Be patient for one more season

[The Truth #6]

I think they like their current roster and aren't ready to move on from anyone. What's weird is they seemed to have the same at ude last year and then came out and got destroyed for the first 20 or 30 games. Yet here we are again? They say they think long term but don't seem very flexible or able to adapt.

[FireMicoHalili]

Unless we trade for a young star player like a Cade Cunningham or a Lauri Markkanen (no Trae Young, nor Garland, please), the best the Spurs can do is just sit tight, develop internal growth and get a top pick in the supossedly stacked upcoming draft.

I've seen a lot of people, like my man Chinook, asking for the Spurs to get Paul George or Jimmy Butler, they are both ing 34 years old, what benefit can we possibly get from them? Miss out on a top pick in this upcoming draft for the chance to be a 2nd round exit in the playoffs for a couple of years and having to start all over again in 3 years when George or Butler retire? This doesn't sound smart to me, tbh.

I would have the same approach with free agents, tbh. Unless we get young pieces that can stick for longer, when we are really ready to contend, there's no reason to add a veteran for a couple of seasons to raise our floor and turn a #4 pick into a #12 pick, tbh.

I know we are all tired of sucking, but this is the smart thing to do. Everybody agrees we are lacking a #2 option, but the #2 option can't be 34 years old, nor a midget PG, adding such players would only stunt the process.

I'm not saying outright tank either. Keep an eye for opportunities to add young pieces that can help us for years down the road, when we are ready to compete. On the meantime, just keep developing our young players. See who is a long term piece, and who needs to move on.

Personally, I would start a lineup of Castle, Vassell, Keldon, Sochan and Wemby. Get Keldon's trade value back up and deal him at the trade deadline.

And who knows, maybe this group shows enough internal growth that we are actually decent by the mid point of next season, Maybe Castle is the , maybe Vassell takes his game to another level, maybe Sochan becomes a reliable shooter. Then you change the strategy and pivot into adding some help before the tradeline. Just don't make any offseason moves for no 30 year old to raise our floor from a top 5 pick to a mid teens one.

we clearly missed out on Dilly as the #2 option

[TimmehC]

Asking a fanbase who grew up accustomed to cheering on a contender to now be patient after 5 years of failing to make the playoffs is a really tough sell. I can see the vision, but the execution of that vision is obviously yet to come. Let's just hope they have something lined up for when free agency starts, or this is going to be another miserable, frustrating year of very little progress.

[Chinook]

Ok, so we get Paul George, we make the playoffs, lose in the first round, miss on a lottery pick. Year two, make the second round. Third year, George is gone, we get worse and have no co-star to help Wemby. How does that make sense?

If the scenario you lined out happens, why do you think the Spurs wouldn't have a max slot? Vassell and Wemby will still be under their current contracts. If Johnson is on the team, he will be as well. If the Spurs have so much depth that they have good guys already signed going into the summer, they should have plenty of ballast for another trade. We're talking summer of 2026 here. The "war chest" would barely be touched.

The Spurs have double picks in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030 and (now) 2031. They aren't going to have to worry about their lottery chances being solely determined solely determined by their record for quite a long time.

I'm assuming George or Butler would be around through 2027 or 2028. But if they weren't then guys like Mark, Young, Garland and whomever else would actually make more sense, because the Spurs would be in their contending window rather than years away like they are now.

Again, getting a guy now means nothing for whether they'll be on the roster in three or four years. The NBA just doesn't work that way. Getting young vets is exactly the wrong way to build around a young franchise player, which is why teams doing so have the bad track record that they do.

[widowmaker]

I wonder if Brian Wright reads “How to be a General Manager” by Jerry Jones?

[BackHome]

If the scenario you lined out happens, why do you think the Spurs wouldn't have a max slot? Vassell and Wemby will still be under their current contracts. If Johnson is on the team, he will be as well. If the Spurs have so much depth that they have good guys already signed going into the summer, they should have plenty of ballast for another trade. We're talking summer of 2026 here. The "war chest" would barely be touched.

The Spurs have double picks in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030 and (now) 2031. They aren't going to have to worry about their lottery chances being solely determined solely determined by their record for quite a long time.

I'm assuming George or Butler would be around through 2027 or 2028. But if they weren't then guys like Mark, Young, Garland and whomever else would actually make more sense, because the Spurs would be in their contending window rather than years away like they are now.

