Speculation: Spurs interested in Dotson?

[vy65]

That's you. You set 30-40 as a limit, not me, not another poster, not the article you think save your point. You chose to make a post with the history of the Spurs drafting in both rounds. Let's ignore that you one claimed "success" wasn't even drafted in that prescribed range. You're the one who's been off-message this whole debate while acting like the discussion before and after your post is a nonsequiter.

It's kind of mindblowing that you'd dig your heels on this point. Especially since you were the first one to mention the potential for the 2nd rounder to fall in the late 30s. It's a simple fact that there isn't enough history of Spurs picking in the 30's - meaning second round thirties since that's the whole point of this conversation - to say that they have success. No evidence meaning no evidence to the good, or the bad. Just no evidence. I honestly don't understand why this is hard point to understand.

But regardless of that point, I'm more than happy to expand the list of second rounders beyond the 30s:

2018 NBA 2 49 Chimezie Metu University of Southern California
2017 NBA 2 59 Jaron Blossomgame Clemson University
2015 NBA 1 26 Nikola Milutinov Partizan Belgrade (Serbia)
2015 NBA 2 55 Cady Lalanne University of Massachusetts Amherst
2014 NBA 2 58 Jordan McRae University of Tennessee
2013 NBA 2 58 Deshaun Thomas Ohio State University
2012 NBA 2 59 Marcus Denmon University of Missouri
2011 NBA 2 59 Adam Hanga Alba Fehérvár (Hungary)
2010 NBA 2 49 Ryan Richards CB Gran Canaria (Spain)
2009 NBA 2 37 DeJuan Blair University of Pittsburgh
2009 NBA 2 51 Jack McClinton University of Miami
2009 NBA 2 53 Nando de Colo Cholet Basket (France)
2008 NBA 2 45 Goran Dragic KK Union Olimpija (Slovenia)
2008 NBA 2 57 James Gist University of Maryland
2007 NBA 2 33 Marcus Williams University of Arizona
2007 NBA 2 58 Giorgos Printezis Olympiacos BC (Greece)
2006 NBA 2 59 Damir Markota

If you're claiming that the above picks illustrate some strong track record of success, then by all means go for it.

30th is a pick in the 30s. You can't even go one post without contradicting yourself. If the Spurs can nail the 30th pick, it makes sense to believe they have a good chance to do something with the 34th pick. Guys like George Hill and DeJounte Murray can be high-seconds just as easily as they were low-firsts.

100% dishonest. The whole point of this conversation is a 2nd rounder for Dotson. 30th is in the first round. It's only a contradiction if you haven't been paying attention to like what's said in the article, which seems to be the case.

This is another problem. They don't have to hit a home run. They don't need to draft a star. A simple rotation player like Bell or a guy with potential like Bolden is plenty good enough to not want to trade it away. You keep not advocating for Dotson, but because you refuse to measure the other side of the trade, your judgment of the picks is point.

In context, hitting a home run = finding a simple rotation player. Not another Manu. Again, the context of this conversation is value for Dwayne Dotson.

And again, I've never advocated for Dotson. The only thing I've focused on are the Spurs' second round picks. I am fascinated why you can't seem to understand this?

Your "sole" point isn't well-reasoned. As mentioned, the Spurs nailed two of their three picks in the 30s. They're good at finding guys in the late-20s. Every year there are good players drafted in the 30s. Those three things make it reasonable to believe they'll do a good job with the pick. Listing guys drafted in the 50s is horrible counter evidence. Ignoring guys drafted in the 20s is even worse. Continuing to pretend like drafting a guy like Blair is not a great haul or that a player needs to be Dragic-good to be worth not trading demonstrates a lack of perspective. We aren't talking about withholding the pick in a trade for an established starter here. We're talking about not trading it for a warm body. Making a move like this would be closer to Ray McCallum trade than any other move we've been discussing.

See above. Not talking about 1st round picks. Not talking about the 30th pick. We're talking about what the article upthread suggested it would take to get a player - a second round pick. You might want to talk about picks in the 20s because the front office has had success in that range. But again, that's not been the point I've made because that's not what the article suggested it would take for Dotson.

