Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 107
  1. #76
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,427
    What if Hill wants to come back to SA so bad that he's willing to sign for the MLE?
    Not happening. Guy turned down 87 million to get 25 from the Spurs? No way.

    Hill not being able to stay on the court in the second round during a contract year ... No reason to think he'd be healthy next season at what, 32?

    As long as they don't bring back Mills, I think I'd be happy.

    For such a sharpshooter his numbers in the second round and beyond this year and last is 24% from three if my quick math is right, and in the WCF he's at 10%.

  2. #77
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    A back up big is Davis and Dedmon. He's paid like a starter and a near star.
    Anyways, as you said the money is spent, but it wasn't well spent.
    ... they may need to face reality in rebuilding bc I think Manu retires, Tony is doubtful and the rest of the guys they have are roleplayers and 4 of them need to get paid. (lee, Dedmon, Mills and JSimms.) To even bring this same crew back.. they can't afford them.
    I will be here through thick and thin supporting the team. But I do dislike them making moves for guys well past their expiration date when Kawhi's supporting cast already included a lot of guys past their due date. ah well. I don't know what they can do at this point.

    Do you understand what a sunk cost is? The money is spent. It doesn't matter what they intended him to do when they signed him. The money.is.spent. So if the money is spent no matter what, and nobody is going to take the contract off your hands, without you giving up something of value to sweeten the deal? You just figure you have the luxury of a top-notch backup C, and move on. That's what a sunk cost is all about.

    If you ditch Pau, you still have to go out and get another C. Do you not see that? Even if you think Dedmon is the starter next year, you still need a backup. And, no, Bertans isn't an NBA Center - not even a backup. That's worse than forcing David West or David Lee to be a center. I don't care what you, or anybody else here says, Bertans is not a center. Period.

    Ditch Pau, and you automatically have to go try and find a bargain-priced big man. It just keeps getting worse. There's nothing you can do about Pau's salary that doesn't weaken the team more. I can't see him opting out of that big paycheck. Do you remember what the Spurs had to do to get rid of Jackie Butler's contract? How did that work out? Say it with me... sunk cost.

    There's a chance the Spurs will gain some cap flex with Parker's contract, if he's not on the team next year. Otherwise, they're stuck with that big contract as well. Because now there's really nobody who is going to pick it up, without the Spurs mortgaging the future to get it done.

    This. This right here is what I was talking about in the preseason.

  3. #78
    Hope springs eternal. SAGirl's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    27,721
    Do you understand what a sunk cost is? The money is spent. It doesn't matter what they intended him to do when they signed him. The money.is.spent. So if the money is spent no matter what, and nobody is going to take the contract off your hands, without you giving up something of value to sweeten the deal? You just figure you have the luxury of a top-notch backup C, and move on. That's what a sunk cost is all about.

    If you ditch Pau, you still have to go out and get another C. Do you not see that? Even if you think Dedmon is the starter next year, you still need a backup. And, no, Bertans isn't an NBA Center - not even a backup. That's worse than forcing David West or David Lee to be a center. I don't care what you, or anybody else here says, Bertans is not a center. Period.

    Ditch Pau, and you automatically have to go try and find a bargain-priced big man. It just keeps getting worse. There's nothing you can do about Pau's salary that doesn't weaken the team more. I can't see him opting out of that big paycheck. Do you remember what the Spurs had to do to get rid of Jackie Butler's contract? How did that work out? Say it with me... sunk cost.

    There's a chance the Spurs will gain some cap flex with Parker's contract, if he's not on the team next year. Otherwise, they're stuck with that big contract as well. Because now there's really nobody who is going to pick it up, without the Spurs mortgaging the future to get it done.

    This. This right here is what I was talking about in the preseason.
    I know what sunk cost means. I do but it was spent for this past season. I am not sure nobody would take him off our hands. He had suitors in FA this past offseason and there are teams that could take him. We won't know though bc Spurs are tight-lipped about trades and such.

    I don't know Jackie Butler by the way. But Pau is not done as if he was unplayable or injured at this point like Tony is. He has value and Lamarcus really should play center about half the time in the playoffs anyways. Him and Lamarcus being unplayable together is our big problem but other teams maybe won't have that problem.

