Dieng, Chriss, PATFO and Cold, Hard Cash

[Chinook]

So the premise is there could have been someone special available and that the Spurs could have had an advantage to sign that hypothetical player if they didn't do the trade. I don't know man, sounds absurd to me. Like putting all your eggs in a basket. We know that even if the Spurs had the compe ive advantage, they still lose out on these player sweepstakes most of the time. It's like being upset you didn't have the poker chips to buy in a poker game. I get it. It would have been fun to play. But the prize money, and in this case a hypothetical player, never became available anyway. And if they did, would they have moved the needle?

The Spurs actually rarely have the type of compe ive advantage that I've talking about. They're rarely able to offer the most money on the market. Also, we're not talking about something that's already passed. Dieng could've been one of those options, but there are still weeks coming up where players could become available where it'd nice to have the ability to offer a larger contract.

Also, Dieng is clearly a needle-mover. I showed my work for that earlier in this thread. He's not going to win them a le, but he should stabilize the center rotation enough to increase the Spurs' chances of making the playoffs by a fair bit. In this world of COVID and with SA's injury luck, salary space to sign replacements is a big deal. The flexibility to tweak the roster is always going to be valuable.

Again, the Spurs objectively sold salary space for cash. This is just a fact. It twisted, absurd reasoning is trying to argue that space didn't have value when it clearly does.

[Dejounte]

No. What I said was that people need to just accept that the trade was bad and move on from trying to defend it.



So basically what I just said multiple times in this thread: the trade sucks no matter what happens. As far as continuing to talk about it, a lot of posters seemed to want to get my reaction to the subsequent events, even though the context should not have mattered to the original argument. So I decided to explain the reasoning in its own thread so that the other threads could go wherever they could go now. This thread is specially to discuss why the trade was bad and why what's happened since doesn't change that. Every other thread is to "move on" so to speak. I didn't go into the Dieng threads and complain about the Chriss trade. Dieng as a player in his own right is a completely different matter, and I actually have a high opinion of that signing.



Yes, this was a trade for basketball reasons. Paying huge tax penalties is bad for their long-term compe ive position. Also, Chriss is injured and can't help them make the playoffs.

Again, not be sound mean, but you thinking this is a good argument might explain why your head was spinning. This was a really bad counter to the point I made; it's just a random scattershot attempt to bolster your case. That I say this isn't me clinging to a take or doing gymnastics or whatever.




1) There's never anything we can do about the moves they make. That's never stopped us from criticizing them.

2) This was never a good standard, since people aren't just black and white. It was never either they want to win or they will instantly sell everything off to save money. They clearly could've made other moves to liquidate basketball assets, like trading their first-round pick to Boston for them to absorb Gay and send back cash. As I said before, this is a vein of criticism that many fans aren't interested in considering, and there's nothing wrong with that. You're free to look at every move strictly in the context of basketball and rate moves that don't actively hurt the basketball side as meh without making it about the overarching financial pressures. That's completely cool. If you change your mind about that, threads like this will be here.

I don't know what you'd expect from this "argument" when you've built a house, locked it, and threw away the key. It's one pridicated on assumptions, without knowledge of inner dealings, and without knowledge of the legitimate reasons for why the moves were necessary. What kind of effort do you expect from anyone here to put forth when there's not much evidence to go by? If I had more information on this matter, it would be easier. But the truth is, we're still going by hearsay on this and a lot of your points (such as the insurance money, how much was given back by LMA, etc.) have no credible points of reference.

[Dejounte]

The Spurs actually rarely have the type of compe ive advantage that I've talking about. They're rarely able to offer the most money on the market. Also, we're not talking about something that's already passed. Dieng could've been one of those options, but there are still weeks coming up where players could become available where it'd nice to have the ability to offer a larger contract.

Also, Dieng is clearly a needle-mover. I showed my work for that earlier in this thread. He's not going to win them a le, but he should stabilize the center rotation enough to increase the Spurs' chances of making the playoffs by a fair bit. In this world of COVID and with SA's injury luck, salary space to sign replacements is a big deal. The flexibility to tweak the roster is always going to be valuable.

Again, the Spurs objectively sold salary space for cash. This is just a fact. It twisted, absurd reasoning is trying to argue that space didn't have value when it clearly does.

So the "Spurs rarely have the compe ive advantage" they would've had without the trade. Big whoop. They'll also have that compe ive advantage this off-season where they should know who will be available and who won't, and not praying for a player to fall from the sky like you're suggesting here. Why would the Spurs plan to wait for weeks for a player when many games would have already been played? Inserting this magical player into that situation is a disaster if the Spurs kept losing. Again, this is jumping through a lot of hoops with too many factors not being considered.

