Not gonna win this one. If DeRozan sucks, then having solid depth won't make up for him.
Because you list Houston's fourth-best player a depth. The Spurs have nine players akin to rotational players on other teams. No matter what kind of spin you put on it, that's adequate depth.I don't know what the this even means. The T-Wolves play 11 guys over 20 minutes per game. The Warriors plays 6 guys over 20 minutes per game. Minnesota is 11th in the west while GS is first. Does that mean Minnesota has more depth than GS?Knicks might be depth kings. They play 14 guys 15 min/game.
Same reason you can't stop acting like the Spurs suck no matter how well they do. Some folks are like that. This isn't a geneous group at all. You even have a growing Murray/White division for no reason at all.So why propose trades if the Spurs are good as is? If people are in here proposing trades, then the depth probably isn't as good as you think it is.
Yes. The disagreement is because you misinterpreted DPG's reasoning (not shocking). You thought he was saying the Spurs were a contender. He was saying no realistic trade could make them a contender, so they may as well stand pat. "They don't need depth" meant "They don't need a non star." Dude's stated multiple times that he wants the Spurs to "sell" some of their tax space next year and look at 2020 fresh. How does that sound like a guy who has blind ambitious of the Spurs winning a le?DPG said the Spurs don't need depth. I said they do. Does that sound like an agreement?
Zero to do with anything. I asked you about the value of mid-season trades. You've consistently failed to back up your claim that expirings plus first-rounders are good enough capital to execute those trades. Moreover, you still don't seem to understand that I haven't said anything about the Spurs making trades except that they'd be able to if they wanted to. Saying "they don't want to" isn't a response we both agree that the Spurs aren't likely to make trades. We both agree that they need more work than just a depth trade. We agree that they should save their picks for the future. The only reason why we disagree is that you're not happy with the Spurs being just a playoff team and I am happy with them being just a playoff team for now.No, I apparently know more about the Spurs than you because the Spurs rarely make in season trades unless it's to accommodate an unhappy player. The last in-season trade deadline deals the Spurs made were
I don't think you're a bad poster. I just think you really like being one of the more edgy characters on this site. That's fine when just talking about opinions about how the Spurs are going to do, how good so and so in, etc. But when we're talking about objective things like whether first-round picks are enough to get role-players in trades, your pessimism overshadows reality. Guys like Lou Williams and Bojan Bogdanovic show us that firsts are still very powerful, even when attached to undesirable players. Both of those teams took back bad money and gave up a legit rotation player just to get those picks. The Spurs have two picks like that and a lot of expiring salary. They could definitely make trades like that.I'm not going to turn into a campus cheerleader like you but I'll tell you what I'll do.. I'll try to be more open mined and optimistic about the Spurs going forward. I'll have many relapses along the way but as long as the Spurs win, I'll say mostly positive things.

Reply With Quote
Knicks might be depth kings. They play 14 guys 15 min/game.
