official offseason thread

[Chinook]

They're the same caliber team, only the Spurs have no blue chip prospects at the moment.

But they're not. They literally only had the same record last year. That's it. Besides that they're night and day.

Because decent youth/picks have better resale value and provide flexibility. Build up enough of both and there's a myriad of options at your disposal. Way to conveniently leave out the part where I said: once it was clear they couldn't receive commensurate value. Once forced to accept due to S bag's antics, they should have brought his reputation down with theirs. Neither the Celtics or 76ers were likely to win the '19 championship with him for different reasons.

Not really though. DeRozan could've definitely been flipped for assets had the Spurs wanted to go that route. If anything, they got more flexibility because they weren't forced to tank. They could've been even more aggressive in trying to compete with trades like the Kemba deal, but they backed off. They had option value they wouldn't've had had they just decided to tank. Plus, I'm not sure the other rebuilding packages were actually better. Keldon is a good player, and I doubt the Spurs would've been psychic and taken SGA or Porter over Lonnie had they gotten 10 or 12/13/.

The sky did fall (they literally made the worst possible trade one can make) and they're not in a better position than the Kings

They sky didn't fall. The more you freak out about that, the more you're showing why SA isn't in the same position as SAC. They were a stupid Murray play away from a play-in game this year. And this is the worst it's been for the Spurs for a long time. If the nadir for SA is the zenith for SAC, it's insane to argue they're the same.

The theoretical cap space will likely mostly go to extensions for the youth and some overpaid, sub star free agent/salary dump.

You were just singing the praises of cap space earlier. What was that flexibility going to be used for if not extensions, meh signings or salary dumps? That's the reality of rebuilding. The difference is because the Spurs have good vets, they can instead use that cap space to try to get them help or dump them as good expirings for value like...

Again, packaging DeRozan with 11 could conceivably get them up to 6-7, thereby increasing the odds of netting a core building block.

So you're saying the Spurs could end up getting a blue-chipper in the draft BECAUSE they have DeRozan on the team? Seems odd to argue that they should've taken picks instead of DeRozan when they can apparently trade him for a pick to pair with that other pick they already got in the trade and after having tried to compete for two years.

[rankingtear]

I'd argue only White is "top 100" among the youth (Johnson appears a possibility to join him) and that's not something to be proud of or build your team around.

Competed for the 7th-8th seed, so they could embarrass themselves against a top seed or fall short and either way delay the likelihood of finding their next star by picking mid roundish.

Every draft matters and they'll fight to the death to avoid picking high because they're too busy being caricatures of themselves to prioritize doing what's best for the franchise.

Dejounte and Derrick are top 100, they would not generate much trade interest otherwise. You may not think they are but people in the NBA and analysts are treating them that way. For 29th picks they are exceeding expectations.

They didn't embarrass themselves the year they got in the playoffs, they went 7 games against the second seed. They got run in the bubble this year and is one win away from getting a play in game.
Sacramento hasn't made the playoffs in 14 years, that is embarrassing.

Yes every draft matters, but some drafts are safer. Is not trying to win games the best for the franchise? You can't just bottom out for a few years and expect to win right away. Since 1985 the only non returning top 4 pick that won a championship on the team that drafted them are David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Darko and Kyrie.

[jjktkk]

Somewhat weird article. The Spurs have some wings who are good defensively but they were buried behind Marco, Bryn, and DD. The bubble showed lineups with great defense, I thought.

A true starter, 6'7' or taller SF, who has the potential to be a dominant two way player would be nice.

[Collins21]

Nah. They don’t have win now players. Hence the not winning. They don’t have the pieces to add the amount of talent that would turn DDR & LMA into win now players either.

Good news is I’m 75% certain lma and/or ddr are gone.

Is this sourced information?

[jjktkk]

For one reason or another, superstars/stars don't want to play here

Its the same reason why star players don't want to play in any small market in the NBA. Unless that small market has a superstar, most of the stars rather collude and play in L.A., or Miami, than stick it out in San Antonio, Utah, etc...[/QUOTE]

which is by far the most important thing for any organization (being a non glamour market obviously doesn't help, but their history/reputation hasn't made any difference). So even if they're more likely to help cultivate a non blue chip prospect into becoming one, in the end they'll probably end up a feeder system for a glamour market.

