Reply With Quote
... then your problem is that you need a star, not that you need depth.
If anything below the top-three is depth, then the Spurs have even more depth than you're trying to argue.He's depth! Why is this so hard for you to understand?
If most playoff teams have one or two players comparable to the ones the Spurs have as part of their depth, then it sounds like SA has adequate depth.Mills and Beli might be depth on a playoff team destined for a 1st round exit. Just ask Philly and San Antonio. I guess that depends on your expectations and how you use the depth. For instance, Using Mills as a backup pg for 33 minutes a game isn't adding to depth, it detracts from it.. It's like moving Manny Machado from third base where he is an elite defender to SS where he is a sub par defender. Mills isn't a pg and he adds zero depth to the position. Mills and Beli type talents are a dime a dozen and most playoff teams have at least one or both on a roster.
It's not anyone's fault but yours that you chose to challenge a point you agreed with. You're crying about spin when you said almost verbatim what DPG said.You can spin it anyway you like but don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.
What was the last trade I proposed? Have I even proposed one in this thread? Anyway, it's pretty clear you simultaneously know little about the Spurs and even less about any team outside of the Spurs. You have trouble grasping the basic value concept and show no ability to back up your points with concrete examples. I asked you a very simple question about other trades, and you couldn't answer it. You don't want to answer it, because what interests you is finding new and creative ways to hammer home the same pessimistic points over and over. That's fine. But when you can't even read a thread to see my at ude toward it, it makes you look incompetent. I don't think you're incompetent, but I do think you realized pretty early in this conversation that your points were wrong-headed and continued to charge ahead anyway rather than just backing down. Now you're forced to pretend like the words in the thread aren't there and that arguments that should be really easy to support but have no evidence some how stand on their own.Speculate away! I don't mean to on your parade of fantasy and make believe. I think I would take your speculation a little more seriously if they weren't full of flatulence and bunk. Trades that are so one-sided and slanted in the Spurs direction because the only players you throw in a trade are the ones that have no redeeming value to the opposing team involved. Don't give me the Pau expiring bull . That's your simple excuse for everything. You can throw that in with the Parker, Anderson and the annual Matt Bonner trade proposals of yesteryear or fill in the scrub's name you want the Spurs to rid themselves of. From my point of view with my feet planted firmly on the ground, The Spurs don't have assets to pull off trades. By that, I mean the assets/depth/able bodies they have is currently tied to production and by trading pieces away, you're gaining depth in one area while creating holes somewhere else. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
Knicks might be depth kings. They play 14 guys 15 min/game.
It's like the lights are on Chinook but nobodies home. 
