Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 244
  1. #151
    Veteran gambit1990's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Post Count
    9,573
    trading kawhi for two years of demar

    get some fvcking return.

  2. #152
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,782
    You can argue the other points, but here you are just drunk off your ass. Masai knows what he is doing, that much is clear.
    People used to think the same about the senile idiots who ran this franchise into the ground. Don't kid yourself, most of this is luck and the media brainwashes the masses into thinking whoever stumbles into it at a particular moment is smarter than everyone else.

    For sure, Ujiri has done more good than bad, but he's had his share of screw ups or would be ones (most notably, trading Lowry to the Knicks for a lottery protected 1st, only for Dolan to nix it at the last second).

    I don't buy for a second that they had some grand plan to become what they've become. They fell into it, the same way teams who reach a certain level of success almost always do.


    No. Come on man, it wasn't that hard to get given what you originally wrote. If the Spurs draft a franchise player, it's not going to matter whether they have Gordon or not. He's a non-factor to a rebuilding foundation.



    Neither one of those guys is healthy enough to replace DeRozan, and Paul is a worse bet even if you believe he's a better player. Paul definitely isn't a better fit, and there's no point in making a trade for Gallo now if the goal isn't to pair him with Aldridge and DeRozan. If the guards were playing consistently good ball, then I could understand taking a hit in talent for better fit. But they aren't.



    No, there aren't more points to be earned. This is where you go from very good but somewhat too pessimistic poster to edgelord. Kawhi's gone. We all know that at this point. Most of us hold a certain bitterness toward Kawhi leaving just like we do toward the .4 shot or choking away the le in 2013. It sucks, and it's gonna always be a sore spot. But it's over. They only traded him once. What happens from here with those pieces is irrelevant to him.



    The fit is only different in that Murray has a spot again. Forbes/White/DeRozan/Gay/Aldridge fits well enough, and the bench definitely has the pieces to fit well but needs to stick with Walker and gel. It's definitely not debatable that they have more talent, as they are the same team except with more talented players instead of Cun and Pon.



    I'm not pretending anything. I've never claimed that I knew of some plan to fix spacing besides what they were saying before last pre-season. Pop wanted to spread the court by having Murray push the ball. I don't know that it would have worked, but they don't seem to be doing that this time around. I don't disagree at all about the need for shooters on the court. They should have three at a minimum. And at best, Aldridge and DeRozan shooting more threes only counts as one shooter combined. I do think this current starting unit works, spacing-wise. They just have to gel. The same is true for the defense. They won't be great without better forward defenders. But they can be average with the players they have, just like they were last year.


    Oh. Well, I disagree. It may be a backwards or unconventional strategy, but I view it like his ceiling is elite role player, so if they find a franchise player, he can conceivably fit around them. Whereas DeRozan has no place.

    I don't care about health. This isn't a contender either way. So what if Paul and Gallinari are roughly 60 something game, 30 mpg players? I'll take that over DeRozan's durability. Paul would be a good fit, who'd instantly improve them on both ends. Sure, they wouldn't have a legit SF, but that's no different than now anyway. Maybe the young guards grow with a better fitting team and more responsibility? If not, at least they get a clearly picture of what they have in them going forward.

    Spare me this bigger man routine. Getting a piece that can help going forward (a solid young veteran, a pick, etc.) is absolutely another point to be earned. They can't salvage the initial trade, but they can salvage value for DeRozan.

    Cunningham and Pondexter are irrelevant. They're slightly deeper in terms of rotation caliber players, but worse in the actual guts of the rotation.

    Again, you can't "spread the court" with 1.5 3-point shooters and 1 player who generally refuses to even space to the line off ball. Deploying that "strategy" isn't rocket science and doesn't involve a coach being present all off season to implement. The current starting unit played together plenty last season. It's not about gelling, it's about them being a house of cards, who couldn't afford an ounce of regression.








    Last edited by TD 21; 12-13-2019 at 06:20 PM.

  3. #153
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,959
    Oh. Well, I disagree. It may be a backwards or unconventional strategy, but I view it like his ceiling is elite role player, so if they find a franchise player, he can conceivably fit around them. Whereas DeRozan has no place.
    Yeah, but you're talking about keeping a guy and trying for the playoffs now and then letting him walk. Versus trading him for a guy who isn't even a elite role-player yet, missing the playoffs but hoping for a pick to become a guy Gordon can fit around. That doesn't seem like a good bet. Like if you can get Sekou and cap space or a first and second or whatever, then I can understand your point. But would I rather have Gordon or DeRozan right now? It's DeMar by a long shot. I'd rather let DeRozan walk and use the cap space to take back bad money for a pick than trade him for Gordon Again, if we could have confidence one or two of the young guards was ready to go, then I can see the argument there too. But they're not, so I don't see any reason to trade DeRozan and not tank.

