NBA Trade Deadline 2019

[slick'81]

Yeah, SJ has not been good at all his entire career so far. I don’t understand where people say he has value. He may develop more and a change of scenery could help, but he looks busty at this point.

His 3 point shooting % is def worrisome.Does seem poodle esque as busty at this point

[Chinook]

DeRozan is an egregiously overpaid regular season stat padder who doesn't make his team better, Gay is injury plagued and out of a contract at seasons end, Mills and Forbes are TRASH, Beli only plays one side of the ball, Bertans is just a shooter and Poeltl is hit or miss. White shows promise and Murray is completely unproven with a flat jump shot. I'm sorry, we have different definitions of the word depth.

Yes, you have an unrealistic idea of what depth is. DeRozan being overpaid has literally nothing to do with depth. Gay leaving the team this summer has even less to do with depth. One-sided players, inconsistent players, they're fine for your depth players. Those are guys to compete with players like Gerald Green and Jerami Grant. They aren't supposed to fill DeRozan's role in the rotation.

Have we finally come to the realization that the Spurs are officially playoff fodder as if we're now comparing them to the "other" teams that Spurs fans made fun of because their fans had unrealistic dreams of championship contention? Those teams with worse or similar depth doesn't change the fact that the Spurs have a very flawed roster with Aldridge being the only consistently healthy two-way player.

This is irrelevant to the discussion of depth. If the Spurs are in a non-contending season, it's not because they don't have enough good players. It's because they lack a third star. Stars aren't depth in anyone's definition except for maybe yours. The Sixers didn't trade for Jimmy Butler because they lacked depth.

The Spurs don't have much of a future beyond the next three years so trading away draft picks for what would amount to short term success would be a very bad idea for a team that's closer to a rebuild than a championship.

So here you've come to the point you were refuting just a few posts ago. The Spurs shouldn't trade away picks if it's not for a star. DPG didn't say that assuming SA had a star-level package to offer. He said that to discourage trades that won't push the Spurs to the next level, meaning trades for depth. The Spurs can be the team they are (4-8 with a chance to make the WCF if everything breaks for them but could be bounced in the first round with a bad draw), without any depth trades. If Johnson doesn't make put them in the top three, why do the trade at all?

[MoSpur02]

If the Spurs are looking to trade for someone, I prefer getting Bazemore instead of Stanley Johnson or Alec Burks. Derozan's shot/offense worries me. I think a consistent three point shooter such as Bazemore would help much more if they're point in trading for someone is to compete this season. The Spurs need a legit defender on the wing as well. To me Bazemore solves both of those issues.

Johnson is the cheaper option, but he has proven much. Not sure he can improve this team that much.

I don't see a need for a center like Marc Gasol. I think Poeltl is better than Gasol or at least will get better with more playing time.

[SpaceCoast Spursfan]

Just for kicks here are a few trades from ESPN trade board:

NY Blockbuster
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ydc8xys3

Pistons/spurs SJ variation
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yccshytu

Spurs/Suns deal (Spurs include 1st rounder)
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7ujhddu

Hawks/Spurs Linsanity

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y9z3mqkv

Of course there are many others but these caught attention because either had been discussion, were some what interesting, and/or funny.

[DPG21920]

Look, I like Jakob, but Marc is far superior. That doesnt mean he would be easy to integrate or would fit well, but he’s way closer to a third star than Jakob.

To me, getting a third star on a deal that lines up with DeMar/LMA is very tough and I can see SA taking a swing if the cost is something like Pau + picks (not that I’m saying I think that is smart) then I can see SA trying something like that IF, IF the goal is to win now.

They have to take some risks IF that is the mindset. They have to add to LMA/DeRozan. They might not be willing to do that for Marc or otherwise and opt instead to do the winbuild they have been doing. But we shall see.

[Chinook]

Just for kicks here are a few trades from ESPN trade board:

NY Blockbuster
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ydc8xys3

Pistons/spurs SJ variation
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yccshytu

Spurs/Suns deal (Spurs include 1st rounder)
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7ujhddu

Hawks/Spurs Linsanity

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y9z3mqkv

Of course there are many others but these caught attention because either had been discussion, were some what interesting, and/or funny.

