Not going to happen. Though I love to have Dwight by the time he was even close to contributing like TD - I'd think a min. of 2 -3 years to get close - Manu would most likely be in serious decline and TP heading in that direction. Our team is built for now not later and this isn't even discussing the contributions as a Spur over the last ten years plus his leadership, carrying the team ...etc.
Even if Duncan agreed to be traded, we would not land a Dwight Howard in the package. The only way Duncan would be traded is to a team looking to make a run at the le, so that team wouldn't be giving us its franchise players.
When Duncan retries, there's the off chance we can sign a marquee player, but more than likely we're going to have to wait and get lucky in the Draft again. And I'm okay with a few bad years after this run.
Stop worrying and enjoy being a fan of a historically great team.
I'm not.
I agree with everybody...this thread is stupid...
You can be waiting for many years if your planning to get lucky in the draft. A few bad years can turn into decades.
I can't believe that Spurs fans count on "getting lucky again in the draft" as a succession strategy for life after Duncan.
First, you need a top draft pick.
Then he has to result in a franchise player.
Oh, and then you have to sell him on staying in San Antonio after 3 seasons of development.
I guess homers assume that Robinsons and Duncans grow on trees.
But what if you got a lot of draft picks as well as a young player? Surely you would accept someone.
Who and what team?
And I can't believe you and Rascal would trade a great shot at a le this season, and probably next, for being guranteed of being a "good" team in a few years...
I thought you guys were about the championship...if all you're about is being good...we can do that with Duncan too.
I would like to hear ONE reasonable scenario in which we net a franchise player in a trade for Tim Duncan. Just one. And you have to give rationale for why both teams would agree to that deal.
Says the guy who wants to trade Duncan....I guess homers assume that Robinsons and Duncans grow on trees.
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-28-2008 at 05:26 PM.
Slooooow down...
First of all, I agree with Spurm, that these "trade a Spur for a young franchise player" threads are absurd.
But what am saying is not this year... maybe not next year... but if the Spurs were in a situation like the Lakers were in when Shaq wanted out, you should look to trade Duncan before he retires for some picks or young talent.
And of course this would have to be with Duncan's consent and we'd have to look at what we were getting back.
It's going to be a major reality check if Duncan retires and you homers are counting on winning the lottery again.
I have a hard time commenting because I'm not really sure what Ghost's premise is.
Trade Duncan now? In five years? Whenever? Are we assuming that a trade would be in line with historical aging-franchise-player trades in terms of return, or a pure hypothetical where the Spurs get a lopsided deal for a young All-NBA-caliber PF/C in exchange for a hobbled old Duncan?
And what is the expectation for a succession plan? Returning to serious le contention as soon as possible? Keeping the team in the 50-win range? Making the playoffs?
OK.
Take the Lakers as an example. This year they are finally back as a legitimate threat to advance in the postseason. Is that primarily because of:
A) the players they got from the Shaq trade to play around Kobe
B) the young talent they drafted to play around Kobe?
I don't see Duncan playing past his All-Star calibur years or the Spurs run as a le contender, but if he did, and he wanted to go to a Championship contender for one last shot at the ring, then yeah, I'd honor that. (Ed: And you'd probably get 50% value back at best.) But I don't think you approach Duncan with the idea of trading him.
Obviously, the next best option is making a splash free agent signing. I'd love to see that happen instead of counting on the draft, and if Pop stuck around I guess it's possible that you might be able to convince a free agent to come play for the Spurs. But we haven't even been able to lure top-tier players to play beside Tim Duncan when we've had the money, so I'm not counting on Free Agency as the solution.
So that leaves the Draft. It's not the ideal situation but it's the most realistic. We're not trading Duncan unless he wants to be traded.
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-28-2008 at 05:49 PM.
Jesus ing Christ, who put something in San Antonio's water.
I hope duncan228 doesn't see this piece of you call an idea.
-Mars
Good questions.
I guess my premise is that if a contender comes calling in 2 years and is willing to give us a proven young talent, a couple first rounders and maybe a decent veteran for a 34-year old Tim Duncan - and Duncan is willing to go - we should look at it.
We are not big time where free agents want to flock here or have a front office that will splurge on a superstar and go way over the cap.
We're good because we get lucky and know how to build around that.
I'm nervous for life after Duncan.
300 had a good line...
"This is blasphemy...this is madness."
I guess this is just San Antonio sports.
-Mars
None of the last 20 or so posts have been authored by a San Antonio resident.
Yeah, I can see your screen name.
How talented is the young talent? Are we talking Lamar Odom-talented or Carmelo Anthony-talented?
I will leave that undefined, but closer to Odom-level. Not a bonafide franchise player.
But the idea is that the trade would yield "something" at the cost of 2-3 years of Duncan's twilight.
And as unlikely as a splash free agent signing is, I'd rather take my chances with that and the draft than be stuck in the mediocrity that would result in paying $12 million to a Lamar Odom.
That's fair, Spurm.
There is also dignity in letting your franchise player retire with dignity on your team.
But if the right deal came along with the right mix of players and picks...
I just am really concerned about becoming like the Bucks.
"Something" at the level of Lamar Odom is not enough. That's not a player you can build around. That's a player who might be one of the guys you put next to the guy you hope to build around.
I'm not going to imagine that those first-round draft picks in your hypothesis are going to be in the lottery. If a team is looking to get Duncan, and he's willing to go, they're probably doing so in order to contend for a le.
So, in sum you're getting role players, and draft picks that likely turn into nothing more than role players. The result will be a mediocre-at-best team still hoping to get lucky in the draft down the road. And you're sacrificing one or two le chances, not chances as the favorite, but still decent chances, to get that.
So, if you keep Duncan, you end up when he retires with a terrible team looking to get lucky in the draft in order to return to contention. If you trade Duncan, you end up with a mediocre team looking to get lucky in the draft in order to return to contention. Either way, you can't escape the fate of waiting for the next Duncan or Robinson to come in the lottery.
So Ghost...what you are saying is that in 2 or 3 years when Duncan is 34-35 years old, if he wants out, you'd trade him for Dwight Howard?
I'll agree with that one
IF you trade him for mediocre talent you don't suck bad enough to get the lottery picks needed to become a contender again...best just to crash and burn.
There's les...and then there's not les.
[QUOTE=Spurminator]I would like to hear ONE reasonable scenario in which we net a franchise player in a trade for Tim Duncan. Just one. And you have to give rationale for why both teams would agree to that deal.
First, I would not trade Timmy for anyone. But I think that the Lakers would trade Kobe for Timmy in a minute. Besides Timmay, there are only three untradeable players.....LeBron, Dwight, and Nash.........although Chris Paul is making himself look pretty untradeable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
