Reply With Quote
Lakers? Knicks?
The point is, there are posters here who say that PATFO is the worst FO in the league. There are far worse ones who made bad transactions WITHOUT a gun pointed at their head like the Spurs had last summer.
"why didn't Washington take our garbage for a good, young rotational player?!"
Lakers? Knicks?
The point is, there are posters here who say that PATFO is the worst FO in the league. There are far worse ones who made bad transactions WITHOUT a gun pointed at their head like the Spurs had last summer.
I do not think anyone really believes they are the worst in the league, although lately they have had several decisions that were pointed out as questionable by the time they happened, today it is possible to make a clear case of a top 5 in the league without PATFO and no impartial person would question
This board's GM ideal is Presti, who's wheeling and dealing, which admittedly is exciting, but never achieves anything, other than losing stars, trading away picks all the time and being way over the tax.
Exactly.
Nope. Just a simple comparison for critics who dismiss everything the Spurs have accomplished.
With an aging Big 3 and an eye towards the future, the Spurs trade a back up point guard in George Hill for a future DPOY/MVP candidate in Leonard, and a solid rotation player in Bertans. That kind of qualifies as maybe the best trade of the decade... but to critics here, RC is no good at making trades.
Then, after literally hundreds of posts here about how "Big name free agents NEVER go to San Antonio," Aldridge chooses the Spurs over the Lakers and other teams. The Spurs win 67 games, but again--to the critics-- the season is a complete failure because the Spurs don't win an NBA le. Using this logic, 29 teams every season are complete failures... it's just a dumb way to look at things.
But we have culture!
13 points and seven rebounds last year in 22 minutes per game. His numbers are up this season. That's pretty asserted, IMO.
I have to disagree with both sentences pretty emphatically. The Bulls were telling his agent they were going to lock him up long-term before the Wizards came knocking offering Porter. Since Portis isn't a fit next to Markkanen (both need to be at PF), flipping him for a defensive SF between Markkanen and LaVine made some sense.
If Portis could have been had for a late first round pick, that's what this thread should be about. Forget about Porter, tbh. But, no, I can't imagine that was the case.
A far superior offer? Gasol and his $6M poison pill, Beli and his $6M dead money that is worth nothing to a rebuilding team and two late-ish first rounders worth more than a potential 20-10 big who probably can be signed for a reasonable deal, a potentially high second rounder and no extra dead money? I don't see how that is superior, much less far superior.
I mean, logically, even if the Wizards valued Portis as only a late first round pick, they'd have to then value $12 million in dead money and a second round pick to be worth a first round pick. Doesn't add up, tbh, even if you undervalue Portis.
Factor in the Wizards' actual situation in which they already have two max contracts on the books so they can't do a full rebuild anyway, the fact that PF is the position they need most and the fact that their FO is feeling heat and can't wait for future first rounders to possibly pay off down the road ... and Portis and second rounder is much more appealing than anything the Spurs could have realistically offered without super overpaying for Porter.
Ditka couldn’t have stopped Otto!
I believe there was a report from Lowe (at least as mentioned on a podcast) that the Wizards turned down a deal that involved 1 late first and salary going past this year but turned it down obviously because they valued the tax relief more and considered the late first compared to the second they got as not enough
I would not be surprised if that deal was a Spurs offer involving the Raptors pick. If they had kicked in their own lotto protected first, that could have been enough.
I never pay attention to players stats on teams that have zero pressure to win. Porter is a good player dont get me wrong but those stats are overinflated. This team needs a cornerstone player first, we dont have that, we need to tank and Porter doesn't help with that. All he was gonna end up doing is prolong our mediocrity.
tbh, I wouldn't complain much about this had Pop not made light of the situation by making jokes about not trading. I mean, in his interview the night before the deadline, he was pretty defiant about not doing anything and not losing sleep over it. It's one thing for fans not losing sleep over it but he's getting paid quite a large sum to lose some sleep over roster decisions on a mediocre team. It rubbed me the wrong way and it opened itself up to think they didn't seriously hard at the deadline. This forum shouldn't be rah rah rah about everything they do or don't do.
Who cares?! poodle had o points and 5 boards
One thing I will look forward to when we get a new coach will be the newfound hunger for wanting to be the best. I miss that fire from Pop. I do think he still cares but that fire has definitely dimmed. And after 20 years of winning, it's only natural.
Completely agree with everything said here.
Joking is what rubbed you the wrong way? You can make light of things and still do your job. It seems you, like many, are just pissy things didn't fall our way so are lashing out. Not everything should be rah rah rah, but something like this shouldn't invoke wah wah wah from you.
Not really. It's great for a rookie contract, but when you have to start paying market money for it, it's just meh. It doesn't help that Portis has been an abysmal defender and isn't even net-neutral in most impact stats.
