They'll have to learn the defensive schemes first, not a simple task. It'll be built on some losses for sure, but that's the price to be paid.
Our defense and athleticism will be the difference this go round; we can switch everything!
They'll have to learn the defensive schemes first, not a simple task. It'll be built on some losses for sure, but that's the price to be paid.
If a spurs trade to Atlanta for Collins were to happen, what would it need to look like money/player wise? Would it need to be a sign and trade?
DDR and Murray for Collins and reddish would fit what both teams seem to be trying to do but not sure how the money would need to be adjusted. Atlanta is overloaded at the PF position now and I don’t see why they’d do that unless they didn’t want to sign Collins to a big contract and are planning on trading him.
F no. Westbrook is damaged goods. Once you have the meniscus removed, the knee is a ticking time bomb. He’s on the DWade degrading knee path.
Baynes can easily be played off the floor, when push comes to shove. He can’t switch .
That’s the new NBA.
In today’s NBA cap and economy? I’d pay Gobert $30M, in about ONE SECOND. He’s a three time All NBA player, and a four time All Defense player. He’s an elite rim protector on defense, and an elite rim runner on offense.
Buying out a contract is not a one way deal. The player can just say no.
There are only 72 games this year.
Sure, but most will make the money back by signing a new contract with a contender. Mills, Gay, Aldridge, and DeRozan would all make up what they give up on a short term deal with a contender. It's not conceivable that those players would not get offers on the open market.
Yeah. There's be some set-off to factor in as well. Even if they don't agree to give up a cent, signing deals should get the Spurs some savings. It wouldn't be a lot if they were min deals, but if they were portions of the MLE, then the Spurs could clear a couple million.
I don't think the Spurs will go into the tax because there isn't a compelling reason to do so. But if they did receive a trade offer or if there was an opportunistic low dollar free agent available that pushed them over the line, then they should because they can get back under by deadline. But good trade offers are apparently not coming and the market is pretty dry. Maybe take a flier on Shaq Harrison? He's solid, but would cut into the developmental minutes of our backcourt.
Next big storyline of the offseason is Popovich. Will he emphasize development or run offense through vets? Will he insist on Stretch Aldridge, which would bolster LA's trade value? Etc...
**edit** I don't think there needs to be sharp divide between "development" and still appropriately utilizing vets. But it's also the case that Popovich can prioritize, say, shots and minutes for younger players in a way that de-emphasizes the prominence of Aldridge and DeRozan.
The Stretch Aldridge stuff from that Memphis game (mid December) and after and DeMar the Ball Mover from the bubble is an offense that would still heavily involve LA and DeMar, but differently than the 2018-19 run and the beginning of last season. I'm hopeful we see iterations of that kind of offense.
Last edited by Excessive Egotist; 11-25-2020 at 10:08 AM.
With the season starting in a month, are there any televised scrimmages or pregames for us to look forward to? When will we next have the opportunity to actually witness basketball on the court in some form? Thanks.
None of those players would make the money back. Contenders are normally tax payers or nearly so. They only want to pay a prorated portion of the vet min for deadline releases.
In a normal season, the time from the buyout deadline to the end of the season is about a month and a hal, or roughly 1/4 of the season. If you take one quarter of each of their salaries,you can see why it could be a problem for them to recoup the money.
The Spus won’t put themselves into that position,anyway. They never put themselves into a position where they MUST shed salary, because other teams areawAre of that, and gain leverage with that knowledge, forcing the inclusion of cash or an asset.
Last edited by exstatic; 11-25-2020 at 11:50 AM.
In years past, they haven’t televised pre season games. They televised some of the scrimmages from the bubble, though, to work out any kinks. They may do a couple of preseason games, for the same reason. Makes sure that their protocols are working and workable.
Even so, there is value to a buyout from a lottery team (Spurs) for the opportunity to sign with a contender for a le run. Maybe the Spurs aren't willing to take the risk I assume they would if they had a good reason to, but I doubt they have worries about finishing in the tax. It's not too difficult to get out.