[Chinook]

I don't know what you'd expect from this "argument" when you've built a house, locked it, and threw away the key.

I'm actually not expecting an argument. The trade is bad. That never depended on the context. It's like rather than moving the goalposts, you keep moving where you're kicking from and still missing the goal posts, all the while you keep trying to blame me for the fact that you're kicking in the first place. I'm not following you to other threads, @ing you or PMing you to talk about this.

It's one pridicated on assumptions, without knowledge of inner dealings, and without knowledge of the legitimate reasons for why the moves were necessary.

No, it's not. That's literally the whole point of what I've been saying. The Chriss trade was wrong intrinsically. I'm not assuming a context, because the context is irrelevant.

What kind of effort do you expect from anyone here to put forth when there's not much evidence to go by?

Effort's been fine. People have asked questions, given answers and made comments. I don't remember putting a call to action in my OP or anything.

If I had more information on this matter, it would be easier. But the truth is, we're still going by hearsay on this and a lot of your points (such as the insurance money, how much was given back by LMA, etc.) have no credible points of reference.

As I've said, none of those things actually matters to the point I made. The arguments existed before we knew anything about insurance or LMA's buyouts. Don't confuse me talking about those things in the context of the trade with me saying that context determines whether the trade is good or bad. Right, like the trade was bad and happened, so now let's discuss what this buyout amount or this insurance payment means or whatever. Like independent of my views as a fan, I still try to draw out the lines for other posters on more "objective" matters, especially when it comes to the finances. Talking about the financial implications of hypothetical moves that never end up coming to pass is one of the things I'm basically known for on ST.

[Dex]

Spurs actually make a savvy move to bring in a free agent, and there are still a bunch of "yeah but..."s flying around here.

[Chinook]

So the "Spurs rarely have the compe ive advantage" they would've had without the trade. Big whoop.

First, you misquoted me. The Spurs rarely have the ability to offer many times what other teams can offer while also not actually overpaying. That's extremely rare, and not something they're slated to get in the off-season, where every team will have some sort of salary to offer.

Why would the Spurs plan to wait for weeks for a player when many games would have already been played?

Huh? Why would they want to be prepared in case a unique situation falls into their laps? I dunno... maybe look to the examples I pointed out before for how this type of advantage actually has value beyond the current season.

Inserting this magical player into that situation is a disaster if the Spurs kept losing

Obviously no. Calling something as routine as preparedness "magic" doesn't actually change how ordinary and "smart" it tends to be. Luck is supposed to be preparation meeting opportunity, after all.

Again, this is jumping through a lot of hoops with too many factors not being considered.

There's actually not a single hoop jumped. The trade hurt the Spurs' compe ive position. That can't be reasoned out of. Arguing that the Spurs are going to be fine without the same position isn't the same thing as arguing that they didn't hurt their position in the first place, and you seem extremely invested in trying to make that so.

[Chinook]

Spurs actually make a savvy move to bring in a free agent, and there are still a bunch of "yeah but..."s flying around here.

Are there? I like the move quite a bit. I don't know that anyone in this thread has said anything negative about the move.

[Dejounte]

I'm actually not expecting an argument. The trade is bad. That never depended on the context.

So we're just we're looking for people to validate your opinion or find people who think this trade was insignificant and nail it to their head that it was significant. Got it.

I'm not assuming a context, because the context is irrelevant.

I know it's irrelevant in this thread, you've made it clear. Locked house, no key.

[Dejounte]

First, you misquoted me. The Spurs rarely have the ability to offer many times what other teams can offer while also not actually overpaying. That's extremely rare, and not something they're slated to get in the off-season, where every team will have some sort of salary to offer..

I'm sorry the Spurs did not want to have the compe ive advantage to pursue a Baynes level player. That sucks so bad.

[JuneJive]

The Chriss trade was wrong intrinsically. I'm not assuming a context, because the context is irrelevant.

How is context irrelevant? Sure, in a vacuum the trade was wrong if it was a money grab in lieu of advancing basketball matters.

But it was both. They profited and then upgraded the roster.
And if I may assume, the latter very well could not have happened were there not the former.

[Chinook]

So we're just we're looking for people to validate your opinion or find people who think this trade was insignificant and nail it to their head that it was significant. Got it.

Last time I checked, I did nothing but make a thread with my opinion. I haven't done like you like to do an constantly tag people with your slights or grumble about their posting long after the posting is over. If you don't want to talk about this trade, you certainly don't have to. No one's making you come in here. But if you do, and you want to directly engage what I'm saying, then you have to actually start doing that instead of constantly bringing up irrelevant context and then getting mad that I am willing to tell you that it's irrelevant.