The Bulls lied to Bobby's agent if they told him that. They were never going to lock him up after drafting two PFs high in back-to-back years. Then again, they did match Lavine's deal, so who knows?I have to disagree with both sentences pretty emphatically. The Bulls were telling his agent they were going to lock him up long-term before the Wizards came knocking offering Porter. Since Portis isn't a fit next to Markkanen (both need to be at PF), flipping him for a defensive SF between Markkanen and LaVine made some sense.
If Portis could have been had for a late first round pick, that's what this thread should be about. Forget about Porter, tbh. But, no, I can't imagine that was the case.
There's zero reason to want the Spurs to prioritize trading for Portis over Porter. It's actually rather weird that you even suggested that. The team doesn't really have room for another guy who doesn't really play well in two-big lineups. Porter as a youngish guy at a position of need locked into a long-term deal made much more sense.
It's weird that you're attempting to lump in Beli and Gasol's dead money. Gasol's $6 Million is legit dead, because he'd be cut. They couldn't use that money for trades or to sign other guys. Beli is a useful player on a market contract. The Wizards may not want him, but he'd have a market. Also, they're supposedly planning to re-sign Ariza, so they may not want to completely tank. With Wall's deal and Portis and Ariza being re-signed, I doubt Washington is going to be in play for cap space. I see no reason why they wouldn't want Beli on an expiring deal.A far superior offer? Gasol and his $6M poison pill, Beli and his $6M dead money that is worth nothing to a rebuilding team and two late-ish first rounders worth more than a potential 20-10 big who probably can be signed for a reasonable deal, a potentially high second rounder and no extra dead money? I don't see how that is superior, much less far superior.
I mean, logically, even if the Wizards valued Portis as only a late first round pick, they'd have to then value $12 million in dead money and a second round pick to be worth a first round pick. Doesn't add up, tbh, even if you undervalue Portis.
It goes like this:
Bobby Portis -- Not valuable.
2023 second -- Lol
Jabari Parker -- Neutral, ballast
Gasol -- Negative
Toronto pick -- More than enough to dump Gasol's salary
Spurs Pick -- Better than Portis. Currently projected at 19, which is not usually traded away.
Belinelli -- Neutral, maybe slightly negative. About as much value as Korver had, and that dude went for multiple seconds.
And here's the thing you seem to be missing:
Porter -- Close to neutral
The Wizards didn't get a lot for Porter because he wasn't worth a lot. The Bulls package wasn't some really good offer that trumped everything else. It was a handful of lint that nonetheless was better than anyone else was willing to give. Porter is overpaid and somewhat inconsistent (which is why this thread is funny). The Bulls are building through the draft and can afford to use their cap space on Porter, but most teams are paying their best players a lot of money already and can't afford to give their third or fourth option so much. The Spurs could have squeezed him in, but it would have been a lot tighter than most here appreciate. Giving up firsts would have just exacerbated the cap issue. Framing this as "could the Spurs have matched that value" is wrong-headed in my opinion. Beating the Bulls package wasn't the hard part. The hard part was justifying having Porter on the roster at all. I've been reading the analyses of this trade, and I've yet to find someone who really thinks the Bulls paid a lot for Porter. Everything is being framed around the cap.
I doubt the Wizards FO are feeling heat with Wall's injury. They've been bullet-proof this whole time. They'll likely get a mulligan for all of next year and can decide whether to trade Beal and tank or keep him and gun for a playoff spot. In either case, Beli and picks is just better than Portis and cap space. Beli and Portis a way closer to a wash than you are arguing, and picks are good capital regardless. Either they use the picks to for cheap players or they trade them for vets like they tend to do every year anyway. It's way more useful than a 2023 second-rounder; that's for damned sure.Factor in the Wizards' actual situation in which they already have two max contracts on the books so they can't do a full rebuild anyway, the fact that PF is the position they need most and the fact that their FO is feeling heat and can't wait for future first rounders to possibly pay off down the road ... and Portis and second rounder is much more appealing than anything the Spurs could have realistically offered without super overpaying for Porter.
In any event, trying to acquire Porter would have been a very intense decision that doesn't have an obvious answer. People acting as if it was major failing of PATFO to not make that leap are usually the same people who complain about whatever the team does. I wanted Porter, but I'm also content to watch the team play the draft. They have much bigger problems right now than the lack of a small-forward. They have to fix their coaching and chemistry before worrying about major upgrades. There will still be potential deals in a few months.
he looks good if he was more aggressive on offense...
has height and length, something the spurms need
Porter's contract is almost as bad as DDR's.
And his performance in meaningless games in Bulls uniform doesn't really tell us anything more about him. Anybody can score 20 in those games.
This front ofice is very conservative regarding trades. Almost to a point of fearful to make them.
This tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