The first two are dookie-and-a-half. The Suns one is awful unless the Spurs love Jackson (otherwise, they're paying two firsts and making their roster worse for no reason). The final deal is good for SA but not appealing to the Hawks unless the Spurs give a pick, and if the Spurs give a pick, it no longer makes sense for them. Had Atlanta done the right thing and drafted Luka, then Forbes would probably be appealing to them. But he's redundant with Young to say the least.

[DPG21920]

Just for kicks here are a few trades from ESPN trade board:

NY Blockbuster
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ydc8xys3

Pistons/spurs SJ variation
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yccshytu

Spurs/Suns deal (Spurs include 1st rounder)
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7ujhddu

Hawks/Spurs Linsanity

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y9z3mqkv

Of course there are many others but these caught attention because either had been discussion, were some what interesting, and/or funny.

Hate them all except Suns (I would absolutely do that) and Hawks (would probably do that)

[Hoops Czar]

Yes, you have an unrealistic idea of what depth is. DeRozan being overpaid has literally nothing to do with depth. Gay leaving the team this summer has even less to do with depth. One-sided players, inconsistent players, they're fine for your depth players. Those are guys to compete with players like Gerald Green and Jerami Grant. They aren't supposed to fill DeRozan's role in the rotation.

It's probably your faulty reading comprehension but I was responding to your post about the Spurs having five unambiguously good players in White, DeRozan, Gay, Bertans and Aldridge. Nowhere did I mention the words "depth" and "DeRozan" in the same sentence though pound for pound, DeRozan might be classified as one of the worst "stars" in the decade as it is really rare to see a career net negative player playing for a pair of 50 win RS teams. Good player? Sure, when he's engaged for a week here or a week there between the months of October and mid April but that's the true definition of depth. Good players are part of a team's depth. Not sure why you put Bertans in the same category with Aldridge, White, Gay and DeRozan. He is by your definition alone, the truest form of depth.. At least stay consistent with your argument.

This is irrelevant to the discussion of depth. If the Spurs are in a non-contending season, it's not because they don't have enough good players. It's because they lack a third star. Stars aren't depth in anyone's definition except for maybe yours. The Sixers didn't trade for Jimmy Butler because they lacked depth.

They lack a second star but I think your definition of "good" is a bit blurry. Stars aren't depth clown shoes but good players are. Good players are what creates depth. I've never heard a person ever refer to a scrub as part of a team's depth except possibly you.

So here you've come to the point you were refuting just a few posts ago. The Spurs shouldn't trade away picks if it's not for a star. DPG didn't say that assuming SA had a star-level package to offer. He said that to discourage trades that won't push the Spurs to the next level, meaning trades for depth. The Spurs can be the team they are (4-8 with a chance to make the WCF if everything breaks for them but could be bounced in the first round with a bad draw), without any depth trades. If Johnson doesn't make put them in the top three, why do the trade at all?

Nope. What I'm saying is draft picks are more valuable to the Spurs future than a middling role player who may add a small amount of depth in the present. There isn't a single player on the market that could make the Spurs anymore of a contender than they are right now. If everything breaks right and the Spurs' role players like Mills, Forbes Bertans, Poeltle, postseason DeRozan, etc overachieve and true contenders like the Warriors play down to the level of the compe ion, who knows what might happen but the little bump they might receive from a trade/buy out won't make much of a difference unless the Spurs were somehow able to trade Matt Bonner for Trevor Ariza. Washington would get a guy who likes to eat sandwiches and tell halftime jokes and the Spurs would be getting a solid 3 and D guy.

You of all people should know by now how the Spurs do business yet you're one of the front runners in the trade deadline thread every year. Either you have a lot of time on your hands or you're a little kid standing in candy store who just wants to believe this year will be different.

[DPG21920]

The first two are dookie-and-a-half. The Suns one is awful unless the Spurs love Jackson (otherwise, they're paying two firsts and making their roster worse for no reason). The final deal is good for SA but not appealing to the Hawks unless the Spurs give a pick, and if the Spurs give a pick, it no longer makes sense for them. Had Atlanta done the right thing and drafted Luka, then Forbes would probably be appealing to them. But he's redundant with Young to say the least.