    I don't care about health. This isn't a contender either way. So what if Paul and Gallinari are roughly 60 something game, 30 mpg players? I'll take that over DeRozan's durability. Paul would be a good fit, who'd instantly improve them on both ends. Sure, they wouldn't have a legit SF, but that's no different than now anyway. Maybe the young guards grow with a better fitting team and more responsibility? If not, at least they get a clearly picture of what they have in them going forward.
    Paul is definitely not a better fit for the team. And I don't think anyone else would argue that it's better to have him on his contract rather than letting DeRozan walk. I think we're getting a pretty clear picture on the guards right now. Walker's the only one who can argue he hasn't really have the opportunity. Yes, Murray could get healthier, and everyone could improve. But none of those guys has shown anything to suggest they should be given star roles when they can't fill role-player spots. Walker may be changing that idea. Maybe in two months, he'll have shown enough to where the team could feel comfortable moving DeMar. But if they're roughly like this then, then I'm not too interested in seeing them get the reigns.

    Spare me this bigger man routine. Getting a piece that can help going forward (a solid young veteran, a pick, etc.) is absolutely another point to be earned. They can't salvage the initial trade, but they can salvage value for DeRozan.
    It's not about being the bigger man. It's about you harping on no one disagrees with. The Leonard trade sucked. A DeRozan trade might suck, but it won't suck extra because of the Leonard trade. If they do trade DMDR for say Gordon and then Gordon is about to expire, are you going to want the Spurs to trade him to salvage value from the Leonard trade again? Where does it end? Truth is, it ended the moment the trade was completed last year. You can totally make the argument for moving DeRozan on its own merits, but Leonard has nothing to do with it.

    Cunningham and Pondexter are irrelevant. They're slightly deeper in terms of rotation caliber players, but worse in the actual guts of the rotation.
    Carroll would have probably started last year. I don't disagree that they're performing poorly right now. But their rotation is better. Aldridge is actually outperforming his start to last season in all major categories besides rebounding. DeRozan is outplaying his season average from last year though not his hot start. Gay's shooting has fallen off, but his rate stats are about the same. Mills is playing better as well. The top of the rotation really isn't the problem. The bottom we agree is better. The middle lost Bertans, whom Lyles doesn't really replace. But who Davis is not really wasn't who is was with the Spurs. Certainly, this team could use this year's Bertans. But they're better than they were with the 2018 version.

    Again, you can't "spread the court" with 1.5 3-point shooters and 1 player who generally refuses to even space to the line off ball. Deploying that "strategy" isn't rocket science and doesn't involve a coach being present all off season to implement. The current starting unit played together plenty last season. It's not about gelling, it's about them being a house of cards, who couldn't afford an ounce of regression
    It's about gelling. Again, the Spurs' stars haven't regressed the way you think they have. They aren't as good as they were at their peak last season, but they started last year off slowly as well. Plenty of folks wanted to tank then too. I'm not trying to argue this year's situation isn't more dire. There's more reason to want to tear it down now. But, yeah, the team can totally play better if they gel, just like they did last year. They're only a "house of cards" if you think about them as a contender. They clearly don't have the players for that. But compared to like the Suns and other bottom-half-of-the-bracket clubs? Yeah, they are better positioned than that. They didn't lose to Cleveland because of fit or even spacing. They lost because of consistently poor execution. Guys don't get open behind the line because the defenders aren't 6-8, fast-footed shot-blockers. They do so because guys up rotations. Don't up the rotations, guys don't get nearly as many easy looks. Coaching.

  4. #154
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,744
    If you knew you could trade DeRozan for a first round pick, would you trade him no matter what? Playoffs or otherwise?
    Optimal situation is the Spurs make the playoffs the next two seasons. At that point, the Spurs will have a seamless transition to the next era as DeRozan, Aldridge, Gay, Carroll, etc. will be gone and/or free agents. By that point, the Spurs will know exactly what they have in White, Murray, Walker, etc. and can build their strategy around that core. If none of the youth develops, the Spurs could do a teardown. If a few more pieces could turn the team into a contender, you can go that route.

