Reply With Quote
They absolutely have a direction. Yall just discredit it to make yourselves feel smart.
Insider info on Chet, I'm talking HEB aisle + level stuff.
Dudes game can be likened to Durant. Did not say he is Durant.
Saying his playing style has good portion of Durant. For real.
Can stroke treys and dribble.
Huge sample size.
They absolutely have a direction. Yall just discredit it to make yourselves feel smart.
BLUF this FO is too stupid or stubborn to tank or really try to stay compe ive and the coach is retired in place and the wrong fit to grow youth. So you have a holding pattern of being borderline compe ive- the absolute worst thing to be in NBA. But like you say it the reality is they won’t tank but there is NO plan this farce of FO cannot think ahead.
IMO the plan is clear. Hope the players take a step up, roll over cap space till next year and see if they can bring someone in that makes them better. If enough of their assets develop, they also have pathways via trades.
I really can't disagree more than making the playoffs is not a goal. Last year with the introduction of the play in games, making the playoffs became a direct goal of more teams than ever before. Fewer teams than ever were sellers at the market last year.
It doesn't work because you're more or less foregoing 2 out of the 3 high impact ways your team can improve (high picks and free agency).
Spurs loaded up on 2-3 year deals right now, absorbed salary, in order 'not to tank' (but not to contend either, just be compe ive). So we're first round fodder at best, and, barring a major derail of what appears to be 'the plan', we're going to whiff on a high pick as well.
Trades are the remaining avenue, but this team appears to be allergic to them. I can't even think the last time this team did a blockbuster trade (that was not forced on them, like nephew).
Clear direction to me means:
1) We're taking on crap 1-2 year salaries but we're also loading up on picks, preferably 1st round. That clearly means they're shooting towards improving via the lottery.
2) Except for rookie deals, we're only signing 1-2 year deals, and strictly to fulfill the team's minimum salary. That to me means we're shooting for capspace and the free agent market.
3) We hear the Spurs being involved in a 2+ team trade to land some above average talent. We would hear this relatively often during the trade window. That would clearly sound like the Spurs are in the market for trades.
1 and 2 probably involves tanking of some shape or form. If we're not doing any of those though, then how are we supposed to get better? Just hope the kids grow up and one of them turn out to be a star?
I mean, if there's something we saw with nephew, is that you can tell fairly quickly who those guys are, and they're not in our roster right now.
I didn’t read anything inherently wrong, except that Vassell was a touch undersold. Also, I don’t think Keldon’s value relies on being some kind of playmaker for others like the author suggests. To be the type of player we’re realistically hoping for, becoming a distributor isn’t in his wheelhouse, although it would be cool if he developed that.
And while the direction may not be crystal clear, I think the franchise knows what they want. It seems like they’ve got a direction, but may also be hoping to catch lightning in a bottle with one of the young guys while they press toward what they’re trying for.
Last edited by sananspursfan21; 08-05-2021 at 10:08 PM.
Your definition is running into the critique others made. You're artificially defining what directions are possible then saying not following one of those means they are being confusing.
The Spurs aren't tanking. They're trying their best to improve their long-term position. That means developing players and drafting well. Part of that development requires vets and role-players. But they also need the flexibility to make trades, so they got some extra picks. You personally think being an eight-seed is not a desirable and try to push that as a view every team agrees. But most clubs don't think like that. Sacramento, New Orleans, Memphis, Indiana - - I'd even put DC on the list - - none of them think they're winning a le with their off-season.
This is why it's really clear what they're doing. A lot of posters are seeing it. What they're doing this year is basically an extension of what they did last year. I don't agree with some of the moves they're making (I even hate a couple) but it's not confusing or anything.
What I question to those who insist we’re not tanking is this: how does a team full of players who aren’t “go to” players, make a play in game, let alone the playoffs in a league that’s defined by proven stars carrying teams on their backs? We also have quite a few players on the roster that many would argue are g-league talent (Hutchison, Jock, Forbes, Eubanks) and may end up getting non-insignificant minutes. Then you have our two best players left: Murray and White, the latter of which is very injury-prone and objectively inconsistent while the former has the higher ceiling but also inconsistent. Neither of them have proven they are ready to be go to players. When you take those factors in mind, is it that unreasonable to think this might be tanking? Is it really far-fetched to think this team will regress significantly this coming season?
Last edited by SpurPadre; 08-06-2021 at 12:41 AM.
The first answer is "who cares?" The Spurs aren't trying to win a hypothetical play-in game any more than they're trying to win a hypothetical Finals Game Seven. Their goal for this season is to win games.The post-season might be the result of that, or it might not. They'll deal with it when it makes sense to.