Again, getting a guy now means nothing for whether they'll be on the roster in three or four years. The NBA just doesn't work that way. Getting young vets is exactly the wrong way to build around a young franchise player, which is why teams doing so have the bad track record that they do.

I am fine with going with picks but they not even doing that they sale our 8th pick and then for Gods know what let Indiana pick Furpy what are they doing? There is only 3 players that should stay every one else jobs should be on the line every year and tested by our future picks

[scott]

If the scenario you lined out happens, why do you think the Spurs wouldn't have a max slot? Vassell and Wemby will still be under their current contracts. If Johnson is on the team, he will be as well. If the Spurs have so much depth that they have good guys already signed going into the summer, they should have plenty of ballast for another trade. We're talking summer of 2026 here. The "war chest" would barely be touched.

The Spurs have double picks in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030 and (now) 2031. They aren't going to have to worry about their lottery chances being solely determined solely determined by their record for quite a long time.

I'm assuming George or Butler would be around through 2027 or 2028. But if they weren't then guys like Mark, Young, Garland and whomever else would actually make more sense, because the Spurs would be in their contending window rather than years away like they are now.

Again, getting a guy now means nothing for whether they'll be on the roster in three or four years. The NBA just doesn't work that way. Getting young vets is exactly the wrong way to build around a young franchise player, which is why teams doing so have the bad track record that they do.

Just one small clarification, we do not have double picks in 2028 or 2030. We only have one pick in those years, but there are Swap Rights.

I do find it an interesting coincidence that our Swap Rights are with the 3 teams last standing in this year's playoffs.

[DAF86]

If the scenario you lined out happens, why do you think the Spurs wouldn't have a max slot? Vassell and Wemby will still be under their current contracts. If Johnson is on the team, he will be as well. If the Spurs have so much depth that they have good guys already signed going into the summer, they should have plenty of ballast for another trade. We're talking summer of 2026 here. The "war chest" would barely be touched.

Let's say the have a max slot available. First, there needs to be a max guy available. Second, said max guy needs to fit the team. It isn't as easy as "we have max cap, let's bring a star" and you just start collecting championships.

The Spurs have double picks in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030 and (now) 2031. They aren't going to have to worry about their lottery chances being solely determined solely determined by their record for quite a long time.

The only one I care about is this next season's pick, that's it. Secure a Traore and then you can start going all in trying to maximize winning as much as possible.

I'm assuming George or Butler would be around through 2027 or 2028. But if they weren't then guys like Mark, Young, Garland and whomever else would actually make more sense, because the Spurs would be in their contending window rather than years away like they are now.

Due, just no. Outside of Markkanen, none of the guys you mentioned make sense, because neither would make us championship contenders, not in the short term nor in the long run. Butler and George because they are too old, and Young and Garland because they are too flawed. This is the exact reason why I made this thread and you keep bringing those names up.

Do you really think the Spurs can win it all with Darius fricking Garland as our #2?

Again, getting a guy now means nothing for whether they'll be on the roster in three or four years. The NBA just doesn't work that way.

If getting a Jimmy Butler now, just to lose in the first round in the next 2 seasons, prevents you from getting a Cooper Flagg, it does matter.

Getting young vets is exactly the wrong way to build around a young franchise player, which is why teams doing so have the bad track record that they do.

Which teams would these be?

[Chinook]

Just one small clarification, we do not have double picks in 2028 or 2030. We only have one pick in those years, but there are Swap Rights.

I do find it an interesting coincidence that our Swap Rights are with the 3 teams last standing in this year's playoffs.

So I should clarify. I typically call a pick with a swap attached a "double-pick" because it's the upside of two picks in one. So if I were being consistent I would put 2026 and 2028 as double-pick years and 2030 as a triple-pick year. I should have said that and will try to be consistent in the future. But the point I was making was that the Spurs have two shots at getting a lottery pick basically every year possible through 2031 and don't have to try to be bad themselves like DAF wants in order to get it.

[scott]

I don't think the Spurs need to try to be bad... the FO makes sure of it despite their best efforts.

[Chinook]

Let's say the have a max slot available. First, there needs to be a max guy available. Second, said max guy needs to fit the team. It isn't as easy as "we have max cap, let's bring a star" and you just start collecting championships.

There's always a max guy available if you're willing to pay for them. What's the point in all of these picks if the team is going to be conservative once Wemby actually hits his prime?

