Oh so NOW the dynamics of the trades a different...
It’s not so complicated. If a deal improves the team, they will do it. Also, letting a guy walk for nothing makes no sense especially if he has value. The Gay deal has no relevance since I wouldn’t put him in DDRs tier. Also, we will see a big jump from our 3 guards especially Murray. They will all need time on the court and DDR’s game is just a bad fit. That’s not to say he’s a bad player but if he’s not part of the future, you have to explore trade options.
Oh so NOW the dynamics of the trades a different...
A Spurs team with Murray, White, a 3 and D guy (like an Otto Porter for example) and Poeltl would probably be just as good defensively, and better offensively.
Sorry...Walker not Murray was intended like the big time bet...
I never said the sole reason you trade him now was because of depreciating value; I said its part of the reason why I think it happens sooner than later if it does happen.
SA knows they aren’t keeping him and if they get a good enough offer now they will trade him now. They aren’t going to hold onto him to win a few more games if they get a good offer which is what you seem to be arguing.
In my context yes I don’t see how you keep bas izing this almost purposely at this point.
The dynamics of market are irrelevant; the dynamics of value due to situation are. These aren’t some mutually exclusive things.
I’ll also say we don’t need DDR to make the playoffs. We had no DDR or KL the year prior and we are going to be much better next year.
I guess here are the questions Chinook:
1) What is the ceiling of this team as currently constructed in your opinion?
2) When should teams (taking into consideration ceiling/floor) take into consideration future vs now?
It's simple, do you think a lineup of, for example:
Murray, White, Walker/Carroll/Forbes, Otto Porter, Aldridge couldn't be good enough to win around 48/50 games and make the playoffs? I think it could.
On that case, trading DeRozan for Porter plus other assets becomes a no brainer. You mantain the same level of compe iveness, you gain further assets for the future and you acceleratte the development of players like White, Murray and Walker. It's a win/win/win situation.
Spurs were better with Derozan off the court last year tbh
I haven't read the whole thread - I just happened to jump in at this page. Is that something that has come out for certain, or are you just saying what you think?
If they don't have any intention at all of extending him, then yeah you trade him. Partly to get some kind of value out of him. But also because that player option keeps you from making plans. I don't think anyone is going to pay him more money next year, but the option keeps the team in limbo while he goes out and shops. If you know he's exercising him option and staying, you plan on two years with him and then a transition.
If you plan on him staying, and he leaves, you're screwed. If you think he'll opt out, but you don't know for sure, you can't make alternate plans. It's just a mess.
Yeah, if they know for sure they won't extend him, they need to bite the bullet now. Get some value out of him, commit to a new direction, and get about their business.
Didn't we have a thread like this a few weeks ago ?
1. The spurs “car” has the express purpose of being the best/fastest/most valuable out of the 30 others. Arguing depreciation is making my point - you want to fight that by getting the best value when you can.
2. There is functionally no difference between KL wanting out and DDR not being extended. In one case, the player wanted out, in the other, the team. The end result is the same. In both scenarios, it’s known that the player is not in the teams long term plans, causing a depreciation in value. Or even a fire sale.
3. While retaining a player who doesn’t have a place in the long term can provide short term value - there’s nothing to suggest that short term value outweighs the benefits of a) selling while value is higher and b) bringing in a player now and beginning the long integration process. You just assume that because Derozan has value now and can provide value until February, then any trade must be a bad idea. There’s nothing to suggest that new player couldn’t also win games or give breathing room for the new guys to get acclimated. There’s an opportunity cost and it seems like you’re only focused on the opportunity and not balancing the cost.
I am telling people what I have heard.
DeRozan getting traded has a better chance of happening than signing some big free agent in '21. Spurs fans with the hope of getting a signifcant free agent that year are going to be really really disappointed.
The reality - with the blossoming of white, walker, murray this team would win more games as structured with a Marcus Morris type rather than Derozan. Let that sink in
That's another thing. By trading DeRozan you might get access to players that you would never even sniff a chance in free agency. Players like Otto Porter, Gordon, Covington, etc. Players, that even though aren't all-star level players, are high-end role players that would fit our team perfectly.
I can actually see Chinooks argument a lot more if Lonnie/Dejounte/Derrick aren’t as great as expected - which is a definite possibility.
I think things could be kinda telling if DeMar isn’t at team USA training camp when they have it
Dejounte was looking better than Derozan in the preseason games before he went down with the injury.
Lonnie put up 16 points in like 6-9 minutes of playing time against Denver at the end of the season.
I’d say it’s more likely the Young Big 3 boom instead of plateau out
For me it's a simple, if patfo can trade him for what they want then move him, if they cant keep him. I'm not in the 'absolute' category that says we must trade him....or it would be ridiculous to trade him. It's obvious that we are in a position of strength here (which is the only thing that matters) because we don't need to trade him and probably aren't really trying to trade him. We are simply open for business and if business is good we move forward if its undesirable we stand pat.
Why is it possibility? We’ve seen all 3 guys play and PAFTO is extremely high on all of them. It’s clear as day that all 3 should have a big upcoming year. I think some people like to argue for argument sake. You don’t let a guy walk for nothing. He’s not Gay or Anderson which is a pretty laughable comparison.
This is correct. There appears to be incentive to trade him since he can walk and SA has no interest in extending him but other than that, they aren’t just dumping him since he’s not toxic or anything and is a good player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)