Dieng, Chriss, PATFO and Cold, Hard Cash

[RD2191]

https://www.livescience.com/52146-ho...ty-traits.html

You're overacting, real straight men don't behave like you, we're not threatened by the gays. Seek help, you could be out dating men and free from all your inner conflict and public anger.

Oh ok, got.

[JeffDuncan]

...

1) Trading basketball assets for pure cash is intrinsically bad
...

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

In the Chriss deal, the Spurs received a liability, the Chriss contract, and they also received an asset, some cash. The asset the Spurs received exceeded the liability, producing a net gain, and making the deal a good business move.

Coach Pop is also the President of Basketball Operations. He has supervision of team finances. Why do people imagine ownership involvement in the Chriss deal? That's doubtful. Pop has authority to do a deal like that himself.

Pop and Kerr talked, Kerr wanted to move the Chriss contract, he offered Pop a way to do that so the Spurs would come out ahead, and Pop agreed to it. There is no reason to consult ownership on such a thing.

[KingKev]

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

In the Chriss deal, the Spurs received a liability, the Chriss contract, and they also received an asset, some cash. The asset the Spurs received exceeded the liability, producing a net gain, and making the deal a good business move.

Coach Pop is also the President of Basketball Operations. He has supervision of team finances. Why do people imagine ownership involvement in the Chriss deal? That's doubtful. Pop has authority to do a deal like that himself.

Pop and Kerr talked, Kerr wanted to move the Chriss contract, he offered Pop a way to do that so the Spurs would come out ahead, and Pop agreed to it. There is no reason to consult ownership on such a thing.

Both teams won on this but I pretty sure ownership has input beyond Pop, Brian Wright and RC. This is a tightly held franchise facing unparalleled uncertainty.

[Chinook]

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

Um... So you start off by trying to correct me by saying teams trade liabilities, as if they don't trade assets. Then you say two lines latter that the Spurs received an asset. So basketball teams DO trade assets along with liabilities. Like if you're actually just trying to say that Chriss' contract was a liability, like duh. We all know that. It's not just a financial liability, but it's a basketball liability.

The asset the Spurs traded was salary space. Like obviously, the Warriors didn't just trade away things. They traded for something was salary relief and roster flexibility in the form of a trade exception being created as a result of the deal. The Spurs traded an asset for cash. Yes, they traded for a liability as well, but no one was disputing that.

Of course, cash isn't actually a basketball asset for reasons we've talked about many times already in this thread and others. Certainly, you can disagree with that, but it's weird that you thought no one considered it? Cash received doesn't stay in some account on a team's NBA ledger for them to use in a different trade. It goes into the owners' pockets, and the owners can decide to subsequently pay for something else out of their pockets later. To a FO completely concerned only with basketball performance and without the need to worry at all about owner's profits, the cash would be meaningless.

[Sugus]

Basketball franchises trade liabilities. A contract is a liability to the franchise. It has to be paid.

If you're going to be so picky about everything, you should at least get your terms right.

In the Chriss deal, the Spurs received a liability, the Chriss contract, and they also received an asset, some cash. The asset the Spurs received exceeded the liability, producing a net gain, and making the deal a good business move.

Coach Pop is also the President of Basketball Operations. He has supervision of team finances. Why do people imagine ownership involvement in the Chriss deal? That's doubtful. Pop has authority to do a deal like that himself.

Pop and Kerr talked, Kerr wanted to move the Chriss contract, he offered Pop a way to do that so the Spurs would come out ahead, and Pop agreed to it. There is no reason to consult ownership on such a thing.

Phew, thanks, you saved me some writing (and God knows this thread lacks everything BUT writing...).

It's incredibly close-minded, and surprising for a subject so insanely dissected (I seriously doubt even Pop/the FO gave this as much thought as Chino has ), to take off from such a flawed premise. And this is exactly why I was telling Chino that it's not that we "don't understand" how "bad" the trade was - we just disagree that it's some terrible error bound to affect forever the perception of other moves by the FO.