Again, look up the definition of intrinsic.

[Seventyniner]

How is context irrelevant? Sure, in a vacuum the trade was wrong if it was a money grab in lieu of advancing basketball matters.

But it was both. They profited and then upgraded the roster.
And if I may assume, the latter very well could not have happened were there not the former.

That sums up my stance. We don't know if the Spurs would have made the Chriss move in a vacuum, thus I don't think reading the short- or long-term intentions of ownership and the front office from just that move is possible. They might have already agreed to terms with Dieng when making the trade for Chriss, and certainly had with Aldridge. Taken as a batch the three moves are a clear upgrade.

I will grant that the Chriss trade is a trail of smoke on the horizon. It might not be a fire, but if ownership really does start prioritizing small and short-term financial gains over the health of the basketball side of things, it could turn out to have been the first indicator.

[Chinook]

I'm sorry the Spurs did not want to have the compe ive advantage to pursue a Baynes level player. That sucks so bad.

So says the guy trying to pump up Chriss.

[Dejounte]

Last time I checked, I did nothing but make a thread with my opinion. I haven't done like you like to do an constantly tag people with your slights or grumble about their posting long after the posting is over. If you don't want to talk about this trade, you certainly don't have to. No one's making you come in here. But if you do, and you want to directly engage what I'm saying, then you have to actually start doing that instead of constantly bringing up irrelevant context and then getting mad that I am willing to tell you that it's irrelevant.

Again, look up the definition of intrinsic.

No one is getting mad. I'm putting the same level of effort as you into this thought process, and trust me, it's not very hard. If you want to go into each other's post history like you insistently have, then we can go there.

[Dejounte]

So says the guy trying to pump up Chriss.

The fact that you think it was me "pumping up Chriss" is laughable. I was providing this forum with insight from sources not my own. If that's your definition of me defending the trade, then it says a lot of about how flawed your view is of other people "coping" with the trade.

[Chinook]

How is context irrelevant? Sure, in a vacuum the trade was wrong if it was a money grab in lieu of advancing basketball matters.

But it was both. They profited and then upgraded the roster.
And if I may assume, the latter very well could not have happened were there not the former.

Okay, signing Dieng did not happen because they traded for Chriss. Those are two separate deals.

You could argue that they got the money to sign Dieng from the Chriss deal, but this leaves out the implication that SA could not afford to keep Aldridge's full salary. Like had they not signed Dieng, bought out Aldridge or traded for Chriss, it would've cost them more money than what they have now. Obviously, LMA was playing poorly enough to where buying him out made sense. But what would the plan be if he was completely down with being a backup and staying with the team? Are you saying the Spurs would've found some way to shed that salary regardless? That doesn't seem reasonable, especially not to the point of being the "realistic" counter. If the Spurs were in a position where their budget was that much lower than their already-committed salary, they would've waived Lyles before the season started.

[hombre]

And you being a whiny got shows your emotional insecurity.

This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.

[Sugus]

This guy is attracted to men and has a super hard time with it.

Nice to see other people waking up to the truth... Both he and his alt can not spend a day without talking about, or fantasizing about, other men, erotic tendencies, and spewing out phobic insults... Frankly, too stereotypically closeted- -macho-beta to not be hilarious , but I do hope he finds happiness and realizes what his heart desires sooner than later.

We all deserve to be happy in this life...

[RD2191]

I have not "tried" to defend the trade. I tried to move on just like I thought you would have already since you said that was the best way forward. I did that by looking at the players we received after the trade, like any basketball fan would. I looked at all possibilities, such as the low chance of keeping Chriss and looking at Austin Spurs players (which you will find in many threads before the trade was my preference in the first place). So if being satisfied with us signing a g league player AND getting a buyout player I wanted since the beginning is "defending the trade" to you...then I don't know what to tell you.

Did GSW do the trade for basketball reasons? I don't believe they've made a salary cutting trade in a long time. Aren't they within playoff reach and wasn't Chriss one of their best players last year? How concerning...

I don't believe in getting caught up in a trade as small as this one and raising our "red alert" security levels when:

1) there's nothing we can do about it.
2) holding your breath for the next move is a painful exercise (even though the next move they did already make should have relieved all worries. They are still focused on the basketball side of things)

You're not on Chinook's level, scrub. Your takes are trash.

[Dejounte]

You're not on Chinook's level, scrub. Your takes are trash.

HEYYYY I missed you RD. Hi pussy, let's party

[Dejounte]

You're not on Chinook's level, scrub. Your takes are trash.

I've got a special gif for you

[Sugus]

Okay, signing Dieng did not happen because they traded for Chriss. Those are two separate deals.

