Stein: Chatter Circulating About The Spurs' Attempts To "Barge" Their Way Into Simmons Sweepstakes

[Sugus]

I did want Simmons. I was wrong, both because Murray and another gear and because Simmons' transmission broke. Honestly I'd still take Ben, especially if they're moving Poeltl, and I am still glad Murray's gone. But the Spurs would've been multiple firsts in the whole had they listened to me.

I also wanted to trade Murray and Aldridge in 2020 to move up and draft Obi Toppin. I also wanted to trade Bonner and a first for Derrick Williams back in the day and loved Bagley in the 2018 draft. I really wanted a high-pedigree PF for many years, and it led me astray many multiple times.

Big ups for owning up to your mistakes, Chino. The forum would be much better if everyone had your self-reflection. The desperate need for a PF has indeed led many of us to the worst of shores (I was a Samanic truther once upon a time, myself, yuck).

No way I'm taking Ben though, even now, unless he's coming with at least an unprotected FRP a few years into the future. He's bad on offense, maybe worse than Poeltl himself in terms of spacing and offensive contributions, and worse of all he's mentally shot and broken. I wouldn't gamble the smallest chip on the chance that he "works it out" and turns into rookie-Simmons ever again, or a level even close to that.

[KingKev]

Murray + Thad + Jakob + CHI 1st + top 14 protected SA 1st

wowzers

[KingKev]

Still think this is about as far as the Spurs would go . . .

76ers: Murray, Dragic, Spurs top 1-3 protected '22 1st, Suns lottery protected '23 1st, Bulls '25 1st and 2nd

Suns: Young

Spurs: Simmons, Milton, Saric

Raptors: Walker IV, Aminu, Hutchison, Smith

Johnson/Samanic/Bates-Diop?/Saric
McDermott/Vassell/Wieskamp
Poeltl/Eubanks/Landale/Collins
White/Forbes/Primo
Simmons/Milton/Jones

[Ariel]

Right now Simmons is the best paid NBA player impersonator on the planet. Who'd have thought that a few years ago?

[Bill_Brasky]

God damn this guy sucks.

[Chinook]

We will be having this argument until the end of time lol….players being worth their deals just for playing our their contract vs having a bigger picture asset mentality in mind

That's not our conflict. Our conflict is whether to have players who can help develop other guys and make the product watchable versus thinking the only thing of value is what they could get on the resale market. In the other thread you criticized me for accusing you for thinking the Spurs needed to "get something" for Poeltl while telling another poster that Spurs should be focused on getting something from Poeltl, Richardson and McDermott. I think you believe you have a more nuanced position than it is.

Like in the case of the things you quoted, I'm very clearly talking about a direct plan to competing/contending. It's not any more nebulous than "drafting a superstar". Trading for a star, drafting one or signing one in free agency are all paths teams can take. None is more sound than the other on it's face. Trading is the only one where you're both guaranteed to get a star (since they've already developed) and that isn't dependent on being in a good location.

If Simmons were still in his prime and not fallen off completely, the Spurs would be fine after the proposed trade. We know they missed out on a lot now, but they'd have an All-Star with some good players like Keldon and Vassell, significant cap space and all of their future picks. We would've looked at Murray likely being a good player for the Sixers and wondered if it were the right deal, but the position the team would be in would still be fine. Just as Simmons ended up busting, Wemby could bust, as well as the next guy the Spurs draft. They can't constantly liquidate their roster forever at the expense of the on-court product.

In reality, I was wrong about Simmons. He regressed. But being able to be aggressive in trading for stars is why you keep the contracts in the first place. Having really good ballast is worth not getting a random second-round pick.

[Mr. Body]

Simmons, as a supposed top-1 pick in a draft, failed to get his college team even into the NCAAT. That's a really terrible sign about work ethic and game impact. At this point, it's even worse. The guy is a complete mess psychologically.

[JPB]

It's crazy that they're refusing to trade Simmons for the best package available to fill their roster out and compete in a year with no clear cut le favorite. This is the year to go all in. There is no super GS team, BKN is gimped, LAL will be lucky to make the 2nd round...this is the time to capitalize and make a move. Lol at Morey content to do nothing because he thinks somehow Simmons value will get better over time

Their fans are just as re ed and delusional too. Go on any 6ers forum and look at the deals they're discussing for Simmons they still think they're getting Dame or Beal

Almost as hilarious as 2 FRPs for Poodle tbh.