Not only, as you point out, was the trade not "basketball assets for pure cash", it ignores all other context as to why the Spurs might've done the trade in the first place. Strengthening their business relationship with Golden State by taking on the liability is the obvious one, and very underrated ITT, especially given how multiple FOs are reluctant to trade with the Spurs and "help them back to the top"; getting a good look at an intriguing prospect in Chriss is another one (he's free to rehab using SanAn's facilities, as far as I'm aware, and that's important in building up a relationship that might sway him to sign here in the future (whether Chino thinks we should or shouldn't sign him is irrelevant to this point)); lastly, and surprisingly I've seen NOBODY mention this before: it sets a precedent for the Spurs being a team that's willing to take on bad contracts, in exchange for something. Yes, it's "pure cash" this time, but it doesn't have to be so in the future, and showing as an organization that you're willing to make those sorts of moves, can open up a lot of doors in the future, especially in a VERY LIKELY scenario where the Spurs have $50m+ of cap space but not a good FA to dump it to. Taking on bad contracts like Chriss is certainly a move the FO could repeat in the future, hopefully in exchange for unprotected picks or whatever, it doesn't matter right now.

So that's a precedent I'd be willing to get behind that has been set by this Chriss trade. Wouldn't you agree, Chinook (of course you won't, I want to know why)?

[Sugus]

https://www.livescience.com/52146-ho...ty-traits.html

You're overacting, real straight men don't behave like you, we're not threatened by the gays. Seek help, you could be out dating men and free from all your inner conflict and public anger.

Truth nukes, as my guy likes to say

Lmfao at how spot-on was that; where is this guy from that it's normal for totally-straight-bruh guys to constantly have to call other men gay/ gots/whatever phobic slurs in order to keep up the masculine appearance and persona? Absolutely reeks of insecurity and a low self-image, necessitating putting others down to his level (not surprising he turned out to be an online troll, the most worthless possible member of a society). Hope he realizes who he really is some day, and lives a happy life, tbh...

[Chinook]

Phew, thanks, you saved me some writing (and God knows this thread lacks everything BUT writing...).

It's incredibly close-minded, and surprising for a subject so insanely dissected (I seriously doubt even Pop/the FO gave this as much thought as Chino has ), to take off from such a flawed premise. And this is exactly why I was telling Chino that it's not that we "don't understand" how "bad" the trade was - we just disagree that it's some terrible error bound to affect forever the perception of other moves by the FO.

Not only, as you point out, was the trade not "basketball assets for pure cash", it ignores all other context as to why the Spurs might've done the trade in the first place. Strengthening their business relationship with Golden State by taking on the liability is the obvious one, and very underrated ITT, especially given how multiple FOs are reluctant to trade with the Spurs and "help them back to the top"; getting a good look at an intriguing prospect in Chriss is another one (he's free to rehab using SanAn's facilities, as far as I'm aware, and that's important in building up a relationship that might sway him to sign here in the future (whether Chino thinks we should or shouldn't sign him is irrelevant to this point)); lastly, and surprisingly I've seen NOBODY mention this before: it sets a precedent for the Spurs being a team that's willing to take on bad contracts, in exchange for something. Yes, it's "pure cash" this time, but it doesn't have to be so in the future, and showing as an organization that you're willing to make those sorts of moves, can open up a lot of doors in the future, especially in a VERY LIKELY scenario where the Spurs have $50m+ of cap space but not a good FA to dump it to. Taking on bad contracts like Chriss is certainly a move the FO could repeat in the future, hopefully in exchange for unprotected picks or whatever, it doesn't matter right now.

So that's a precedent I'd be willing to get behind that has been set by this Chriss trade. Wouldn't you agree, Chinook (of course you won't, I want to know why)?