  4. #79
    Defense Wins Championships Texas_Ranger's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    13,109
    just choked in the game for the finals of the Euroleague.

  5. #80
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Post Count
    1,255
    Outplayed by Spanoulis in crunch time.

  6. #81
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    8,012
    Remember when some people on Spurstalk were complaining about the Pau signing because he couldn't stay on the floor vs. the best teams?

    Remember how they were saying it would be a waste of the Spurs resources to utilize the 32 million over 2 years on Gasol?

    I can't wait til the Spurs just do away with two bigs.

    Go with 1 Center, 3 wings (preferably with size/length), 1 PG. Preferably all NOT being liabilities on the defensive end.

  7. #82
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,759
    Going with three starting wings would be awful. There are a number of PFs who can play the four in today's league. Would make much more sense to find one of those guys rather than worrying about going small. Cleveland and GS both have power-forwards start for them.

  8. #83
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,759
    Outplayed by Spanoulis in crunch time.
    To be fair, who isn't?

  9. #84
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    8,012
    Going with three starting wings would be awful. There are a number of PFs who can play the four in today's league. Would make much more sense to find one of those guys rather than worrying about going small. Cleveland and GS both have power-forwards start for them.
    Nah it wouldn't at all.

    You just have a hard on for labeled positions. You did when you claimed Lee was brought in to be the back up CENTER over Dedmon. Which was wrong too.

    As long they have the size to defend and rebound, they'd spread the floor offensively, set picks in PnRs like Love/Dray. Teams no longer go to Power Forwards in the post with volume so trying to get a great post defender at PF is a waste. You need all your guys to defend out on the perimeter. Get wings with size that can defend and play 3-4 positions. That's where its at from this day on forward.

    Also, the Cavs and Warriors play with LeBron or Durant at the 4 more when it matters more so than Love or Draymond. Cavs went in long stretches with LeBron at the 5 game 1 of the ECF.
    Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-19-2017 at 01:06 PM.

  10. #85
    Believe. Rappin' V-Span's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    39
    To be fair, who isn't?
    Chinook's is one of best posters on Internet! Unlike stupid Americans who only say stupids stuffs like "v-span is not nba levels".


    NBA is like Goat sh*t, extra soft
    When V-Span is on the court no games is lost
    Teodosic over V-Span? You out of your mind?
    V-Span clock is never broken durin' crunch time

  11. #86
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,759
    Nah it wouldn't at all.
    It really would, especially if Kawhi is the four.

    You just have a hard on for labeled positions.
    There's something wrong with your memory. You're the one who claimed Murray HAD to be the PG, even though I kept saying he could play wherever and still have the ball in his hands.

    You did when you claimed Lee was brought in to be the back up CENTER over Dedmon. Which was wrong too.
    Actually, I didn't. I thought he was going to be the third-string center and fifth big. I got caught between Dedmon being the starter or the backup, but my big thing in the off-season was believing Kyle was going to be a full-time backup four. Didn't happen, obviously.

    However, what has happened was Lee being the backup center over Dedmon. So had I said that, I would have been correct. But I didn't.

    As long they have the size to defend and rebound, they'd spread the floor offensively, set picks in PnRs like Love/Dray. Teams no longer go to Power Forwards in the post with volume so trying to get a great post defender at PF is a waste. You need all your guys to defend out on the perimeter. Get wings with size that can defend and play 3-4 positions. That's where its at from this day on forward.
    This is all fine, but those teams are still two-big teams. If your definition of a wing applies to a rebounder with power-forward size, well, sure. But two-big systems and post-centric offenses are two different things. The Rockets were a two-big system most of the year, and they hate the post.

  12. #87
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    8,012
    It really would, especially if Kawhi is the four.
    Spurs actually do quite well with a one C, 3 wing, 1 PG lineup right now. They did vs. Miami in 13' and 14' too. Arguing whether who plays the 4 or 3 when 3 wings are on the court is dumb because Kawhi plays the 1 on offense at times and he defends the best perimeter player ( which could be the 1, 2, or 3). So saying, Spurs should go with 3 wings, with Kawhi playing the 4 doesn't imply he needs to guard power forwards -- since I know that is what your brain is thinking.