    I know Spurs fans are tantalized by lottery balls but avoiding a teardown this season would make for a smoother transition. It's easy to tank -- it's a lot more difficult to untank, especially when it's a spur of the moment tank.

    So, no, I don't go for a teardown just because a team dangles a first round pick. That's especially true with how all the contracts are aligned. You do a halfway teardown now and then you can be left with a toxic situation that takes years to recover.

    Going into the season, it was obvious the Spurs were aiming for that two-year glide where they can ease their way into whatever is to come next. Going away from that idea while the playoffs are still possible would be unwise.

    Peaceful and strategic gliding in 2020

  5. #155
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,021
    Optimal situation is the Spurs make the playoffs the next two seasons. At that point, the Spurs will have a seamless transition to the next era as DeRozan, Aldridge, Gay, Carroll, etc. will be gone and/or free agents. By that point, the Spurs will know exactly what they have in White, Murray, Walker, etc. and can build their strategy around that core.
    How would they know what they have if Pop keeps playing DePression and Marco Del Negro instead of Walker and Murray?

  6. #156
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,959
    How would they know what they have if Pop keeps playing DePression and Marco Del Negro instead of Walker and Murray?
    DeRozan is better than Walker and especially Murray. I still can't understand why so many fans think you're supposed to hand young players spots. Beli is awful this year, and no one wants him playing over Walker -- not even Pop anymore. But you don't trade DeRozan to give Murray more time when Murray can't even dribble the ball half the time. May as well be trying to make room for Metu in the starting front court while you're at it.

  7. #157
    Veteran Floyd Pacquiao's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    6,851
    DeRozan is better than Walker and especially Murray. I still can't understand why so many fans think you're supposed to hand young players spots. Beli is awful this year, and no one wants him playing over Walker -- not even Pop anymore. But you don't trade DeRozan to give Murray more time when Murray can't even dribble the ball half the time. May as well be trying to make room for Metu in the starting front court while you're at it.
    You trade derozan cause hes stunting the growth of the young players. His offensive game is horrible for a team and his melt downs are egregious

  8. #158
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    7,839
    Optimal situation is the Spurs make the playoffs the next two seasons. At that point, the Spurs will have a seamless transition to the next era as DeRozan, Aldridge, Gay, Carroll, etc. will be gone and/or free agents. By that point, the Spurs will know exactly what they have in White, Murray, Walker, etc. and can build their strategy around that core. If none of the youth develops, the Spurs could do a teardown. If a few more pieces could turn the team into a contender, you can go that route.

    I know Spurs fans are tantalized by lottery balls but avoiding a teardown this season would make for a smoother transition. It's easy to tank -- it's a lot more difficult to untank, especially when it's a spur of the moment tank.

    So, no, I don't go for a teardown just because a team dangles a first round pick. That's especially true with how all the contracts are aligned. You do a halfway teardown now and then you can be left with a toxic situation that takes years to recover.

    Going into the season, it was obvious the Spurs were aiming for that two-year glide where they can ease their way into whatever is to come next. Going away from that idea while the playoffs are still possible would be unwise.

    Peaceful and strategic gliding in 2020
    That assumes that fundamentals of the approach are right: you have a system that is simultaneously suitable for your “transition team” AND the young core you are evaluating to help turn the leaf. I’m concerned the current approach impinges the growth of the youngsters. The team can accomplish the goals of your glide path more effectively In my view by moving one of your two ball dominant midrange scorers.

  9. #159
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,959
    You trade derozan cause hes stunting the growth of the young players. His offensive game is horrible for a team and his melt downs are egregious
    He's not stunting them. They're stunting themselves. Murray wouldn't all of the sudden be able to shoot threes if DeRozan left. Toronto somehow managed to have strong guard play with DeRozan. Stop using that as an excuse.

  10. #160
    Veteran Floyd Pacquiao's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    6,851
    He's not stunting them. They're stunting themselves. Murray wouldn't all of the sudden be able to shoot threes if DeRozan left. Toronto somehow managed to have strong guard play with DeRozan. Stop using that as an excuse.
    What strong guard play did Toronto have? Kyle Lowry who was already a devolved and established star?
    White would handle the ball more as would Lonnie, you'd see a more free flowing offense instead of just dumping it to derozan and watching him do his iso game that doesn't command a double team..

  11. #161
    Veteran Sugus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Post Count
    3,378
    He's not stunting them. They're stunting themselves. Murray wouldn't all of the sudden be able to shoot threes if DeRozan left. Toronto somehow managed to have strong guard play with DeRozan. Stop using that as an excuse.
    He is definitely stunting them to an extent. Not only does he take away ball handling and scoring opportunities from every young player, he simply forces them to feed him for an offense-killing, inefficient score attempt every single time. He makes Murray and White's jobs harder by being ass on defense, forcing them to help. He sets the mood of the team and constantly gives up on plays, especially on defense, whilst taking every last minute shot and being ass at it. How is any of this not demoralizing and damaging to the rest of the players?

    Yes, Murray wouldn't instantly learn to shoot 3's, but he'd get a lot more chances to try them. God knows I'd much rather have DJ try and miss a thousand 3s for his own development than watch DeMar, a known quan y and developed player, taking yet another contested 20ft shot. LMA is also a problem for the team; not only has his defense been very bad this season as well as DD's, his heavily declining athleticism impedes him from running the naturally fast-paced offense that the young players prefer. You saw DJ at the start of the season, running on transition and initiating fast offense... Only to have to wait for LA's corpse to drag up the court and demand the ball. And you know there's orders from above to give it to him.

    DeMar and LMA are inequivocally stunting the Spurs. Any other average replacement players, simply by virtue of not being "stars" that need their touches, would make the team cohesiveness better. Would the team overall be better? Maybe not, we'd probably lose more games. But it would be watchable, instead of the trash product we're currently rolling out.

  12. #162
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,187
    Optimal situation is the Spurs make the playoffs the next two seasons. At that point, the Spurs will have a seamless transition to the next era as DeRozan, Aldridge, Gay, Carroll, etc. will be gone and/or free agents. By that point, the Spurs will know exactly what they have in White, Murray, Walker, etc. and can build their strategy around that core. If none of the youth develops, the Spurs could do a teardown. If a few more pieces could turn the team into a contender, you can go that route.
    I just don’t agree with the playoffs mattering much in the context of how this team is playing and built and the opportunity cost associated with not extending DeRozan. If you aren’t going to extend DeRozan, he likely opts out and is gone next season? SA won’t have a bunch of money to sign a premier FA so are they really going to be a playoff threat in that scenario?

    Why would the Spurs know less about their youth if they traded DeRozan/LMA for picks and let them play?

    I know Spurs fans are tantalized by lottery balls but avoiding a teardown this season would make for a smoother transition. It's easy to tank -- it's a lot more difficult to untank, especially when it's a spur of the moment tank.
    I don’t want to speak for everyone but I am not tantalized by lottery balls. I’ve been one of the biggest defenders and proponents on this site of win building and the benefits. However, if this is the type of team and type of play? Yeah, I am not for this. I don’t care that SA might be able to make the playoffs with 40-42 wins. It’s one thing to win build when it’s a positive environment with solid basketball being played and real development but this very clearly isn’t it.

    If SA starts to play 60% winning ball and things click? Absolutely, but if not, regardless of if they stay within 2 games of the playoffs at the deadline I don’t see how anyone could advocate for not trading DeRozan and maybe LMA too. Especially if you know him walking next year means it’s even harder to win build.

    So, no, I don't go for a teardown just because a team dangles a first round pick. That's especially true with how all the contracts are aligned. You do a halfway teardown now and then you can be left with a toxic situation that takes years to recover.

    Going into the season, it was obvious the Spurs were aiming for that two-year glide where they can ease their way into whatever is to come next. Going away from that idea while the playoffs are still possible would be unwise.

    Peaceful and strategic gliding in 2020
    This situation feels toxic. You said it yourself that DeRozan’s at ude (and let’s be honest, his play) is infectious and not in a good way. The losing is bad for young players when coupled with bad leadership and yoyo opportunity and learning from non-defensive players (Beli, Mills, Forbes, DeRozan) in front of them.

    Nothing about this season has been peaceful despite being within a couple games of the PO IMO

  13. #163
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Post Count
    819
    To what end though? Let’s say all of that happens. Do you then extend DeRozan and lock him in on an expensive deal for 4 more years (his player option next year, then 3 more years)?
    Probably not. I just don’t like the Gordon trade at all. If they include Okeke with Gordon that would be enticing. I’m very high on the Auburn product even though he’s coming off a major injury.