You could argue that they got the money to sign Dieng from the Chriss deal, but this leaves out the implication that SA could not afford to keep Aldridge's full salary. Like had they not signed Dieng, bought out Aldridge or traded for Chriss, it would've cost them more money than what they have now. Obviously, LMA was playing poorly enough to where buying him out made sense. But what would the plan be if he was completely down with being a backup and staying with the team? Are you saying the Spurs would've found some way to shed that salary regardless? That doesn't seem reasonable, especially not to the point of being the "realistic" counter. If the Spurs were in a position where their budget was that much lower than their already-committed salary, they would've waived Lyles before the season started.

I'll just respond to this instead of the quote you quoted for me (since it was really long, and the arguments I mainly wanted to make have been put forward by Dejounte and company afterwards).

Chino, take a step back, my guy. You are definitely over-analyzing this. And it's the worst case of over-analysis - baseless one. There is literally no source on any of your conjurations, besides the "logical trail" that you weave, where one conjecture makes the other conjecture sound more reasonable because it "couldn't be any other way". Take this for example:

bviously, LMA was playing poorly enough to where buying him out made sense. But what would the plan be if he was completely down with being a backup and staying with the team? Are you saying the Spurs would've found some way to shed that salary regardless? That doesn't seem reasonable, especially not to the point of being the "realistic" counter.

This is absolute conjecture of the highest order, in order to make your theory the only "correct" or plausible one, by shutting out any others. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the Spurs would've found the way to shed LMA's salary even if he didn't ask to be traded, for two reasons: first, his acceptance of a bench role and eagerness to play into that role would've benefited both the Spurs, and himself, and made him a much more enticing asset to be traded for by contenders looking to bolster up their benches (you can also perfectly argue that LMA asking out publicly significantly reduced his trade value, as we've seen that most contenders that could've traded for him, chose to wait out SA like vultures and get him off a buyout, which wouldn't've been a possibility had LMA not wanted out at all); and second, even if interest in trading for him was low, the Spurs could've easily shipped him off alongside a second or two second round picks, if they truly were in such a dire economical state. I'm absolutely certain that, given a scenario where LMA isn't pouting due to being benched, and actively embraces that role, there's no need to add any picks at all to ship him off, since he'd be looked at as a productive, yet overpaid, player, the likes of which are easily moved around every year ( , this very season, Morey actually got a positive asset out of dumping Horford of all contracts).

So, there you have it. We can go back and forth on this, and other aristas, all day - because it's baseless speculation at its core. I don't think anyone's so much "defending" the Chriss trade (frankly, I don't give two s about it right now, especially after getting Dieng), so much as pointing out the flawed assumptions that you take in order to make this post, and try to "remain correct" in your original stance, which IMO hasn't aged as gracefully as you want it to.

There is literally no point in saying the Spurs would be hindered by Chriss' salary in future moves that they could make when, 1) they've already made a pretty huge move after the trade, and weren't hindered by said salary, and 2) we literally do not know whether they want, or care to, make any other moves at all in the first place. This is crying-over-spillt-milk taken to the upteenth... With no other point (as you say, you don't even expect a debate!) other than you saying "no, I'm still right, y'all don't understand!!", which frankly, I think we do... We just disagree, tbh.

Do let me know if I've missed anything, but that seems to be the gist of it.

[JuneJive]

Chinook

All in all, you pointed out the possibilty that the ownership is meddling in the basketball side of things by prioritizing financial gains.

I say possibility because there is no hard evidence of that, and judging by the subsequent move, it likely is a non-issue.

But, having no definite information means that there is something to keep an eye on.

[Sugus]

HEYYYY I missed you RD. Hi pussy, let's party

I'd love to know whether there was some sort of recent trigger to RD's erotically-influenced nervous breakdown? It's even featuring stalker behavior, really fascinating tbh... Like did it all really start at that trade deadline thread? Was the Spurs' inactivity the "straw on the camel's back", were there previous incidents? I don't think I saw him following you or me around before that... Certainly a case for not-so-serious study

Better prepare some more GIFs before he logs into his alt to talk back and like his own posts

[Chinook]

According to this post below, the Spurs came out $1.2M ahead even after waiving Chriss.



Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but to me it looks like the Spurs never really lost a basketball asset because waiving Chriss opened up the roster spot he took up. From my point of view, the Spurs just got gifted $1.2M with no effect on the basketball side of things.

If the Spurs had planned to keep Chriss and save extra money, only abandoning that plan when Dieng agreed to sign here, I can see why that would be worrying. But if the Spurs get a free $1.2M by trading for Chriss and then waiving him, I don't see any cause for alarm if waiving him was the plan all along.

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.