    There's something wrong with your memory. You're the one who claimed Murray HAD to be the PG, even though I kept saying he could play wherever and still have the ball in his hands.
    Nah something is wrong with your memory. You were clamoring about Murray defending SGs and saying Spurs must re-sign Eddie House. I said Murrays ceiling is at the highest at the PG position because he'd be defending the smallest guy on the other team ( which is usually the PG) -- that's where his edge would be for himself and the team. He'd have a physical advantage with his length being able to impede a lot of what back up PGs want to do. Having him guard bigger wings, like you suggested, would make the D worse since your plan had Spurs paying Mills 50 million to get exposed on defense every meaningful game and to hit shots once every four meaningful games.






    This is all fine, but those teams are still two-big teams. If your definition of a wing applies to a rebounder with power-forward size, well, sure. But two-big systems and post-centric offenses are two different things. The Rockets were a two-big system most of the year, and they hate the post.
    Did you not see my original post? I said wings preferably with size. I didn't say they need 2 6'4, 6'5" wings next to Kawhi. Read better next time.

    I would rather the Spurs get a hybrid wing that has great size/length to play next to Kawhi at the 3/4 than get a traditional PF that can't defend in space and can't put the ball on floor to close outs when they're spreading the floor.
    Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-19-2017 at 01:31 PM.

  13. #88
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    Chinook's is one of best posters on Internet! Unlike stupid Americans who only say stupids stuffs like "v-span is not nba levels".


    NBA is like Goat sh*t, extra soft
    When V-Span is on the court no games is lost
    Teodosic over V-Span? You out of your mind?
    V-Span clock is never broken durin' crunch time

    Kill Bill Pana? Is that you?

    I might not have known, if not for the goat reference.

  14. #89
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,759
    Spurs actually do quite well with a one C, 3 wing, 1 PG lineup right now. They did vs. Miami in 13' and 14' too. Arguing whether who plays the 4 or 3 when 3 wings are on the court is dumb because Kawhi plays the 1 on offense at times and he defends the best perimeter player ( which could be the 1, 2, or 3). So saying, Spurs should go with 3 wings, with Kawhi playing the 4 doesn't imply he needs to guard power forwards -- since I know that is what your brain is thinking.
    The Spurs ran with Diaw in 2014. In 2013 they did go small because Miami went small. That was a desperation move that didn't really work out for them, and not something most teams do over the course of the season. Playing the four defensively is hard. None of Green, Kawhi or Simmons (for example) should do that for extended time. It wears you out.

    Nah something is wrong with your memory. You were clamoring about Murray defending SGs and saying Spurs must re-sign Eddie House.
    You need to go back and read what you wrote. You wanted them to let Mills walk specifically so they could make Murray the PG. No concern to getting back a better guard to put next to him. No pretense of playing the best five. Just making Murray the PG to make him the PG. And btb, the Spurs should STILL re-sign Mills.

    I said Murrays ceiling is at the highest at the PG position because he'd be defending the smallest guy on the other team ( which is usually the PG) -- that's where his edge would be for himself and the team. He'd have a physical advantage with his length being able to impede a lot of what back up PGs want to do.
    He could do this even if he played next to a smaller guard, and he could defend twos even if the played next to a bigger one. That's what positionless basketball actually is.

    Having him guard bigger wings, like you suggested, would make the D worse since your plan had Spurs paying Mills 50 million to get exposed on defense every meaningful game and to hit shots once every four meaningful games.
    I suggested that Murray learn to defend bigger guys. I've never stated that he'd be a two forever, or even all game. But the idea that he should only defend one position is such bull and again exactly flies in the face of positionless basketball.

    Did you not see my original post? I said wings preferably with size. I didn't say they need 2 6'4, 6'5" wings next to Kawhi. Read better next time.
    Love isn't a wing. Neither is Anderson or Green. All four of the top teams play two bigs. There's nothing to "read better" about. Who gives a flying what Boston plays? You want a big burly 6-9, 6-10 rebounding wing next to Kawhi, I'm gonna say you want a power-forward. That's just all there is to it. Guys like the Morrises and James Johnson are power-forwards, not wings. So the pool of "wings with size" is very narrow.