They're an irrelevant laughing stock who have constantly made embarrassing decisions for the past 3 years, culminating in arguably the worst trade of all time (I don't even care if Johnson becomes Butler or a poor man's version; he was a 29th pick)

Make up your mind. On one hand you just gave a valid reason why the Spurs cannot lure prime free agents to S.A., but then you say "they're still a laughing stock"? Besides the obvious one of Leonard forcing his way out of S.A, You gave the reason why, their small market size limits their ability to lure star free agents. hence their bad decisions, but unless the Spurs find a another Leonard, super star type player in the draft to build around, how else are they going to build a contender?[/QUOTE]

[phxspurfan]

Forbes Mills Murray White Walker ... not much left tbh.


Team is about to go through The Process 2.0. And not by choice tbh

[DPG21920]

Is this sourced information?

We will see

[TD 21]

But they're not. They literally only had the same record last year. That's it. Besides that they're night and day.



Not really though. DeRozan could've definitely been flipped for assets had the Spurs wanted to go that route. If anything, they got more flexibility because they weren't forced to tank. They could've been even more aggressive in trying to compete with trades like the Kemba deal, but they backed off. They had option value they wouldn't've had had they just decided to tank. Plus, I'm not sure the other rebuilding packages were actually better. Keldon is a good player, and I doubt the Spurs would've been psychic and taken SGA or Porter over Lonnie had they gotten 10 or 12/13/.



They sky didn't fall. The more you freak out about that, the more you're showing why SA isn't in the same position as SAC. They were a stupid Murray play away from a play-in game this year. And this is the worst it's been for the Spurs for a long time. If the nadir for SA is the zenith for SAC, it's insane to argue they're the same.



You were just singing the praises of cap space earlier. What was that flexibility going to be used for if not extensions, meh signings or salary dumps? That's the reality of rebuilding. The difference is because the Spurs have good vets, they can instead use that cap space to try to get them help or dump them as good expirings for value like...



So you're saying the Spurs could end up getting a blue-chipper in the draft BECAUSE they have DeRozan on the team? Seems odd to argue that they should've taken picks instead of DeRozan when they can apparently trade him for a pick to pair with that other pick they already got in the trade and after having tried to compete for two years.

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.

Dejounte and Derrick are top 100, they would not generate much trade interest otherwise. You may not think they are but people in the NBA and analysts are treating them that way. For 29th picks they are exceeding expectations.

They didn't embarrass themselves the year they got in the playoffs, they went 7 games against the second seed. They got run in the bubble this year and is one win away from getting a play in game.
Sacramento hasn't made the playoffs in 14 years, that is embarrassing.

Yes every draft matters, but some drafts are safer. Is not trying to win games the best for the franchise? You can't just bottom out for a few years and expect to win right away. Since 1985 the only non returning top 4 pick that won a championship on the team that drafted them are David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Darko and Kyrie.

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.

Its the same reason why star players don't want to play in any small market in the NBA. Unless that small market has a superstar, most of the stars rather collude and play in L.A., or Miami, than stick it out in San Antonio, Utah, etc...Make up your mind. On one hand you just gave a valid reason why the Spurs cannot lure prime free agents to S.A., but then you say "they're still a laughing stock"? Besides the obvious one of Leonard forcing his way out of S.A, You gave the reason why, their small market size limits their ability to lure star free agents. hence their bad decisions, but unless the Spurs find a another Leonard, super star type player in the draft to build around, how else are they going to build a contender?

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.

[Dejounte]

I'm not going to participate in this overly rehashed argument (classic case of a topic that only exists because people can't see beyond a 3 year plan, as if world class organizations only plan for 3 years in advance...), but saying the Spurs won't lose because of their ego is far too simple of an answer. The answer is more layered than that, and to think otherwise is to think the Spurs are some small business run by an old grandpa. As much as people want to believe the Spurs are single handedly run by Pop, everything points to him letting others have a say and an opinion in major decisions... because that's what good leaders do. Proof is there from the past and in the present.

[rankingtear]

http://www.jonahlehrer.com/blog/2016...egy-in-the-nba

The punchline is clear: building through the draft is not a good idea. Based on the data, Motomura et al. conclude that “recent high draft picks do not help and often reduce improvement,” as teams with one additional draft pick between 4 and 10 can be expected to lose an additional 6 to 9 games three years later. Meanwhile, those teams lucky enough to have one of the first three picks should limit their expectations, as those picks tend to have “little or no impact” on team performance. The researchers are blunt: “Overall, having more picks in the Top 17 slots of the draft does not help and tends to be associated with less improvement.”