[JPB]

To be fair, I just wanted to trade Murray. I didn’t know the Hawks package was available. I wanted a Ben for Murray swap bc Murray isn’t a winning player and not worth 40 million a year. I’m glad we didn’t do it but I’m also glad we traded Murray. But paying Ben $36 million wouldn’t have hurt this team in any way shape or form. He would’ve added to the tanking and we have a lot of money to spend anyways. Once we get Victor, I would like for us to go big and over pay for a secondary star player (like the Pels did with CJ).

Same for me. I we luck into the alien, immediately give the big bag to a star guard or swingman willing to come in what should become one of most attractive teams in the NBA with a lot of media and world wide attention... Don't mess with that and give Wemby an already compe ive team from Day 1, not a contender yet but not a team who'll get dismantled evey night. Put a real show out there.

[spurraider21]

I was wrong. Didn’t realize how broken simmons was. If we were getting sixers simmons it would have still been good. But Murray also improved more than anybody really thought.

[FutureMan]

I didn’t want Simmons then. But I’ll take him now….. for Brooklyn’s unprotected 2028 pick, Philly’s lightly protected pick in 2027, and a pick swap with Brooklyn in 2029

[scott]

Shout out to those who saw that Simmons sucks and DJM was better. And by those, I mean me. Bow down, es.

[DPG21920]

Have you not done the same thing with your praise in the dynamic duo of Keldon Johnson and Devin Vassell?

Elaborate how thinking our draft picks have done very well and leaped beyond their value of where they were drafted comparatively is the same/comparable to spending picks to trade for players or signing them to large deals in free agency?

I’m saying there will pretty much always be a legit price low enough to where a gamble is worth it. What some were talking about with Simmons was so far off of that or what would realistically get a deal done.

[DPG21920]

That's not our conflict. Our conflict is whether to have players who can help develop other guys and make the product watchable versus thinking the only thing of value is what they could get on the resale market. In the other thread you criticized me for accusing you for thinking the Spurs needed to "get something" for Poeltl while telling another poster that Spurs should be focused on getting something from Poeltl, Richardson and McDermott. I think you believe you have a more nuanced position than it is.

Like in the case of the things you quoted, I'm very clearly talking about a direct plan to competing/contending. It's not any more nebulous than "drafting a superstar". Trading for a star, drafting one or signing one in free agency are all paths teams can take. None is more sound than the other on it's face. Trading is the only one where you're both guaranteed to get a star (since they've already developed) and that isn't dependent on being in a good location.

If Simmons were still in his prime and not fallen off completely, the Spurs would be fine after the proposed trade. We know they missed out on a lot now, but they'd have an All-Star with some good players like Keldon and Vassell, significant cap space and all of their future picks. We would've looked at Murray likely being a good player for the Sixers and wondered if it were the right deal, but the position the team would be in would still be fine. Just as Simmons ended up busting, Wemby could bust, as well as the next guy the Spurs draft. They can't constantly liquidate their roster forever at the expense of the on-court product.

In reality, I was wrong about Simmons. He regressed. But being able to be aggressive in trading for stars is why you keep the contracts in the first place. Having really good ballast is worth not getting a random second-round pick.

That again is incorrect. I value mentoring. Product isn’t watchable anyways so I don’t get your point there. I just don’t value mentoring so much that you overpay because you can with no regard as using them as trade assets.

I said, many times, Josh and Doug were the priorities in a trade. Not Jak. But that absolutely Jak should be on the table because 1) if they get a great offer he should be and 2) he’s the oldest of the core and a non-scoring Center and paying those types 20M when you may suck like this for 2 more years may not be optimal path (even after acknowledging like 100 times that its still an “ok” path)

In the post I quoted, it was you again arguing the same things I said; me worried about future value/resale and you arguing that it does not matter and all that matters is him playing his deal out and nothing else. If you didn’t know that was the crux of my debate with you, it should be very clear now.

EDIT: I even have agreed with what you said with regards to trying to trade for an all star etc…I said it in this thread even about the logic of using Murray/White but keeping all the other youth. I can compartmentalize two things: discussing what if’s like that & balancing my personal wants/fears with regards to HOW I THINK SA should be operating/my player evaluation (which is why I said in the post I quoted that I don’t think the risk/reward was good trading for Simmons because he sucks and with what SA would give up (Murray who netted us 3 picks from ATL) might not be recouped and we could be stuck with Ben and I saw that risk clearly and you didn’t and don’t with guys like Doug etc..

[DPG21920]

wowzers

Bruh - you read my posts on the matter lol? The context is me NOT being keen on trading for Ben unless he was basically free. That stuff was discussion on what it would take IF SA (not me) was interested at the time.

[DPG21920]

I am fine with this more than the other one since we don’t eat Saric, keep Lonnie and only give up one actual Spurs pick vs 2. My only beef is Vassell. I am pretty high on him. I am not so high on Simmons personally.

But this type of package seems like the right type.

I personally would be fighting to keep all the youth except Murray out although ultimately you are correct; if SA likes Simmons and truly believes in him keeping one more young player won’t be franchise altering. Especially if they only give up one of their own picks (and can protect it).

But I would love to swap Jakob for Vassell here…to me that would be the perfect trade: Murray/Jakob/Thad/Chi 1st/SA 22’nd

Ultimately I personally prefer they do no trade for Simmons though. I would understand it if they do and it’s in this type of deal, but I would prefer they do not.

The question for me is if they did the trade and if Simmons didn’t work out - do we think SA would be able to recoup one or two of the firsts they gave up by flipping Simmons to another team?

This is pretty clear summary of my view at the time doing exactly what I said we argue about: compartmentalization of what you are saying and seeing that angle, but disagreeing with your player evaluation, where I rank our youth in comparison and always having an eye on future trade value/concerns

[DPG21920]

Maybe - but I am talking about how Simmons is viewed. In theory hes’ all of those things now and PHI doesn’t want him and he’s not getting big offers (that we know of). A big part of how fans and more importantly teams view him is still discussed in the lenses of “untapped potential” and “can fix his shot”.

If that narrative dies, I dont think hes worth his deal at all especially if you dont have the team success that PHI had to bolster any arguments. You may not agree with that and part of this is speculative, but my gut says many teams view him in the framework I presented and that represents risk to me that needs to be considered to the downside (meaning can you recoup picks if you dont like what you see when you’re up close and personal and giving away multiple firsts)

Seems obvious now tbh..

[Chinook]

That again is incorrect. I value mentoring.

No you don't. If you value something, you don't throw it away and replace it with "whatever". If guys who can't play are just as good, then they could save on salary space by hiring coaches.

Product isn’t watchable

YOU don't want to watch it. That's fine. But to me, this team is far from unwatchable. Are they my sole go-to for entertainment? No. But I have enjoyed a lot of the games this year (helps because I don't meltdown when they managed to win a game), and Richardson and McDermott have been big parts to many of those games. I don't think I could watch Houston.

I just don’t value mentoring so much that you overpay because you can with no regard as using them as trade assets.

We've gone over why not "overpaying" means that the better players just go elsewhere. The Spurs don't have much to lure free agents right now except money, and they have money they literally can't use any other way. I also don't think there's a good argument for McDermott being overpaid besides "I think Doug sucks and didn't want the Spurs to pay for him." He got a contract in line with the market. Some of the better teams were limited in what they could give him, but if the Spurs had only offered the MLE, he'd be somewhere else. Other teams paid as much or more for their shooters.

I said, many times, Josh and Doug were the priorities in a trade. Not Jak.

This isn't the defense you think it is. "I wanted to trade these two more" isn't what the hinge point of our discussion is. That's fake nuance. Our disagreement is if the Spurs have to only care about trade value -- if they're failing at their job if they let guys expire or sign guys without their immediate trade market in mind. The reason why I jumped in was because you suggested the Spurs should have "learned" their lesson from the McDermott signing, when that signing has been exactly what anyone could've expected. And because people were "meh Doug's on the team" or "his shooting is nice, and his D helps the tank" rather than just being mad at the FO for still having him on the roster is why you thought you were in the minority of folks who didn't like the signing. Most people didn't like the signing, but most people just didn't have the same reasoning for not liking it that you did. No biggie. We all have our own wishes for the team. But it's not like your reasoning has born out to the exclusion of the others, which I think is why so many of us were confused by you connecting it to Poeltl being re-signed for market value.

