has a good enough center rotation.
Pondexter is a placeholder. His roster spot costs almost a million bucks a year just to lie fallow. Subtracting that cost from everyone's contracts, you get Pon and Cun for $2,4 Million versus $7.7 for Anderson. It's actually a much bigger financial difference that your post suggests, and it gets worse when you subtract a vet-min instead of a rookie min like I did. A lot of your criticisms ignore that cap building is complicated and that not every dollar is equal. Paying Gasol less doesn't necessarily make it better to sign Anderson, Bertans, Forbes and Beli all to big contracts. I mean, nobody likes the Gasol deal for what it is, but I do feel it's better for the team to have one $17-Million contract than two more $8-9-Million contracts. The more players in that range you sign, the more you have to hope you can find trades for them when the time comes to change your roster. I've already mentioned the Heat who are locked into a below-average team for years because they have kept all their free agents. They aren't alone historically. Both Denver and Memphis went through stretches of locking their ceilings in a bunch of middle role-players. If the Spurs wanted to sign Andeson, I feel like they should have done so at the expense of one of their other mid-sized contracts, not in addition to them.
There's only 3 picks on that list in the 30-40 range, Kyle Anderson, Dejuan Blair, and Marcus Williams. Two of those three had some success in the NBA. I'd say that's pretty successful. Second round picks have mostly been a speculative crapshoot for the Spurs historically, but that's usually because they're picking at the end of round 2.
The revisionist history is the slurpers claiming now that he was ever good. I don't know what games they were watching when it was clear he couldn't do literally anything well.
Second round pick. Not something in the 20's. Not #30. A second rounder. I was being generous saying something in the 30's. If you want to look at their drafting history in the 40s and 50s, its upthread.
But this is par for the course: a lot of words that have nothing to do with the point being made. Show me the evidence that the Spurs have a solid track record of picking in the 30s. This should be really simple - it's like you don't want to admit you were wrong.
There simply is no evidence to suggest that the type of pick contemplated in a trade for Dotson would reveal the sort of value you're talking about. Again, this is not my framing, nor does this have to do with the late 20s. The point very simply is that there is no evidence to suggest that the front office would hit a home run for the type of pick suggested as what it would take to get Dotson.
You can put words in people's mouths and try to characterize what they're saying in a way to fit your narrative all you want. But that's dishonest. A lot like the suggestion that the spurs history in the second round hasn't been a storied success over the past decade. Which is the sole point I was making.
DP
That's you. You set 30-40 as a limit, not me, not another poster, not the article you think save your point. You chose to make a post with the history of the Spurs drafting in both rounds. Let's ignore that you one claimed "success" wasn't even drafted in that prescribed range. You're the one who's been off-message this whole debate while acting like the discussion before and after your post is a nonsequiter.
30th is a pick in the 30s. You can't even go one post without contradicting yourself. If the Spurs can nail the 30th pick, it makes sense to believe they have a good chance to do something with the 34th pick. Guys like George Hill and DeJounte Murray can be high-seconds just as easily as they were low-firsts.Not #30.
...
But this is par for the course: a lot of words that have nothing to do with the point being made. Show me the evidence that the Spurs have a solid track record of picking in the 30s. This should be really simple - it's like you don't want to admit you were wrong.
This is another problem. They don't have to hit a home run. They don't need to draft a star. A simple rotation player like Bell or a guy with potential like Bolden is plenty good enough to not want to trade it away. You keep not advocating for Dotson, but because you refuse to measure the other side of the trade, your judgment of the picks is point.There simply is no evidence to suggest that the type of pick contemplated in a trade for Dotson would reveal the sort of value you're talking about. Again, this is not my framing, nor does this have to do with the late 20s. The point very simply is that there is no evidence to suggest that the front office would hit a home run for the type of pick suggested as what it would take to get Dotson.
Your "sole" point isn't well-reasoned. As mentioned, the Spurs nailed two of their three picks in the 30s. They're good at finding guys in the late-20s. Every year there are good players drafted in the 30s. Those three things make it reasonable to believe they'll do a good job with the pick. Listing guys drafted in the 50s is horrible counter evidence. Ignoring guys drafted in the 20s is even worse. Continuing to pretend like drafting a guy like Blair is not a great haul or that a player needs to be Dragic-good to be worth not trading demonstrates a lack of perspective. We aren't talking about withholding the pick in a trade for an established starter here. We're talking about not trading it for a warm body. Making a move like this would be closer to Ray McCallum trade than any other move we've been discussing.You can put words in people's mouths and try to characterize what they're saying in a way to fit your narrative all you want. But that's dishonest. A lot like the suggestion that the spurs history in the second round hasn't been a storied success over the past decade. Which is the sole point I was making.
Anyone who doesn't think the Spurs are outstanding drafters either doesn't understand how the NBA works or doesn't realize how low the odds are of picking a player in the late first round who sticks in the league. The odds are even lower in the second round.
Murray, KA, Joseph, Hill, Blair, Splitter, etc. were all great picks. , even De Colo and Hanga were quality picks (getting NBA talent in the second round is rare). White looks like another good to great pick. Walker already looks like a really good pick. Milutinov looks like he'll be able to play in the NBA, so that's another good pick.
LJC was a pure athlete who tore his ACL a couple months after the draft and never regained his quickness. James Anderson looked really good to begin his rookie season but then suffered a career-altering injury (as I detailed at the time, the specific type of broken foot he suffered was difficult to recover from). Even if you want to classify those as bad picks, the Spurs can put their drafting ability up against any team in the NBA and they'd come out on top. Off the top of my head, the Thunder would be second ... but they've had the luxury of having lottery picks and they've missed a bunch too.
Edgelords trying to claim the Spurs can't draft enter straight into trolling territory if they're actually serious.
I agree. Think its sometimes not worth it to even argue this point. They have hit on rotation players in the late round more often than not. Of course most posters (oh I am sorry, I meant trolls) consider those guys scrubs. But they don't realize the fact they got roleplayers at very cheap late round rookie deals for a few years in a row allowed thme to fill out the roster and pay other guys up that they wanted to pay up. Now you can criticize them paying up X vs Y, or trying a different strategy here or there, liberating cap for someone vrs not doing that. There is a lot one can argue about players they have signed recently and for how much... but complaining about that while also whining about Kyle in a rookie scale deal, that was troll territory and still is... bc dude is playing in another franchise and still has a troll brigade following him. CoJo is a quality roleplayer in a playoff team that got paid after his rook deal, the Spurs had him at a bargain, etc. Even if they sign elsewhere after their rook deals are over, the rookie scale contracts are such a bargain in the NBA that if you get a player that is productive 3 out of those 4 (bc Pop sends them their rook season to the Gleague invariably), then that is a great value.
Of course I want a better draft pick. I want better chances at a better player. You got to draft higher though consistently and have more picks... that means a little bit of tanking... so here we are. Spurs may end up not being all that great anyways and add another good pick to the one they made this past summer. I do hope Walker's knees hold up and don't become glass.
The "NBA EXPERT" with more amazing takes great job
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