  15. #90
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    I know what sunk cost means. I do but it was spent for this past season. I am not sure nobody would take him off our hands. He had suitors in FA this past offseason and there are teams that could take him. We won't know though bc Spurs are tight-lipped about trades and such.

    I don't know Jackie Butler by the way. But Pau is not done as if he was unplayable or injured at this point like Tony is. He has value and Lamarcus really should play center about half the time in the playoffs anyways. Him and Lamarcus being unplayable together is our big problem but other teams maybe won't have that problem.

    I don't understand you saying that it was spent for last season. He has a player option for $16M next season. I don't see any other team offering him that much to entice him to leave that behind. If he decides to opt out, to give the Spurs a break? I'd love to have him back at a lower price. But if he exercises his option, the only way the Spurs move him is to give up something to sweeten the deal.

    Jackie Butler got a big contract from the Spurs. (People like to forget that there were national analysts who said that it was one of the shrewd pick-ups of that offseason.) Butler got his big payday, and then sat on his ass and got fat. He did nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. Shedding his contract essentially cost the team rights to Luis Scola. The ST meltdowns over losing Scola went on for years.

    The Spurs don't get better by mortgaging their future to get out of one year of Pau's salary. Figure that he will exercise his option, and that money is as good as spent. He'll be a damn good backup C. Unless they can't come up with a good starting C, in which case he'll be a weak link in next year's SL.

    But, no, it's not likely that anyone will take his $16M salary off the Spurs' hands, out of the goodness of their hearts.

  16. #91
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,759
    I don't understand you saying that it was spent for last season. He has a player option for $16M next season. I don't see any other team offering him that much to entice him to leave that behind. If he decides to opt out, to give the Spurs a break? I'd love to have him back at a lower price. But if he exercises his option, the only way the Spurs move him is to give up something to sweeten the deal.

    Jackie Butler got a big contract from the Spurs. (People like to forget that there were national analysts who said that it was one of the shrewd pick-ups of that offseason.) Butler got his big payday, and then sat on his ass and got fat. He did nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. Shedding his contract essentially cost the team rights to Luis Scola. The ST meltdowns over losing Scola went on for years.

    The Spurs don't get better by mortgaging their future to get out of one year of Pau's salary. Figure that he will exercise his option, and that money is as good as spent. He'll be a damn good backup C. Unless they can't come up with a good starting C, in which case he'll be a weak link in next year's SL.

    But, no, it's not likely that anyone will take his $16M salary off the Spurs' hands, out of the goodness of their hearts.
    I actually think Pau still has positive value. I think the Spurs could dump him with almost no pain. Even if they had to give up a pick like with Diaw, it's not a big deal if it lead to them acquiring a long-term fit. Like if you can get Paul or Lowry to join up just by moving Pau and a second, I think you do that and feel fine about it.

    What I do agree with you about is that you don't get rid of Pau just for the sake of it. He's not a bad player, though he's not playing well at the most important time. I would like to be rid of his contract too, but it's not likely that his cap space will be used more efficiently by the next player, given the salary bubble we're in now.

  17. #92
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    It really would, especially if Kawhi is the four.

    The Jazz didn't see fit to make Hayward an early offer. The GM has publicly apologized for "not believing in him" and offered him a max deal, but the rumor-mill says that he's pissed. Not likely that he would leave that deal, and the chance to play with Gobert. But I would love to see him on the court with Kawhi at the four, and a big man that is really good at the PnR.

    Fantasy Island is that Murray develops into more of his potential, and Simmons is as good as he's looked in the playoffs. , I'd offer Utah Aldridge on an S&T deal that would get Hayward the money he could have gotten in Utah. Hayward has to like the look of that Utah team, but the Spurs? And Kawhi? And the chance to do HEB commercials?

  18. #93
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    8,012
    The Jazz didn't see fit to make Hayward an early offer. The GM has publicly apologized for "not believing in him" and offered him a max deal, but the rumor-mill says that he's pissed. Not likely that he would leave that deal, and the chance to play with Gobert. But I would love to see him on the court with Kawhi at the four, and a big man that is really good at the PnR.

    Fantasy Island is that Murray develops into more of his potential, and Simmons is as good as he's looked in the playoffs. , I'd offer Utah Aldridge on an S&T deal that would get Hayward the money he could have gotten in Utah. Hayward has to like the look of that Utah team, but the Spurs? And Kawhi? And the chance to do HEB commercials?
    I actually talked about this on twitter. This is the direction Spurs should go, even if it wasn't Hayward. But I hope SA kicks tires w/ Hayward over CP3 or Lowry if they intend on being players in FA.

  19. #94
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    74,911
    The Jazz didn't see fit to make Hayward an early offer. The GM has publicly apologized for "not believing in him" and offered him a max deal, but the rumor-mill says that he's pissed. Not likely that he would leave that deal, and the chance to play with Gobert. But I would love to see him on the court with Kawhi at the four, and a big man that is really good at the PnR.

    Fantasy Island is that Murray develops into more of his potential, and Simmons is as good as he's looked in the playoffs. , I'd offer Utah Aldridge on an S&T deal that would get Hayward the money he could have gotten in Utah. Hayward has to like the look of that Utah team, but the Spurs? And Kawhi? And the chance to do HEB commercials?
    Can't do S&T like that anymore.

  20. #95
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    I actually think Pau still has positive value. I think the Spurs could dump him with almost no pain. Even if they had to give up a pick like with Diaw, it's not a big deal if it lead to them acquiring a long-term fit. Like if you can get Paul or Lowry to join up just by moving Pau and a second, I think you do that and feel fine about it.

    What I do agree with you about is that you don't get rid of Pau just for the sake of it. He's not a bad player, though he's not playing well at the most important time. I would like to be rid of his contract too, but it's not likely that his cap space will be used more efficiently by the next player, given the salary bubble we're in now.

    I hope you're right about that first part. I hate the thought of giving up a pick right now, even though I know that 59 isn't very likely to bring in any real help. But it happens. And cheap role-players are getting to be a valuable commodity with this salary situation.

    Mostly it's the second part about the money not being used more efficiently with whoever they would be bringing in. Then it's just a salary dump that weakens the team AND the loss of a pick. Pau was making just short of $8M before he came here, IIRC. Best case scenario is that he opts out with the intention of re-signing. I wouldn't exactly cheer over a 3 year, $22M deal. But I would love to have that extra cap space this next year. And $7M for him as a backup C next year would be just fine.

  21. #96
    Pronouns: Your/Dad TheGreatYacht's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Post Count
    36,078
    No more American whites or soft choking Euros.....

  22. #97
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    Can't do S&T like that anymore.

    New CBA? I've got to start getting out more.

    No - Hayward may be pissed. But he's not so pissed that he'd give up that much money, I don't think.

  23. #98
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,759
    New CBA? I've got to start getting out more.

    No - Hayward may be pissed. But he's not so pissed that he'd give up that much money, I don't think.
    They haven't been able to do it since the this current one was signed (2011?). They did it to help small-market teams keep their free agents. But the result has just been guys walking and their former teams getting nothing.

  24. #99
    Big in Japan GSH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    14,093
    Can't do S&T like that anymore.
    They haven't been able to do it since the this current one was signed (2011?). They did it to help small-market teams keep their free agents. But the result has just been guys walking and their former teams getting nothing.



    Well... I've still got my Fantasy Island scenario. You can't take that away from me.

  25. #100
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,427
    I don't understand you saying that it was spent for last season. He has a player option for $16M next season. I don't see any other team offering him that much to entice him to leave that behind. If he decides to opt out, to give the Spurs a break? I'd love to have him back at a lower price. But if he exercises his option, the only way the Spurs move him is to give up something to sweeten the deal.

    Jackie Butler got a big contract from the Spurs. (People like to forget that there were national analysts who said that it was one of the shrewd pick-ups of that offseason.) Butler got his big payday, and then sat on his ass and got fat. He did nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. Shedding his contract essentially cost the team rights to Luis Scola. The ST meltdowns over losing Scola went on for years.

    The Spurs don't get better by mortgaging their future to get out of one year of Pau's salary. Figure that he will exercise his option, and that money is as good as spent. He'll be a damn good backup C. Unless they can't come up with a good starting C, in which case he'll be a weak link in next year's SL.

    But, no, it's not likely that anyone will take his $16M salary off the Spurs' hands, out of the goodness of their hearts.

    Jackie Butler was also accused of stealing a woman's coat.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •