IF Kawhi Does Not Return This Season, SHOULD Spurs Offer the SuperMax?

[TD 21]

There have been six drafts since Kawhi, and five franchise players. That's a really good rate. This year, there's a good chance one or two more come into the league. Obviously, the team would need to get one of those, but drafting is more skill-based than luck-based, and the Spurs have demonstrated a good skill for it.

Maybe in a general sense, it's a really good rate. In a team specific one, it isn't. The Lakers, Timberwolves, Magic, 76ers, Suns, Kings have repeatedly drafted high in at least the past half decade, and only the Timberwolves and 76ers have come away with franchise players. In the case of the Timberwolves, it took 11 seasons out of the playoffs to acquire it. The Magic have had it the worst, not coming away with so much as a star and the Lakers may not have one either.

Again, in a general sense, you could argue the draft is more skill than luck-based. In a franchise player - best player on a championship team sense, it's luck.

[tholdren]

Maybe in a general sense, it's a really good rate. In a team specific one, it isn't. The Lakers, Timberwolves, Magic, 76ers, Suns, Kings have repeatedly drafted high in at least the past half decade, and only the Timberwolves and 76ers have come away with franchise players. In the case of the Timberwolves, it took 11 seasons out of the playoffs to acquire it. The Magic have had it the worst, not coming away with so much as a star and the Lakers may not have one either.

Again, in a general sense, you could argue the draft is more skill than luck-based. In a franchise player - best player on a championship team sense, it's luck.

Its the same deal as free agency but gms get blinded in both. Why did spurs draft murray? It wasnt because he was the best player at the time in that position, but he also meshed with what was needed on the team. Quick long and able to attack basket. Why was forbes drafted. He looks a lot like neal, mills, etc. Spurs found a way to integrate skill with system. Look at the other teams. They just draft and expect it to work out with absolutely no plan. Look at free agency. Just because someone is a media hyped name teams are quick on trigger.

[Chinook]

Maybe in a general sense, it's a really good rate. In a team specific one, it isn't. The Lakers, Timberwolves, Magic, 76ers, Suns, Kings have repeatedly drafted high in at least the past half decade, and only the Timberwolves and 76ers have come away with franchise players. In the case of the Timberwolves, it took 11 seasons out of the playoffs to acquire it. The Magic have had it the worst, not coming away with so much as a star and the Lakers may not have one either.

Again, in a general sense, you could argue the draft is more skill than luck-based. In a franchise player - best player on a championship team sense, it's luck.

Those are teams that suck at drafting. How many picks did Minny piss away on dudes like Johnny Flynn and Derrick Williams instead of taking Curry or Kawhi? They had two chances and Giannis and Steph and ed it up twice. Far be it from me to say Hinkie was awesome, but he got Embiid in his first year. That is all evidence for the draft being skill-based. They all got lucky repeatedly and just screwed up the opportunities they were given. Don't even get me started on how badly the Magic has screwed up since Howard left.

The trickiest part of the draft is getting the right slot. The Spurs trading for that slot eliminates almost all chance to it. That is where the fundamental gap in our points lay. You seem to think we're talking about trading for 2018 picks or 2019 picks. But we're not. We're talking about trading for the Celtics (and whomever else's) prospects or a fresh prospect from the draft. Trading for a dude on draft night is no different than trading for a prospect already in the NBA. It's VERY different than trading for the Kings' 2019 pick.

[spurraider21]

Those are teams that suck at drafting. How many picks did Minny piss away on dudes like Johnny Flynn and Derrick Williams instead of taking Curry or Kawhi? They had two chances and Giannis and Steph and ed it up twice. Far be it from me to say Hinkie was awesome, but he got Embiid in his first year. That is all evidence for the draft being skill-based. They all got lucky repeatedly and just screwed up the opportunities they were given. Don't even get me started on how badly the Magic has screwed up since Howard left.