The other thing is that, aside from the four vets listed above, if Lyles shoots well this season, he'll have trade value, Poeltl has trade value now, one of White or Murray might have to move, depending on how Vassell looks, Spurs could move Walker for something. In short, there is tons of flexibility to make moves to get better while staying under the tax line.
I agree with you that the Spurs will not finish the season in the tax. That is certain. I'm only arguing that there is plenty of time and ways to make sure that doesn't happen.
Contenders will pay the tax if they really think they are contending. Any small discount our guys take they'll get back. Its the same principle with some on here saying GS would never use their TE because of the tax... they did...other contenders will as well...(especially since we are talking about a relatively small amount)
I'll take the over on the Spurs, assuming Vegas settles around 30 wins. Two reasons. First, they won't tank, despite Cade Cunningham being world's better than any of their free agent options. Second, it's really hard to see them winning less than 27 or 28 games. They have a hard floor. Their ceiling, on the other hand, is deceptively high. If anyone of their young players, or more than one of their young players, evolve into better players, 35 wins is totally possible. Imagine Keldon Johnson and Lonnie Walker both over performing 2019, for example.
Still, I hope we don't finish with better than the 6th worst record. Lottery odds for the 5th and 6th worst record are still decent. The only teams I'd slate as a lock to finish with a worst record than us are New York, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, and Detroit.
Best outcome: unexpectedly compe ive while still finishing in the middle of the lottery odds (and hope to get lucky from there). A player like Scottie Barnes, Jonathan Kuminga, or BJ Boston should be available in the middle of the lottery.
Oh, so you meant that the Spurs achieving a really high seed would be a "worse case scenario" since it could trick the FO into settling for mediocrity and extending DD-LMA? Yeah, I could see it - though I personally think there's no way that's happening. Both the awful regular season last year, with embarrassing losses all around whilst heavily featuring the vets, and the impressive bubble, with good wins heavily featuring the youngings, have kickstarted the youth movement irreparably, IMO, and even then - any scenario where the Spurs are a top-3 seed, has to come at the hand of vast improvements to one or more of the youngings' games. Be that Keldon, Lonnie, White or even Vassell having an explosive rookie season - we simply aren't sniffing such a good result on the shoulders of DD+ LMA alone.
I think the best case scenario is we start off strong, and LMA or DD show out some games before the trade deadline, and then we ship one of them out, and ride the other one for the rest of the season then let them walk. I don't really think a star core of DD+LMA will get us to the playoffs next season, but a core of just LMA OR DD definitely won't. So we get a nice top-10 pick in next years' draft, make a good use of the massive cap space we're gonna have, then roll into next season with a fully revamped roster. Sounds like a nice plan to me - hopefully the FO is thinking along these lines.
Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn
Free agent center Hassan Whiteside has agreed to a one-year deal with the Sacramento Kings, sources tell ESPN.
4:48pm · 25 Nov 2020 · Twitter Web App
Whiteside should have had a better career. Bad at ude dude.
^ This. Absolutely agree.
If we are successful though, does the FO pull the trigger on a trade comfortable in said improvements of a young core; or do they attribute the majority of (potential) success attained to these vets and roll forward with them?
For example: I think DDR will have the best season of his career and will play at an all-star caliber level. The FO may have a tough time on making a decision; trading that level of production, letting him walk in FA...
On board with this strategy for sure.I think the best case scenario is we start off strong, and LMA or DD show out some games before the trade deadline, and then we ship one of them out, and ride the other one for the rest of the season then let them walk. I don't really think a star core of DD+LMA will get us to the playoffs next season, but a core of just LMA OR DD definitely won't. So we get a nice top-10 pick in next years' draft, make a good use of the massive cap space we're gonna have, then roll into next season with a fully revamped roster. Sounds like a nice plan to me - hopefully the FO is thinking along these lines.
Looking forward to seeing how the season plays out.
Here's to 2021.
Remember when Hassan Whiteside was so coveted? When he was the shiniest flashiest commodity? How many Whitesides have fans here fallen for during past free agencies? I know very few of you will admit it, y'all have very short term memory for when you are wrong...
So many people are crying about overpaid free agents who will turn into Hassan Whiteside in a couple years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)