Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 151 to 170 of 170
  1. #151
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Generalities that shouldn't apply to a team this bad. It's not a catastrophe that Sochan seems likely to start the season seeing at best spot minutes, it's that it's another sign of archaic ways continuing to rule the day despite finally bottoming out.

    This would apply if we were talking year 3 Sochan, who's underwhelmed and the shine of being the highest pick in a quarter century has long since worse off. But we're talking year 1, on probably the worst team in the league, with two journeymen as the compe ion.

    Hand him 20 mpg immediately and if he struggles mightily for 4-6 weeks, reassess at that point.
    The team being bad is an assumption. I think it's a good assumption, but that's not one that was being made for most of this discussion. We're not talking about the likely real scenario where the Spurs suck, KBD isn't good and there's nothing standing in the way of Sochan getting minutes. We're talking about the unlikely scenario where the Spurs don't suck that badly in large part because folks like KBD break out. In those scenarios, you don't tear your hair out because you're not losing enough games, hit the panic button and bench KBD to give Sochan minutes he may or may not be able to handle. You feature KBD and then either trade him or keep him.

    Again, this is not a likely scenario. We're talking about what's almost certainly a moot point. If anything, it would be way, way better for that random breakout player to be Jones or Roby where the Spurs could offer an extension to add option value. KBD would be among the worst players on the team for that to happen to. We aren't arguing over a real point, and most of us agree with the assumptions that the Spurs are a team with very little realized talent compared to the rest of the league and that they will lose a lot of games this year. Very few disagreements that I've seen on this board are about that. Rather, the disagreements are over whether that's just a fact that we have to live with in hopes of being rewarded later or if it's a virtue that has to be protected at all costs. I'm firmly in the first camp. I hope that if the Spurs lose, they win the lotto or otherwise get the guy they want. But I want the Spurs to win, this year, not next year or in 10 years. I watch sports to be entertained, and watching a losing team isn't entertaining to me. I don't have a trophy case in my house for all the championships my teams have won. There are certainly folks in the second camp, and there are many that waffle in between depending on the conversation.

    So yeah, I don't think anything will spot Sochan from getting minutes. I don't think KBD will be good enough to block him. But if he is, then he should play. Play the best guys and see what you have in terms of trade assets and future pieces. Don't worry about winning games, but also don't worry if the guys whom you're trying to trade are soaking up touches and increasing their value. Rebuilding is a long process, and it involves more than giving unlimited run to your highest picks.

  2. #152
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    9,550
    No question the Spurs are unwatchable. It will improve a little when Johnson comes back. But the Spurs may not win 4 games from what I can see. And we are better off losing and losing often. We bottomed out on moneyball because you can only get away with that when you have Tim Duncan on your team.

  3. #153
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    The team being bad is an assumption. I think it's a good assumption, but that's not one that was being made for most of this discussion. We're not talking about the likely real scenario where the Spurs suck, KBD isn't good and there's nothing standing in the way of Sochan getting minutes. We're talking about the unlikely scenario where the Spurs don't suck that badly in large part because folks like KBD break out. In those scenarios, you don't tear your hair out because you're not losing enough games, hit the panic button and bench KBD to give Sochan minutes he may or may not be able to handle. You feature KBD and then either trade him or keep him.

    Again, this is not a likely scenario. We're talking about what's almost certainly a moot point. If anything, it would be way, way better for that random breakout player to be Jones or Roby where the Spurs could offer an extension to add option value. KBD would be among the worst players on the team for that to happen to. We aren't arguing over a real point, and most of us agree with the assumptions that the Spurs are a team with very little realized talent compared to the rest of the league and that they will lose a lot of games this year. Very few disagreements that I've seen on this board are about that. Rather, the disagreements are over whether that's just a fact that we have to live with in hopes of being rewarded later or if it's a virtue that has to be protected at all costs. I'm firmly in the first camp. I hope that if the Spurs lose, they win the lotto or otherwise get the guy they want. But I want the Spurs to win, this year, not next year or in 10 years. I watch sports to be entertained, and watching a losing team isn't entertaining to me. I don't have a trophy case in my house for all the championships my teams have won. There are certainly folks in the second camp, and there are many that waffle in between depending on the conversation.

    So yeah, I don't think anything will spot Sochan from getting minutes. I don't think KBD will be good enough to block him. But if he is, then he should play. Play the best guys and see what you have in terms of trade assets and future pieces. Don't worry about winning games, but also don't worry if the guys whom you're trying to trade are soaking up touches and increasing their value. Rebuilding is a long process, and it involves more than giving unlimited run to your highest picks.
    Please. You're suggesting whatever minor value Bates-Diop might have (dependent on his 3-point %/volume) should not only supersede on court NBA development for the highest pick in a quarter century, but also potentially risk hurting the odds of landing an all-time prospect, an elite one and securing as high a floor as possible. Wow.

    We get it: you're fine with mediocrity. Some of us have higher aspirations. Forgive us.

