Reply With Quote
You downplayed the importance of building a team with top lottery draft picks. Then you denied that you downplayed the importance of high lottery picks by saying people want The Spurs to be like other teams.
I dont think you understand what moving the goalposts means tbh..
You downplayed the importance of building a team with top lottery draft picks. Then you denied that you downplayed the importance of high lottery picks by saying people want The Spurs to be like other teams.
Lol no.
Lol gambitt and rascal together. Perfect.
That's like arguing for real with a WWE tag team.
Good luck!
You gays do realize you're arguing about the wrong thing? Tanking this year wouldn't have fixed the cap the team is in. The time for that passed well before this season even started.
The reason this argument will never stop is because there are some people who think that just making it into the playoffs is a worthwhile goal. For them, taking a rebuild year is never an option. As long as they are willing to accept that, Pop can keep them in the playoffs indefinitely. There are other people who believe that winning a championship is the only reason to play the game. So angling for a top talent in the lottery is necessary in times like this.
Just identify which camp you're in, and we can cut and paste all your arguments and save us all a lot of time.
This is what I am arguing about. This sentiment right there. You don’t get to chose a “rebuild” year. You are either good enough to fight for a playoff spot or you are not.
Everyone acting like teams can just arbitrarily have 1 “rebuild” year or tank for just one year, then go right back to 50 wins sound crazy. It doesnt work like that.
As long as SA has LMA and then traded for DeRozan, that “tank” was no longer on the table. They were damn near a 50 win team despite a key injury to Murray and they can’t just flip the tank switch.
If you want to argue that they should sell LMA and DeRozan thats fine, but you cannot say that this team can tank and then you get to add a top pick to the core of LMA + others. It’s literally not a possibility in the real world.
There. Now I know which camp you're in. You're one of the ones who think squeaking into the playoffs is enough.
Now that I know, I can just cut and past your arguments from the list. Rinse and repeat.
That's not at all what he said. DPG is simply trying to point out that the goal of tanking is to put together a team that is capable of contending. The Spurs are on the cusp of that WITHOUT tanking so why would they ever tank? Who's the last team that intentionally tanked and won an NBA le?
I honestly can't think of one.
Sitting out your star coming back in the final weeks of the season when you have no hope of making the playoffs isn't tanking. Its not risking his health for no reason. There's a big difference between cleared to play and 100%
And even beyond that, tanking is mostly not a choice. Teams that tank are already bad; SA very clearly isn’t there. So as this team is currently constructed it’s not even possible.
If you want to trade LMA/DeRozan and start over that’s another thing (I think that is silly because SA is already good with room to plan/grow the next 2 years) but that is not what people are saying.
They are saying THIS current team should have tanked like it’s just some choice good teams make to game the system and land top 10 draft picks while already having a 50-win caliber team.
Some people act like the transition to being a championship team from a lottery team is easy and ignore how long teams like Philly have been bad (and they're still not really much better than the Spurs).
I mean, you think they would get it when even in their examples the cite teams like Lakers and Suns who have had tons of top 5 picks and still can’t make the playoffs in over 6 years.
Like what happened if its so easy to just tank, get great picks, then go right back to winning. I mean, if it’s just a “rebuild year” as in singular, why are these teams still so sucky?
I mean, you think they would get it when even in their examples the cite teams like Lakers and Suns who have had tons of top 5 picks and still can’t make the playoffs in over 6 years
Like what happened if its so easy to just tank, get great picks, then go right back to winning. I mean, if it’s just a “rebuild year” as in singular, why are these teams still so sucky?
If the roster stayed fundamentally the same, but after 1 year they get to add a lottery-caliber talent... do you think it would make them better or worse? As good as the Spurs have been with late picks, they should really be able to maximize the value of a lottery pick. Who said anything about dismantling?
But that's not even the point:
Everyone who thinks that just making the playoffs is a good enough goal says that tanking is bad. And they are correct.
Everyone who thinks that being a serious contender to win a championship is the only worthwhile goal says that tanking can be worthwhile. And they are also correct.
