Page 30 of 110 FirstFirst ... 202627282930313233344080 ... LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 2730
  1. #726
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    "You want to show that you're the smartest guy in the room by attempting to talk down to people without actually knowing what you're talking about."

    Proceeds to call anyone who disagrees with him a homer, a casual, an apologist...

    Chinook, you hit the nail on the head when you said this:

    "
    I feel bad even having to defend this point, because it's clear you're not looking at anything else but want to come off like you do. "

    No one is as arrogant as this bag. He is the definition of someone who thinks he's smarter than he actually is.

  2. #727
    Lol Crews jjktkk's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    6,420
    So besides the most recent evidence that says they are, they're somehow not. Got it.

    DeRozan has limited value. With picks, they're like lottery tickets. Every rumored offer was better and Gilgeous-Alexander wasn't hindsight (granted, who knows who they'd have picked, but the reality is they easily could have ended up with him or Porter Jr.).

    Nice try. Pretending the ensuing games would have played out exactly how they did had they closed out the 76ers game is absurd. Not sure why you keep bringing up the past in regards to Spurs-Kings. I'm talking right now.

    I was? They could have gotten a blue chipper without DeRozan. The could have manipulated the past 1-2 drafts and had better youth than they currently do. And moving from 11 to 6-7 isn't "adding picks", it's just getting a better one.




    Murray isn't and there's no proof that he's generating much trade interest. He also wasn't supposed to be a 29th pick.

    They did. That series was predictably for the taking and they squandered it, then melted down at the finish (granted, it was unlikely they could pull it off at that point, but still). Not comparing Spurs-Kings pasts.

    No, trying to find a centerpiece is best for the franchise and the odds increase by picking higher. The problem is, they haven't bottomed out. They're fighting it because their ego is more important.




    You both misquoted me and took what you were apparently trying to quote out of context. And superstars/stars not wanting to play here doesn't excuse their bad decisions.
    You're right there's no excuse for bad decisions. But considering where they perennially pick in the 1st round, and their inability to lure prime free agents to small market San Antonio, the Spurs have done well since the big 3 retired and Leonard left.

  3. #728
    Lol Crews jjktkk's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    6,420
    "You want to show that you're the smartest guy in the room by attempting to talk down to people without actually knowing what you're talking about."

    Proceeds to call anyone who disagrees with him a homer, a casual, an apologist...

    Chinook, you hit the nail on the head when you said this:

    "
    I feel bad even having to defend this point, because it's clear you're not looking at anything else but want to come off like you do. "

    No one is as arrogant as this bag. He is the definition of someone who thinks he's smarter than he actually is.
    Well you do gotta give @TD 21 credit. He's consistently has had bad takes on here for years.

  4. #729
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    They do. Spurs were 17th in SRS, Kings 21st (.73 differential), 33-38 in expected w-l vs 31-41, 18th in MOV vs 21st (.93 differential) and again, they were far more decimated by injury. As usual, it's clear that you're just being a homer and pretending to know more about the league than you actually do and now you're again moving the goal posts by talking about the future. I'm talking about last season to right now.
    Wait, I thought I was the person who brought up the Kings. You were comfortable to go to that excuse earlier. Why do you think you get to set the scope of what I meant, or did you really think I didn't realize the Kings were one spot behind the Spurs in the draft when I made that comment? I'm glad you finally started to look up stuff on BBR, but that doesn't make them similar anymore than two players having the same PER and WS/48 would. When you look at who their best players are and what their weaknesses are, they're very different. What do you think SAC's path to the playoffs is?

    I've seen you talk about taking reports on the Spurs with a grain a salt (which is generally true). Well, that wasn't the hindsight I was talking about.
    And I was the one who said hindsight, and specifically talking about how SA would've been in a better position trading DMDR for a late-lotto pick relies on assuming they would'nt've taken Walker anyway. We don't know for sure, but the reports suggest that they wanted Lonnie in the top 10.

    Was it "a thing"?
    Yep.