The only one I care about is this next season's pick, that's it. Secure a Traore and then you can start going all in trying to maximize winning as much as possible.

If it happens, it happens. But the Spurs shouldn't try to make it happen. They need to take the natural picks they get and make them work rather than dumping them because they have no imagination. Maybe they miss out on another top-five pick. But they should get more top-10 picks and need to have a better showing than they did this time.

Due, just no. Outside of Markkanen, none of the guys you mentioned make sense, because neither would make us championship contenders, not in the short term nor in the long run. Butler and George because they are too old, and Young and Garland because they are too flawed. This is the exact reason why I made this thread and you keep bringing those names up.

If you think that's a counter-argument, then you continue to miss the reasons to bring them in. The only thing -- literally only thing -- that will make the Spurs a contender will be Wemby. You don't sign Young or Garland, tank for Traore anything else to "make the Spurs a contender". Wemby grows into an actual contending centerpiece, and then you bring in guys in their prime to give him help. Until Wemby is ready, the move the team makes should be about helping him get ready. THAT'S the point of the win-now players, not because you're trying to win a le. If Wemby turns into a superstar next year, great, you have an outside chance ala the 2006 Heat. But that's not the point. Mark, Cam, whomever else, will do nothing to boost Wemby's growth rate. None of them know how to do . They're all just lotto guys and role-players. They need a Prime Wemby to guide them, which is why they can make sense in a few years.

Do you really think the Spurs can win it all with Darius fricking Garland as our #2?

First, I don't want Garland or Young. They're just as much anathema to me as Mark is. However, yes, of course the Spurs could win a le with Garland as their number two ... when Wemby's in his prime. I don't think people understand what Wemby's prime could look like, but yeah, I actually do expect him to be able to carry a team without another superstar to a le. It would be much better if it were Dillingham on a rookie contract or in the first year of his extension rather than Garland on a max, but the Spurs didn't see it that way.

If getting a Jimmy Butler now, just to lose in the first round in the next 2 seasons, prevents you from getting a Cooper Flagg, it does matter.

What you say suggests you haven't thought things through. Wemby with a decent supporting cast (like Cam level) isn't going to be in the running for a top-five pick based on their natural pick. If they get it, it should be based on the ATL pick, which doesn't care if the Spurs have Butler and are making the playoffs. For the Spurs Cooper Flagg simply doesn't matter if the alternative is getting Wemby the seasoning he needs to reach his prime sooner. Yes, go ahead and keep the lottery odds the Hawks gave up and see if you get lucky. But the Spurs can't afford to waste a year hoping the get a third-straight season of luck with pingpong balls. This year matters. They cannot waste it.

[DAF86]

So I should clarify. I typically call a pick with a swap attached a "double-pick" because it's the upside of two picks in one. So if I were being consistent I would put 2026 and 2028 as double-pick years and 2030 as a triple-pick year. I should have said that and will try to be consistent in the future. But the point I was making was that the Spurs have two shots at getting a lottery pick basically every year possible through 2031 and don't have to try to be bad themselves like DAF wants in order to get it.

Dude, are you being dumb on purpose or you really don't get it? I don't give a about the "double" or "triple" picks 7 years from now. I obviously don't want to be bad for the next 7 years, it's just this upcoming season. Get a high pick, get a higher ceiling prospect than Castle and start building from that. The Hawks' pick next season doesn't project to be all that high (unless a very rare ocurrence like this year), so the high pick would need to come from our own record.

But even then, I'm not really saying to just go and try to lose. I'm just asking for PATFO not to artificially raise our floor with veteran signings that won't be here 3 years from now, that means no Butler/George moves, no Tobias Harrias, no McDermott, etc. Now, if the guys we have, plus some young guys gets that we could add (Cam Johnson, Malik Beasley) get us fighting for a play-in spot, then I would be the happiest man on Earth. Because it would mean that the process is working and we are building a solid fundation that will have time to keep developing together.

[scott]

I get what you are saying DAF86, where I disagree is that I don't want another year to set in the culture of losing. Let's say it all works out and we get Cooper Flagg or Ace Bailey or Nolan Traore or whomever is going to be the #1 pick. They aren't going to be as good as Wemby and will need a few years to reach a level where they can be that #2 to Wemby. That means we're going to be in Year 4 of Wemby before we can really start thinking about competing. I just feel like that's a bad move.

