Play Spurs GM Before Trade Deadline

[dabom]

Get out of here with actual facts? All I did was post what actually is going on. It's not a knock on Mills.

Then why does it matter?

[DPG21920]

Then why does it matter?

It matters because of what the Spurs need vs what our current players offer.

[MaNu4Tres]

To be honest, none of that is true. Kawhi and Green are both great defender who do just fine playing against bigger guys. Tim guarded bigger guys plenty. Murray learning how to defend SGs just makes sense. He can always go back to "PG" (which he would do for a few minutes every game anyway) later. He's not going to be ruined because he had to learn to maximize his length against 6-4 two-guards rather than against 6-1 PGs. It just doesn't make sense to argue that.

More importantly, a Murray that knows how to defend bigger guys only raises the Spurs' defensive ceiling, since it allows them to switch more effectively. Murray being either good or bad depends completely on him, not who he checks during the few minutes he is with the bench guard. He's currently a horrible defender. Maybe cutting his teeth in match-ups where he doesn't have a huge size advantage is the best way to expedite his growth.

I don't think you're looking at either end, honestly. If you are, it's only in a very 2D way. Nothing is as simple as defense being based on height or offense being based on separating scoring from play-making.

I disagree. Murray and the Spurs will be better if he defends the PGs in the league. His size, along with his agility/speed will cause opponents problems once he becomes more consistent with his discipline and IQ.

[dabom]

It matters because of what the Spurs need vs what our current players offer.

Spurs need a tested playoff/olympian performer.

[dabom]

Spurs ain't winning with a rookie. Maybe next year.

[DPG21920]

He can't. He can only do his job, which Barton can't do. Simmons can't either. Same with Manu. So now you have three guys trying to be Manu and no Millses.

I agree SA needs 3PT shooting and Mills does that well. But I guess my question is do you think 38% 3PT shooting is so detrimental vs Mills that the other benefits dont matter (I'm assuming that is exactly what you are saying).

[MaNu4Tres]

I know Bartoon can shoot but if the spurs do trade for him, he's more than likeey going to be a 15/year guy and he is going to get that much..You're basically trading a pick for 1 year and half of will Barton. I just don't think its worth it. Way too much risk involved.

I think the best thing to do right now is to compete with whaever they have right now and some cheap rookies. I can't imagine this team competing at all in 2018 without Another Star when Lamarcus signs elsewhere.

I agree with this 100%.

I just think Murray/Barton is a more valuable back court than Mills/Murray.

And I don't think Spurs will sign an All Star again in FA anytime soon. Those hoping for it are going to wind up disappointed. It's already a rarity as it is ( for the most part), and its going to be even harder for players to leave their teams with the new CBA.

[DPG21920]

Dont get me wrong - 100% would love to keep Mills and add Barton to that. It's not even close. Purely financially (not whether or not DEN would do it) Kyle/Simmons/Forbes does the trick financially so it can be done without Mills or Bertans.

[MaNu4Tres]

I agree SA needs 3PT shooting and Mills does that well. But I guess my question is do you think 38% 3PT shooting is so detrimental vs Mills that the other benefits dont matter (I'm assuming that is exactly what you are saying).

When's the last time Spurs haven't had a 38-40% shooter off the bench? I honestly can't remember a time in the past 20 years. Maybe 2001 -- Antonio Daniels/Charles Smith? Yet here we are worried about losing Mills' 40% shooting from 3. I'd be higher on the great guy and Aussie if he brought more to the table, but he doesn't.

[Chinook]

I agree SA needs 3PT shooting and Mills does that well. But I guess my question is do you think 38% 3PT shooting is so detrimental vs Mills that the other benefits dont matter (I'm assuming that is exactly what you are saying).

Barton is having a career year from three, and it sucks compared to Patty. Five percent is a huge difference both in result and how it affects a scouting report. Add in Mills' speed off the ball, quick release and gunner mentality, and you get a guy whose gravity opens things up more than driving.

[dabom]

Not gonna lie. Chinook stepping up his game. Most Improved Poster of the Year.

[apalisoc_9]

The thing about Barton over Mills though is that Barton is suppose to make up for loss of Manu's ability to handle the ball and attack the basket while offering shooting.

Obviously not better than Mills..but it makes perfect sense.

Honestly, the lakers just took back Magic..maybe we can convince them with Kyle Anderson and Simmons now that hes part of the organization again

[apalisoc_9]

I agree with this 100%.

I just think Murray/Barton is a more valuable back court than Mills/Murray.

And I don't think Spurs will sign an All Star again in FA anytime soon. Those hoping for it are going to wind up disappointed. It's already a rarity as it is ( for the most part), and its going to be even harder for players to leave their teams with the new CBA.

Sure but you give yourself an opportunity. If that fails, at least you got the second best potential scenario out of it and that's internal improvement.

The worst thing is always trying to sign for "decent" guys that can't significantly improve your current chances nor provide help in improving your rookies. That's always the worst.

[SAGirl]

The Nuggets don't need middling picks when they have plenty of young talent. I think it would take at least Bertans, and probably Simmons and Anderson to match salaries. That's way too much to pay. Maybe shunting Patty to a team like Philly and adding whatever that nets to some asset could get Barton as well, but if Will isn't between Manu and Patty, there's no point in making any deal.

Personally, I think people should limit their searches to people making less than $2.7 Million this season. That's what the Spurs can take back by moving Anderson and Forbes, and that seems like the most the team should give up during this season.

And I doubt they do it at all bc both guys are producing when called upon .... Forbes is producing the least, but then he's the 14-15th guy and Spurs have him as a project for eventualities. It's not that they are not picking up the phone about them, but more than that nobody is calling about just one or the other unless they want to unload upon you the equivalent of Austin Daye or some other really awful player Pop would not be able to play at all. He at least still plays Anderson and they are giving time to Forbes to develop. It could be worse than those two guys frankly....