    Compete for what? No, it doesn't absolve them because your should judge a trade based on the process, not the result. Only a casual, homer, apologists or some combination there of could attempt to defend that trade.
    It's clear your view of the process is skewed, since you keep worrying about Kawhi winning a le like that should've been a concern for the team. They wanted to compete and not tank. They got another playoff run, got close to another and may yet get one more while DMDR is under contract. That was their goal, and that's what they got. You personally think they should've packed up and planned for the future. That would've been your goal in a trade. We get that. But their "process" doesn't depend on whether they take your plan, but how well they execute theirs.

    Ultimately, I don't think they regret their DeRozan trade, and that's in no small part because they got two guys who may well be long-term starters on the team soon and still managed to grab a lotto pick without dumping their roster. It gives them the option to keep pushing for a playoff spot and try to go into next summer luring a free agent to compliment/replace one of their big-money players, or they can trade off those guys now, get late picks and look to rebuild with their natural picks and cap space. Or they can do something more extreme or in between. They have good players on expiring deals and very little long-term money, that's about as flexible as it gets.

    Only to casuals.

    The difference was, that was back when they were still holding out hope for Wiggins. Some of the most connected people in the industry have said DeRozan has little value and it's obvious to anyone who really follows this, but you know better.
    The Butler trade was the same year as your rumored DeRozan rejection, so it makes sense that they probably didn't think of Wiggins as untouchable in one deal but trash in the other.

    And this "all the smart people (like me) knew the truth" line is irrelevant. Obviously smart Raptors GM Ujuri wasn't "smart" enough to know that Wiggins would've been worse than DeRozan in every way, and "smart" Wolves GM Thibs didn't know he should've taken a chance to move Wiggins and run AND "smart" Bulls GM Paxton didn't know how lucky he was that no one insisted he take on that awful contract.

    Basically no. A lot of people DID look at the stats and say Lowry was the best player. -- that's true. That was an opinion at the time. But that wasn't the consensus among front-office people, just like it wasn't the consensus that Wiggins was hot doodoo, even though those same stats folks also believed that. Not all GMs are perfect actors and go by pure stats. You obviously know that since you've talked about the Spurs "falling for it", but they're far from the only team that makes sketchy moves from a stats perspective. Both the Russell and Wiggins trades were bad value stats-wise.

    Because he could leave for nothing in a year and no, he wouldn't have garnered a lottery pick in '18 just like Aldridge, a better player, couldn't garner a top 10 pick in '17.
    Aldridge IS a better player, but you'd be surprised how many folks disagree with that, including a lot of stat heads. Anyway, if DeRozan is traded for no value, why trade him? If he's leaving for nothing and is traded for nothing, why not just keep him? It's clear that PATFO simply doesn't agree with you that trying to make the playoffs is valueless. They'd much prefer that and letting DMDR walk than getting nothing and moving them early. I don't think I have to defend that, since it's the reason we all agree they did the DMDR trade in the first place.

    Anyway, it doesn't make sense to argue the Spurs couldn't get a top-10 pick for Aldridge in 2017. That might be true and all, but they weren't actually trying to get a pick -- they were trying to get Kyrie Irving. So far as I could tell, their proposed package was Murray, Green and Josh Jackson. The issue is that they didn't have Jackson. So they tried to trade Aldridge in an effort to get him. Phoenix balked, though in retrospect, they should've taken the deal. They weren't actually trying to turn him into pieces or a young player, since it's clear Leonard was demanding the team upgrade their talent. That's why you had the Gasol and Mills deals, which were the result of Leonard's discontent with the roster, not the catalyst for it.

    Anyways, meh, man. This conversation is getting long, and I don't want it to bog down this thread. If you have specific points you want me to respond to, point them out in a response. Otherwise, I'll just let the rest flow through.

  5. #730
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    Proceeds to call anyone who disagrees with him a homer, a casual, an apologist...

    No one is as arrogant as this bag. He is the definition of someone who thinks he's smarter than he actually is.
    Off your meds again I see.