Disagree on the Suns one: Ryan would help the team more than Pau IMO (at least regular season) and his money is what it is (just one more season and we can pretend SA would be keeping Pau instead of waiving him). Jamal Crawford is not any good, but still better than Pondexter and can provide the same offense Mills does in general.

I would much rather have Josh money than Mills money for the upside alone and its all team options if things go way south for a quick reset after next season.

I mean, I am probably in the minority, but Josh has shown enough to where giving up the two late firsts is fair enough to see what hes made of.

[YGWHI]

I feel bad for this Griz rebuilding but Mike and Marc have always been my guys. Just do it, RC!

[Chinook]

It's probably your faulty reading comprehension but I was responding to your post about the Spurs having five unambiguously good players in White, DeRozan, Gay, Bertans and Aldridge.

Nothing to do with me. It's you trying to get off topic to make this about how bad you think the Spurs are in general. It's old and tired enough on its own, but in this case, it's very irrelevant. If your star sucks, then your star sucks, but he has nothing to do with depth.

Not sure why you put Bertans in the same category with Aldridge, White, Gay and DeRozan. He is by your definition alone, the truest form of depth.. At least stay consistent with your argument.

Because Bertans is a legit good player. He's not on the level of Gerald Green. He's at the same level as PJ Tucker, who's probably the fourth-best player on the Rockets.

They lack a second star but I think your definition of "good" is a bit blurry. Stars aren't depth clown shoes but good players are. Good players are what creates depth. I've never heard a person ever refer to a scrub as part of a team's depth except possibly you.

ty attempt at a turn-around. You think guys like Mills, Beli and Poeltl aren't comparable to the 6-8 of most playoff teams, and it says more about your knowledge of other teams than it does about them. You're definition of a scrub includes who put up numbers that makes them comfortably top-60 at their position. That is unrealistic passed off as critical.

Nope. What I'm saying is draft picks are more valuable to the Spurs future than a middling role player who may add a small amount of depth in the present.

Yes, otherwise known as that point you were just refuting a few posts ago. You using more critical language doesn't change the point; it just colors it to your normal temperament.

You of all people should know by now how the Spurs do business yet you're one of the front runners in the trade deadline thread every year. Either you have a lot of time on your hands or you're a little kid standing in candy store who just wants to believe this year will be different.

Or maybe I enjoy speculating without having to feel like PATFO will listen. I don't know what you get out of sports forums, but I certainly don't come in expecting PATFO to make decisions based on what I say. I can believe a move would be good for the Spurs while not believing such a move is possible. Moreover, I can believe PATFO won't make a move without pulling a you and believing they CAN'T if they wanted to. It's actually hilarious that you're even trying to accuse me of expecting a trade to happen when you replied to posts essentially saying the Spurs don't have any reason to make a trade in the first place. Kid in a candy store?

[SpaceCoast Spursfan]

Disagree on the Suns one: Ryan would help the team more than Pau IMO (at least regular season) and his money is what it is (just one more season and we can pretend SA would be keeping Pau instead of waiving him). Jamal Crawford is not any good, but still better than Pondexter and can provide the same offense Mills does in general.

I would much rather have Josh money than Mills money for the upside alone and its all team options if things go way south for a quick reset after next season.

I mean, I am probably in the minority, but Josh has shown enough to where giving up the two late firsts is fair enough to see what hes made of.

The Sun's deal was interesting just because I hadn't thought of JJ. Really comes down to how you feel about Josh, and I really don't know. At times I have thought he had really high ceiling and other times just doesn't look good.

As far as Hawks go, I think the Spurs could pull off a trade for Dedmon/Bazemore which I would prefer over J Lin and I think the Hawks would have more interest in moving Bazemore to free up cap space this off-season.

[Chinook]

Disagree on the Suns one: Ryan would help the team more than Pau IMO (at least regular season) and his money is what it is (just one more season and we can pretend SA would be keeping Pau instead of waiving him). Jamal Crawford is not any good, but still better than Pondexter and can provide the same offense Mills does in general.