And then despite the belief that if they aren't going to reup Patty it makes sense in the long run to trade him, he's a known Pop favorite and despite the microwave malfunctioning lately, he's still playing above his contract. Teams as good as the Spurs are seldom ship out rotation players, which Mills is...

In the end I always come back to them standing pat bc no trade for edge of the rotation players is going to make an impact and the guy you get back can be significantly worse.... not even a lateral move.

[SAGirl]

Barton is shooting 38% from 3 - its respectable. It would be nice to have a better Simmons instead of having to rely on Manu/Mills in the 2nd unit IMO. Spurs were counting on Simmons to really develop as a play maker to offset Manu some and it just hasn't happened.

Mills can't fill that void.

I would argue several games they lost Simmons was really bad. It could be that selling him while he has value would be better.
I don't see the Spurs reupping him (I could be wrong if of course, but he's not an irreplaceable guy at all... and not good enough that I would like him back personally)... They need him this season, but that's pretty much it. Like Baynes and role players of that nature they are due to get paid and it might not make sense to reup them. He's lately been seeing his minutes diminish too.

[SAGirl]

I agree SA needs 3PT shooting and Mills does that well. But I guess my question is do you think 38% 3PT shooting is so detrimental vs Mills that the other benefits dont matter (I'm assuming that is exactly what you are saying).

Seems like the guy you want to trade is Simmons. He simply becomes irrelevant with Barton on the floor on top of Manu.

[SpursIndonesia]

The more I think of it and look at it, I'm all in on Barton. DEN has Harris & Jamal Murray now. This would free up time for Murray and they already play Harris more than him.

His contract is very easy to trade for, he can shoot the 3 (although he's streaky) but he can actually dish decently well. It would add the dimension SA needs help with most while not breaking the bank.

I am in for this, not a bad candidate for Manu's replacement, from skills & on court capability perspectives.

[TheGreatYacht]

Seems like someone has a desperate "get rid of Simmons so my crush can play" agenda going on

[daledondale]

Seems like someone has a desperate "get rid of Simmons so my crush can play" agenda going on

Yep, and it's not only SAgirl.

[MaNu4Tres]

Barton is having a career year from three, and it sucks compared to Patty. Five percent is a huge difference both in result and how it affects a scouting report. Add in Mills' speed off the ball, quick release and gunner mentality, and you get a guy whose gravity opens things up more than driving.

Its actually 4% difference. Thats 4 more threes per 100 attempts. Thats not a big difference.

[Chinook]

Its actually 4% difference. Thats 4 more threes per 100 attempts. Thats not a big difference.

It's 4.8 percent. That's probably two brackets difference in terms of shooting ability. But that also ignores the greater pressure Patty puts on with his playing style than Barton does with his shooting. You'd think Patty were Bryn Forbes the way he's being talked about. But he's about as dynamic as a catch-and-shoot guy gets.

[apalisoc_9]

It's 4.8 percent. That's probably two brackets difference in terms of shooting ability. But that also ignores the greater pressure Patty puts on with his playing style than Barton does with his shooting. You'd think Patty were Bryn Forbes the way he's being talked about. But he's about as dynamic as a catch-and-shoot guy gets.

Barton offers two Gravity Dynamic though. That's Manutres point. I've said that Id rather the spurs not go for anyone less than a Star caliber player and just concentrate on cheap rookies.

Any team should be leaning towards a guy that shoots the three at 4% less in percentage but can also offer the ability to drive to the basket.

Barton is a skinny dude, but he's not going to be the liability Patty is on the defensive end either.

[Chinook]

Barton doesn't offer anymore off-ball gravity than Simmons does. At an unproven 38 percent, I'm sure good teams would rather let him shoot a mildly contested three rather than drive. So when Barton is shallow-cutting, I doubt other team is going, "Oh , we need to make sure we keep a body on this guy". Meanwhile, the ball always has gravity, whether Kawhi has it or Green. No one wants to let any opponent drive for an uncontested layup.

When Patty drives, he puts just as much pressure on the D as Barton does. They are pretty much equal in terms of their efficiency inside the arc, and Patty assists at a higher while and turns it over at an near-equal rate to Barton. The "other things" are much more equal than people are giving them credit for.

There isn't really a statistical argument to be made that Barton is a better or more useful player than Patty is. There damned sure isn't an argument that the Spurs need Barton more. It makes more sense to trade Green for Barton than it does to trade Patty for him.

[apalisoc_9]

Barton doesn't offer anymore off-ball gravity than Simmons does. At an unproven 38 percent, I'm sure good teams would rather let him shoot a mildly contested three rather than drive. So when Barton is shallow-cutting, I doubt other team is going, "Oh , we need to make sure we keep a body on this guy". Meanwhile, the ball always has gravity, whether Kawhi has it or Green. No one wants to let any opponent drive for an uncontested layup.

When Patty drives, he puts just as much pressure on the D as Barton does. They are pretty much equal in terms of their efficiency inside the arc, and Patty assists at a higher while and turns it over at an near-equal rate to Barton. The "other things" are much more equal than people are giving them credit for.

There isn't really a statistical argument to be made that Barton is a better or more useful player than Patty is. There damned sure isn't an argument that the Spurs need Barton more. It makes more sense to trade Green for Barton than it does to trade Patty for him.

Barton is def a more diverse offensive player. They rely on him to provide penetration.

Their roles arensignificantly different too as Barton is responsible for attacking the basket specially now that Jokic is the main guy.

Mills statistically will have better percentages upclose considering all his shots within the rim are wide open. No respects him enough on the drive to committ the wing defenders.

[dabom]

Barton ain't got on Patty. Just laying that out there.