    Proceeds to exaggerate because he has some personal problem with me for disagreeing with his bizarre/obsessive takes on random draft prospects.

    You take this way too seriously. Despite his few unnecessary shots that I eventually returned serve on, this is a debate, not an argument.

    the Spurs have done well since the big 3 retired and Leonard left.


    Well you do gotta give @TD 21 credit. He's consistently has had bad takes on here for years.
    Yet idiots like you and the lunatic up above constantly flock to them moments after I post.


    Wait, I thought I was the person who brought up the Kings. You were comfortable to go to that excuse earlier. Why do you think you get to set the scope of what I meant. When you look at who their best players are and what their weaknesses are, they're very different. What do you think SAC's path to the playoffs is?
    I don't even know what you're attempting to say here, but I clearly didn't mean similar in the sense of the specifics of the roster, but in a general sense and I'd have thought you'd know by now that I don't speak on anything without being informed beforehand. Kings path to playoffs: good core health, crunch time fortune, Fox/Bagley take the next step, re-sign Bogdanovic, trade Hield for Horford++ . . . still likely to miss though.

    SA would've been in a better position trading DMDR for a late-lotto pick
    The Celtics report was 3-4 future 1sts.

    Yep.
    Once again doing what you incorrectly accuse me of: Spouting things as fact with no evidence.

    It's clear your view of the process is skewed, since you keep worrying about Kawhi winning a le like that should've been a concern for the team. They wanted to compete and not tank. They got another playoff run, got close to another and may yet get one more while DMDR is under contract. That was their goal, and that's what they got. You personally think they should've packed up and planned for the future. That would've been your goal in a trade. We get that. But their "process" doesn't depend on whether they take your plan, but how well they execute theirs.

    that's about as flexible as it gets.
    Maybe you'll comprehend this the third time: Once they couldn't get anything resembling commensurate value, limiting his path to a championship absolutely should have factored into the equation. They didn't get a playoff run, they got a playoff series barely. Their goal was to maintain their streak/reputation because the senile genius couldn't put his ego to the side and do what was best for his franchise.

    Having an abundance of picks would have created more flexibility than archaic veterans that have limited value. Plus, the payroll would have been lower sooner.

    And this "all the smart people (like me) knew the truth" line is irrelevant..

    Basically no. A lot of people DID look at the stats and say Lowry was the best player. -- that's true. That was an opinion at the time. But that wasn't the consensus among front-office people, just like it wasn't the consensus that Wiggins was hot doodoo, even though those same stats folks also believed that.
    Who said any of these people were smart? DeRozan for Wiggins wouldn't have been about Wiggins being good, it would have been about his being 6 years younger. Shady Ujiri has been trying to re-build since he got back their, only to fall ass backwards into success at every turn since trading Gay.

    And you'd know that how? As if you're in contact with front offices. What a ridiculous comment.

    Aldridge IS a better player, but you'd be surprised how many folks disagree with that, including a lot of stat heads. Anyway, if DeRozan is traded for no value, why trade him?

    Anyway, it doesn't make sense to argue the Spurs couldn't get a top-10 pick for Aldridge in 2017. That might be true and all, but they weren't actually trying to get a pick -- they were trying to get Kyrie Irving.
    I know but that's because of the bias against bigs. Again, I said limited value, not no value. As in possibly utilizing him + 11 to jump 4-5 spots in the draft.

    Doesn't matter that Aldridge was an attempt at being a vehicle to something else, the point remains he couldn't fetch a top 10 pick.
    Last edited by TD 21; 10-24-2020 at 11:51 AM.

  6. #731
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    I don't even know what you're attempting to say here, but I clearly didn't mean similar in the sense of the specifics of the roster, but in a general sense and I'd have thought you'd know by now that I don't speak on anything without being informed beforehand. Kings path to playoffs: good core health, crunch time fortune, Fox/Bagley take the next step, re-sign Bogdanovic, trade Hield for Horford++ . . . still likely to miss though.
    So I said "The Spurs are not the Kings". At that point it's my claim to explain and yours to refute. So when I tell you things about their history, roster and path to success, that's not me "moving goal posts" from your talk about record. It's me actually talking about what I mean. Even to this point, your arguments for them being the same are superficial. They're pretty much from the team pages of BBR. Certainly not completely brainless, but it's weird to bring that up while also chastising me for not following other teams. Like I can and do look at those types of stats for other teams. If I simply meant that they didn't have the same record or SRS or whatever, then I could've said that. I know you have more faith in me than to assume I would not have mean something that shallow.

    The Celtics report was 3-4 future 1sts.
    I'll have to look, but I think the SAC first and Memphis first were held out. But even if that isn't the case, you're looking at 14, 20 and 22 from last year and 14 from this year as being the best-case scenario. That would've given the Spurs four firsts last year, with their own pick probably being the best since they would've probably missed the playoffs comfortably without DMDR. Even if they were rebuilding, that's a lot picks to add to a roster at once. Maybe they could've consolidated them, but remember that Boston didn't do that -- in fact, they traded 20 for 24 and 33, then they traded 24 to Phoenix for 30 this year. So basically, the Boston picks turned into Langford, Williams and Edwards, along with 14 and 30 in this upcoming draft. Those three guys were three of Boston's four worst player in terms of WS/48, and three of five in terms of BPM.

    Obviously their careers aren't set in stone, and there's no reason to assume the Spurs would've done the draft the same way. Having two additional firsts in what I think is a decent draft isn't nothing. But that highlights the issue that plagues/bogs down most tanking teams. If you play the game for maximal future value, you end up with a bunch of meh or average young players that you're reluctant to get rid of because you don't know which of them are worth holding onto. Having six first-rounders in two years is just too much. Boston has had to piss away picks for multiple years now. Unless you're getting the right picks back, I don't think the value is there.

    Maybe you'll comprehend this the third time: Once they couldn't get anything resembling commensurate value, limiting his path to a championship absolutely should have factored into the equation.
    No. You're just wrong. There's nothing complicated about your view. We all understand it. It's just wrong, and I would hate to hear PATFO thought anything like that. It's bad for value; it's bad for player relations.

    Having an abundance of picks would have created more flexibility than archaic veterans that have limited value. Plus, the payroll would have been lower sooner.
    Not really though. In the NBA, cap space is only one kind of flexibility, and not even the best necessarily due to matching rules. Would I rather have cap space than DMDR and LMA and even Gay/Mills? No. That space would have almost no value right now. Cap space next year would have value, but they'll have that anyway. In the meantime, they still get to trade guys or try to compete. That's more options than simply looking to sell picks and having to cut young players because you simply have too many.

    Who said any of these people were smart? DeRozan for Wiggins wouldn't have been about Wiggins being good, it would have been about his being 6 years younger. Shady Ujiri has been trying to re-build since he got back their, only to fall ass backwards into success at every turn since trading Gay.
    No matter how bad you think DeRozan is, Wiggins is worse. That would've been a franchise-killing move, especially straight-up as you present it. The need to mention age just underscores why rebuilding for rebuilding's sake is fool-hardy. Ujuri would've been fired had he done that deal, yet he obviously didn't think that at the time. That's because Wiggins' value was way higher than you suggest. It's possible that if this Leonard mess had happened a year earlier, the Spurs would've been interested in Wiggins too.

    I know but that's because of the bias against bigs. Again, I said limited value, not no value. As in possibly utilizing him + 11 to jump 4-5 spots in the draft.
    And if that's his value, that's fine. That wouldn't make me rethink his value two years ago. The value to jump up four spots in the lottery is still a solid first's worth. That's as an expiring and minus any sense of shine. Not bad.'

    Doesn't matter that Aldridge was an attempt at being a vehicle to something else, the point remains he couldn't fetch a top 10 pick
    You missed the point of what I said. LMA wasn't being dangled for "a pick". Once Jackson went off the board, we don't have a reason to believe the Spurs were still trying to trade him. Maybe he would've garnered a top-10 pick, maybe not. But we don't know enough to say he couldn't get anything less than a top-four pick.