Ugh, so no. Cash isn't a basketball asset. Unprotected picks are basketball assets. This is why I question you saying you understand. Trading one basketball asset for another is literally what trades are for. It feels like you're trolling me. I've said multiple times that it would've been great had the Spurs gotten some actual basketball compensation for the trade.

As far as relationships go, that's so weak. You can basically say every trade strengthens ties or whatever. Most teams don't need to be bros in order to do mutually beneficial deals. Certainly, familiarity can sometimes help, but GS and SA were already plenty close before this deal. The Spurs don't have to go around paying teams to like them.

[Sugus]

Ugh, so no. Cash isn't a basketball asset. Unprotected picks are basketball assets. This is why I question you saying you understand. Trading one basketball asset for another is literally what trades are for. It feels like you're trolling me. I've said multiple times that it would've been great had the Spurs gotten some actual basketball compensation for the trade.

As far as relationships go, that's so weak. You can basically say every trade strengthens ties or whatever. Most teams don't need to be bros in order to do mutually beneficial deals. Certainly, familiarity can sometimes help, but GS and SA were already plenty close before this deal. The Spurs don't have to go around paying teams to like them.

Damn, I was just done reading your other reply, I would've worded this second one way differently had I not jumped the gun.

Again, and yes, I completely understand the point you make, I'm not trolling you. I simply disagree with you. I've told you in that quote, three things the Spurs got out of the trade, that weren't explicitly enclosed in "straight cash". You saying the relationship stuff is "that's so weak" is hardly a counter-argument; you can think it's strong or weak or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that the Spurs did do the Warriors a solid, and can perfectly expect both FO's relationships to strengthen more than they were previously (and I would add, the Spurs could expect to have a favor made for them in the future of this kind, but that'd definitely fall within speculation, even though I think it's obvious and yet you've completely missed it in your extensive analysis). It's not that every trade strengthens relationships, because that's obviously untrue: but a trade of this specific cir stances, when one team has a vested interest in getting rid of another player and another team facilitates it, definitely isn't like "any trade", and has special context that should be taken into account. I really doubt, for example, that the Spurs' FO would've pulled this move to take in a player of the Knicks' roster (despite the fact that, if they were as cash-strapped as your interpretation of this move suggests, they should have no problems taking on the Knicks' trash).

Chriss being able to rehab here is another one, which you've missed entirely and also in your reply. I sincerely don't know what's up with Chriss, if he ever even flew down to SanAn, but the fact remains that as a player traded to SA, he's free and able to use our installations to aid his recovery, like for example Boogie did last season after tearing his what, ACL? MCL? I don't even remember. Even if Chriss doesn't end up staying in SA, it gives Pop and the medical staff a chance to have a close look at him, see how the rehab goes, and then determine whether he'd be worth throwing an offer towards. This also doesn't fall within the "straight cash" limitation of your original premise, yet is a definitive (well, to be confirmed I guess) plus of the trade. Still think I'm trolling?

And lastly, another point you failed to address - the presentation of the Spurs as a team willing to integrate players into their cap space. You only talked about one edge of this two-edged sword, the negative - the Spurs are effectively limited by Chriss' cap hold in their future moves for the season. I. Get. That. What I don't get is why you'd ignore the other side: the GM's of the NBA could be more willing to make offers to SA involving shipping out negative contracts, in exchange for assets. I certainly hope the "asset" won't be cash every time, and you could expect so too (or maybe not, considering this recent huge distrust in the FO). So, in a scenario where the Spurs think they won't have to make further moves after signing Dieng (or, as timvp's post implies, a scenario where they know they'd have room to make the moves they plan on doing and take on Chriss, which is another scenario you haven't/won't explore), it makes sense to let other teams know they're willing to strike those deals. Especially when, again, the Spurs will have upwards of $50M spending money this off-season, with no marquee FA's to realistically go after.

