Shams: J-Rich to the Pelicans

[XDT76]

Didnt LA offer WB to SA preseason or early in season and SA passed? Have to ask “why” and “for what”?

Players swap no picks or at least no FRP to us.

[DPG21920]

Players swap no picks or at least no FRP to us.

It was 2 2nds….

[offset formation]

Yes. Did you not look at this deadline? Basically every good role-player went for a bundle of seconds.



That's not the same thing. It's not even a semantic thing. The Spurs may well have told teams that was their price and then came down slightly. But they weren't even pushing it to the big media members like Toronto was. I like timvp, but he's not Wright's mouthpiece. The extent to which LJ's article blew up belies the level of confirmation from other sources. It's not even that LJ was wrong, but if they were talking about it as much as you worry they were, it would've been directly reported or confirmed by more outlets.



A player like Richardson may end up being more useful to the 2027 Spurs than the 2023 version. That they'd have plenty of seconds to make that move if necessary is why it matters. Without knowing if there was an alternative trade, the deal was to take his price in picks and push that out a few years while getting a guy who might be next year's version of Richardson. Just as Josh ended up being really good ballast for White, Devonte might end up being very ballast for Richardson.



Most of the post after this is just focusing on why using that many second-rounders to actually draft players is unlikely to yield great results. The heart of this is true in that players drafted in the second round aren't likely to pan out. But it ignores a couple of things. The first is that the history you're using is almost exclusively late-seconds compared to the mix of seconds the team is looking at in these trades. The other is that by having so many chances the Spurs might well be able to find the one or two solid rotation players that would make all of the chaff they'd have to sift through worth. This also ignores the other uses for the picks that I brought up, like using them and other elements to move up into the first round and potentially getting to take advantage of the new developmental environment by being able to take fliers on d-league teams. I know that doesn't sound fun now, but if teams like the Ignite and Elite continue to expand and take more top high-school prospects, there might well be an ability to use those picks to lock down the rights to intriguing teenagers who would've previously gone to college and been more highly drafted. It's not how it works now, they they have three picks in 2028 and two in 2029 already. The second-round may well be completely different by then (I actually think there could be three or four rounds by then).

Good stuff, Chinook. I hold to my POV but you make a solid rebuttal.

[Chinook]

This was the original Doug thread. I said all these same things then and many agreed and saw these points. Nothing has changed outside of several people who understood then somehow changing their views now to argue with me.

Someone who's open to introspection might come to conclusion that folks may not be disagreeing about whether the deal is bad or not. They might see there are extensions to your points that people are disagreeing with that you're refusing to acknowledge. They might realize that by refusing to accept the extensions, you've been placed in a position where you think your point is simple but also that a bunch of people can't seem to grasp it. Saying "I just want the good things and none of the bad things" in a world where everything is a mix of good and bad might force anyone trying to engage to slide of in frustration as they try to apply real-world logic and constraints to an ideal.

[DPG21920]

Someone who's open to introspection might come to conclusion that folks may not be disagreeing about whether the deal is bad or not. They might see there are extensions to your points that people are disagreeing with that you're refusing to acknowledge. They might realize that by refusing to accept the extensions, you've been placed in a position where you think your point is simple but also that a bunch of people can't seem to grasp it. Saying "I just want the good things and none of the bad things" in a world where everything is a mix of good and bad might force anyone trying to engage to slide of in frustration as they try to apply real-world logic and constraints to an ideal.

It’s very simple when SA controls it lol. They chose to use their cap space on Doug and as evidenced by that thread and what has transpired it was obvious.

There are literally plenty of avenues other than Doug if you just ask the questions: Is he a value deal that can be flipped and/or does he fit with a rebuilding team and have upside to grow in the event you dont want to trade him.

I’m not saying some impossible task lol - this is very doable and easy stuff. There are plenty of guys (yes I keep saying it) who can give you hard work and mentorship while not hamstringing you (yes, again, I know SA has cap space).

It’s just wasteful and obvious stuff. There is absolutely no real world constraints here - it was simply a poor choice and self inflicted. It’s not like they had a tough call to make and had to choose lesser of two evils or make sacrifices. None of that existed - they flat out made a mistake

The extensions you are discussing I have in fact acknowledged and they all boil down to “what did SA truly miss out on?” Or “sa has plenty of cap space” I understand that POV, have acknowledged and spoken on that too.

[Chinook]

Good stuff, Chinook. I hold to my POV but you make a solid rebuttal.

