Is Harden playing this weekend?

[$pursDynasty]

Kyrie/Harden/Durant - In NY

This, they better hire a whole team of sports psychologists for this dumpster fire. I was thinking Dwight but the Howard/Harden experiment has already failed. Who knows maybe this will go soooo bad KD will consider coming to SA for a team with a media cone of silence around it, in his home state of Texas.

[$pursDynasty]

Mr Burner Account, the Bearded Strip Club All Star and the Flat Earther, what could go wrong here? At least they won't have to worry about these ultra sensitive types rubbing off on their younger players because, now they have given all their younger players away.

[GreekSpursfan]

If they don't add more defensive pieces I don't see them even getting out of the second round. The Heat, Sixers, Celtics, and Bucks will give them problems.

I think they will make moves for sure.

[Chinook]

So what would folks be willing to give up for Ben Simmons?

On paper, he's basically exactly what the young core of the Spurs need. He'd fit in great with guys like Walker, Johnson, Vassell and White. His fit with Murray is awkward but workable. His fit with Poeltl would be dicier, but they have the IQs to make it work. Obviously, any legit offer for Simmons would require that multiple players from that group, along with some of the vets and maybe quite a few picks are moved. But it could certainly speed up the rebuild... or I guess it could also backfire pretty badly if Simmons never improves or matures and the team trades away too many future pieces/takes back too much bad money. Still, depending on who the Spurs would be able to keep for the post-trade roster, it could wind up being worth the risk.

[mo7888]

So what would folks be willing to give up for Ben Simmons?

On paper, he's basically exactly what the young core of the Spurs need. He'd fit in great with guys like Walker, Johnson, Vassell and White. His fit with Murray is awkward but workable. His fit with Poeltl would be dicier, but they have the IQs to make it work. Obviously, any legit offer for Simmons would require that multiple players from that group, along with some of the vets and maybe quite a few picks are moved. But it could certainly speed up the rebuild... or I guess it could also backfire pretty badly if Simmons never improves or matures and the team trades away too many future pieces/takes back too much bad money. Still, depending on who the Spurs would be able to keep for the post-trade roster, it could wind up being worth the risk.

I've been trying to figure out what player we could get that could guard 4's and Simmons does fit the bill. I do think he's risky though and I doubt I'd be willing to give up enough to entice Morey (unless Morey really wants him gone due to his lack of a 3 pt shot. So for me, I'd only be willing to give a package around vets and picks. The only young guys I'd be willing to include would be Luka and Jones or DJ.

I'm hoping Siakam decides he wants out and maybe we could get in on that. I'd also look at Bagley (depending on what his agent thinks he's worth next year).

[Mugen]

So what would folks be willing to give up for Ben Simmons?

On paper, he's basically exactly what the young core of the Spurs need. He'd fit in great with guys like Walker, Johnson, Vassell and White. His fit with Murray is awkward but workable. His fit with Poeltl would be dicier, but they have the IQs to make it work. Obviously, any legit offer for Simmons would require that multiple players from that group, along with some of the vets and maybe quite a few picks are moved. But it could certainly speed up the rebuild... or I guess it could also backfire pretty badly if Simmons never improves or matures and the team trades away too many future pieces/takes back too much bad money. Still, depending on who the Spurs would be able to keep for the post-trade roster, it could wind up being worth the risk.

I'd do Murray/Derozan/2021 1st for him. Doubt that'd be enough tho.

I think the only "untouchables" on this team right now is White + Keldon. I'm quite biased towards Lonnie and would probably put him in that group as well.

I would disagree on the price for Simmons being that high, but granted I'm not that high on him overall as an alpha dog.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Would Simmons even want to be in SA?

I'm not convinced his impact would be big enough to offset the value of players going the other way, let alone the future picks that'd be required. It's not like he'd be the missing piece making SA a championship contender.

[DAF86]

I guess I could do DeRozan for Simmons straight up. That mortally flawed Aussie isn't worth anything else, tbh.

[NASpurs]

“Hopefully Chip fixes his jumper “ is why you trade for him

[Sugus]

So what would folks be willing to give up for Ben Simmons?