I largely agree with Chinook except for in one critical area: I think Markannen is more than just a role player - I think he'd be a legit #2, and if acquired this offseason the Spurs would be in a position to still add another player like George or Butler.

Example:

Spurs trade Keldon and picks for Lauri. That actually saves $1MM on the cap for the Spurs, who would now be able (doing rough estimate here) to create up to $27MM in room. Then you are just Collins away from a max slot for Paul George or whoever. You get a long term piece (Lauri) to go with Wemby and a short term piece as well.

Castle
Vassell
George
Lauri
Wemby

(I didn't work out the exact cap details, and I have no clue how to construct the rest of the team with the cap... sorry)

[Mikesatx]

Understanding our history might be helpful.

In 1986 the Spurs went 28-54. That led to the number 1 pick which was David Robinson. His Naval commitment deferred his arrival by 2 years which led to the Spurs drafting Willie Anderson (10) and Sean Elliott (3) before he got there. There was a built in tank. Those two guys became starters and focal points for years to come. In 1989 they also traded Alvin Robertson for Terry mings. The 5th spot started with Maurice Cheeks and ended with Rod Strickland. That team and every team except the 96/97 team was a contender. Every one of those teams gave the Spurs fan base the belief that they could win it all. None of those teams made it to a finals. It took a Robinson season ending injury and a lot of luck to get Duncan which led to the success we all know. I remember those years and I remember always being optimistic and the seasons always being fun. I also remember always being crushed when the season ended. The reality with those teams was they never were going to win a le. For everyone upset with the what the Spurs are doing now, if you would be happy with that sort of team then your points make more sense to me. If you want to go for the dynasty they don’t.

Trading the 8th pick is not overly complicated. They still need to get into the lottery next year. If there was a guy that would really move the needle they would have grabbed him. Otherwise you grab a guy that makes you a little better but not a long term piece. They don’t want to be a whole lot better next year.

i think it’s interesting that Cam Johnson has been mentioned. He seems to be the player that Dillingham is projected to be. Johnson can get you 40 or 50 in a given game but then New Jersey doesn’t give him minutes. How is that possible? The guy has no interest in defense.

Last thing, I think we have 10 jersey’s retired. Gervin & Silas go back to the ABA days. Not sure if the organization drafted them. If not we got them young. Johnny Moore similar deal. Robinson, Elliott, Tim, Manu & Tony were drafted. Avery & Bowen were throw away players that exceeded all expectations for us. My point is no guys are there that were stars we traded for or were star free agents we signed. Point being is the draft is our primary ticket.

[Chinook]

Dude, are you being dumb on purpose or you really don't get it? I don't give a about the "double" or "triple" picks 7 years from now.

Nobody cares about what you care about man. YOU might specifically want to tank this year. If they do and it up again, another poster might want tank for 2026. It doesn't matter. We all have our special nuanced takes on this. The Spurs don't have to chase 2025, just like they don't have to chase 2026 and didn't have to chase 2024. They instead should be the best they can and then make the best decisions to the situations they encounter.

But even then, I'm not really saying to just go and try to lose. I'm just asking for PATFO not to artificially raise our floor with veteran signings that won't be here 3 years from now, that means no Butler/George moves, no Tobias Harrias, no McDermott, etc. Now, if the guys we have, plus some young guys gets that we could add (Cam Johnson, Malik Beasley) get us fighting for a play-in spot, then I would be the happiest man on Earth. Because it would mean that the process is working and we are building a solid fundation that will have time to keep developing together.

A three-year floor raise is not artificial. Only a Spurs fan can have that misconception. Basketball is ephemeral, and three years is a long time. You keep repeating this not understanding that a guy being young doesn't mean he'll be on the team longer. That isn't how the NBA works. Not realizing that is undercutting your whole thesis. In "three years" the Spurs will need to do something else regardless of if they have George or Cam, Butler or Beasley. The team can't afford to pay players who are that bad on their next contract, seeing as they need to pay their actual good players the money they deserve. That's why George and Butler having their contracts fall off and them not being at a point where they should be making anywhere near that much, if anything, is good. It's not a quirk. It's the whole point. You get the guy who can actually do the job now, and you draft the guys to come up behind them. You don't pay a premium to guys who can't do the job just because you have a chance to pay them even more money to not be able to do the job in a few years.