It also helps that as three-plus bundles of second-rounders become more the norm as a currency block, the chances of getting a contender to trade their first for such a bundle increases. If a contender thinks they can still make their win-now moves with a bunch of seconds, they might see trading a first for a player they want and a pile of seconds as basically maintaining their ability to make another win-now move. Most contenders don't care about the firsts for the players they pick. Many will even trade those players on draft night anyway. They might thing, "I can trade my first for Richardson and five seconds and then trade those five seconds for Crowder. In my mind, that's 100 percent why the Wolves got seconds back with Conley and why the Lakers traded Bryant for those seconds. The secondary market for those bundles as a hording item for contenders is already starting, and it wouldn't surprise me to see teams like LAL, LAC and MIA look to trade the rights to their firsts in June for packages that include those bundles.

I could see the Spurs, for example trading a bundle of picks and their second to LAC for their first and then trading the LAC first and another bundle to the Lakers for their pick. In that scenario, two bundles of seconds helped the Spurs jump into the middle of the draft. That second move might not happen, but moves like it (three seconds to move up into the first) have happened on previous draft nights, and I think that it'll happen more often during contenders' Stepien years.

[Chinook]

It’s just wasteful and obvious stuff. There is absolutely no real world constraints here - it was simply a poor choice and self inflicted. It’s not like they had a tough call to make and had to choose lesser of two evils or make sacrifices. None of that existed - they flat out made a mistake

You're concatenating two thoughts and then wondering why people are adding thoughts to what you said. The Spurs doing something you don't want is not "a mistake". A mistake has to be judged by what they were trying to do. Like drafting Primo was a mistake. They weren't trying to get a predator on their team. I'd even be willing to say drafting Vassell over Haliburton looks to be a mistake, because the team would've preferred a star to a non-star obviously. But if Doug is literally performing exactly like anyone can expect him to and is not incurring any opportunity cost, but you just don't like him, how is that a mistake? How are they failing at their goal? -- how are they even failing at your goal? They literally got even more assets with their cap space than you wanted them to and still have plenty of room to have McDermott on the team. Every positive thing you asked for, they're doing. They just aren't doing the negative things you want since they have plenty of leeway to not do that.

The extensions you are discussing I have in fact acknowledged and they all boil down to “what did SA truly miss out on?” Or “sa has plenty of cap space” I understand that POV, have acknowledged and spoken on that too.

Those aren't the extensions. The extensions are like, "I want the Spurs to sign players they can trade, and I understand that they'll likely need to offer contracts in excess of what contenders would be able to offer in order to be compe ive for those players." Or "I want the Spurs to constantly be looking to trade their vets and cap space for assets, and I understand that that means they'll be getting back bad deals that other teams will pay to get rid of." You're complaining about the bolded parts when it comes to Poeltl (since we're not focusing on Doug) and Graham, but the bolded parts are necessary for the non-bolded part to exist in the real world. It'd be one thing if you just were like, "I get that these deals being overpays was the only reason why we are in this position, but I just wish the world worked differently." But you're basically trying to do victory laps for thinking Doug is overpaid or that Graham is a bad contract. People are by and large not disagreeing with you on that. They're disagreeing with you basically ignoring that the bolded parts are always part of the equation, which is why optimize and idealize aren't the same word.

I go farther and argue the Spurs should sign guys they want and should care about putting a watchable product on the floor. But even in a Hinkie system, he wasn't afraid of having bad contracts on his team. He'd've kept his job with a couple more McDermotts and Collinses. But he wasn't trying to keep a clean cap sheet at the expense of assets.

[TDMVPDPOY]

even with capspace we didnt do

[DPG21920]

You're concatenating two thoughts and then wondering why people are adding thoughts to what you said. The Spurs doing something you don't want is not "a mistake". A mistake has to be judged by what they were trying to do. Like drafting Primo was a mistake. They weren't trying to get a predator on their team. I'd even be willing to say drafting Vassell over Haliburton looks to be a mistake, because the team would've preferred a star to a non-star obviously. But if Doug is literally performing exactly like anyone can expect him to and is not incurring any opportunity cost, but you just don't like him, how is that a mistake? How are they failing at their goal? -- how are they even failing at your goal? They literally got even more assets with their cap space than you wanted them to and still have plenty of room to have McDermott on the team. Every positive thing you asked for, they're doing. They just aren't doing the negative things you want since they have plenty of leeway to not do that.

No…I know Spurs not doing what I want isnt a mistake. I have repeatedly said you love/understand what they did with Doug and I hated it and I know that is a direct contradiction to how Spurs see it. I just hate they see it that way and disagree with their vision which again, I have stated and understand.