But this new study also finds franchise effects that exist independently of the general manager, as certain organizations are simply more likely to squeeze wins from their draft picks. The researchers credit these franchise differences largely to player development, especially when it comes to “developing players who might not have been highly regarded entering the NBA.” This is proof that “winning cultures” are a real thing, and that a select few NBA teams are able to consistently instill the habits required to maximize the talent of their players. Draft picks are nice. Organizations win championships. And tanking is no way to build an organization.

Although previous research by the sports economist Dave Berri has cast doubt on the effectiveness of tanking,” this new paper should remind every basketball GM that the best way to win over the long-term is to develop a culture that doesn’t try to lose.

[tbdog]

Finally science. tanking.

[DavidTheGoliath]

That said, some general managers appear to be far better at evaluating players. “While more and higher picks do not generally help teams, having better pickers does,” write the scientists. They find, for instance, that R.C. Buford, the GM of the Spurs, is worth an additional 23 to 29 wins per season. Compare that to the “Wins Over Replacement” generated by Stephen Curry, who has just finished one of the best regular season performances in NBA history. According to Basketball Reference, Curry was worth an additional 26.4 wins during the 2015-2016 regular season. If you believe these numbers, R.C. Buford is one of the most valuable (and underpaid) men in the NBA.

from the same link

[Robz4000]

Unfortunately RC isn't the GM anymore.

[exstatic]

Unfortunately RC isn't the GM anymore.

He wasn’t when we drafted Keldon, Lonnie,or White, either. Did you miss that whole part about player development and culture?

[Dejounte]

RC was still scouting Luka when he wasn't GM. He still scouts players.

[Chinook]

So besides the most recent evidence that says they are, they're somehow not. Got it.

It's like you saying, "Dogs and alligators both have four legs, so they're basically the same," and then cleaving to that point on matter what. Teams aren't the same just because they have same records. Why aren't they more like Portland, to whom they were just as close as they were to Sacramento? I doubt you'd equate those two teams and their make ups, but because the Kings are the more dire position, you'll force yourself to just see them.

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.).

SGA is hindsight. There were reports they wanted to trade into the top 10 for Walker. That would definitely suggest they have Lonnie on their board higher. You're correct that it's not guaranteed that those guys were not also in their top 10, but there's also no guarantee that Keldon is going to be worse than whomever the Spurs would've taken at 18 had they already have Walker at 10 or 12/13. Assuming the Spurs would not have drafted two two-guards in the same round, they'd be looking at guys like Huchison or Wagner. It doesn't seem to bad that they got Johnson instead.

And yes, DeRozan has limited value, but he had about as much value as Kawhi did at the time of the trade. That's why Toronto got Green, took bad no paid money, protected the out of their first and had the Spurs pay them the max allowed to cover the Kawh's kicker. Teams immediately called the Spurs trying to trade for DeRozan, and the Spurs said no. Maybe none of those deals were good, but they likely could've picked up at least an additional pick had they wanted to, in the same why it seems like they might be able to still have another first this year if they want.

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 know you're the king of thinking the worst-case scenario is always going to happen, but this isn't a butterfly-effect thing. Had the Spurs won that game, they would've gone into the final regular-season game against a resting Utah with a chance to make the play-in game. They pretty comfortably beat Houston and NOP. There's no reason to assume different outcomes there. If anything, their loss to Philly probably hurt them against during the next game against Denver.

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.

"Adding" is referring to Johnson, not moving up in this draft. Johnson directly did come from the Leonard trade. If the Spurs move up, get a blue-chipper and add that player to Johnson, and come out of this with cap space and young players, it seems like what you wanted them to do but also with them having had chances to "go for it" for two years. Trading for DeRozan gave them that flexibility, and apparently they still have it by your own admission. Yes, maybe they could've found a way to get a higher pick than 19 last year (I think they could've just by trading Poeltl, but that never happened) and targeted Hachimura/Doumbouya. You can argue though that taking Clarke at 10-14 would've been the play as much as taking him at 19, and if that were the only pick SA had last year, they would not have been able to swing around and draft Johnson.

[Seventyniner]

http://www.jonahlehrer.com/blog/2016...egy-in-the-nba

Draft picks are nice. Organizations win championships. And tanking is no way to build an organization.

That is a fantastic line.

[The Truth #6]

This debate has spiraled. The argument now seems to be about tanking versus not tanking. My point is that after Kawhi Leonard was destined to leave, the spurs were not going to be a great team for a while no matter what. It was a team of role players specifically and brilliantly built around a transcendent talent. So, if you can accept that the team was no longer contending in the short term, and headed towards sucking, then what do you with that situation?