On paper, he's basically exactly what the young core of the Spurs need. He'd fit in great with guys like Walker, Johnson, Vassell and White. His fit with Murray is awkward but workable. His fit with Poeltl would be dicier, but they have the IQs to make it work. Obviously, any legit offer for Simmons would require that multiple players from that group, along with some of the vets and maybe quite a few picks are moved. But it could certainly speed up the rebuild... or I guess it could also backfire pretty badly if Simmons never improves or matures and the team trades away too many future pieces/takes back too much bad money. Still, depending on who the Spurs would be able to keep for the post-trade roster, it could wind up being worth the risk.

I'm really tempted to say "nothing", tbh, I really don't like Simmons' game. He's flawed as a player even worse than DeMar, and probably won't ever be a closer or go-to guy, which this team will sorely need after DD leaves/is traded. Of course, the hope and expectation is that one of our own youngings can grow into that role - but how many of the youngings would we have left if we were to trade for Ben? Mugen's offer won't cut it at all - you're looking at a minimum asking price of at least 2 picks, likely unprotected, our best young prospect (either Keldon or Lonnie depending on how the season goes), and probably another roleplayer or so. For as much as I don't like Simmons, he's already looking like a perennial All-Star at only 24yo, is one of the best defensive and most versatile players in the league, and is on contract for the next 5 years. Thinking Philly would give him up for an expiring DD and a middling prospect like DJ is...... naive and homer.

I don't really think any package that Philly would listen to, would be worth the loss of assets from the Spurs' position. Not for a flawed player like Simmons, at least.

[TD 21]

The Spurs don't have the assets to acquire Simmons. They were willing to trade him for a superstar and might be for a better fitting star (Beal), but it's not like they're looking to trade him period, especially for spare parts.

This is what I mean by people overvaluing the Spurs' assets/youth. They don't have the centerpiece necessary to even get in the game for a superstar/star.

[Chinook]

The Spurs don't have the assets to acquire Simmons. They were willing to trade him for a superstar and might be for a better fitting star (Beal), but it's not like they're looking to trade him period, especially for spare parts.

This is what I mean by people overvaluing the Spurs' assets/youth. They don't have the centerpiece necessary to even get in the game for a superstar/star.

I think this is obviously wrong. The Nets package that just acquired Harden was not beyond the Spurs' capacity to offer, and everyone considers Simmons worth less than Harden. When you start trying to push guys like Levert as being untouchably more valuable than the Spurs' players you go from potential overvaluing SA's guys to undervaluing them. Caris is a net-negative, oft injured player. He definitely doesn't have more value than Murray right now. Allen was valuable, but he just got a late-first from Houston's perspective, and the Spurs should be able to do something similar with one of their non-Murray prospects. Then you just have the swaps and picks, which of course SA could offer just as easily as Brooklyn did. Then you add to all of that expirings who are good players and the ability to take back bad money, and you definitely have a lot of buying power.

I agree that:

1 -- Philly might not want that for Simmons

and

2 -- Going all out might not be something SA should do

But they clearly COULD offer a credible package for a superstar, just as MKE did for Holiday and Houston did for Westbrook. Giving up that many picks in a row is incredibly valuable, no matter what team is doing it. And if that team is likely to be no better than a darkhorse contender even after the trade like SA would, then all the better.

[TD 21]

I think this is obviously wrong. The Nets package that just acquired Harden was not beyond the Spurs' capacity to offer, and everyone considers Simmons worth less than Harden. When you start trying to push guys like Levert as being untouchably more valuable than the Spurs' players you go from potential overvaluing SA's guys to undervaluing them. Caris is a net-negative, oft injured player. He definitely doesn't have more value than Murray right now. Allen was valuable, but he just got a late-first from Houston's perspective, and the Spurs should be able to do something similar with one of their non-Murray prospects. Then you just have the swaps and picks, which of course SA could offer just as easily as Brooklyn did. Then you add to all of that expirings who are good players and the ability to take back bad money, and you definitely have a lot of buying power.

I agree that:

1 -- Philly might not want that for Simmons

and

2 -- Going all out might not be something SA should do

But they clearly COULD offer a credible package for a superstar, just as MKE did for Holiday and Houston did for Westbrook. Giving up that many picks in a row is incredibly valuable, no matter what team is doing it. And if that team is likely to be no better than a darkhorse contender even after the trade like SA would, then all the better.

No, it's spot on. Simmons isn't available in the way you're making it seem and there's nothing the Spurs could offer to get him.

The Nets' package is better than the Spurs theoretical one you proposed. LeVert is one of the most overrated players in the league, but as a pseudo go-to creator type on offense, he definitely has more value than a supposed PG who can't fill that role or shoot.