    Also, LMA was expiring that year. He signed his extension the following pre-season. Presenting it like he and 18 DeRozan were in the same situation is faulty.
    Last edited by Chinook; 10-24-2020 at 02:07 PM.

  7. #732
    Veteran Dverde's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Post Count
    3,748
    Many words. So many words. Can’t do it.

  8. #733
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    Many words. So many words. Can’t do it.
    Lmao no one is as less aware of himself as this asshole.

  9. #734
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Post Count
    1,036
    Only on this forum would people actually think Wiggins is a good take. Sure, for 3 draft picks. But then again. Some thought demar for Nicholas ing batum would be a good trade

  10. #735
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Post Count
    636
    Only on this forum would people actually think Wiggins is a good take. Sure, for 3 draft picks. But then again. Some thought demar for Nicholas ing batum would be a good trade
    Yeah the Batum for DeRozan trade was disgusting but it's not limited to this forum. I believe some of thee same posters post the same garbage on Twitter.

  11. #736
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,490
    Only on this forum would people actually think Wiggins is a good take. Sure, for 3 draft picks. But then again. Some thought demar for Nicholas ing batum would be a good trade
    Wiggins is a classic case of a scenario played out many times: cap space rental. I hate Wiggins, and I hate his game. What I wouldn’t hate would be taking Wiggins and #2 in return for LMA, and keeping #11. I didn’t like the idea at first, but it’s growing on me. Year one would be a wash, salary wise or nearly so. Year two is a nut punch, but it’s what you’re being paid for. Year three is an ending contract, and you may even be able to flip him for an additional asset.

    The Spurs would only do this if they felt there was a player available at #2 that they could develop into a franchise player.

  12. #737
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    At that point it's my claim to explain and yours to refute. So when I tell you things about their history, roster and path to success, that's not me "moving goal posts" from your talk about record. It's me actually talking about what I mean.
    Pretty sure you knew what I meant, ignored it and pretended I knew nothing about the Kings.


    I'll have to look, but I think the SAC first and Memphis first were held out. But even if that isn't the case, you're looking at 14, 20 and 22 from last year and 14 from this year as being the best-case scenario. That would've given the Spurs four firsts last year, with their own pick probably being the best since they would've probably missed the playoffs comfortably without DMDR.

    But that highlights the issue that plagues/bogs down most tanking teams. If you play the game for maximal future value, you end up with a bunch of meh or average young players that you're reluctant to get rid of because you don't know which of them are worth holding onto. Having six first-rounders in two years is just too much. Boston has had to piss away picks for multiple years now. Unless you're getting the right picks back, I don't think the value is there.
    Yeah, most of the picks ended up worse than projections, but still. If you have an abundance of picks, you have options. Obviously, they'd have had to consolidate.

    Sure, playing that game often doesn't turn out as good as it seems it might and at some point you've got to get off that treadmill, but given the dire situation the Spurs were in, it still beat the alternative.


    No. You're just wrong. There's nothing complicated about your view. We all understand it. It's just wrong, and I would hate to hear PATFO thought anything like that. It's bad for value; it's bad for player relations.
    How can I be wrong about something subjective? Obviously you don't broadcast it, but had they sent him to the Celtics/76ers, the perception wouldn't have been that they tried to do him wrong since they were thought of as contenders too.


    Not really though. In the NBA, cap space is only one kind of flexibility, and not even the best necessarily due to matching rules. Would I rather have cap space than DMDR and LMA and even Gay/Mills? No. That space would have almost no value right now. Cap space next year would have value, but they'll have that anyway. In the meantime, they still get to trade guys or try to compete. That's more options than simply looking to sell picks and having to cut young players because you simply have too many.
    Cap space can be utilized as a dumping ground for dead money to acquire more picks. They should have been in asset acquisition mode instead of being scared of the unknown and prioritizing concrete mediocrity.


    The need to mention age just underscores why rebuilding for rebuilding's sake is fool-hardy.
    I never said anything about "re-building for re-building's sake". A team like those Raptors or current Trail Blazers are better off staying the course and tweaking. A team in the Spurs situation was not.


    LMA wasn't being dangled for "a pick". Once Jackson went off the board, we don't have a reason to believe the Spurs were still trying to trade him. Maybe he would've garnered a top-10 pick, maybe not.

    Presenting it like he and 18 DeRozan were in the same situation is faulty.
    It's unclear. All we heard was he was shopped for a top 10 pick, the rest is your interpretation. They may have traded him for it period even if they couldn't re-route it for immediately help, taken a step back and bided their time until they could find something worthwhile to pull the trigger on. In the NBA, the next unhappy superstar/star is always right around the corner.

    DeRozan was viewed as part albatross/salary dump.

  13. #738
    Veteran tbdog's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    4,667
    Wiggins is a classic case of a scenario played out many times: cap space rental. I hate Wiggins, and I hate his game. What I wouldn’t hate would be taking Wiggins and #2 in return for LMA, and keeping #11. I didn’t like the idea at first, but it’s growing on me. Year one would be a wash, salary wise or nearly so. Year two is a nut punch, but it’s what you’re being paid for. Year three is an ending contract, and you may even be able to flip him for an additional asset.

    The Spurs would only do this if they felt there was a player available at #2 that they could develop into a franchise player.
    Spurs would be paying 40m p/y to develop number 2 into something franchise worthy. It would better be a home run if Spurs go down this road.

  14. #739
    Peace! bluebellmaniac's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    1,791
    Spurs would be paying 40m p/y to develop number 2 into something franchise worthy. It would better be a home run if Spurs go down this road.
    It's a shot at having something great. Or you settle for mediocre. What would you rather have?

  15. #740
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,490
    Spurs would be paying 40m p/y to develop number 2 into something franchise worthy. It would better be a home run if Spurs go down this road.
    Like I said, year one is already a sunk cost. We’d be paying LMA anyway. The price of #2 is also fixed.

    What would be funny would be if the NYK struck out again in FA, and actually gave us something for Wiggins. They’re pretty desperate for someone to market.

  16. #741
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    8,351
    I am all in for tanking but with class. Lol

  17. #742
    Veteran tbdog's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    4,667
    It's a shot at having something great. Or you settle for mediocre. What would you rather have?
    It's a weak draft. Plus you have to play Wiggins to improve his trade value down the line. That will eat into our youth movement.

    It would only happen if Spurs see something special in number 2, whoever it is. 40mil special. Also there is plenty between something special and mediocre. Spurs trade LMA to Wiggins + 2, they go mediocre to bad. What if we already have something special in our team and eating 40 mil of cap space has a longer negative impact?

  18. #743
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    3,074
    You keep saying Wiggins will cost $40 million/year. His salary is 29, 31, 33 over the next 3 years.

  19. #744
    Veteran Degoat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    3,698
    We arent getting Wiggins or the #2 pick guys lol problem is tho, no matter if you like or dislike them, were most likely gonna lose Demar and Aldridge for nothing next year.

  20. #745
    Veteran tbdog's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    4,667
    You keep saying Wiggins will cost $40 million/year. His salary is 29, 31, 33 over the next 3 years.
    Because number 2 will cost you 8mil first year with rises. If Wiggins isn't in your plans, then you are paying 40 mil for number 2. And you are doing that in the hopes he is as good as LMA, in which your trading in the first place.

  21. #746
    Veteran cd021's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    9,818
    Because number 2 will cost you 8mil first year with rises. If Wiggins isn't in your plans, then you are paying 40 mil for number 2. And you are doing that in the hopes he is as good as LMA, in which your trading in the first place.
    -I don't know if I agree with that logic; If say the Spurs were to trade for the number 2 pick-- and take on Wiggins for--then that means there is a player that they covet enough to eat one of the worst contracts in the NBA.