These years matter. If they do this right, Wemby, Vassell, Castle and whomever else, will be ready to form a dark-horse core in year four. That requires them to have previously fought against barriers, seen playoff coaching, faced a true contender in a seven-game series. That's how you go from 2019 Jokic to 2023 Jokic. And you know who was the team's highest-paid player? Paul Millsap, who was in the second of his four-year stint with them. He saw them go from what would be a play-in team now to a perennial HCA team. He left Denver two years before they won the le. Dude didn't win a le with them, but he certainly helped put them on the path. THAT'S the point of the vets during the "three-year" window. It's not so that they can win with them. It's so they can learn to win without them.

[Chinook]

Understanding our history might be helpful.

In 1986 the Spurs went 28-54. That led to the number 1 pick which was David Robinson. His Naval commitment deferred his arrival by 2 years which led to the Spurs drafting Willie Anderson (10) and Sean Elliott (3) before he got there. There was a built in tank. Those two guys became starters and focal points for years to come. In 1989 they also traded Alvin Robertson for Terry mings. The 5th spot started with Maurice Cheeks and ended with Rod Strickland. That team and every team except the 96/97 team was a contender. Every one of those teams gave the Spurs fan base the belief that they could win it all. None of those teams made it to a finals. It took a Robinson season ending injury and a lot of luck to get Duncan which led to the success we all know. I remember those years and I remember always being optimistic and the seasons always being fun. I also remember always being crushed when the season ended. The reality with those teams was they never were going to win a le. For everyone upset with the what the Spurs are doing now, if you would be happy with that sort of team then your points make more sense to me. If you want to go for the dynasty they don’t.

Trading the 8th pick is not overly complicated. They still need to get into the lottery next year. If there was a guy that would really move the needle they would have grabbed him. Otherwise you grab a guy that makes you a little better but not a long term piece. They don’t want to be a whole lot better next year.

i think it’s interesting that Cam Johnson has been mentioned. He seems to be the player that Dillingham is projected to be. Johnson can get you 40 or 50 in a given game but then New Jersey doesn’t give him minutes. How is that possible? The guy has no interest in defense.

Last thing, I think we have 10 jersey’s retired. Gervin & Silas go back to the ABA days. Not sure if the organization drafted them. If not we got them young. Johnny Moore similar deal. Robinson, Elliott, Tim, Manu & Tony were drafted. Avery & Bowen were throw away players that exceeded all expectations for us. My point is no guys are there that were stars we traded for or were star free agents we signed. Point being is the draft is our primary ticket.

The Nets have two Cams. Thomas is the guard who can light it up but isn't a team player. Johnson is the forward who isn't very good but can shoot well. Dillingham may be like Thomas, but I wouldn't say he's like Johnson.

[Chinook]

I get what you are saying DAF86, where I disagree is that I don't want another year to set in the culture of losing. Let's say it all works out and we get Cooper Flagg or Ace Bailey or Nolan Traore or whomever is going to be the #1 pick. They aren't going to be as good as Wemby and will need a few years to reach a level where they can be that #2 to Wemby. That means we're going to be in Year 4 of Wemby before we can really start thinking about competing. I just feel like that's a bad move.

I largely agree with Chinook except for in one critical area: I think Markannen is more than just a role player - I think he'd be a legit #2, and if acquired this offseason the Spurs would be in a position to still add another player like George or Butler.

Example:

Spurs trade Keldon and picks for Lauri. That actually saves $1MM on the cap for the Spurs, who would now be able (doing rough estimate here) to create up to $27MM in room. Then you are just Collins away from a max slot for Paul George or whoever. You get a long term piece (Lauri) to go with Wemby and a short term piece as well.

Castle
Vassell
George
Lauri
Wemby

(I didn't work out the exact cap details, and I have no clue how to construct the rest of the team with the cap... sorry)

To be clear, I had Mark in the "lotto guy" part of the description, same as Young. I don't think the Spurs need a number two right now. I think they need a guy who can Wemby how to be a number one on a contending team. George and Butler know how to do that. I don't think the oft-coveted players do. However, once Wemby does internalize that growth then a number two would be worth the price, and there are a number of players who do fill that role once Wemby really become Wemby. For the right price, I wouldn't be opposed to Mark being around to learn. But considering the assets and cap cost, I don't think the time is right for him.

[Mikesatx]

The Nets have two Cams. Thomas is the guard who can light it up but isn't a team player. Johnson is the forward who isn't very good but can shoot well. Dillingham may be like Thomas, but I wouldn't say he's like Johnson.

My bad, I met Thomas.