Holiday was never a superstar and Westbrook wasn't at the time of either of his trades.

[Chinook]

No, it's spot on. Simmons isn't available in the way you're making it seem and there's nothing the Spurs could offer to get him.

I'm not making it seem like anything. You're conflating the possibility that Philly only wants to upgrade Simmons with the idea that the Spurs don't have enough value for him. SA not being able to get Simmons isn't because fans overrate young players. For someone who complained about folks coming at him combatively, you like to put in a lot of combative overtones in your words. The strict text of what you say might not be trying to diss the Spurs or their fans, but as soon as you start expanding upon it, it immediately goes into some criticism of one or the other.

The Nets' package is better than the Spurs theoretical one you proposed. LeVert is one of the most overrated players in the league, but as a pseudo go-to creator type on offense, he definitely has more value than a supposed PG who can't fill that role or shoot.

I don't see this as very defensible. Levert potentially being more highly value (though obviously not since Houston moved him for a guy they apparently are going to dump for a pick and Iggy), doesn't make him a better asset. Murray pretty comfortably out-performs him, and by that same token, your framing of DJM ignores that dude is still highly thought over around the league. The Spurs' picks are almost certainly more valuable than the same from Brooklyn given their current rosters, and the lack of bad money going out in the deal probably lets Houston keep some of the value they had to pay to not have Prince on the team. The Spurs' package is better.

Holiday was never a superstar and Westbrook wasn't at the time of either of his trades.

Eh, they were both stars, and their packages were considered massive overpays anyway. They leveraged desperate teams. Those were definitely superstar packages in any modern sense.

[TD 21]

I'm not making it seem like anything. You're conflating the possibility that Philly only wants to upgrade Simmons with the idea that the Spurs don't have enough value for him. SA not being able to get Simmons isn't because fans overrate young players. For someone who complained about folks coming at him combatively, you like to put in a lot of combative overtones in your words. The strict text of what you say might not be trying to diss the Spurs or their fans, but as soon as you start expanding upon it, it immediately goes into some criticism of one or the other.



I don't see this as very defensible. Levert potentially being more highly value (though obviously not since Houston moved him for a guy they apparently are going to dump for a pick and Iggy), doesn't make him a better asset. Murray pretty comfortably out-performs him, and by that same token, your framing of DJM ignores that dude is still highly thought over around the league. The Spurs' picks are almost certainly more valuable than the same from Brooklyn given their current rosters, and the lack of bad money going out in the deal probably lets Houston keep some of the value they had to pay to not have Prince on the team. The Spurs' package is better.



Eh, they were both stars, and their packages were considered massive overpays anyway. They leveraged desperate teams. Those were definitely superstar packages in any modern sense.

You are, by framing this as if it's an actual possibility. The 76ers aren't rebuilding, they're in win now mode. B and C prospects and picks aren't going to do it for them. I see no combative overtones, you just have trouble dealing with people who know more than you about a particular subject.

Now you're into semantics. Rightly or wrongly, LeVert is more valuable because he can serve as a lead creator, which is the most valuable role in the sport and the one teams (especially if they lack an internal option) almost always prioritize in superstar/star trades.

There has never been evidence of Murray being highly thought of around the league (but there's plenty of evidence of his archetype not being thought of highly). Out of touch national media types regurgigating something from a few years ago doesn't qualify. The Nets picks on the back end could prove very valuable.

That's different than what you initially said and either way, the Spurs don't leverage teams, they get leveraged.

[Chinook]

You are, by framing this as if it's an actual possibility.

What Spurs fans would be willing to pay for Simmons is completely separate from the belief that Philly would not deal him.

I see no combative overtones, you just have trouble dealing with people who know more than you about a particular subject.

I'm sure you're aware of the irony in these two sentences.

Now you're into semantics. Rightly or wrongly, LeVert is more valuable because he can serve as a lead creator, which is the most valuable role in the sport and the one teams (especially if they lack an internal option) almost always prioritize in superstar/star trades.

I'm saying that you, TD21 are making a claim that's logically inconsistent. You're judging Levert by his "perceived" value and Murray by his "actual" value. Murray has a "perceived" value too, and it's way higher than you suggest, hence the Hawks wanting him to move up in the draft and the Spurs refusing. That's all we've heard on Murray. For Levert, what we saw is that Houston didn't value him at all. So, yeah, I don't think CL wins there. And in terms of real value, it's not close either.