Gutting the team to tank is not always a great idea, I agree. But we were no longer a great team and barely a good team. I believe in the Spurs organization to succeed in the long term, but I’m not drinking the DMDR Kool Aid being offered. They tried to keep the magic going. It didn’t work.

And my whole point might be this: by “tanking” by playing our young players we actually might have had a better record. The bubble gave a hint of that.

[TD 21]

It's like you saying, "Dogs and alligators both have four legs, so they're basically the same," and then cleaving to that point on matter what. Teams aren't the same just because they have same records. Why aren't they more like Portland, to whom they were just as close as they were to Sacramento? I doubt you'd equate those two teams and their make ups, but because the Kings are the more dire position, you'll force yourself to just see them.



SGA is hindsight. There were reports they wanted to trade into the top 10 for Walker. That would definitely suggest they have Lonnie on their board higher. You're correct that it's not guaranteed that those guys were not also in their top 10, but there's also no guarantee that Keldon is going to be worse than whomever the Spurs would've taken at 18 had they already have Walker at 10 or 12/13. Assuming the Spurs would not have drafted two two-guards in the same round, they'd be looking at guys like Huchison or Wagner. It doesn't seem to bad that they got Johnson instead.

And yes, DeRozan has limited value, but he had about as much value as Kawhi did at the time of the trade. That's why Toronto got Green, took bad no paid money, protected the out of their first and had the Spurs pay them the max allowed to cover the Kawh's kicker. Teams immediately called the Spurs trying to trade for DeRozan, and the Spurs said no. Maybe none of those deals were good, but they likely could've picked up at least an additional pick had they wanted to, in the same why it seems like they might be able to still have another first this year if they want.



I know you're the king of thinking the worst-case scenario is always going to happen, but this isn't a butterfly-effect thing. Had the Spurs won that game, they would've gone into the final regular-season game against a resting Utah with a chance to make the play-in game. They pretty comfortably beat Houston and NOP. There's no reason to assume different outcomes there. If anything, their loss to Philly probably hurt them against during the next game against Denver.



"Adding" is referring to Johnson, not moving up in this draft. Johnson directly did come from the Leonard trade. If the Spurs move up, get a blue-chipper and add that player to Johnson, and come out of this with cap space and young players, it seems like what you wanted them to do but also with them having had chances to "go for it" for two years. Trading for DeRozan gave them that flexibility, and apparently they still have it by your own admission. Yes, maybe they could've found a way to get a higher pick than 19 last year (I think they could've just by trading Poeltl, but that never happened) and targeted Hachimura/Doumbouya. You can argue though that taking Clarke at 10-14 would've been the play as much as taking him at 19, and if that were the only pick SA had last year, they would not have been able to swing around and draft Johnson.

You've admitted you don't really follow the league much outside of the Spurs, so take it from someone who does: The two teams had similar metrics, only the Kings best player/young talents missed significant amount of time, while the Spurs were mostly healthy. The Trail Blazers also had significant injuries. By the way, you brought up the Kings.

So now reports on the Spurs are credible if they support your argument. I wasn't even talking about them, just in general Gilgeous-Alexander was projected to go in the range he did.

DeRozan has less value than even that version of S bag did and I don't recall hearing of teams calling the Spurs about him immediately. No, the Raptors did that because the Spurs allowed them to. Sans Anunoby, they should have drawn the line at Gasol instead of gifting them Green.

I'm not thinking anything genius, I'm saying it's possible things would have played out differently. You're the one married to a certain scenario which again conveniently suits your argument.

Like I said, Johnson becoming a significant piece doesn't absolve them in the same way (Marc) Gasol didn't absolve the Grizzlies gifting the Lakers his brother because of the unlikelihood of landing such a piece at that stage of the draft. That's revisionist history and luck more than anything. They never had a chance to go for it. The fact that you thought this team could contend is bizarre.

[szkorhetz]

It's like you saying, "Dogs and alligators both have four legs, so they're basically the same," and then cleaving to that point on matter what. Teams aren't the same just because they have same records. Why aren't they more like Portland, to whom they were just as close as they were to Sacramento? I doubt you'd equate those two teams and their make ups, but because the Kings are the more dire position, you'll force yourself to just see them.