Anderson isn't helping anybody anymore. He's no more a PF on defense than Pau is, and giving him minutes will make it harder for Gay to do his job. Spurs already have a more ideal Anderson in Bertans. You're also continuously under the impression that the Spurs have a lot of financial flexibility next season if they take on salary like Anderson. They don't. They'd have to make pretty tight decisions if they did this trade and paid the full MLE next year. It would depend on the Spurs' draft slot to see if they had enough to pay Gay even what he made this year -- and that's assuming the Toronto pick goes out. The only way to get breathing room would be to cut Anderson, but you still are in a situation where you'll have barely any room under the tax. To get real space, you'd have to stretch him, which goes against your idea of it only being a one-year thing.


http://www.shamsports.com/capulator?...268de797855470

To be clear, the Spurs could work around that salary. They could play hardball with Gay, or they could stash their pick, or they could not use the full MLE. But those are real compromises the team has to make. This isn't painless, and if the team is giving up a first too, it has to be worth more than just a middling SF.

[DPG21920]

Anderson isn't helping anybody anymore. He's no more a PF on defense than Pau is, and giving him minutes will make it harder for Gay to do his job. Spurs already have a more ideal Anderson in Bertans. You're also continuously under the impression that the Spurs have a lot of financial flexibility next season if they take on salary like Anderson. They don't. They'd have to make pretty tight decisions if they did this trade and paid the full MLE next year. It would depend on the Spurs' draft slot to see if they had enough to pay Gay even what he made this year -- and that's assuming the Toronto pick goes out. The only way to get breathing room would be to cut Anderson, but you still are in a situation where you'll have barely any room under the tax. To get real space, you'd have to stretch him, which goes against your idea of it only being a one-year thing.


http://www.shamsports.com/capulator?...268de797855470

To be clear, the Spurs could work around that salary. They could play hardball with Gay, or they could stash their pick, or they could not use the full MLE. But those are real compromises the team has to make. This isn't painless, and if the team is giving up a first too, it has to be worth more than just a middling SF.

Meh. I know the Spurs situation however I am making some assumptions. Im not too worried about Gay which is why I’m saying what I’m saying. Would be fine if he stayed, would also be fine if he just walked.

With regards to Ryan, I know his defense sucks but so does Pau. Spurs have Bertans now so having Ryan instead of Pau doesn’t change anything there and I just think Ryan fits better next to LMA or whomever offensively even if it’s just in Pau’s spot minutes.

I’m also higher on Josh Jackson than most.

[Chinook]

Meh. I know the Spurs situation however I am making some assumptions. Im not too worried about Gay which is why I’m saying what I’m saying. Would be fine if he stayed, would also be fine if he just walked.

With regards to Ryan, I know his defense sucks but so does Pau. Spurs have Bertans now so having Ryan instead of Pau doesn’t change anything there and I just think Ryan fits better next to LMA or whomever offensively even if it’s just in Pau’s spot minutes.

I’m also higher on Josh Jackson than most.

I like Josh a good deal and think he needs out of Phoenix ASAP. But I think you have to REALLY like him for this to make sense. What I'm saying is that the Spurs are paying a hefty price by doing this deal. Anderson's not cheap, and the Spurs could be adding a decent amount of salary this upcoming summer just through natural growth. They aren't going to punt next year when that could be their last with any semblance of star power for quite some time.

[DPG21920]

I like Josh a good deal and think he needs out of Phoenix ASAP. But I think you have to REALLY like him for this to make sense. What I'm saying is that the Spurs are paying a hefty price by doing this deal. Anderson's not cheap, and the Spurs could be adding a decent amount of salary this upcoming summer just through natural growth. They aren't going to punt next year when that could be their last with any semblance of star power for quite some time.

Pau + Mills money is the same as Josh + Ryan so to me it really makes no difference. So yeah, Anderson isn’t cheap, but if we assume SA won’t just waive Pau to be further under the tax/be able to pay Rudy a ton, then he’s on the books because waiving him doesn’t help them add to the team.

The only real salary add next year is Rudy and MLE. At the end of the day I think Josh + Ryan not only help SA win more now, but JJ fits the winbuild plan as well.

Also not to mention I think Josh will be an infinitely better trade piece vs Mills or the after draft picks in the event SA wants to try and add a third star for the last 2 years of LMA/DeRozan.

[Chinook]

Pau + Mills money is the same as Josh + Ryan so to me it really makes no difference.