But it was a mistake. It was not a mistake in terms of maybe what they expected on court, but it was a mistake in value. They overpaid. You can justify it, like your bolder parts below about “SA likely needs to over pay excess to get guys” but that is the mistake. It’s not a mistake to get your guys when they are really good players or sever a purpose more than “mentoring”. Overpaying mid players that become net - assets because of what you paid is the mistake. They overvalued Doug, overpaid him and didnt take into consideration my two questions I asked which leads to a real life issue (albeit not a grave one) that he’s not a + asset in a trade (regardless of if you think they want to trade him or not). This isn’t subjective; it’s an over pay. You may argue who cares because SA “needs” to overpay but that doesn’t change reality of it being an overpay.

The reason its a mistake is because they have Doug instead of another player who may not be a net negative and have netted something valuable in a deal and/or fit better with the young core and actually helped the team.


You keep dumbing down and mischaracterizing what I want (which is where the nuance part from me keeps coming in). I dont just want them to just their cap space no matter what and any activity doing so is a win in my book and in some direct conflict if I don’t like it. I dont like what they got for their cap space. I have made that clear with Josh deal. Again, you saying “they have plenty of room for Doug” does directly boil down to the extension “spurs have space - who cares if they overpay” or “what did it hurt?”

Those aren't the extensions. The extensions are like, "I want the Spurs to sign players they can trade, and I understand that they'll likely need to offer contracts in excess of what contenders would be able to offer in order to be compe ive for those players." Or "I want the Spurs to constantly be looking to trade their vets and cap space for assets, and I understand that that means they'll be getting back bad deals that other teams will pay to get rid of." You're complaining about the bolded parts when it comes to Poeltl (since we're not focusing on Doug) and Graham, but the bolded parts are necessary for the non-bolded part to exist in the real world. It'd be one thing if you just were like, "I get that these deals being overpays was the only reason why we are in this position, but I just wish the world worked differently." But you're basically trying to do victory laps for thinking Doug is overpaid or that Graham is a bad contract. People are by and large not disagreeing with you on that. They're disagreeing with you basically ignoring that the bolded parts are always part of the equation, which is why optimize and idealize aren't the same word.

I go farther and argue the Spurs should sign guys they want and should care about putting a watchable product on the floor. But even in a Hinkie system, he wasn't afraid of having bad contracts on his team. He'd've kept his job with a couple more McDermotts and Collinses. But he wasn't trying to keep a clean cap sheet at the expense of assets.

Spurs didnt do that with Doug. They over paid and it made him a player THEY CANT trade. I understand overpaying for SA in their situation if the player fits the criteria: 1) does he have upside/fit with rebuild and/or 2) is he going to a + asset to trade post deal with SA. Doug, as I said when it happened fit neither. I have no issue taking back bad deals. I loved taking back Khem for Jak for example because I felt SA was properly compensated. So again you’re doing the thing of dumbing down/reducing my points to make yours and missing all the nuance there where its not about the “activity” itself; its about asset management and optimizing ROI. Sometimes that means taking on bad deals (Jak deal) sometimes it means preferring something else (Josh deal).

I dont just want them always flipping vets; I said you have to at least always be thinking about that aspect and being absolutely sharks and shrewd about it OR (you keep missing that part) signing players that have some upside and fit better with your rebuild (which then tend to be ok to flip if you need to but thats not why you sign those types). This isn’t some dream land either; those are both easily doable and at worst you can find a vet on a one year deal if you can’t find the other two criteria.

I’m not ignoring the bolded parts at all you just dont see my POV or agree with WHY I’m upset about it because you find it nitpicky or illogical when I admitted its nitpicky (inefficient but not major mistake).

So no, it’s not as simple as boiling it down to doing a victory lap on “Doug deal bad hurr durr” - it’s about overall mindset, not being wasteful because you can and not for no reason putting yourself in a spot you dont have to be in when you can accomplish goals without doing so and be better off (even if slightly). You just hate that I both nitpick it at that level and also understand its nothing to truly get riled up about big picture for some reason.

If you really think Doug is what makes this watchable vs signing a one year guy then I dont know what to say. It’s not a strong point or argument IMO and I’m glad you bolded those parts because I have acknowledged them and I don’t agree thats what I’m missing since I dont agree that its my take on the matter.