    That's an assumption and while the latter is true, you generally have to nail the majority of the should be likely stuff, such as getting quality players out of high picks.

  4. #154
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    16,725
    3) That last quote isn't even a sentence. Yes, I argue that we should want the best players on the team to play and play well rather than worrying about giving the young guys the bulk of the minutes. This is me who's arguing that -- the guy who was extremely skeptical of the d-league last year. It's one thing when you have a blue-chip on a superstar track. It's another thing when it's just the guys who happen to be the youngest players on the team. The Hinkie Sixers pissed away how many high picks on guys who sat behind or were traded away to make room for second-rounders or UDFAs? I want to be clear that I hated that team for that era. I'm glad Hinkie's out of the league. But so many fans on this board want the Spurs to adopt his philosophy, but they want to discard that Hinkie was never married to any of his picks (ever -- look at MCW -- but especially) before they earned it. He would certainly be looking to trade away the vets, but he would also not look at any of the rookies and bypass showcasing vets to give them playing time. It's bad asset-management on top of being bad roster-management. I hope that all of the Spurs' prospects pan out and end up being the foundation to the team's next contending era. But it's not a certainly that ANY of these guys will be around for that pivot, and there's no reason to assume that if someone is, it'll be one of the rookies. That's just fetishism.

    I didn't follow the 76ers much during that Sam Hinkie era. I just remember they were dreadful. What was his strategy? Just trade away all the vets of value and play the young guys? Was his primary goal to get higher draft position each year, or was he trying to develop the youth?

  5. #155
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Please. You're suggesting whatever minor value Bates-Diop might have (dependent on his 3-point %/volume) should not only supersede on court NBA development for the highest pick in a quarter century, but also potentially risk hurting the odds of landing an all-time prospect, an elite one and securing as high a floor as possible. Wow.
    If KBD were to play well enough to pull the Spurs from the worst team to out of the top four, then we aren't talking about minor value. And because I keep having to say it: Real-life KBD, even with better shooting: speed bump for Sochan. Alternate-world scenario KBD who's all of the sudden a top-three role-player in the NBA, worth not giving a huge role to Sochan. I've said that a half-dozen times, and folks still cartwheel in here saying that I want to banish Sochan forever for someone who's a best a meh rotation player.

    We get it: you're fine with mediocrity. Some of us have higher aspirations. Forgive us.
    Lame. Some of us don't actually attach any of our self-worth to our sports teams. I have aspirations about things that actually matter. I watch basketball for the endorphin hits. Giving up years of those hits for the possibility (not guarantee) that it will lead to slightly more endorphin hits eventually is a trade-off I don't find appealing. That doesn't mean I don't understand the Spurs potentially wanting to do it. It just means it's not something I care for.

    That's an assumption and while the latter is true, you generally have to nail the majority of the should be likely stuff, such as getting quality players out of high picks.
    Nailing picks and forcing the picks into immediate big-minute roles are different things. The Spurs can nail the Sochan pick despite not seeing him earn a huge role right away. It's possible that Wemby is the perfect center to play with him, and it wouldn't be until he has such a center than things click for him. Or he might need to develop more moves to unlock his offense, and that may not be apparent right now. Or, the Spurs could end up getting a meh return out of their pick with him while nailing the Barlow signing or Roby claiming. Who cares? Time will tell.

  6. #156
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    I didn't follow the 76ers much during that Sam Hinkie era. I just remember they were dreadful. What was his strategy? Just trade away all the vets of value and play the young guys? Was his primary goal to get higher draft position each year, or was he trying to develop the youth?
    Hinkie believed the draft was a crap-shoot and that getting more picks was important. He also liked to try to collect unprotected picks/swaps, but even second-rounders he went for. Hinkie did develop youth, though he also played (or let Brown play) the best guys without care of their draft stock. That doesn't mean that the rookies didn't play, but it did mean that some old or low-ceiling guys like Mbah a Moute, Ish Smith or Richardson played big roles. Even as time went on and they have more picks, they still played guys like Ilyasova and Henderson. They never got away from playing vets, and they let guys like Jerami Grant ad Robert Covington play if they earned it.

  7. #157
    Veteran K...'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    8,146
    Why do people think players are like pokemon and you have play them in lead roles or they won't develop?. This is maybe true of Pg but the idea that Sochan won't develop if we dont make him starter is assinine. Both sochan and kbd will get chances this year.

  8. #158
    OH YOU LIKE IT!!! slick'81's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Post Count
    17,934
    Wtf did diop become the key to anything the spurs are doing?

  9. #159
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    Lame. Some of us don't actually attach any of our self-worth to our sports teams. I have aspirations about things that actually matter. I watch basketball for the endorphin hits. Giving up years of those hits for the possibility (not guarantee) that it will lead to slightly more endorphin hits eventually is a trade-off I don't find appealing. That doesn't mean I don't understand the Spurs potentially wanting to do it. It just means it's not something I care for.