I'll see you concede the rest of the package is better, though, and considering that Houston didn't want Levert and the Spurs could've easily subs uted someone like Mills in place of Murray, and it's even clearer than the Spurs could've offered more.

There has never been evidence of Murray being highly thought of around the league (but there's plenty of evidence of his archetype not being thought of highly). Out of touch national media types regurgigating something from a few years ago doesn't qualify. The Nets picks on the back end could prove very valuab

Come on, man. I assumed you weren't going to rebut this because of how you usually format your responses, but this isn't a strong counter. Murray and his archetype are both valued highly right now. Just look at Smart apparently being worth more than the second-overall pick and cap space. DJM isn't worth that much, but he doesn't have to be to be worth more than Levert. There's no reason to believe the Nets picks, back-end or otherwise, are more valuable than the ones SA would be offering. Depending on what else SA offered, they might be a lotto team even after this deal.

That's different than what you initially said and either way, the Spurs don't leverage teams, they get leveraged.

No, it's not. I said they had the firepower to make an offer to a superstar. Talking about teams with less firepower getting stars and it being considered an overpay doesn't contradict that. And I'm basically conceding the point about stars just because I think it's an irrelevant distinction.

But again, you can't go more than one line of expansion without finding a way to criticize the Spurs or their fans. This has nothing to do with how much STers would offer for Simmons.

[TD 21]

What Spurs fans would be willing to pay for Simmons is completely separate from the belief that Philly would not deal him.



I'm sure you're aware of the irony in these two sentences.



I'm saying that you, TD21 are making a claim that's logically inconsistent. You're judging Levert by his "perceived" value and Murray by his "actual" value. Murray has a "perceived" value too, and it's way higher than you suggest, hence the Hawks wanting him to move up in the draft and the Spurs refusing. That's all we've heard on Murray. For Levert, what we saw is that Houston didn't value him at all. So, yeah, I don't think CL wins there. And in terms of real value, it's not close either.

I'll see you concede the rest of the package is better, though, and considering that Houston didn't want Levert and the Spurs could've easily subs uted someone like Mills in place of Murray, and it's even clearer than the Spurs could've offered more.



Come on, man. I assumed you weren't going to rebut this because of how you usually format your responses, but this isn't a strong counter. Murray and his archetype are both valued highly right now. Just look at Smart apparently being worth more than the second-overall pick and cap space. DJM isn't worth that much, but he doesn't have to be to be worth more than Levert. There's no reason to believe the Nets picks, back-end or otherwise, are more valuable than the ones SA would be offering. Depending on what else SA offered, they might be a lotto team even after this deal.



No, it's not. I said they had the firepower to make an offer to a superstar. Talking about teams with less firepower getting stars and it being considered an overpay doesn't contradict that. And I'm basically conceding the point about stars just because I think it's an irrelevant distinction.

But again, you can't go more than one line of expansion without finding a way to criticize the Spurs or their fans. This has nothing to do with how much STers would offer for Simmons.

Agreed, but you conveniently left out the most important part of that: They'd trade him for a superstar or possibility a better fitting star. The Spurs don't have either of those two things.

There is none. I'm knowledgeable about this league and I don't suffer fools, which tends to rub some the wrong way.

No, I'm judging LeVert by his actual value, which was as a key piece to facilitating this trade (and one I'm confident Murray wouldn't have been able to fill). That the Rockets didn't want him isn't particularly important. The Hawks rumors were just that and either way, we don't know which of the youth they preferred (my guess wouldn't be Murray) and a willingness to move down 5 in a supposed weak draft isn't akin to this.

Smart is a volume 3-point shooter and 4 position defender. Murray's archetype is the likes of Dunn, Ntilikina, Carter-Williams, etc. Smart was worth more than that given the Celtics context and state of the top of this draft. Spurs are in conference and lack a centerpiece, a combination that automatically disqualifies them in a trade of this magnitude.

It's not an irrelevant distinction and your constant complaints of me have nothing to do with this.

[ace3g]

[Robz4000]

Jesus Christ

[NASpurs]

That's ing nuts. When being traded to another team and getting a physical probably saved your life.

[daslicer]

That's ing nuts. When being traded to another team and getting a physical probably saved your life.

I was about to say the same thing. Levert might have been bitter originally about going to Indiana but he will end up being thankful this trade happen. Harden’s selfishness may have ended up indirectly saving Levert’s life.