The second answer is no. Having a roster bottom of young guys trying to figure things out or towel-wavers is completely normal
I'm not artificially defining anything, I didn't make the rules when it comes to acquiring superlative talent to improve your team. That's just how this league operates.
There's a whole other discussion as to whether the system itself (lottery, caps, etc) is fair, unfair, good or bad, but I'm not even going into that, I'm merely addressing the system as it exists right now. Again, those parameters are not defined by me, they're defined by the league and the union.
If the Spurs plan not to tank, then the big jump in quality is going to have to come via a trade, like when they traded for Kawhi on draft night. I was asking when was the last time they did a big trade, that was probably as gutsy and risky a trade as they've ever made in the modern era.
None of the teams you listed have been contenders either (maybe Memphis the odd year out), so that's exactly what I would like to avoid as a fan. Perennial middle-ground purgatory.
So, I get that it's clear what they're doing, what's not clear is which direction they're taking to improve the team back from middle of the road into being a contender, which is a completely different thing.
Hilariously enough, Chinook, I was actually going to mention your "year XXXX plan", which never seemingly pans out when it comes to planning.
Don't take it as a dig, I think you were 100% on track in having the idea that there was a plan for a given year to collect capspace, etc, to make that jump in quality I'm talking about, it just seemingly never pans out, which really makes you wonder if there's a plan at all.
1. We, as fans, as well as a 5 time Championship Franchise “should care”. How can the goal be to win games when the team can realistically be worse this coming season than they were last season and other teams in the West will likely be better? You say they’ll deal with it when it makes sense but that doesn’t sound like a team with a clearly defined direction, does it? Quite the contrary.
2. It’s not about whether or not it’s normal having a team that has alot of g-leaguers. It’s about how that doesn’t bode well in the “goal of winning games”.
Nono, FWIW the Spurs aren't foregoing free agency. I'm pretty sure they can easily open up a Max slot again next season. Young and Aminou come off the books and Zach Collins is more than likely mostly unguaranteed money. They have a ton of moveable contracts. They're going to be a player next year in free agency if they want to be. They're forgoing tanking in order to get draft picks now, but if this team is atrocious (I really doubt they will be) then they can definitely do that mid season.
I'd like to see them grabbing picks for those moveable contracts, not taking on more salary. I want the team to do good, but when you see them throw away $20m+ of capspace in guys like McDermott, Zollins... and we still haven't heard about the Forbes deal, it just annoys the out me.
You say it's mostly unguaranteed money for Zollins, and one would hope you're right, but with this FO I can't even be sure. They sometimes get enamored with these 2-3 year project pet players that are a waste of both time and money.
Agree with that, they don't have bad contracts, they could have some flexibility next summer if they want.
Defensively, we have improved significantly as long as Forbes is not on the floor. LMA, DDR, and Gay are replaced by people who play defense. I would love to see an iden y evolve like the Pistons of old.
We are bottoming out next year, don't see how we win a lot of games without an efficient offensive engine. Brought shooters for development and so we don't play like a team from a different era.
Collins is a modern big flyer who is out for half of the year. Primo needs on ball reps in the g-league so his creation upside would not atrophy.
I agree that the spurs should have chosen a better direction after Kawhi ditched us, but getting Keldon, Poeltl, and now the first and second picks from this trade is definitely not worse than letting Kawhi walk for nothing.San Antonio wanted to remain compe ive when Kawhi Leonard forced his way out in 2018, so it traded him and Danny Green to Toronto for DeRozan, Jakob Poeltl, and one first-round pick. But all that did was delay the inevitable. Now the Spurs are in a worse position than if they had let him walk for nothing.
But that is an artificial distinction, especially in the modern era. You can't build through the draft nowadays -- especially by tanking. Players' don't have the patience for it. You have to build through player acquisitions and development. So tanking isn't a really a viable strategy, let alone one of just two possible ways a team can go. Treading water while improving the team's long-term hand is a legitimate path toward a star. It requires them to be willing to make the trades they need to in order to upgrade their talent -- and I do have my doubts about that. But no, "The rules when to comes to acquiring superlative talent to improve your team" isn't to be bad. The Lakers can afford to do that because their brand doesn't depend on them being good. SA can't.
