Reply With Quote
Posted a response, should have also said, I agree with much of what you're saying here, but think we should have better options than role players. Definitely agree with you regarding White, Vassell, and Johnson.
Relative to a front loaded Jonathan Isaac deal. Spurs will have 50M in cap space, maybe a few million more. If Spurs 1) kept White, Vassell, and Johnson (three best prospects of young core, imo), 2) offered 23M front loaded to Isaac, 3) they'd still have Murray, Walker, Samanic, '21 lottery pick etc, and 27M in space to trade/absorb another max player. Murray and the space navigates any salary match issues.
I don't want to come off as a true believer in this approach--everything depends on who is unavailable--but a ~20M FA and a trading for max player is a path that could emerge, giving the Spurs a core of White, Vassell, Johnson, FA, and trade target. You can fill in the FA and trade target slot with a lot of names which would make Spurs a perennial playoff contender.
In this scenario, I'd love to see the team keep its '21 lottery pick and include picks from '22 and later, but I'm in the imaginative weeds at this point.
Posted a response, should have also said, I agree with much of what you're saying here, but think we should have better options than role players. Definitely agree with you regarding White, Vassell, and Johnson.
That is ing horrible. Kevin Love belongs in a glue factory.
Giannis agreed to 5 year extension with the Bucks
I just saw this elsewhere and felt for you. I never had hope he’d come here but knew there were some who did.
Can't wait for the reactions when we extend DeRozan, Aldridge, Mills and Rudy Gay next season to run it back for another 3 years
With so many players signing long term deals, does it drive up cost or interest for a player like DDR or LMA for other teams looking to make a run this year?
IMO, adds value, but as much as we'd like. Having big FAs like Giannis sign long-term contracts with their teams makes the FA pool shallower, increasing the value of available "big name" FAs like DD/LMA; but on the other hand, it also means more teams would be willing to pay them next off-season, after their contracts are up (so no assets lost trading for them), since they won't spend that money chasing Giannis/whomever. Tbh, it's probably a matter of which situations the Spurs can take advantage of, I'm hoping for a trade deadline move but we could also see a S&T after the season is over.
Once again, cap space proves to be fool's gold. It's only important insofar as you have a relatively easy means to creating it should it prove necessary. Otherwise, just hoarding it for the sake of it looks and sounds nice, but what's the end result?
It's generally what the Hawks or Hornets just did. The only positive to the former is they're now so stocked with depth that they might be able to get in the game for the next diva who becomes available, but in the interim they're at best one and done.
Cap space by itself is fool's gold.
Cap space + assets is different.
The Hornets are not comparable to what the Spurs will have this upcoming offseason. They virtually have 13 out of 15 players who have no value.
The Hawks are on a similar path as the Spurs, signing Bogdan and Rondo aren't bad moves and they still have flexibility going forward. Difference is, what can be unseen, is the lack of intangible veteran leadership on that team to guide their youth.
Hornets notable 26 and under talent: Ball, Graham, Rozier, Washington, Bridges, Monk.
Spurs notable 26 and under talent: White, Poeltl, Johnson, Vassell, Murray, Walker.
At this writing, it's comparable, with the Hornets having the consensus best prospect and only one thought to have star upside.
Ball is the consensus best prospect? I'll give that two months before people start singing a different tune...
Ball is and will be who I thought he was before he was drafted... A street baller kid who had no business being drafted in the top 10. He went 0/12 FG the other day I believe.
I'll give it two months.
Yes it does which the spurs should definitely take advantage of. But the FO won’t trade them. Unfortunately, It is probably likely that they sign DDR and LMA to long term contracts.
You know he is and if he were a Spur, you wouldn't be questioning it.
Doesn't mean you have to agree or that I do either, it's just the reality.
So a 19 year old who went the better part of a year between games, gets 2 months before being proclaimed a bust.
Last edited by TD 21; 12-15-2020 at 05:48 PM.
I would switch Murray out for Jones
I think it's about right. The FA class won't be terribly strong now that Giannis won't be in it, and teams overpay far more often than they underpay.
Isaac will be a great player but questions now on his injury history makes maxing him a dangerous decisions.
Heat essentially had role players on decent contracts and somehow still managed to max out Butler. Keeping your role players or even buying more in the off season, is not a bad strategy. You never know what star becomes available.
No. Not even if Uncle passes away and he is remorseful. No.
That's not what I meant. I was addressing your point that the Spurs never trade up.
Boston getting hammered by Philly. Preseason, but still. They need to do something to replace Hayward, talent-wise. It's amazing how above mediocre they are considering Ainge had so many chips at one point. Aldridge would be fantastic there.
That's a rare thing. Other than nephew, how many other times has it happened?
It happened the year it needed to and that's all that matters. It's not about frequency, it's about the Spurs actually doing it. You said they never did it. But they did, and it was probably the most successful trade up in the history in the NBA. The Spurs will do it when they have to AND if they can. You can't look at every year and think it's the same playing field every time. In many years, they didn't have the assets to do so. NO team consistently trades up, so I don't know why you think frequency is something to look at.
I said they never did? Setting up that straw man much?
Naw man, here is what I said:
"#1 does not follow what we have done in the past, and while it could earn us a more talented pick, I don't think we change the way we have done things to do this. It would take a remarkably outstanding player to see a change like that happen. Or a change in the FO, which would only happen for some terrible reason."
So it's actually consistent with what you are saying, that an exceptional player could induce them to do so.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