So, there you go. If you still think I don't understand, I don't know what to tell you. You base your entire post off one premise, and I'm explaining to you why I disagree with said premise. Whether you think these points are "strong" or "weak" is irrelevant; they're here to present a counter-argument to your absolutist way of constructing this thread. Peace

E: and btw, it's ok if you simply disagree, you don't have to write as much as I did for it. I just see you kind of ignoring or dismissing any point that's alternative to the reality that you believe to be factual, and naturally want to counter-argue. At this point, I'm ing tired of Marquesse Chriss, and he hasn't even played one minute for the Spurs

[DesignatedT]

Y'all are falling down this rabbit hole on this one. Impossible to draw conclusions from one trade between Pop and Kerr. Also, not sure why any fan of the Spurs would want to go all in trying to substantiate the "Holt's are broke and the Spurs are doomed" take anyway.

[The Truth #6]

I think we've reached the point where we've been arguing about a player for longer then he was even with the team. That's a new one.

[exstatic]

Remember, the alarms were sound before anything about the insurance came out. We all assumed Chriss was going to be waived at the start. The insurance could've made it worse, but it was bad before that.

The roster is still live. Not only is their a spot for a 15th man with Reynolds only a 10-day but maintaining flexibility in the event of another outbreak or just plain old injuries remains an issue. DPEs allow for a team to go over the cap to replace guys, but it doesn't affect the tax line, and thus the Spurs' assumed budget. Salary space is always a basketball asset, with the only exception I guess being the playoffs when salary doesn't really count anymore. That doesn't mean that any loss in salary space cripples a team. That's an unrealistic standard to hold the argument to.

The alarms were sounded before the insurance was known? How about we wait for the freak out until we know what the trade IS. I’m sure the Spurs knew about the insurance.

[Sugus]

Y'all are falling down this rabbit hole on this one. Impossible to draw conclusions from one trade between Pop and Kerr.

Totally agreed, there's absolutely a fourth scenario where this is just another one of Pop's " I'm the GM" moves with trying to do Kerr a solid after a night of buddy-drinking. Yet another scenario Chino has failed to consider, and maybe the most likely of all

Also, not sure why any fan of the Spurs would want to go all in trying to substantiate the "Holt's are broke and the Spurs are doomed" take anyway.

Are you new to SpursTalk by any chance

[slick'81]

What a ty thread,tbh

[JeffDuncan]

Um... So you start off by trying to correct me by saying teams trade liabilities, as if they don't trade assets. Then you say two lines latter that the Spurs received an asset. So basketball teams DO trade assets along with liabilities.
...

Look, spinny, a basketball player contract is a liability to the team that holds it. Because the team has to pay it.

When you're ignorant of basic facts, and so insistent on remaining ignorant, you can't be taken seriously. But I don't know if responders take you seriously, or just don't have anything better to do at the moment. Like me. Yawn.

And you forgot Cady.

The trade was a swap of liabilities. The Chriss contract for the Cady contract. To motivate the trade, the Warriors included cash.

The cash amount was more than enough to cover the liability the Spurs were assuming. So the Spurs did the deal. Good business.

I should not have called the cash an asset. That was incorrect. It was team income.

Pop did it himself in a handshake agreement with Kerr. Of course.

Do you have a better understanding now?

...
It goes into the owners' pockets, ...

The owners are not first in line for the team's cash income. First in line is usually the tax man, because he can throw you in jail. Then utilities, to keep the lights on. Rent, to keep a roof overhead. Then employees. Etc. The owners get what's left over.

[hombre]

10470153[/URL]]Truth nukes, as my guy likes to say

Lmfao at how spot-on was that; where is this guy from that it's normal for totally-straight-bruh guys to constantly have to call other men gay/ gots/whatever phobic slurs in order to keep up the masculine appearance and persona? Absolutely reeks of insecurity and a low self-image, necessitating putting others down to his level (not surprising he turned out to be an online troll, the most worthless possible member of a society). Hope he realizes who he really is some day, and lives a happy life, tbh...

Explains his AV.