You need assets to do that kind of trade, and those take time to develop and collect. You're acting like they need to trade immediately just to satisfy your desire for instant gratification. In reality, such a trade right now would overleverage them. They could get Simmons, but it would require them to give up their future. Give them time to make Primo, Vassell and the like into good pieces, and it probably doesn't take as much the next time. Or maybe Primo develops into a star or whatever.If the Spurs plan not to tank, then the big jump in quality is going to have to come via a trade, like when they traded for Kawhi on draft night. I was asking when was the last time they did a big trade, that was probably as gutsy and risky a trade as they've ever made in the modern era.
Saying, "I don't want them to be mediocre" isn't the same thing as "them being mediocre is confusing". The reality is they might not win another le for a long time. We should just get that out of the way. Pop deciding to keep Murray and Walker in 2018 basically shut the door on him getting another ring. To a very real extent, you're just going to have to decide if you want to be a fan of a mediocre team, because they'll be that for an indefinite period of time if they don't get lucky or sly. But what they aren't going to do is gut their whole team hoping to get a top pick that hopefully becomes a franchise talent who also hopefully doesn't want to leave.None of the teams you listed have been contenders either (maybe Memphis the odd year out), so that's exactly what I would like to avoid as a fan. Perennial middle-ground purgatory.
So, I get that it's clear what they're doing, what's not clear is which direction they're taking to improve the team back from middle of the road into being a contender, which is a completely different thing.
Contenders come together quickly and break apart quickly. The Spurs are going to have to be ready to make a flurry of moves to bring together a few stars for a couple of years and then just go for it. To do that, they'll need to be flexible with their roster construction and have a team filled with tradeable assets. They'll have to go from potential to realization over the course of like a season or two, so they need to keep the potential ready. That means they're going to basically be stagnant for a few years in terms of playoff chances until the right deal comes along.
There are treadmill teams that are leveraging their assets to stay that way, like maybe Chicago and Portland. And there are treadmill teams that have a clean cap and lots of assets, like Phoenix before Paul. If you want a direction, it's toward being in that second group.
Eh, one of my roles on this forum is to make cap projections and scenarios about what combination of moves are possible. I don't have a "Year XXXX Plan" now. I don't even necessarily think the Spurs are making the right moves toward that. I think John Collins instead of McD, Zach and Hutch would've been better, even in light of the DeRozan trade. I'm not someone who tries to pretend the FO isn't who they are. That said, this off-season looked great before the extensions come in. It's like how so many people were saying last year that the 2021 draft was so much better than 2020, then 2021 rolls around and people got to see those high-school players in a bigger setting and all of the sudden, that draft sucks too but 2022 is going to be great.Hilariously enough, Chinook, I was actually going to mention your "year XXXX plan", which never seemingly pans out when it comes to planning.
Don't take it as a dig, I think you were 100% on track in having the idea that there was a plan for a given year to collect capspace, etc, to make that jump in quality I'm talking about, it just seemingly never pans out, which really makes you wonder if there's a plan at all.
I am happy that at least they saw there was no reason in keeping the trio of ddr/gay/mills .The GM even made trades to attain draft capital....nice. I didn't think he had it in him. I was so sure they were going to give them loyalty deals. The only puzzling move was the Forbes signing. Overall B+ off season. It at least gave me some confidence that Wright is competent at his job.
1. No, we shouldn't. I don't care that the team doesn't have a star right now. They aren't a contender. When it's time to be a contender this question matters, just like the ones about who would check Giannis or James.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they have a direction though.
2. It's normal, even for teams that win games. Therefore, it's not an omen against teams wanting to win games. Also, "wanting to win games" isn't the same thing as "winning games at all costs". Like how working-class people have to budget their expenses between need and luxury. A small-market, poor-owner team like SA has to balance development and production. ST has some of the most hard-core Spurs fans out there, and look how many of them are freaking out about them being mediocre. How many of the casual fans would let them tank?
Spurs deserve some critics obviously but we tend to forget, this whole organization has been ed over by mother er kiwi leonard. Any small market team being that screwed by a player would have struggled like . We can argue about this or that move but there is nothing that they could have done different that would have changed drastically this team fate, everything you can think of would be slight improvements maybe here and there...
You’re just making things up.
Giannis was drafted by the Bucks, has been there 8 years, and recently signed a 5yr extension. Remember that?
Jokic was drafted by Denver, has been there 6 years, and is in the middle of a 5yr extension he signed.
Lillard has apparently been grumbling, but he was drafted by Portland and has been there 9yrs.
Steph Curry was drafted by the Warriors and has been there 12yrs.
Durant was drafted by the Sonics/OKC and spent 9yrs with the team before he got itchy for rings.
I could mention much more if it was worth the trouble, in trying to talk to you.
So none of those teams tanked... I can't imagine why you brought any of them up, let alone got haughty because you thought they proved your point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