I think we all agree Poeltl should be on the table, but the Spurs should have a high price for him and an actual price for the other guys, because they're all adding value to the team by being around. It's not the highest for someone like Doug, but it's there.

[KingKev]

I’m fine if Sa does this but not at the costs reported. If it’s Thad + Murray + 2 picks. Ok I can see it.

[DPG21920]

No you don't. If you value something, you don't throw it away and replace it with "whatever". If guys who can't play are just as good, then they could save on salary space by hiring coaches.

I do value it. You can keep screaming I don’t when I say I do. Makes you look close minded vs having an honest debate because you don’t like my view on things. If you cant grasp what and how I value mentoring that’s on you and I cant force you to see it.

YOU don't want to watch it. That's fine. But to me, this team is far from unwatchable. Are they my sole go-to for entertainment? No. But I have enjoyed a lot of the games this year (helps because I don't meltdown when they managed to win a game), and Richardson and McDermott have been big parts to many of those games. I don't think I could watch Houston.

LMAO I have season tickets and go to damn near every game that is an absurd thing to say because again you are making it personal about me vs understanding I am talking globally here. I love the team and it’s not because of DOUG and JOSH lol. You could replace them with plenty of other guys on one or two year deals max and get same result and same mentoring IMO. I’m saying it’s not like attendance is top of league and we are all over national tv. By and large, even many of our fans who ARENT ME, think it’s unwatchable so that’s just a throw away portion of your argument there for me personally. Does not really add any sort of relevance to the discussion - but I do agree you need vets and mentors so you don’t turn into HOU from a developmental perspective.

We've gone over why not "overpaying" means that the better players just go elsewhere. The Spurs don't have much to lure free agents right now except money, and they have money they literally can't use any other way. I also don't think there's a good argument for McDermott being overpaid besides "I think Doug sucks and didn't want the Spurs to pay for him." He got a contract in line with the market. Some of the better teams were limited in what they could give him, but if the Spurs had only offered the MLE, he'd be somewhere else. Other teams paid as much or more for their shooters.

I don’t agree he got a deal in line with market or else with how you are saying “Spurs can overpay” and how he’s lived up to everything he was supposed to be because if that were true he would be a CLEAR + in trade value? Do you think that’s the case? Also you said earlier everyone agreed with me about hating that deal. So everyone hated it but he was paid fairly and now is an irreplaceable mentor somehow? How do you reconcile that? Why did everyone hate the deal like me then?

This isn't the defense you think it is. "I wanted to trade these two more" isn't what the hinge point of our discussion is. That's fake nuance. Our disagreement is if the Spurs have to only care about trade value -- if they're failing at their job if they let guys expire or sign guys without their immediate trade market in mind. The reason why I jumped in was because you suggested the Spurs should have "learned" their lesson from the McDermott signing, when that signing has been exactly what anyone could've expected. And because people were "meh Doug's on the team" or "his shooting is nice, and his D helps the tank" rather than just being mad at the FO for still having him on the roster is why you thought you were in the minority of folks who didn't like the signing. Most people didn't like the signing, but most people just didn't have the same reasoning for not liking it that you did. No biggie. We all have our own wishes for the team. But it's not like your reasoning has born out to the exclusion of the others, which I think is why so many of us were confused by you connecting it to Poeltl being re-signed for market value.

I think we all agree Poeltl should be on the table, but the Spurs should have a high price for him and an actual price for the other guys, because they're all adding value to the team by being around. It's not the highest for someone like Doug, but it's there.

I agree Jak should be higher valued and keeping him poses less risk than signing Doug. I’ve said all that too! We agree on plenty and you just gloss over it so many times for some reason. I never said Spurs ONLY need to care about trade value. I said they can’t be lazy and just overpay mediocre to bad players with NO regard for trade value. That is a world of difference that IMO if you understood what I was saying changes a ton of what you are arguing with towards me

[DPG21920]

My man - read in context. Look at the posts I quoted. It’s not that hard. That’s again me saying “I can see it if that is what the Spurs want to do”. That is not me going “Spurs should do this here is my idea!!!” I literally have posts quoted saying “I do not want them to trade for Simmons” lmao.

Quit with the clown behavior for a minute

[DPG21920]

Shout out to those who saw that Simmons sucks and DJM was better. And by those, I mean me. Bow down, es.

I was posting blind stats tests and trying to pump the breaks lol…

[TD 21]

At taking hypotheticals out of context from the time they were discussed.

As if anyone could have foreseen Simmons having mental health issues, developing a mental block and having a back injury that led to surgery.

[baseline bum]

I did want Simmons. I was wrong, both because Murray had another gear and because Simmons' transmission broke. Honestly I'd still take Ben, especially if they're moving Poeltl, and I am still glad Murray's gone. But the Spurs would've been multiple firsts in the whole had they listened to me.

I also wanted to trade Murray and Aldridge in 2020 to move up and draft Obi Toppin. I also wanted to trade Bonner and a first for Derrick Williams back in the day and loved Bagley in the 2018 draft. I really wanted a high-pedigree PF for many years, and it led me astray many times.

Derrick Williams had me fooled like too, thought for sure he was going to be at least a high level allstar

[scott]

So Dejounte Murray is better than Ben Simmons?

Maybe a three team trade?

IND: Murray & Samanic
PHI: Brogdon, Young, SAS 1st, & SAS 2nd
SAS: Simmons

If the Spurs helped facilitate trade of Ben Simmons: 4 Teams

Suns - Thad Young

Kings - Ben Simmons, Luka Samanic, 2nd rd pick 2023 Spurs (via Pacers)

76ers - Dejounte Murray, Lonnie Walker, Dario Saric, Jalen Smith (1st rd picks - 2022 Sac, 2024 Sac - Lottery protected, 2025 Spurs (via Bulls)) (2nd rd picks 2022 Sac, 2025 Sac, 2025 Spurs (via Bulls))

Spurs - Tyrese Haliburton, Marvin Bagley III, Harrison Barnes

Spurs SL: T. Haliburton, D. White, K. Johnson, H. Barnes, J. Poeltl
Bench: T. Jones, D. Vassell, D. McDermott, M. Bagley, J. Landale
B. Forbes, AF Aminu, D. Eubanks, Z. Collins, J. Primo (Stretch waive Hutchinson)
Two way - Wieskamp, KBD?

If you rehabilitate Bagley, you can flip him for assets at trade deadline, and Barnes can be flipped in the offseason due to only being 29 and on an expiring contract of 18 million, very affordable. This also gives Collins time to get completely healthy, you get Haliburton on his rookie deal to be the head of the snake on offense, and you get Primo ready to eventually take over for White in the future instead of Murray. Your core becomes Haliburton, Primo, Johnson, Vassell, and Collins - you'll have glue guys like Wieskamp and Landale - and you'll still have your 1st rd picks to go hunting for that front court piece to put the team over the top. This trade also doesn't compromise any flexibility for 2023 FA class. Plus White can be used as a trade piece at that time as well.

The 76ers get a player in Murray who can run the team, needed front court depth with Smith. Drummond is backing up Embid, so Saric can rehab and fill that position next year, and Walker gets to play in his home state on a one year prove it deal or be flipped at trade deadline. They also get 6 picks in total, a blessing since Simmons value is dog right now (it's probably too many picks, I agree!).

76ers SL: DJM, LW4, Danny Green, Tobias Harris, Joel Embid
Bench: Maxey, Seth Curry, M. Thybelle, Jalen Smith, Drummond
Springer, Milton, Kurkmaz, Saric, Paul Reed (Stretch waive Tolliver)

Now, since I've put my contribution to bull nonsense up, I'm going to bed

So many posters seem to be overlooking the fact that Simmons ing sucks.

If he was a FA, he would be a $14m/yr player that teams would hesitate on due to his at ude and work ethic.

There are some fun quotes in this thread to look back on. LCM's idea was good.