  14. #164
    Veteran sasaint's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    14,298
    Probably not. I just don’t like the Gordon trade at all. If they include Okeke with Gordon that would be enticing. I’m very high on the Auburn product even though he’s coming off a major injury.
    Dream on. I am not excited by Gordon either - especially if we don't move LMA at the same time - but Orlando ain't giving up both for Dumbmar.

  15. #165
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Post Count
    819
    He's not stunting them. They're stunting themselves. Murray wouldn't all of the sudden be able to shoot threes if DeRozan left. Toronto somehow managed to have strong guard play with DeRozan. Stop using that as an excuse.
    This is a very simplistic viewpoint and doesn't take into account the improved offensive pace and ball movement with DDR not on this squad. This is the reason he’s not that valuable around the league. In fact this was a question posed to a GM recently on ESPN and he stated he only likes DDR as a 3rd option. Also, the east was very weak those years the Raptors were winning reg season games. They probably would have been an 8 seed in the west if not missed the playoffs. Point being, we are not winning with him and I much rather ride with Walker who at least plays some semblances of defense instead of DDR’s loser mentality.

  16. #166
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,744
    I just don’t agree with the playoffs mattering much in the context of how this team is playing and built and the opportunity cost associated with not extending DeRozan.
    We will have to agree to disagree, tbh. You are paranoid of losing DeRozan and believe him walking would make the Nephew trade look worse ... while I don't care if DeRozan leaves because I view the Nephew trade as a sunk cost. You hate the team for aesthetic and on-court reasons and want it torn down ASAP, while I'm willing to wait until an opportunity arises -- even if that is at the trade deadline or next summer. You see no value in the Spurs attempting a graceful transition, while I think a haphazard teardown job could do more harm than good.

    There's not enough common ground for us to reach an agreement beyond neither of us wanting the Spurs to extend DeRozan

  17. #167
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,187
    We will have to agree to disagree, tbh. You are paranoid of losing DeRozan and believe him walking would make the Nephew trade look worse ... while I don't care if DeRozan leaves because I view the Nephew trade as a sunk cost. You hate the team for aesthetic and on-court reasons and want it torn down ASAP, while I'm willing to wait until an opportunity arises -- even if that is at the trade deadline or next summer. You see no value in the Spurs attempting a graceful transition, while I think a haphazard teardown job could do more harm than good.

    There's not enough common ground for us to reach an agreement beyond neither of us wanting the Spurs to extend DeRozan
    That’s not exactly accurate. I think it looks bad optically but that is not the “reason” I want DeRozan traded. Again, I coined the term win building. So I absolutely see the value in graceful transition - this is just far from that, agree?

    I want DeRozan traded because while him walking doesn’t hurt the Spurs it doesn’t help. Getting a draft pick 100% helps and keeping him for the playoffs doesn’t seem to be worth it any longer with how bad this team is.

    It’s chicken and the egg. I hate the team on the court because they are awful. I would prefer them to be good and be a legit playoff team playing good, healthy basketball. But they are not and that is the reality. I’m fine waiting until the deadline, but if they keep playing like this you still want them to hold on?

    I’m totally fine waiting until the trade deadline as an FYI. Absolutely. Nothing will change between now and then (other than possible injury) to the value of DeRozan and LMA. My early post about “now” was more about if they were going to really push to be a “good” team that they needed to make a move ASAP (although I kind of saw this coming early and would have been ok if they moved DeRozan already)

  18. #168
    You Are Not Worthy ZeusWillJudge's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Post Count
    4,903
    What this team needs now is some draft picks that the next coach can work with. Because he/she sure as isn't going to build a winner around Aldridge and DeRozan. Stretching to be first round fodder isn't a strategy, it's retirement on the payroll for a bored old coach.

  19. #169
    Veteran RC_Drunkford's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    11,539
    DeRozan is better than Walker and especially Murray. I still can't understand why so many fans think you're supposed to hand young players spots. Beli is awful this year, and no one wants him playing over Walker -- not even Pop anymore. But you don't trade DeRozan to give Murray more time when Murray can't even dribble the ball half the time. May as well be trying to make room for Metu in the starting front court while you're at it.
    DeRozan is not better than Walker. In the last 6 games Walker is averaging 10.7 PPG in 18 minutes. He could easily get 20 per game in 36-38 minutes per night if you run plays for him and give him enough shots while spacing the floor and defending better than DeRozan

  20. #170
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,744
    That’s not exactly accurate. I think it looks bad optically but that is not the “reason” I want DeRozan traded.
    Why care about optics? Is there an optics trophy I don't know about?

    Again, I coined the term win building.
    Winbuilding was you? That's a good term, tbh

    So I absolutely see the value in graceful transition - this is just far from that, agree?
    Two games out of the seventh seed? I mean, by definition if I were coining a term such as winbuilding, being two games out of the seventh seed would classify, IMO.

    Getting a draft pick 100% helps and keeping him for the playoffs doesn’t seem to be worth it any longer with how bad this team is.
    A draft pick holds obvious value but I do think there is value in avoiding a hurried and haphazard teardown. The latter is nebulous, admittedly, but I think it's worth hanging onto until the playoffs are out of the question.

    but if they keep playing like this you still want them to hold on?
    If they are two games from the seventh seed, yeah I don't know if I would be thrilled with a rushed fire sale, tbh.

    I’m totally fine waiting until the trade deadline as an FYI. Absolutely. Nothing will change between now and then (other than possible injury) to the value of DeRozan and LMA. My early post about “now” was more about if they were going to really push to be a “good” team that they needed to make a move ASAP (although I kind of saw this coming early and would have been ok if they moved DeRozan already)
    IIRC, you wanted the Spurs to do something, anything NOW. Interesting to see that your stance has softened. Perhaps we will eventually meet at the same ground

  21. #171
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,187
    Why care about optics? Is there an optics trophy I don't know about?

    Winbuilding was you? That's a good term, tbh
    In the big scheme of things, optics mean nothing. But it is something that is discussed in all nba circles (even if it literally has no meaning). But sure, I agree I place emphasis on things like optics and some softer science more than many.

    I did coin that term - it’s why I’m a marketing genius.

    Two games out of the seventh seed? I mean, by definition if I were coining a term such as winbuilding, being two games out of the seventh seed would classify, IMO.

    A draft pick holds obvious value but I do think there is value in avoiding a hurried and haphazard teardown. The latter is nebulous, admittedly, but I think it's worth hanging onto until the playoffs are out of the question.
    This logic, the 2 games out of the 7th seed, is what I don’t get. They have an awful record, awful defense and this is not a healthy and productive environment for now or the future. While you are technically correct with them being 2 games back off the 7th seed, they are equally close to the 13th seed. Win building implies winning; they have a losing record and it feels toxic to me - do you not agree?


    IIRC, you wanted the Spurs to do something, anything NOW. Interesting to see that your stance has softened. Perhaps we will eventually meet at the same ground
    I did - I saw the writing on the wall very early and I wanted them to make a move to get better before things got worse and if they weren’t willing to do that I wanted them to pick another direction.

    Unfortunately, things got much worse as I feared and look where they are with their record * shrugs *

  22. #172
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,782
    Yeah, but you're talking about keeping a guy and trying for the playoffs now and then letting him walk. Versus trading him for a guy who isn't even a elite role-player yet, missing the playoffs but hoping for a pick to become a guy Gordon can fit around. That doesn't seem like a good bet. Like if you can get Sekou and cap space or a first and second or whatever, then I can understand your point. But would I rather have Gordon or DeRozan right now? It's DeMar by a long shot. I'd rather let DeRozan walk and use the cap space to take back bad money for a pick than trade him for Gordon Again, if we could have confidence one or two of the young guards was ready to go, then I can see the argument there too. But they're not, so I don't see any reason to trade DeRozan and not tank.
    Elite role player or not, he's a useful piece, a scarce, valuable archetype and both fits and times well with the youth currently in place. If it's not Walker, they've got time to find a star and I'd rather have Gordon than DeRozan.

    Dead money for a pick is something I'll believe this organization will do when I see it. So will tanking. I believe they'll prefer a young veteran over a pick, especially considering they're not getting a lottery one for DeRozan.

    Paul is definitely not a better fit for the team. And I don't think anyone else would argue that it's better to have him on his contract rather than letting DeRozan walk. I think we're getting a pretty clear picture on the guards right now. Walker's the only one who can argue he hasn't really have the opportunity. Yes, Murray could get healthier, and everyone could improve. But none of those guys has shown anything to suggest they should be given star roles when they can't fill role-player spots. Walker may be changing that idea. Maybe in two months, he'll have shown enough to where the team could feel comfortable moving DeMar. But if they're roughly like this then, then I'm not too interested in seeing them get the reigns.
    He's clearly a better fit. I have no doubt they'd instantly improve on both ends if they made the iteration of the trade I detailed. Who cares about his contract? They don't have a core that's going to be expensive and they're not a free agent destination, so what's the difference? If he prevents them from blowing the MLE on some minimal retread for a year because of tax concerns, so be it.

