Potential Spurs-Heat Trade

[Andthentherewas21]

Rumor has it that Miami might be trying to trade their first round pick (#27 overall) b/c they are targeting Ray Allen, Steve Nash, Grant Hill, Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Kaman, Lamar Odom, and/or Brandon Roy to sign MLE's to make a run at another le. And, there's been talk about the Spurs wanting to trade into the first round. Sounds like a perfect deal. We give em our 2nd rounder and maybe even Blair and we get their pick and take the best big man available. What do yall think? I think it's easily worth it.

Well the Heat have around $76-77 million in salary next season, plus a $1 player option for Turiaf. So the most they will have will be the Mini-MLE which I believe is $3 million, max of 3 years or something. Beyond that I believe they can only offer the league minimum, though if Bruno is around he could probably correct me.

Either way, not sure getting rid of their pick helps them get any of those players unless its to free up a roster spot. If those free agents are going to play for the Heat they are either playing for peanuts and a ring, or they are the one getting signed to the mini-MLE.

[Andthentherewas21]

Nash with the Heat would be a mistake. He cannot play defense, and the Heat are a defensive team. He would be a weakness. Sure he can dish and score, but the Heat win by getting stops. They have enough scoring.

That and you already have two ball-dominant players, adding a third is only going to further complicate their offense. Its not as if Wade or Lebron are spot-up shooters. And Nash isn't going to Miami to play off the bench.

[rascal]

The Dr Pepper would be the deal breaker.

[LASToog36]

with blair the heats gonna be scaaarrrry gooooood...im not kidding either blairs a pick up garbage and put it in the trashcan kinda guy with his energy the heat would be dammmmn scary... they would have two freight trains on that team... dont forget blairs been our starter throougout most of our season and showed success

[Kidd K]

I trust the spurs FO when it comes to the draft I see it like this the higher the pick it is for the spurs the better. Spurs track record in the draft is pretty damn good and giving up players like Blair or bonner to get a better piece on this team seems good to me. Especially our frontline you can't say that you would love anOther year of bonner you wouldn't take the chance at all?

I trust them too. . .which is why I trust they wouldn't trade Blair AND a pick for a slightly better, and also just as useless pick.

Their good track record doesn't mean they should throw Blair away for nothing when they can get MUCH better than what you think they can for him. Blair is an asset even though he's not that well-liked around here sometimes. If we had real centers, Blair would be a really solid backup PF to have around. Not many teams have a backup PF that's capable of coming in and getting 10 boards and can score too. He's just sort of ostrisized here because we're using him as a center. He's a valuble piece, at least in the regular season. . .and I don't discount his contributions all year just because he can't guard Zach Randolph in the playoffs. It'd be nice if he could, but helping us get the top seed is as valuble as someone who doesn't help us get the top seed but can sort of guard in the post in the playoffs. Spurs need HCA to win. Most teams do.


You said Blair, not Bonner. If you said 2nd round pick and Bonner for a late first rounder, I would've agreed. Blair is just more valuble, and that proposed trade seemed like a ripoff. Blair alone should garner a decent late first round pick imo. We shouldn't have to throw in a 2nd rounder too. But we're not gonna get a 15th pick for him like we did with Hill. Hill was a lot better than Blair. A pick + Blair might get us an 18-20 or so though. . .not a 28-30. Blair is better than most late first round picks end up being.

I'd be happy to dump Bonner and our pick for a late 1st. No one's gonna make that deal though since Bonner's getting overpaid and can't really do much besides shoot wide open threes. Bonner is basically Brian Scalabrine except he can shoot over 40% from three. That's the only reason Bonner even has a job. We could've just kept Steve Novak for a cheaper price tbh. Same . . .so I doubt many t eams are gonna be interested. I just think Blair AND a pick can get us more than a mere late 1st rounder. Just seems like a waste of a good asset.

Pick #27 is only slightly higher than pick #59?

I didn't realize our pick was 59th. In that case, it's not even a trade asset. Might's well just keep it and stash some foreign player for 2 years from now like we always do. There's no reason to throw it in because it will sweeten a Blair deal by maybe 3-5% tops. I doubt it makes or breaks anything. Most teams cannot draft well that late, therefore it's not looked upon as a big asset.

Your scenario breaks down in the real world. SA won't agree to a trade until they know the guy they want is there. You agree to the pieces and parts in advance, but you don't pull the trigger until Miami is on the clock and you know the guy you want has fallen to #27. It's like I get to look at your scratch off after you scratch it, and then decide to trade or not. RC would then call Miami's draft room and say "It's on. Pick this dude".

First round picks are never traded blind on draft night. In fact, the actual pick is almost never traded on draft night. Team A drafts the player, and then trades the rights to that player to team B. It's a dodge to get around a rule that you cannot trade your first round pick in consecutive years. It's called the Stepien rule, named after the former Cavs owner from the early 80s who constantly traded his first rounders for broken down vets.

You're splitting hairs. I realize this is basically a pointless post since we're arguing about nothing here, but since I don't like to shy away from being told I've given a bad analogy when I didn't, I'll reply. My scenerio doesn't break down for the following reasons:

You're saying my analogy doesn't apply because you're linking the lottery card results with who's available in the draft. That is not what my analogy was suggesting.

Aspects of the analogy:

The chips and soda = Blair

The lottery cards = the draft slots (or the draft picks if you want to be picky. It's the same difference)

The lottery card results = how said draftees flesh out.


You're claiming:

chips and soda = Blair

lottery cards = draft picks

lottery results = Spurs have a Delorian time machine that Doctor Emitt Brown invented, and traveled into the future with his dog Einstein to know exactly how said draft picks will pan out and which will be better for the franchise. So whichever they pick, they gauranteed made the best choice of the two.

See where you're confused?


You can draft a guy at 27, and maybe he fleshes out to be a good player. Or maybe he's the next Corey Joseph. Aka worst player on the team.

You can draft a guy at 59 and stash him, and maybe he's useless later. . .or maybe he's the next Manu Ginobili, Luis Scola, or whatever.


So you can't claim that you know the results of the lottery before you play it. The Spurs don't know how those players are going to pan out before drafting them. They can just know that they're available to be drafted, and they like what they've seen out of them.

I'd rather draft and stash a potential Ginobili (or Splitter/Scrola, whatever) or someone half as good for use 2-4 years down the road than hope Corey Joseph pans out at the cost of Blair and that draft and stash pick.

In other words, I believe it's more beneficial for the team to keep Blair and the late rounder than to trade Blair and the late rounder for another failure like Joseph or some kind of Keith Bogans type end of bench player.


Now, like I said earlier, if we're talking like a 18th pick in the first round. . .then sure, I'd be willing to part with Blair. But 27? Nothing decent is going to be left broseph, unless there's some magical genius foreign player whom everyone has an eye on, and they just want to jump up to the first round to stash him before anyone else tries to get him.