[DPG21920]

So yes, everyone knows Doug is a bad deal (yet you defend it under the guise of SA “needs to overpay” and “they have room for him”) but thats not the point. The point is that you think him playing out his deal is value enough, correct? You dont think SA needs to move him to justify what they paid or serve their purpose correct? Am I saying anything that does not accurately characterize your POV on the matter?

If I am accurate - then its not about me saying Doug deal is bad where everyone agrees on that despite everyone also understanding spurs have plenty of space and like Doug for what he brings on the court; its about saying Dougs deal is bad BECAUSE it represents TO ME a mindset that is faulty that raises some concerns, especially at the time.

Same thing for Graham. I’m not taking a lap on saying Graham deal being bad and calling it a day. I’m saying very specifically that while I want vets flipped for assets, that I don’t think SA was compensated well enough for Grahams bad deal. You see that distinction?

Spurs were compensated well for Jak/Khem. I dont think they were with Josh/Graham (even if its not terrible) and I personally prefer letting Josh walk for nothing and using Graham money (14M) on a more interesting player (that I then think can either 1) be flipped for more than 2nds and/or 2) make the team more watchable better

[DPG21920]

But honestly I’m tired of arguing about it. I’m fine knowing many don’t see things the way I do - I have my own perspective and how I want things but I’m fully aware that may not align with how SA sees things.

I’ also try to make very clear that even when I’m nitpicking that people know my broader stance; I am VERY happy with the FO and direction they have gone. My faith has been mostly restored and I think the future is bright.

My nitpicking has nothing to do with that and ultimately that is all that matters. Spurs have not done anything really bad, have done a lot of really good and this type of stuff is me thinking about the margins.

I also think I’ve called a lot of stuff when it’s happened pretty accurately and quickly identified the nuts and bolts of the moves and the pros/cons and the takes have aged pretty well which is only to say that I feel I have a good overall pulse on the situation even if the margins there are disagreements .

[DPG21920]

Side note (didnt see posted) here is Hollingers big picture take:

“The Spurs extracted a nice price for Poeltl, Richardson and Miami’s Dewayne Dedmon salary dump, reaping a lightly protected first and seven seconds, so give them credit for driving a hard bargain. However, I don’t understand why they didn’t do more given how much cap room they left on the table. San Antonio could have got in on the Bucks-Nets trade, for instance, and received three second-round picks for free; instead, that bounty went to Indiana. The Spurs would have had to cut players, yes, but it’s not like they lacked for candidates. If you’re a bottom-five team holding back on acquiring draft equity because you’re reluctant to waive Stanley Johnson or Keita Bates-Diop, you’re doing this wrong.

San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

[mo7888]

Side note (didnt see posted) here is Hollingers big picture take:

“The Spurs extracted a nice price for Poeltl, Richardson and Miami’s Dewayne Dedmon salary dump, reaping a lightly protected first and seven seconds, so give them credit for driving a hard bargain. However, I don’t understand why they didn’t do more given how much cap room they left on the table. San Antonio could have got in on the Bucks-Nets trade, for instance, and received three second-round picks for free; instead, that bounty went to Indiana. The Spurs would have had to cut players, yes, but it’s not like they lacked for candidates. If you’re a bottom-five team holding back on acquiring draft equity because you’re reluctant to waive Stanley Johnson or Keita Bates-Diop, you’re doing this wrong.

San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

[exstatic]

It was 2 2nds….

For over $30M in cap space rental. We got 3SRPs (I figured one was for JRich) for like $15M from the Pels.

[exstatic]

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

Morey is the same way. Never understood that a team is more that a collection of players that optimizes and balances your analytics equation.

[CGD]

Here are the SRP details: https://twitter.com/_Andrew_Lopez/st...v1a8ffBLrh7NwQ

Looks like the SA beat reporter who said it was all NOLA picks was wrong.

[Mr. Body]

Side note (didnt see posted) here is Hollingers big picture take:

“The Spurs extracted a nice price for Poeltl, Richardson and Miami’s Dewayne Dedmon salary dump, reaping a lightly protected first and seven seconds, so give them credit for driving a hard bargain. However, I don’t understand why they didn’t do more given how much cap room they left on the table. San Antonio could have got in on the Bucks-Nets trade, for instance, and received three second-round picks for free; instead, that bounty went to Indiana. The Spurs would have had to cut players, yes, but it’s not like they lacked for candidates. If you’re a bottom-five team holding back on acquiring draft equity because you’re reluctant to waive Stanley Johnson or Keita Bates-Diop, you’re doing this wrong.