The trickiest part of the draft is getting the right slot. The Spurs trading for that slot eliminates almost all chance to it. That is where the fundamental gap in our points lay. You seem to think we're talking about trading for 2018 picks or 2019 picks. But we're not. We're talking about trading for the Celtics (and whomever else's) prospects or a fresh prospect from the draft. Trading for a dude on draft night is no different than trading for a prospect already in the NBA. It's VERY different than trading for the Kings' 2019 pick.

yeah hinkie was a mixed bag and its interesting tracing the effects of some of the moves he made

traded jrue holiday for nerlens noel and a first round pick, which became elfrid payton. elfrid payton was swapped for dario saric, what became richaun holmes, and a 2017 first that they used in part to trade up for Fultz. if fultz turns out to be a good one, that's pretty insane. in hindsight trading up to take fultz was a bad move by colangelo... tatum looks much better and they coulda kept the lakers 2018

[Chinook]

yeah hinkie was a mixed bag and its interesting tracing the effects of some of the moves he made

traded jrue holiday for nerlens noel and a first round pick, which became elfrid payton. elfrid payton was swapped for dario saric, what became richaun holmes, and a 2017 first that they used in part to trade up for Fultz. if fultz turns out to be a good one, that's pretty insane. in hindsight trading up to take fultz was a bad move by colangelo... tatum looks much better and they coulda kept the lakers 2018

Likeliest result of that trade will be Philly keeping the Lakers pick, giving up a decent but not great Kings pick (similar to the Nets pick for Cleveland), and Fultz/Tatum being a wash. Markell has been pretty interested now that he's healthy. Worst-case for Philly is they give up the second-overall pick this year and Fultz sucks. Best-case is Fultz is better while they keep both LAL's and SAC's picks and only give up a late-20s pick in 2019.

[kaji157]

It all depends on how he does next year, plain and simple.

[TD 21]

Those are teams that suck at drafting. How many picks did Minny piss away on dudes like Johnny Flynn and Derrick Williams instead of taking Curry or Kawhi? They had two chances and Giannis and Steph and ed it up twice. Far be it from me to say Hinkie was awesome, but he got Embiid in his first year. That is all evidence for the draft being skill-based. They all got lucky repeatedly and just screwed up the opportunities they were given. Don't even get me started on how badly the Magic has screwed up since Howard left.

The trickiest part of the draft is getting the right slot. The Spurs trading for that slot eliminates almost all chance to it. That is where the fundamental gap in our points lay. You seem to think we're talking about trading for 2018 picks or 2019 picks. But we're not. We're talking about trading for the Celtics (and whomever else's) prospects or a fresh prospect from the draft. Trading for a dude on draft night is no different than trading for a prospect already in the NBA. It's VERY different than trading for the Kings' 2019 pick.

Sure, but they've also had bad luck not getting one of the obvious franchise players or fluking into one of the non obvious ones. Williams was the consensus #2 going into the '11 draft. You'd have been hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't have taken him at that spot. It's easy in hindsight to point out Curry and Leonard, but not everything is foreseeable. If you claim to have thought either was going to become what they have at the time, you're lying.

No. I'm talking about getting a guaranteed foundational piece, plus a lottery ticket to potentially getting a second one. You're talking about picking a specific prospect over said foundational piece, while seemingly ignoring that a second significant asset would be needed in this trade. There's not enough certainty or value in that.

[Chinook]

Sure, but they've also had bad luck not getting one of the obvious franchise players or fluking into one of the non obvious ones. Williams was the consensus #2 going into the '11 draft. You'd have been hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't have taken him at that spot. It's easy in hindsight to point out Curry and Leonard, but not everything is foreseeable. If you claim to have thought either was going to become what they have at the time, you're lying.

Almost all franchise players end up on teams who would have taken them higher. The Knicks loved Curry and probably would have taken him in the top three (yes, I know GS drafted him). MKE loved Giannis before anyone else and considered him untouchable instantly. SA when all covert ops when scouting Kawhi. Did these teams bend over backward to trade up to first-overall to guarantee they got their guy? No, and in the Knicks' case, that was a problem. But it wasn't a crap shoot for those teams either. It's not an accident that teams get reps for being great at drafting while others get the opposite.

No. I'm talking about getting a guaranteed foundational piece, plus a lottery ticket to potentially getting a second one. You're talking about picking a specific prospect over said foundational piece, while seemingly ignoring that a second significant asset would be needed in this trade. There's not enough certainty or value in that.