SGA is hindsight. There were reports they wanted to trade into the top 10 for Walker. That would definitely suggest they have Lonnie on their board higher. You're correct that it's not guaranteed that those guys were not also in their top 10, but there's also no guarantee that Keldon is going to be worse than whomever the Spurs would've taken at 18 had they already have Walker at 10 or 12/13. Assuming the Spurs would not have drafted two two-guards in the same round, they'd be looking at guys like Huchison or Wagner. It doesn't seem to bad that they got Johnson instead.

And yes, DeRozan has limited value, but he had about as much value as Kawhi did at the time of the trade. That's why Toronto got Green, took bad no paid money, protected the out of their first and had the Spurs pay them the max allowed to cover the Kawh's kicker. Teams immediately called the Spurs trying to trade for DeRozan, and the Spurs said no. Maybe none of those deals were good, but they likely could've picked up at least an additional pick had they wanted to, in the same why it seems like they might be able to still have another first this year if they want.



I know you're the king of thinking the worst-case scenario is always going to happen, but this isn't a butterfly-effect thing. Had the Spurs won that game, they would've gone into the final regular-season game against a resting Utah with a chance to make the play-in game. They pretty comfortably beat Houston and NOP. There's no reason to assume different outcomes there. If anything, their loss to Philly probably hurt them against during the next game against Denver.



"Adding" is referring to Johnson, not moving up in this draft. Johnson directly did come from the Leonard trade. If the Spurs move up, get a blue-chipper and add that player to Johnson, and come out of this with cap space and young players, it seems like what you wanted them to do but also with them having had chances to "go for it" for two years. Trading for DeRozan gave them that flexibility, and apparently they still have it by your own admission. Yes, maybe they could've found a way to get a higher pick than 19 last year (I think they could've just by trading Poeltl, but that never happened) and targeted Hachimura/Doumbouya. You can argue though that taking Clarke at 10-14 would've been the play as much as taking him at 19, and if that were the only pick SA had last year, they would not have been able to swing around and draft Johnson.

Stopped reading at your opinion stating DDR and Kawhi had the same value. Kawhi was in the MVP discussion a season ago, while being the best two-way player in the league, but DDR is an overpriced, no defense, no clutch, mid range chucker.

[Dejounte]

Stopped reading at your opinion stating DDR and Kawhi had the same value. Kawhi was in the MVP discussion a season ago, while being the best two-way player in the league, but DDR is an overpriced, no defense, no clutch, mid range chucker.

You shouldn't have stopped... because you're missing the context of his point:

"And yes, DeRozan has limited value, but he had about as much value as Kawhi did at the time of the trade"

[Chinook]

Stopped reading at your opinion stating DDR and Kawhi had the same value. Kawhi was in the MVP discussion a season ago, while being the best two-way player in the league, but DDR is an overpriced, no defense, no clutch, mid range chucker.

Feel like you read enough to have a sense of what I mean, and you were around long enough to have been here during the Leonard trade. You should know empirically that Leonard's trade value was because he was injured (and hamming that up) and said he wouldn't re-sign. DMDR by contrast had three years left of team control, was a relative iron man and was seen as the best player on a consistent playoff team. Yes, he had flaws, but he wasn't the type of player just anyone had. Most of the best offers were from teams in the East, and I could imagine Toronto didn't want to send DeMar there, and there was a rumor they were looking for a top-10 pick in the draft. My assumption is that the Spurs were looking to acquire DeRozan to add to Leoanrd and Aldridge using 18, Green and Gasol and probably some other incentive. That's an overpayment in my book, but an offer like that from SA is probably why the LA teams weren't able to get DeRozan in a trade either. That Spurs offer is probably comparable or better than the other offers like including Deng.

I think DeRozan still has more value than people realize, but he certain did have a decent amount back then, warts and all, and it's not hard to see Kawhi's value being lower than a lot of players who aren't as good as him because of the Lakers' tampering.

[ace3g]

Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn
38m
ESPN reporting with @WindhorstESPN, @ZachLowe_NBA and me on NBA Board of Governors meeting underway today to discuss plans for 2020-21 season, including possible start date as soon as Christmas Day: es.pn/35rulPN

[Robz4000]

He wasn’t when we drafted Keldon, Lonnie,or White, either. Did you miss that whole part about player development and culture?

RC officially stepped down as GM last offseason. Maybe unofficially he had turned over the reigns earlier, but from here on its Wright at the helms aka the mastermind behind the DeRozan deal.

[Degoat]

Plz give us Christmas Day start!!! I need basketball in my life lol