San Antonio still gets another bite at the apple here, but using that fruit could make for some stale strudel. As the last team left with functional cap space, the Spurs can use their $25 million in room to make deals before July 1. However, in most cases, it’s an irrelevant distinction, as the Spurs would have massive cap room in 2023-24 regardless, and any player traded to them before July 1 would have 2023-24 money due to them. (You can’t trade an impending free agent after the season.) A nerdy enough trade could be constructed where this distinction matters and the 2022-23 cap room becomes important. But in most cases, it won’t matter, and the opportunity has passed.“

Seems like he doesn't get it. Cutting players and using space seems like overkill when you just got... seven SRPs. You actually need players on your team. Even if they're not great, those glue guys like KBD and Stanley hero stability especially when you're losing. Those guys who will still play hard and not complain. You need a good locker room environment right now.

Better deals may pop up later when the season is over and teams look to the future instead of just the playoffs. It seems there weren't deals they liked with the space and I'm fine with that.

[CGD]

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

Agree. I also think he misses a few dynamics that happened yesterday.

- One of the podcasters made the good observation that there was no real mid-level contract trading happening yesterday for FRPs (eg. Bogdan for FRP), rather it was all bargain deals at one end and a few mega deals on the other. Spurs got 7 SRPs, did they need another 3 doing another bargain type deal?

- the impending cap going up definitely had an impact on deals in that middle ground.

- what makes SAS different than fellow dwellers CHA and HOU is that they are trying to meaningfully develop their guys (as opposed to just house a bunch of young guys). They got rid of two of their stable vets, and were probably looking to keep some continuity by keeping the KBDs of the world. I’m cool with that.

- draft day deals get done too, not just the CP3 type trades right before July 1.

[mo7888]

Good stuff on the Hollinger evaluation guys...

[Seventyniner]

Can the Spurs use their cap space on draft night to take on 2023-2024 (or beyond) salary in exchange for draft compensation (2023 or in the future)? If so, not using it all yesterday wasn't a complete mistake.

[KingKev]

Can the Spurs use their cap space on draft night to take on 2023-2024 (or beyond) salary in exchange for draft compensation (2023 or in the future)? If so, not using it all yesterday wasn't a complete mistake.

I’m pretty sure they can.

[DPG21920]

Side note- I've loved Hollinger (especially when he was writing and doing chats for espn). He's super smart, but has never really grasped chemistry. He doesn't understand it because he can't quantify it. That's why he's not in the league anymore... it's why he can't understand why a certain amount of continuity with really young players has value nor why there's a balance that has to be maintained...

Ya - he definitely has his flaws. I dont agree with him on everything. I do think he’s really good at seeing value but he’s not someone I would particularly trust if a team was already good.

[DPG21920]

For over $30M in cap space rental. We got 3SRPs (I figured one was for JRich) for like $15M from the Pels.

I like LA firsts better than NO in terms of quality (may be arguable) and unlike Pels, the LA deal clears 15M off our books vs taking on 15M in Graham

[DPG21920]

Seems like he doesn't get it. Cutting players and using space seems like overkill when you just got... seven SRPs. You actually need players on your team. Even if they're not great, those glue guys like KBD and Stanley hero stability especially when you're losing. Those guys who will still play hard and not complain. You need a good locker room environment right now.

Better deals may pop up later when the season is over and teams look to the future instead of just the playoffs. It seems there weren't deals they liked with the space and I'm fine with that.

He gets it just fine; I echo his sentiment there. You can extract value and replace those easily replaceable guys to play hard, not complain. The KBD/Stanley’s of the world literally grow on trees and you shouldn’t hesitate to cut them and use your space more opportunistically

So while SA did well, as I said multiple times, they were not particularly creative or shrewd in maximizing their opportunities. Which is fine. As long as you dont make crippling mistakes and nail the most important moves (Jak) it doesn’t matter TOO much (it matters because NBA is a game of inches in a rebuild and every thing matters, but it doesn’t really matter lol)

Don’t love the deal for Graham because I dont think SA got compensated fairly, but they did get compensated some and that is a good thing and their heads are clearly in the right spot moving on from the older guys to get some value for them.

[Seventyniner]

I’m pretty sure they can.

That would certainly help the Spurs. If the luxury tax isn't determined/calculated until after the draft (June 30?), a team that wants to lessen or eliminate their tax burden could dump a contract or two to the Spurs on draft night. That's also when the Stepien Rule rolls forward, meaning a team that couldn't have traded its 2023 first yesterday (due to owing their 2024 first, even if on a contingent basis) could do so on draft night, and can also start to include 2030 draft picks.