When a player's future potential is a bigger driver of their value than their current production, they are prospects. No one is trading for Tatum because of what he can bring a team this year. Well, no one is comparing him to the first-overall for that reason anyway. Tatum is not a "sure thing"; there's not guarantee that he's going to improve a ton. You want to force that notion into your hypothetical, but I can't ride with you there. I've already allowed for you to suggest Boston would be willing to give Tatum and the Sac pick while Phoenix would only give up the first-overall. That was already a bridge too far, honestly.

But ignoring that, if the Spurs believe Ayton or Jackson is the next Towns or Davis, then the Sac pick simply isn't a factor in the decision, because the chance to grab a superstar is at least an order of magnitude beyond normal "value" discussions. Again, I'm not advocating for either of those guys or anyone in the draft over Tatum. But that's how they have to look at it. You just don't money-ball high draft picks, especially in basketball. If they don't have Tatum as having superstar potential, then there isn't enough future value to fill in the gap between him and a guy they love in the draft. (Obviously, this is assuming they have such a player in mind; if they don't like this draft, then they aren't going to be considering high picks in the first place.)

[TD 21]

Almost all franchise players end up on teams who would have taken them higher. The Knicks loved Curry and probably would have taken him in the top three (yes, I know GS drafted him). MKE loved Giannis before anyone else and considered him untouchable instantly. SA when all covert ops when scouting Kawhi. Did these teams bend over backward to trade up to first-overall to guarantee they got their guy? No, and in the Knicks' case, that was a problem. But it wasn't a crap shoot for those teams either. It's not an accident that teams get reps for being great at drafting while others get the opposite.



When a player's future potential is a bigger driver of their value than their current production, they are prospects. No one is trading for Tatum because of what he can bring a team this year. Well, no one is comparing him to the first-overall for that reason anyway. Tatum is not a "sure thing"; there's not guarantee that he's going to improve a ton. You want to force that notion into your hypothetical, but I can't ride with you there. I've already allowed for you to suggest Boston would be willing to give Tatum and the Sac pick while Phoenix would only give up the first-overall. That was already a bridge too far, honestly.

But ignoring that, if the Spurs believe Ayton or Jackson is the next Towns or Davis, then the Sac pick simply isn't a factor in the decision, because the chance to grab a superstar is at least an order of magnitude beyond normal "value" discussions. Again, I'm not advocating for either of those guys or anyone in the draft over Tatum. But that's how they have to look at it. You just don't money-ball high draft picks, especially in basketball. If they don't have Tatum as having superstar potential, then there isn't enough future value to fill in the gap between him and a guy they love in the draft. (Obviously, this is assuming they have such a player in mind; if they don't like this draft, then they aren't going to be considering high picks in the first place.)

That's different than knowing Curry, Leonard, Antetokounmpo, etc. would become as good as they have.

Tatum is absolutely a sure thing, in that he's already a legit starter (as a teenager for much of the season), with clear star potential. There's a PR element to superstar and star trades. High picks are nice in theory, but they could easily become the next in a long line of busts that are either spare part journeymen or out of the league after a couple of cups of coffee. This is why these types of trades almost always include a relatively proven young veteran because no one wants to risk the entire trade on an unproven commodity.

Unless it's the Celtics, Lakers or maybe 76ers, who end up with a pick that high, I don't buy that the Spurs can get a pick high enough to draft those caliber of prospects. All the bottom feeders, even if they had the requisite assets, wouldn't be dumb enough to give them up for a player who more than likely wouldn't re-sign.

[spursistan]

In what kind of professional environment a lengthy health-related leave of absence gets rewarded by doubling up the salary of the person concerned as the first order of business of their subsequent meeting with management/ownership--all while not knowing if the said person has recovered from his ailment or what are the chances of recurrence?

This is just beyond absurd on many levels.

[spursistan]

Right now, I'm leaning toward NO. I don't think they will offer it until they see him on court again. (Could be similar to Aldridge extension, if it happens it will be toward the end of the pre-season)...

[tholdren]

Sit him all of next year

[SAGirl]

Right now, I'm leaning toward NO. I don't think they will offer it until they see him on court again. (Could be similar to Aldridge extension, if it happens it will be toward the end of the pre-season)...

Agree. This is the best possible scenario.

As I have said elsewhere, I was extremely let down by Aldridge last summer and things were repaired. He showed up healthy and ready to play and he got his extension.

[Uriel]

Yes. That’s the only way we keep him. Otherwise, he’s gone.