It's more than a $4-Million difference.

if we assume SA won’t just waive Pau to be further under the tax/be able to pay Rudy a ton, then he’s on the books because waiving him doesn’t help them add to the team.

I have zero reason to believe the Spurs wouldn't waive Pau because they know they can get a replacement for cheap and want to go with Poeltl. I'm not going to say I know Pop's mind, but unless Gasol takes back a rotation spot on a successful team, there's no reason to pay him. Even if they want to keep him, they'd save money waiving him and re-signing him. The Spurs have carried dead money on their books for years now. They aren't going to be afraid to do it again.

The only real salary add next year is Rudy and MLE. At the end of the day I think Josh + Ryan not only help SA win more now, but JJ fits the winbuild plan as well.

Rudy's raise, the MLE and the pick are like $15 Million in salary. It's not a small add in the least. The tax is only increasing by $8 Million. Anderson definitely isn't going to help them win now, so I don't get why you keep thinking he'd be a plus over Pau there. At least Pau can fill in at center if Aldridge has to rest. That's way better than Anderson being slow on defense and one-note on offense. If you think Jackson is going to be a consistent starter for years, then year, it could be a good trade just for that. But if he's the 10th man, then I'd rather just sign a guy with the MLE and move on.

[talkspurs]

Disagree on the Suns one: Ryan would help the team more than Pau IMO (at least regular season) and his money is what it is (just one more season and we can pretend SA would be keeping Pau instead of waiving him). Jamal Crawford is not any good, but still better than Pondexter and can provide the same offense Mills does in general.

I would much rather have Josh money than Mills money for the upside alone and its all team options if things go way south for a quick reset after next season.

I mean, I am probably in the minority, but Josh has shown enough to where giving up the two late firsts is fair enough to see what hes made of.

I dont see the 2 first. I see a first rd included but dont see where the 2nd is. I actually had thought of something like this except I would change out crawford for Bender and Put Cunningham for Pondexter (for money reason). Phoenix has not played bender up until ayton got hurt so I think they might get rid of him. Would give Spurs a year to see what they like. I also agree that throwing in a pick especially Toronto pick would be worth it. We also get the SF with Jackson who is good Defense and has shown with PT can be good.
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y78khm6h

[DPG21920]

It's more than a $4-Million difference.



I have zero reason to believe the Spurs wouldn't waive Pau because they know they can get a replacement for cheap and want to go with Poeltl. I'm not going to say I know Pop's mind, but unless Gasol takes back a rotation spot on a successful team, there's no reason to pay him. Even if they want to keep him, they'd save money waiving him and re-signing him. The Spurs have carried dead money on their books for years now. They aren't going to be afraid to do it again.



Rudy's raise, the MLE and the pick are like $15 Million in salary. It's not a small add in the least. The tax is only increasing by $8 Million. Anderson definitely isn't going to help them win now, so I don't get why you keep thinking he'd be a plus over Pau there. At least Pau can fill in at center if Aldridge has to rest. That's way better than Anderson being slow on defense and one-note on offense. If you think Jackson is going to be a consistent starter for years, then year, it could be a good trade just for that. But if he's the 10th man, then I'd rather just sign a guy with the MLE and move on.

4M?

Ryan + Josh = 28.3M (21.2 for Ryan + 7.1 for Josh)

Pau + Mills = 28.4M (16 for Pau + 12.4 for Mills)

What am I missing here?

[Chinook]

4M?

Ryan + Josh = 28.3M (21.2 for Ryan + 7.1 for Josh)

Pau + Mills = 28.4M (16 for Pau + 12.4 for Mills)

What am I missing here?

You're assuming the Spurs wouldn't use Pau's partial guarantee, even though they put it in the contract. If you take the guaranteed money, the difference is just over $4 Million.

[DPG21920]

You're assuming the Spurs wouldn't use Pau's partial guarantee, even though they put it in the contract. If you take the guaranteed money, the difference is just over $4 Million.

I see where you were coming from. I mean, it all just depends like you said on the value placed on Josh and also what the real plan for SA is (win now to the best of their ability or hybrid approach)

I just like it because you get JJ and you still have the same exact 2020 cap space trajectory

[BD24]

Yeah, SJ has not been good at all his entire career so far. I don’t understand where people say he has value. He may develop more and a change of scenery could help, but he looks busty at this point.