It's not a matter of moving goal posts. It's two different playing fields. And you're never going to agree. If you want to change anyone's mind, you have to convince them that playing a whole season for a likely first round exit is good enough. Unless you can sell the fairy tale that, "One of these days, an 8 seed is going to win the LOB." But this other argument is just going to go on, and on, and on. Because you don't even have the same goal posts.
I don’t know what you are going on about. The only thing that is the argument is how can the roster stay fundamentally the same while also adding a lottery caliber talent?
Thats it. It’s not about anything else. It’s how in the real world can you have this roster while adding a lottery caliber talent?
I don't know how a high lottery player would work on the Spurs. Can you imagine Zion or Doncic living in GLeague exile their rookie year and living off Metu like minutes? They might hold out because while it would be good for them in the long run, one and dones don't play the long game.Jah Morrant types don't want to be Spurs, just like Lebron doesn't despite how much he would have you believe otherwise.
Fundamentally the same, is what I said. So how about this:
Clear cap space by not overpaying for Pau and Patty. How am I doing so far?
Start some of the young players, give them a chance to develop, knowing that it's going to lose some games, but will make you better next season. If not start, then at least give them MUCH bigger minutes, for the same reasons.
Get buy-in from (some of) the current starters, by making sure that they understand that you have a SOLID plan to put a championship contending team on the floor in one season. (Because I know that the argument will be that guys like Aldridge and DDR would mutiny.) There have been LOTS of guys who went to teams because the FO sold them on a near-term plan for the future. No reason why those wouldn't have stayed for the same reason.
Lose just a few more games than they did with this roster, and you get ping pong balls. Lose a few more and you have a reasonable chance at a top 10 pick.
The next year, you have DDR and Aldridge, and a bunch of much better seasoned youngs. (A whole season starting would have made a BIG difference to Poeltl, just as one example.) Plus you have some cap flexibility. AND you have a good shot at a top-tier rookie.
If you say ANY of that wouldn't have worked, you're splitting hairs.
I am sorry, but that is so far fetched. I like you as a poster, you post mostly good stuff whether I agree or not but this is quite frankly absurd.
Like not only is it far fetched, but it’s not rooted in reality. Spurs can’t just magically undo the Mills deal. This team exists, they are good and they cant tank as currently constructed. That is literally what I’ve been trying to tell people and the only argument.
For as much as people about the Pau and Patty contracts, if Kawhi doesn't become a then with those contract the Spurs are a contender this year and have an incredible defense. If the Pau and Patty contracts are your biggest gripe about a front office then you're probably a pretty good front office.
Even with an MVP candidate holding the franchise hostage, the Spurs are not very far away from being a true contender. If anyone is downplaying anything in this thread, its that fact.
You think NBA players are just OK with writing off a season because their franchise doesn't think they are good enough? You think they're OK with tanking and lowering their value so another guy can come in and take their job? There's a reason teams don't do this.
I think people here downplay the importance of playoff experience for young players. White, Forbes and Poeltl have made leaps in the postseason that they probably wouldn't have made if the season was over by now.
LMA and DDR will NEVER win a ring together... That's why keeping them on the team or trying to build around them is completely pointless and a waste of time
one thing : The skills the FO have honed to get good drafts picks (kawhi, white, murray, etc) don't apply to the top 10 lottery picks.
You don't tank to get 4 yr seniors or injured athletes. Maybe there is an elite euro who is available, maybe there is the rare 4 yr who is worth it. But more likely it'll be teenager's like murray or some overhyped big school star.
Have y'all seen the recent history of the #1-3 picks? It's ! y'all really think guys like lonzo are better than white? (even age adjusted)? Ayton won't magically become better than LMA in at least 5 years. Peoltl was a lottery pick too!
If you take poeltl, Lonnie (who the spurs ranked highly on their draft board) then the spurs have two "lottery picks" already. If you consider redrafts than white and murray probably are as well. So congrats, the sours have magically tanked and gotten 4 years worth of "lottery talent" without tanking.
Could've gotten Tobias Harris ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions