Reply With Quote
here’s what’s sad... who has had a better year so far: murray, white, lonnie, or bertans?
The cba mandates that sign and trades have to be a minimum of 3 years. Was not the Spurs choice.
here’s what’s sad... who has had a better year so far: murray, white, lonnie, or bertans?
bertans and he's leading the pack by 100000 miles
So we shipped George Hill out for Nephew, Bertans and Erazem Lorbek. Now we don't even have Lorbek.
This slide into incompetence started with the Patty/Pau contract extension. People are just saying the quiet parts out loud now - The front office is bad.
Yeah and people like me got banned from Reddit for criticizing those off-season moves back then. Now the sniffers are waking up. The downfall of organizations always starts with handing out bad contracts to players who don't deserve them and are on the decline. A lot of us saw it coming
Looking back spurs got tremendous value for george hill but atleast a le to show for it
With Bertans on the roster, the Spurs probably have 3/4 more wins right now.
To think we went from fleecing the pacers with the G. Hill trade to this. We ended up basically trading Hill for Poeltl.
And a le. People are weirdly keen to leave that out. Spurs traded for and developed Nephew into their fifth ring - losing Bertans is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Is Bert the best Latvian player in the league? Porzingis has always been overrated af.
Porzingis - 17.4 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 40.2 FG%, 33.3 3PT%
Bertans - 15.8 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 47.2 FG%, 46.2 3PT%
How on earth would signing a 6'10'' snipper for 5 mils per year be a terrible contract?
Even if he remained a 9th, 10th guy, having him for 20/4 would have been a steal. How many 6'10" great shooters do you know that are signed for less than that?
The biggest proof that 20/4 would have been a great deal is that we ended up signing him for 21/2. Double the price.
Oh, man... try really, really hard to keep up. It was sarcasm. "Bad contract" for the Spurs because Pop wouldn't use him. Notice I said it would have been a great deal for the Wiz? That was a clue, see?
Lonnie is on a rookie scale deal. It should be a bargain. But when Pop won't put him in the damn game?
Zingis isn't all the way back from his injury. I don't know about overrated/underrated. That's just peoples' opinions. His numbers from before he got hurt say he was a force to be reckoned with, and he was still just 22 and improving. I think the only point is that Davis is MUCH more than Pop got out of him.
What makes Davis so valuable is not only his size, but his range that extends way beyond the 3-point line. He got Steph Curry range and can really stretch the defense.
How the would I know?Weren't you also the one saying that there's no way Bertans can net the Wizards a late first rounder? I thought maybe you weren't very high on Bertans' game.
Keldon will be better than Georgi, so ignoring that we got a few years of neph, Bert, etc, and we're left with a better version of what we traded away (on the eve of his payday).
What have you seen of Keldon, on the NBA so far, to make that kind of claim?
What does it say about Pop when Scott Brooks is somehow smart enough to figure out how to better use Bertans?
Probably appropriate that the image on the front of the video features DeRozan and Pop.
How the would I know?
I've always loved Bertans. Always said he had a great stroke and I LOVED his toughness - which he got punished for. And I always believed that he was better than Pop would allow him to be. But, no, I didn't think he would be able to bring a first round pick by himself. If you can show me a thread where you predicted he would be averaging 16 ppg shooting .462 from 3P, and dropping shots off the dribble like this, I'll turn things around and sacrifice a goat to you. I can give credit where it's due. If you honestly saw THIS coming, my hat's off to you.
But one didn't need to predict anything to believe Bertans, with the way he was playing up to that point (the point where that article was made, the one that said he could net the Wizards a first round. This one: https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...rtans+all+star), was worth a late first round pick, tbh. Just by keeping up what he was already doing he was more than worth a first, tbh.
But regarding my prediction about Bertans' potential:
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=266024
**disclaimer: I never really thought Bertans was an all-star type player.
Back then the Spurs were putting up b2b 60+ wins, I thought Kawhi was a keeper and thought maybe the Spurs could someday send 4 players to the ASG like the Hawks did. I knew how good Bertans was and I thought he could get in as that Kyle Korver high end role player type. So I said "what the , if I get this right once down the line I will look like a ing genius, if not nobody will remember"
But yeah, if I thought he could someday get ASG consideration, I obviously thought he was able to average 16 ppg, tbh.
It's more what I saw of George Hill. Long arms, disruptive, but never became a true offensive threat, got big contracts he didn't live up to. Credit the Spurs for development of a fringe draft pick, but he's another person who owes ginobilli money for making him look better than he was.
Keldon should be better on offense as a finisher and at least an average defender.
Hill, as a rookie, got minutes on a stacked Spurs team. Keldon can't see the floor on the worst Spurs' team of the last 30 years. Hill, right now, is one of the best players in the best team of the NBA. If Keldon manages to have half the career George had, we should consider his selection a success, tbh.
LMAO... okay, no sacrificial goats for you. You people want so badly to prove someone else wrong that you just start babbling. The funny thing is, he really broke out after that article. At that point, he was averaging 3.1 3's per game - it's in the damn article. Last year he averaged 4.4 3's per game, in fewer minutes.
When that article was written, he hadn't really broken out like he did after it was written.
Like I said, show me a thread where you predicted that he would break out the way he has SINCE that article, and I'll give you credit. But you didn't. You read some ing article from some guy at BleacherReport, and bit the hook.
[Edit: I took 5 minutes to look at the game logs.] When that article was written, he had played 12 games. Six of those games he scored single digits. His 3P% in some of those games were: .333 .333 .286 .125 and .000 (0-4) Nine of those games he had 4 rebounds or less. That's not the profile of a player that teams throw first round picks at, and you're not ing Nostradamus.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