    Who thought Graham, Nunn, Van Vleet, etc. were ready for as prominent of roles as they've played so far? By necessity, their teams gave them the opportunity and they've mostly flourished. What's the worst that could happen? They fall flat on their face, the team sucks and they track towards a high pick? Too late.

    It's not about being the bigger man. It's about you harping on no one disagrees with. The Leonard trade sucked. A DeRozan trade might suck, but it won't suck extra because of the Leonard trade. If they do trade DMDR for say Gordon and then Gordon is about to expire, are you going to want the Spurs to trade him to salvage value from the Leonard trade again? Where does it end? Truth is, it ended the moment the trade was completed last year. You can totally make the argument for moving DeRozan on its own merits, but Leonard has nothing to do with it.
    Then don't act holier than thou. If Gordon weren't in the plans at that point, yes. It's called asset management. In a non glamour market, cap space is fools gold (unless you're willing to take dead money for picks).

    You're too fixated on S bag and Gordon though. It's mostly about DeRozan being a terrible fit, needing to go and being able to net them a decent asset. The former is a secondary reason and the latter is just an example of said decent asset.

    Carroll would have probably started last year. I don't disagree that they're performing poorly right now. But their rotation is better. Aldridge is actually outperforming his start to last season in all major categories besides rebounding. DeRozan is outplaying his season average from last year though not his hot start. Gay's shooting has fallen off, but his rate stats are about the same. Mills is playing better as well. The top of the rotation really isn't the problem. The bottom we agree is better. The middle lost Bertans, whom Lyles doesn't really replace. But who Davis is not really wasn't who is was with the Spurs. Certainly, this team could use this year's Bertans. But they're better than they were with the 2018 version.
    Based on what, box score stats? Look at impact stats, like RAMP, where Aldridge and DeRozan are literally among the worst in the league.

    Damn near everything is the problem. Mills, Poeltl and maybe Lyles are the only rotation players (Walker and Carroll are incomplete), who have performed up to snuff, relatively speaking.

    Wrong. Bertans was the same player, only in a lesser role because this senile organization didn't know what they had (even though it was obvious). He led them in net rating.


    It's about gelling. Again, the Spurs' stars haven't regressed the way you think they have. They aren't as good as they were at their peak last season, but they started last year off slowly as well. Plenty of folks wanted to tank then too. I'm not trying to argue this year's situation isn't more dire. There's more reason to want to tear it down now. But, yeah, the team can totally play better if they gel, just like they did last year. They're only a "house of cards" if you think about them as a contender. They clearly don't have the players for that. But compared to like the Suns and other bottom-half-of-the-bracket clubs? Yeah, they are better positioned than that. They didn't lose to Cleveland because of fit or even spacing. They lost because of consistently poor execution. Guys don't get open behind the line because the defenders aren't 6-8, fast-footed shot-blockers. They do so because guys up rotations. Don't up the rotations, guys don't get nearly as many easy looks. Coaching.
    Man, you sound like a casual fan. They're 24 games in, have among the most continuity, have been been among, if not the, healthiest team(s), have played the 12th easiest schedule, yet sit 22nd in point differential and 24th in simple rating system. They suck.

    They're the definition of a house of cards. They basically replaced Bertans with Lyles, added Murray to the rotation and went from average to terrible.

    So the genius suddenly forgot how to coach defense? It's about personnel. Sure, their effort has sagged. That's what happens when a veteran team figures out it sucks. They're left waiting around for the other shoe to drop, so they can be put out of their misery.


    Optimal situation is the Spurs make the playoffs the next two seasons. At that point, the Spurs will have a seamless transition to the next era as DeRozan, Aldridge, Gay, Carroll, etc. will be gone and/or free agents. By that point, the Spurs will know exactly what they have in White, Murray, Walker, etc. and can build their strategy around that core. If none of the youth develops, the Spurs could do a teardown. If a few more pieces could turn the team into a contender, you can go that route.

    I know Spurs fans are tantalized by lottery balls but avoiding a teardown this season would make for a smoother transition. It's easy to tank -- it's a lot more difficult to untank, especially when it's a spur of the moment tank.

    So, no, I don't go for a teardown just because a team dangles a first round pick. That's especially true with how all the contracts are aligned. You do a halfway teardown now and then you can be left with a toxic situation that takes years to recover.

