At a 40 something man child desperately trying to cling to his youth, using hipster internet millennial sayings.
Yeah, in the end, it was Pop who could never get over himself.
At a 40 something man child desperately trying to cling to his youth, using hipster internet millennial sayings.
yo timvp did this guy steal ur research bruh? why da fook does this keep happening to u bruh...........u really need a twitter bruh people r stealing ur work for clout & getting paid on twitter
Okay, if you recall during our conversation about Murray's contract, I specifically said I wasn't extremely high on DJM. In a similar way to how you just did, you said then that I seemed really high on Murray if I thought he could command $25M apy. I explained then that Murray wasn't a bad player at all, but it was his off-court value that would give him a big boost. I still believe that would have been the case. So yeah, I didn't actually change my view on Murray. I love him off the court and am really rooting for his play to match that off-court value. But I don't think it has yet, and I think a lot of fans keep trying to make him seem like he's shown more than he has.
I didn't say that he doesn't have room for growth. I said he's at the point in his career where you don't assume he's going to make a big leap to be a star. I'm never going to say he won't get there. I do think he hasn't shown enough to consider him THE CORE. Let's say I think he might be Draymond-level. That's worth $100 Million in my evaluation, especially when you factor in the off-court value. But even if he were already prime Green, I wouldn't consider trading DeRozan or Aldridge to give Dray more touches. He isn't going to be the answer by himself, not likely. We can only reasonably hope that he's part of the answer.And I disagree with your opinion that Murray doesn't have room for growth.
Murray's not doing anything unexpected from my PoV. Hopefully by this point it's clear that I'm neither overreacting nor flip-flopping. I've been considered a Murray shill and hater over the past couple months. My view on him has always been complicated. I've always liked him but not believed in him, if that makes sense. I think he hasn't earned the status your OP assigns to him. Benching him (if that is what it was) for not playing well makes sense. They might want to consider switching him and White, because the offense still struggles with him on the floor, at least with the SL. I actually advocated for White starting instead during the off-season, so the idea that him coming off the bench would be an issue with me is unfounded.What more were you expecting from Murray through 13 games other than flashes of excellence and stretches of growing pains? He's been about as good as I could have reasonably hoped for given the minutes restriction.
Interesting article.
I think it's more about "how" than "why" as "why" implies a purpose. If the purpose was to get a high draft pick, then sure. The "how" is by having a condition where the sum of the talent on the Spurs roster is no longer greater than the individual parts, because they don't have a synergy device named Manu Ginobili.
Murray is better as an athlete, is miles worst as a play maker...and that's an horrible fit with players like LMA and DDR that need slow paced game, time to play their one on one and for doing that they have to be given the ball in the right spots...something White was gelling at last season.
Murray is still a young deer and yes, he needs to improve in all aspects of his game (shooting, playmaking)...so the only reason to play him in the starting lineup is to give him time to develop his skills against the best players in the league...but, that's for sure, the outcome can't be good till ypour SL teammates are DDR and LMA for the reasons above said...for them White is certainly a better fit (as evidenced by last season outcome).
Murray by far has the best defensive metrics on the team, and has been performing the best using the eye test...u guys simply overstate his mistakes and understate the ones from the vets ...but make no mistake...he is a good defender and our best one by a significant margin
so u propose building around DDR and LMA simply to lose in the first round? makes no sense! trade them! get modern NBA players that compliment murray in the SL...that way he can reach his ceiling faster...he is more our future than freaking DDR and LMA
I somewhat understand where you're coming from and I'm not accusing you of changing your view, so that doesn't need to be a focus (my memory isn't good enough to hold you to any specifics, anyways), but: 1) Why would you advocate giving max dollars to a player you don't believe in? 2) Let me get this straight: You think he's a max player due to his off-court value? You talking leadership or something even less tangible than that? 3) You don't think his off-court value is diminished by being yo-yoed?
Meh, I'm 99% sure I know that guy from real life and he posts on SpursTalk -- unless it's a guy with the same name who looks the same, tbh. No harm, no foul
1) $25 Million APY isn't a max contract. Anyway, my stance wasn't that he'd deserve the money. I thought he'd command the money if he came in, was decent and the Spurs talked him up. Specifically, I thought another team would make or threaten to make an offer sheet the Spurs would have to match. They headed that off by signing him to an extension that I think even now we both consider to be a good contract.
2) When talking about "off-court value", I only kinda mean marketing. Yes, having a focal point for the team's PR department and a way to try to sell fans on tickets matters. But I also meant how he was in the locker room and on social media. I don't think his teammates like he less if he's benched for a game. I also don't think it sends a good message inside or outside the organization for Murray to make a lot of mistakes without being held accountable.
3) It really comes down to whether you think the benching was warranted strictly in terms of what he was doing on the court. If you don't think that, then the benching won't make sense regardless. If you (like me) think the team would play better with Murray in a smaller role unless/until he can play under more control that benching him made sense given the other starters, then I don't think the benching really hurts his value. My whole point with DJM and White is that those guys need to play like stars before we treat them like it. If he were consistently a guy who could get 15-18 points on decent efficiency (even without a three) and White were a guy who didn't inexplicably go into his s and now apparently have major issues staying healthy, then I'd understand prioritizing them over guys who've legit established themselves as All-Stars. But they haven't and might well not, so I'm not making LMA and DeRozan trades with building around Murray and White in mind.
TD21 actually said it best when he said that if the Spurs end up with a top pick that they shouldn't consider any position settled in terms of what prospect they'd want. I think a number of folks on this board at least disagree with the spirit of that idea. I don't believe anyone on the Spurs has played well enough to give me confidence that they are worth factoring into the draft board.
Well, they do draft talent before need.
Eh. Only to an extent. The way most good teams do it is by making a draft board and taking the highest available player when their picks comes. That is different from picking from pure talent in two major ways. The first is that need is part of setting up the board in the first place. If A and B are equal prospects but B plays at a position of need, they get the higher spot on the board. The second way is someone seen more in the NFL but still happens in the NBA. If the drafting team X is on the clock and the player at the top of their board plays at a position of strength, that could make them willing to trade out of their pick. In that same way, if player A is at a position of need and is at risk of not being around when X drafts, X might move up to get them.
I don't know for sure, but I do believe PATFO follows a similar idea to this. It's been a long time since they've drafted at a position where you were legit surprised. If they need a guard, they'll draft a guard. If they need wings, they'll take wings, and so on. I think most people would agree that the team needs a big in the draft, so taking a center seems like a strong possibility. If they tank and get the first pick, Wiseman might be the slam-dunk choice. But if he's off the board and the team is looking at the guard-heavy top of the mock draft, do they try to trade out because they already feel they have the position covered? Do they reach for the forwards or next available big? It happens.
Bump.
Pop going back to the original starting lineup
Hey, if it wasn’t broke, don’t bother fixing it amiright?
Byrn was awful again today, meanwhile Pop is starting to trust Lonnie more.
It's worth it to at least see if Murray, Walker, DDR, Lyle's and LMA can work as a unit.
Every since Wiggins casually blocked one of Forbes shots like he was a child, Bryn has been terrible...
Well...more terrible than usual...
At least he is playing himself out of the rotation which was bound to happen since he isn't an nba level player...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)