    That also means that they probably wouldn't mind paying the player that they wanted the rookie scale. Plus the Spurs usually don't miss on picks, so them nailing a pick in a tier higher than than their used to drafting, means that they might be drafting a star.

    -Wiggins deal is prohibitive and the fact that the cap isn't likely to increase in the near future, makes it a worse contract. Still the Spurs getting a shot a star--without completely tanking, ahead of a rebuild is going to come with a catch and Wiggins would likely be it.

    Also if the Spurs were to ship out LMA and Gay as a part of a deal for Wiggins, then essentially, the Spurs would only be paying Wiggins for two seasons of Wiggins at 31 and 33 and he'd be a big expiring in his final season.

  22. #747
    The Great Eight Ocotillo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    3,904
    Regarding the potential GSW deal, it is a crap shoot but at the end of the day, to compete for a ring, you have to have a superstar on the team. We have young guys that may or may not become solid players in the league. Keldon may surprise us and develop into something really special but while what we have seen so far shows some reason for hope, it is a limited sample size.

    So, if the PATFO really thinks there is someone who can be developed into a superstar, then you roll the dice and eat Wiggins deal if GSW is willing. Like has been said earlier, year one is sunk cost, year two is the cap drain and year three can be a potential deal since it will be an expiring. tbdog makes a good point that Wiggins could impede other young guy's progress due to eating into their playing time.

    Who knows though, Wiggins has a skill set and maybe the light goes on in the next year or two. He is an NBA player, he just is overpaid for the type of NBA player he is. At the end of the day, I think that is why you can usually find a team willing to take an overpaid player like Wiggins is they are really wishing it all comes together and the player finally reaches that potential.

    I am greedy though, if a deal were to be made, I don't want to turn loose of 11.

  23. #748
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    1,103
    People keep wanting to tank next year to get a good pick when we could have a good pick this year. I know this draft is not as good as next year but that does not mean players cannot be as good. Who knows what next years draft and season will look like. By us going young we could do better then this year. If that is the case we would probably end up with a worse pick. Even with a slightly better spot say 7 that does not get us a much better player and probably not more certain star then the 2nd pick in this draft. Yes we would have slightly better odds if we got up to 7 but there is no saying we would get higher then 7 as it is still a lottery. People act just because you tank you will get a top 2 pick. We would not be the only team tanking so who knows where we would end up.
    People act like wiggins is a 40yo forbs on his contract. He is about a half year younger then white and about a yr and a half older then DJM. He is the same age as our leading core and not an old player. Some will mention that he has been in the league longer which is true but he did not get the maturation process in college that white did. He can still grow as a player. Yes his upside is not as much as a player coming out int he draft or even as much as DJM but he does still have some.
    As some have mentioned his first year is sunk cost as we would be paying LA anyway. His second and third year is where we eat the contract but we are not eating the whole thing. What would he get paid if he was a FA. My guess would be about 15 mil a year. how did I get that number. His PER is about the same as white and he is the same age. This has been rumored the deal Spurs want to offer white. Some people say this is to low for white. This putting his salary at 15 mil a year I think is fare. This means we are only eating about 15 mil a year to have a top pick in the draft. This also means that Wiggins does not improve which he did some last year.
    This is why I would do the LMA for Wiggins and #2. We get a bad contract but a shot at a good player. BTW if we could convince boston to trade 2 picks for our 11 that would help as well since we would not need to pick high anymore.

  24. #749
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    Still don't know why anyone would think the Spurs would have a shot to pull this off without including 11. Even if they would be dumping a certified albatross in the process, the Warriors aren't literally trading from 2 to of the 1st round for a 35 year old, on an expiring contract.

    As much as I despise Wiggins as a player, I can actually see it for the Spurs: A cultural fit, true "SF", still youngish and with Aldridge/DeRozan out the door, a proven (if incredibly inefficient) scorer and freak athlete that's easy to sell to casuals.

  25. #750
    Veteran gambit1990's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Post Count
    9,576
    the spurs are much more desperate the warriors TBQH.

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
  •