Reply With Quote
That tweet is clearly using "stash" as a noun, not a verb.
Stashed on the bench with a 3/36 extension.
That tweet is clearly using "stash" as a noun, not a verb.
But why is this even a topic? Why is Westbrook possibly on the move?
Because KD shocked the world shook the landscape of the entire league. This has never happened before in the history of the league. Spurs weren't expecting this nor opposing FO's. It changes EVERYTHING...
I just don't buy the BS about it not being a "good look" LMA has been a good signing but he hasn't been a perfect fit... How would it be a wash? Because LMA did sooooo well against GSW right? Spurs still have Gasol who can punish on the block and most importantly Westbrook/Green/Leonard back court. Plus you keep Spurs legends (Manu,Parker) and your favorite toy Anderson will still be on the team.
Parker isn't getting traded. Maybe neither will LMA but Spurs IMO aren't trading a HOF, jersey in the rafter player instead of a FA they signed a year ago who hasn't been the perfect fit.
I think their autocorrect replaced the word "trash".
I think people are over-estimating what Presti can reasonably expect to get for Westbrook. There is a very small pool of teams for which interest in Westbrook would be reciprocated. Of those, I am not sure how many would be in a position to work a deal to acquire him. Finally, how many would be willing to take him as a potential one-year rental? As long as the Spurs are unwilling to divorce Tony, they would not benefit greatly by acquiring Westbrook. On the other hand, if we can move Tony and a spare part or two for Russ, then even if he turns out to be a rental, we would have far more la ude next off-season.
The discussion about trading for Westbrook is still going on?Guess it's that time of the offseason...
Of course they'd trade Parker first. They aren't trading LMA because he's straight-up better than Parker and moving him defeats the purpose of acquiring Westbrook at all. This has nothing to due with loyalty. If the Spurs are deciding to horsewhip this roster to a le, they aren't putting Tony at the top of their priorities.
Wait, so in a world where Jimmer Freddette has a 100-page thread, you are wondering why people are still talking about the odds of acquiring the first top-five players available for trade since pretty much a decade ago?The discussion about trading for Westbrook is still going on?
Of course they'd waive Matt Bonner...I think you're underestimating the Spurs loyalty to players who's been around for 10+ years. And Parker still is 1,000,000 times better the player than Bonner. And AGAIN if OKC would take Parker or you can find a third team fine...but good luck!
Reminder Spurs just paid 14M to a 39yr old who didn't average 10pts per game
I just don't think a Westbrook-to-SA trade is realistic enough to even warrant a discussion. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but he's not coming here. Might as well talk about trading for LeBron.
They probably thought he was better than Butler (he outplayed him in those last couple of games). The real issue is that they didn't know that Martin was so damned awful.
Again, if OKC says, "We want LMA or else! >:0" You tell them to off. Russ isn't worth Aldridge, and there are other paths to improve the roster than acquiring Westbrook.And AGAIN if OKC would take Parker or you can find a third team fine...but good luck!
I don't think it's a matter of cynicism. Westbrook doesn't have to choose the Spurs. OKC does, and they will if the Spurs make the best offer. Now, if you're pessimistic that the Spurs will be able to do so, well, you're hardly alone. But as I've said before, I have little interest in debating what PATFO will do. I'm more keen to wonder what they SHOULD do, and to that end I feel that weighing the risks and rewards of going for that trade is valid, at least as much so as the Durant-to-SA speculation was.
Dirk is getting 2/50 from the Mavs.
I'd wager a guess for Westbrook would be Murray, Danny Green, Bertans if we want the Spurs to fleece.
Most likely though OKC asked for Kawhi Leonard and it ended there. Can't give up a perennial all star top five player for filler.
When Westbrook has all but stated he's leaving okc has no bargaining power. We're going to see one of two things: a talent rich team gives a medium sized offer (Celtics for example) or fire sale offer from a contender.
The spurs scraps look crappy but not when compared to losing west for nothing.
Okc can't get fair value from Westbrook because he won't stay with a team that trades fair talent. It's not in his interest to facilitate this trade when he is going to be a few free agent
Cmon Chinook. We both know why Bonner stayed and it wasn't because of his performance of a player.
And be honest with yourself..Do you think the Spurs have a chance against GSW with the way the team is now?
It's not my fault you don't seem to be remembering last year correctly. The Spurs held off on the Martin signing for a randomly long time to give Bonner and Butler a few games to compete. Bonner won handily. STers hate him, but Matt still has value when in form.
Yes. And they'll be able to have a better one with improvements to their back court, so long as they keep their front court the way it is.And be honest with yourself..Do you think the Spurs have a chance against GSW with the way the team is now?
The discussion about trading for Westbrook is still going on?
One of the main reasons LMA signed with the Spurs was so that he could be close to his child(ren?) and family.
If this team outright trades him to someplace else, that's a pretty big middle finger to a star player.
This team doesn't get too many star players as it is and a ty move on one of the only ones to choose them would look really bad.
Not only are you trading him, but you're shipping him away from the reason he came to begin with.
I just don't see a way they pull that stunt when they preach "family" to everybody with two ears.
Agreed. OKC should just lose him next year and get absolutely nothing in return. Why waste time with potential talent now when you can just have holes next season?
Would rather trade Anderson and keep Murray
Anderson, Green, and Bertans plus first for one year rental to get those bird rights. Chinook makes some good points as far as it not setting us back too far. No ones gonna want a rental, so we can corner that market. If we trade for him we can keep Pau. If we sign him as a free agent we can't afford Pau. I'm in.
Edit: imo if I'm OKC Murray has to be in any deal. Just hate to lose him. I expect talk to pick up in September or later August before training camp. They have to first exaust there Blake interest.
Last edited by raybies; 07-22-2016 at 02:50 PM.
Good for him. He deserves his legacy contract just as much as Manu right now. He waited and gave that franchise all chances to get a better roster since 2011 and this is what they have come up with. I have a lot of respect for Nowitzki.
He's getting more than kobe in his last contract. I wonder why it's perceived so differently.
Dirk actually sacrificed prior...What has kobe done?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