Agree, not sure what all the hype around him is about.

He has never posted a fg% above 40 and his 3P % has been lower than 30 every season but his rookie year. He is an above average defender, but wouldn't call him elite by any means. He is also a surprisingly poor rebounder for his size and position. You would think with his size he would be able to rebound pretty well if nothing else.

[Hoops Czar]

Nothing to do with me. It's you trying to get off topic to make this about how bad you think the Spurs are in general. It's old and tired enough on its own, but in this case, it's very irrelevant. If your star sucks, then your star sucks, but he has nothing to do with depth.

You're goalpost moving would make Ronaldo proud. when your star isn't a star and is basically a high usage role player with a career net negative, they turn into depth as long as that said player doesn't try to take it upon himself to hero ball his team to victory. It's tiring that you don't have a lick of common sense to know that good players ARE in fact depth.

Because Bertans is a legit good player. He's not on the level of Gerald Green. He's at the same level as PJ Tucker, who's probably the fourth-best player on the Rockets.

He's depth! Why is this so hard for you to understand?

ty attempt at a turn-around. You think guys like Mills, Beli and Poeltl aren't comparable to the 6-8 of most playoff teams, and it says more about your knowledge of other teams than it does about them. You're definition of a scrub includes who put up numbers that makes them comfortably top-60 at their position. That is unrealistic passed off as critical.

Mills and Beli might be depth on a playoff team destined for a 1st round exit. Just ask Philly and San Antonio. I guess that depends on your expectations and how you use the depth. For instance, Using Mills as a backup pg for 33 minutes a game isn't adding to depth, it detracts from it.. It's like moving Manny Machado from third base where he is an elite defender to SS where he is a sub par defender. Mills isn't a pg and he adds zero depth to the position. Mills and Beli type talents are a dime a dozen and most playoff teams have at least one or both on a roster.

Yes, otherwise known as that point you were just refuting a few posts ago. You using more critical language doesn't change the point; it just colors it to your normal temperament.

You can spin it anyway you like but don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

Or maybe I enjoy speculating without having to feel like PATFO will listen. I don't know what you get out of sports forums, but I certainly don't come in expecting PATFO to make decisions based on what I say. I can believe a move would be good for the Spurs while not believing such a move is possible. Moreover, I can believe PATFO won't make a move without pulling a you and believing they CAN'T if they wanted to. It's actually hilarious that you're even trying to accuse me of expecting a trade to happen when you replied to posts essentially saying the Spurs don't have any reason to make a trade in the first place. Kid in a candy store?

Speculate away! I don't mean to on your parade of fantasy and make believe. I think I would take your speculation a little more seriously if they weren't full of flatulence and bunk. Trades that are so one-sided and slanted in the Spurs direction because the only players you throw in a trade are the ones that have no redeeming value to the opposing team involved. Don't give me the Pau expiring bull . That's your simple excuse for everything. You can throw that in with the Parker, Anderson and the annual Matt Bonner trade proposals of yesteryear or fill in the scrub's name you want the Spurs to rid themselves of. From my point of view with my feet planted firmly on the ground, The Spurs don't have assets to pull off trades. By that, I mean the assets/depth/able bodies they have is currently tied to production and by trading pieces away, you're gaining depth in one area while creating holes somewhere else. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

[cd021]

They could still have all those guys. TT’s money is really irrelevant unless Gay demands a hefty raise. The question is would you rather have Pau + the MLE, no Pau + the MLE or TT + the MLE?

I would rather have no Pau + the MLE. I don't think he'd be down with being the 3rd center and I don't love him playing alongside Aldridge when Gay is a much better fit in the modern NBA.

Spurs could draft or sign a vet big to fill out the center rotation and save a lot of money in the process.

[DPG21920]

I would rather have no Pau + the MLE. I don't think he'd be down with being the 3rd center and I don't love him playing alongside Aldridge when Gay is a much better fit in the modern NBA.

Spurs could draft or sign a vet big to fill out the center rotation and save a lot of money in the process.

Why do people care about Spurs saving money? As long as they aren’t paying tax, TT will be far better than anyone they can sign to fill out the roster.