    Going into the season, it was obvious the Spurs were aiming for that two-year glide where they can ease their way into whatever is to come next. Going away from that idea while the playoffs are still possible would be unwise.
    That cliché is a lot more effective when you're a team like the Raptors (before the Spurs bailed them out), Wizards (before Wall's injuries), Trail Blazers, etc. This team is not at that level and doesn't have an in their prime, borderline superstar like Lillard.

    This team just flat out sucks. They're on pace to win something like a third of their games. It's not difficult to build a team to "achieve" that.

    Newsflash: This is a toxic situation and the team is clearly waiting around for the organization to make a move.

    They're more than likely not making them and even if they back in, you really want to see them get emasculated by an L.A. team (and with their luck, I'm sure it'd be S bag's)?

  23. #173
    Veteran sasaint's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    14,298
    I was guided to this post on Twitter. I haven't double checked it, but here it is:

    https://twitter.com/HPbasketball/sta...247651840?s=20

    Statistics showing individual player +/- when paired/not paired with LMA.

  24. #174
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,959
    He is definitely stunting them to an extent. Not only does he take away ball handling and scoring opportunities from every young player, he simply forces them to feed him for an offense-killing, inefficient score attempt every single time. He makes Murray and White's jobs harder by being ass on defense, forcing them to help. He sets the mood of the team and constantly gives up on plays, especially on defense, whilst taking every last minute shot and being ass at it. How is any of this not demoralizing and damaging to the rest of the players?
    He's not stunting them. That's just a fan excuse for why their guys aren't playing well. Murray has negative on/offs with seven of his 10 most-frequent partners. The three that are exceptions are Poeltl, Mills and Beli. Certainly, the argument about spacing applies here. But the argument about defense doesn't. And certainly DeRozan's player-pair data isn't better, but his pairing with Murray is third-worst for his top-10. Murray's has been the worst of LMA's top-10 partners as well. He's 7/10 with Forbes and Gay as well. For Lyle's, Murray is fourth of 10, but they are -8.4 per 100, so it's not like it was going well. DeJounte isn't playing well with any of the starters. The narrative that he's suffering with a poor lineup doesn't make sense. I doubt anyone believes Beli and Mills should start just to make DJM's lack of shooting not a fatal flaw.

    Yes, Murray wouldn't instantly learn to shoot 3's, but he'd get a lot more chances to try them. God knows I'd much rather have DJ try and miss a thousand 3s for his own development than watch DeMar, a known quan y and developed player, taking yet another contested 20ft shot. LMA is also a problem for the team; not only has his defense been very bad this season as well as DD's, his heavily declining athleticism impedes him from running the naturally fast-paced offense that the young players prefer. You saw DJ at the start of the season, running on transition and initiating fast offense... Only to have to wait for LA's corpse to drag up the court and demand the ball. And you know there's orders from above to give it to him.
    Murray wouldn't shoot more threes as a higher option, at least not the threes he should be shooting. If he's the primary ball-handler, then he'd be getting fewer spot-up looks. His evolution isn't to start taking a Forbes-like shot selection. DJ ran in transition also because Pop wants him to. That's where he scores best. But if he doesn't get a shot, he needs to be able to play in the half-court, and he's one of the worst players in the league there.

    DeMar and LMA are inequivocally stunting the Spurs. Any other average replacement players, simply by virtue of not being "stars" that need their touches, would make the team cohesiveness better. Would the team overall be better? Maybe not, we'd probably lose more games. But it would be watchable, instead of the trash product we're currently rolling out.
    Honestly, I think the Spurs are plenty watchable since they've started to play Walker. They've been in every game. I don't see why anyone would not see it that way. Those who want to make the playoffs have seen more wins. Those who want to take have seen nail-biting games. You may prefer to lose with the young guys getting burn in an abstract sense, but I doubt you'd rather watch 20-point blowouts.

  25. #175
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,959
    What strong guard play did Toronto have? Kyle Lowry who was already a devolved and established star?
    White would handle the ball more as would Lonnie, you'd see a more free flowing offense instead of just dumping it to derozan and watching him do his iso game that doesn't command a double team..
    Yes. Like a guy who maintain s om (and no, he got better during his stint in Toronto) despite playing with DeRozan. Van Fleet wasn't bad with him either, actually. Good players will be good players even if they aren't in optimal situations. Some guys like Russell can turn around their careers in the right situations, but they don't become franchise players.

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
  •