[scott]

To be clear, I had Mark in the "lotto guy" part of the description, same as Young. I don't think the Spurs need a number two right now. I think they need a guy who can Wemby how to be a number one on a contending team. George and Butler know how to do that. I don't think the oft-coveted players do. However, once Wemby does internalize that growth then a number two would be worth the price, and there are a number of players who do fill that role once Wemby really become Wemby. For the right price, I wouldn't be opposed to Mark being around to learn. But considering the assets and cap cost, I don't think the time is right for him.

Yeah I understand what you are saying... but I just have a higher opinion of Lauri. However, I do still think you bring in another vet winner. It could be a Paul George but it doesn't have to be. Even a CJ McCollum could fill your Paul Milsap role (Milsap was never an NBA champ, but finished his career with 130 playoff games and 75 playoff starts. CJ at this point has 67 career playoff games and 57 playoff starts). He can't quite teach Wemby how to be a superstar from his own experience, but he has been around other superstars himself (and I wouldn't call Milsap a former superstar either). A 2-year overpay for someone like Klay might even nicely help fill that void, along with some bench additions in a guy like Batum.

That Lauri is a really good fit right now is a hill I'm ready to die on.

[DAF86]

Nobody cares about what you care about man. YOU might specifically want to tank this year. If they do and it up again, another poster might want tank for 2026. It doesn't matter. We all have our special nuanced takes on this. The Spurs don't have to chase 2025, just like they don't have to chase 2026 and didn't have to chase 2024. They instead should be the best they can and then make the best decisions to the situations they encounter.



A three-year floor raise is not artificial. Only a Spurs fan can have that misconception. Basketball is ephemeral, and three years is a long time. You keep repeating this not understanding that a guy being young doesn't mean he'll be on the team longer. That isn't how the NBA works. Not realizing that is undercutting your whole thesis. In "three years" the Spurs will need to do something else regardless of if they have George or Cam, Butler or Beasley. The team can't afford to pay players who are that bad on their next contract, seeing as they need to pay their actual good players the money they deserve. That's why George and Butler having their contracts fall off and them not being at a point where they should be making anywhere near that much, if anything, is good. It's not a quirk. It's the whole point. You get the guy who can actually do the job now, and you draft the guys to come up behind them. You don't pay a premium to guys who can't do the job just because you have a chance to pay them even more money to not be able to do the job in a few years.

These years matter. If they do this right, Wemby, Vassell, Castle and whomever else, will be ready to form a dark-horse core in year four. That requires them to have previously fought against barriers, seen playoff coaching, faced a true contender in a seven-game series. That's how you go from 2019 Jokic to 2023 Jokic. And you know who was the team's highest-paid player? Paul Millsap, who was in the second of his four-year stint with them. He saw them go from what would be a play-in team now to a perennial HCA team. He left Denver two years before they won the le. Dude didn't win a le with them, but he certainly helped put them on the path. THAT'S the point of the vets during the "three-year" window. It's not so that they can win with them. It's so they can learn to win without them.

But Denver already had their core of Jokic and Murray and had gone 40-42 before acquiring Millsap on year 3 of Jokic's career. Don't you see that's exactly what I'm asking on this scenario?

[DAF86]

Warriors in '09 - suck - Draft Curry
'10 - suck in Curry's rookie season
'11 - suck again
'12 - Draft Klay - suck again
'13 - Draft Draymond - start competing

[DAF86]

'07 Sonics suck - Draft Durant
'08 - Suck even harder on Durant's rookie season - change cities and name - draft Westbrook
'09 - keep on sucking - draft Harden
'10 - start competing

[JuneJive]

It's hard to be patient as a fan.

But the amount of wristcutting here, by what I believe are grown men, is laughable.

[DAF86]

'84 Bulls suck - draft Jordan
'85 Bulls suck in MJ rookie season
'86 Bulls suck even harder on MJ's sop re year
'87 Bulls decent 40-42 - draft Pippen
'88 Bulls win 50 games

[DAF86]

I can keep going, but I think yall understand my point. This idea that the Spurs need to necessarily be good on Wemby's 2nd year or else you can't build a contender is just not true and, actually, the complete opposite of what has happened in the history of the NBA. What the Spurs need to do is find that 2nd core piece that will help Wemby contend for years to come, and that doesn't happen by signing 34 year olds (it doesn't happen gifting away picks for swaps 7 years from now either, tbh).