You can throw out counter-examples to points I've not made (i.e., I never claimed the Spurs have failed in their picks or not found value late in the first round). But what you can't do is suggest that the Spurs have a strong track record for second round picks over the past 10 years. Why are you not following this?

[TheGreatYacht]

The "NBA EXPERT" with more amazing takes great job

Thanks, I know.

[Chinook]

It's kind of mindblowing that you'd dig your heels on this point. Especially since you were the first one to mention the potential for the 2nd rounder to fall in the late 30s. It's a simple fact that there isn't enough history of Spurs picking in the 30's - meaning second round thirties since that's the whole point of this conversation - to say that they have success. No evidence meaning no evidence to the good, or the bad. Just no evidence. I honestly don't understand why this is hard point to understand.

It's "hard to understand" because it's ridiculous. You're whole critique is based off reasoning like the 30th pick and 31st pick are less similar than the 31st pick and the 55th pick. That's not a defensible position, and you keep beating your head against that wall. When you specifically say a range of 30-40, it's your fault that people list 30 when if you didn't want that. You could have just written 31-40. Instead of just going "Yeah, I meant 31", you just pretend like 30 isn't in the 30-40 range. Like yeah, I can understand what you mean, but it's a blatant contradiction that underlines the issues with your point.

There's a difference between having examples of them drafting well in the 31-40 range and having reasons/evidence to believe they would draft well in that range. Saying, "Because the Spurs do so well in the late 20s, I believe they'll do well in the early 30s," is reasonable. Saying, "They haven't done well in the 50s, so there's no reason to believe they'd do well in the 30s," isn't. Even if you DQ Anderson and dismiss Blair, there are reasons to believe they'll do okay. You can disagree with those reasons, but you seem to completely fail to understand that those reasons exist. You just keep hiding behind the idea of the Spurs not having a long history of drafting well in the 30s, but literally only you care about that. No one else was using that as a basis for their arguments. No one besides you thinks that's a standard that had to be met. Even if I grant you Anderson and Blair not counting, what does that change? Nothing. It doesn't move the needle one way or the other. It does't redefine the debate. It would just be there.

[vy65]

Article speculates Dotson May be had for a second rounder
VY: spurs have no history in the 30s and their picks in the 40s and 50s haven’t returned value
Chinook: automatically fixated on irrelevance
VY: no bro, Spurs don’t have the track record or great picks in the second round over the past decade
Chinook: (autistic screeching intensifies)

I can safely say that your last post is irrelevant to the point I made and the larger context of this thread. Cue the wall of text that will have to do about ...

[vy65]

Also, I pretty much did say “I meant 31,” given that every post I’ve made itt has been about the second round.

As for the rest, you’ve failed to show that their late first round track record translates into second round success especially since it hasn’t over the past 10 years.

[vy65]

Also also, my point is and has been, there’s no track record of them performiing well in the mid 30s one way or another. That a bunch of front office slurpers don’t hold the same standard is utterly ing irrelevant to the past 10 years worth of actual picks.

[phxspurfan]

Who wouldn't be?

[SAGirl]

shooting the 3 well for NYC. Has started to get minutes, presumably to get showcased.

[r0drig0lac]

[SAGirl]

^ thanks was looking for highlights of that game and couldn't find them, thus the tweets. I'd want him in this team... looks like an interesting player to keep beyond this season too.

[ace3g]

[TD 21]

JD Shaw on Twitter: "The Spurs are signing guard Damyean Dotson to an Exhibit 10 contract, league source tells HoopsRumors. Dotson most recently played for the Cavaliers." / Twitter

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

good call OP

[Degoat]

Spurs going for the g league championship?! Lol

[Chinook]

good call OP

Glad you're being fair to him by giving him credit.

[TD 21]

There goes the resident amateur psychologist again attemping to interpret the thoughts of others . . . shouldn't you be knee deep in some CBA minutia to make yourself feel important and intelligent?

[Chinook]

There goes the resident amateur psychologist again attemping to interpret the thoughts of others . . . shouldn't you be knee deep in some CBA minutia to make yourself feel important and intelligent?

Are you gonna ruin your own thread trying to diss me?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Who wouldn't be?

The 280Z was a nice car. Seems like that lineage has fallen off since then.