    Nailing picks and forcing the picks into immediate big-minute roles are different things. The Spurs can nail the Sochan pick despite not seeing him earn a huge role right away. It's possible that Wemby is the perfect center to play with him, and it wouldn't be until he has such a center than things click for him. Or he might need to develop more moves to unlock his offense, and that may not be apparent right now. Or, the Spurs could end up getting a meh return out of their pick with him while nailing the Barlow signing or Roby claiming. Who cares? Time will tell.
    Oh, so because I want to watch more than mediocrity that means I attach some of my self-worth to it. Lame.

    We're not talking slightly more, we're talking hopefully significantly more.

    Sure, but there's no excuse to not explore it.

    Again, you've got to prioritize the big things and right now he qualifies as that. You're trying to reverse engineer things.

  10. #160
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    I didn't follow the 76ers much during that Sam Hinkie era. I just remember they were dreadful. What was his strategy? Just trade away all the vets of value and play the young guys? Was his primary goal to get higher draft position each year, or was he trying to develop the youth?
    They had the worst roster and would get rid of anybody young or old who could win them some games to ensure they would have the worst record.

  11. #161
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Oh, so because I want to watch more than mediocrity that means I attach some of my self-worth to it. Lame.
    What you want to do is your business. But expecting "Well I don't accept mediocrity in my entertainment, unlike you" to be a rebuttal is why I feel you assigned a status to it.

    We're not talking slightly more, we're talking hopefully significantly more.
    Nah, the endorphins I get from watching a decent team with good storylines isn't much different than what I get from watching a contender. I'm not saying that for the Spurs' FO or from a ticket-sales perspective it might not be a huge difference. But to me, no. It's not a trade-off that's worth it. This is also accepting the idea that tanking is a clearer path to contention than not tanking. I don't agree with that, but we've had that discussion before and can again in a thread more appropriate for it.

    Sure, but there's no excuse to not explore it.
    Of course there is. They can see if they can get more immediate returns from guys for whom they have fewer years of control for trades or to re-sign. Unless you can demonstrate that playing the big role now is more likely to improve his developmental plan than not doing that, it's not evidence. It's just your opinion. It's a fine opinion, and I don't think it's irrational. I just don't think it really moves the argument one way or the other. If there are hypothetical benefits to not giving Sochan big minutes immediately, then we need a more concrete view of the drawbacks to know if it's the right move.

    Again, you've got to prioritize the big things and right now he qualifies as that. You're trying to reverse engineer things.
    As far as I understand, your principle stance is that the Spurs can't make any real movement toward contending until they draft a centerpiece. By that logic, the "big thing" to prioritize is creating value to trade to increase your chances of drafting that player. So the short-term people whose value will walk out the door in a year or two should be the priority for minutes so they can be traded rather than worrying about a guy who you have for four years. If the goal is to build a strong supporting cast for that centerpiece, then it makes sense to play the people who are playing well and not worry so much about creating a hierarchy that's not based on performance. That's how you get a bad locker-room and lack of flow. Under neither paradigm is force-feeding Sochan minutes and ignoring a guy who plays well the answer. Hinkie wouldn't do it. Kerr wouldn't do it. If you think Sochan is ready for the next step but he's being blocked by KBD or Roby playing well, then you trade that player and promote Sochan. It's just an elegant solution.

    That's not the same thing as starting Bonner or Beli over them. We'd agree if we were talking about a vet getting the minutes because of hierarchy without them earning it with their play.

  12. #162
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    What you want to do is your business. But expecting "Well I don't accept mediocrity in my entertainment, unlike you" to be a rebuttal is why I feel you assigned a status to it.



    Nah, the endorphins I get from watching a decent team with good storylines isn't much different than what I get from watching a contender. I'm not saying that for the Spurs' FO or from a ticket-sales perspective it might not be a huge difference. But to me, no. It's not a trade-off that's worth it. This is also accepting the idea that tanking is a clearer path to contention than not tanking. I don't agree with that, but we've had that discussion before and can again in a thread more appropriate for it.



    Of course there is. They can see if they can get more immediate returns from guys for whom they have fewer years of control for trades or to re-sign. Unless you can demonstrate that playing the big role now is more likely to improve his developmental plan than not doing that, it's not evidence. It's just your opinion. It's a fine opinion, and I don't think it's irrational. I just don't think it really moves the argument one way or the other. If there are hypothetical benefits to not giving Sochan big minutes immediately, then we need a more concrete view of the drawbacks to know if it's the right move.



    As far as I understand, your principle stance is that the Spurs can't make any real movement toward contending until they draft a centerpiece. By that logic, the "big thing" to prioritize is creating value to trade to increase your chances of drafting that player. So the short-term people whose value will walk out the door in a year or two should be the priority for minutes so they can be traded rather than worrying about a guy who you have for four years. If the goal is to build a strong supporting cast for that centerpiece, then it makes sense to play the people who are playing well and not worry so much about creating a hierarchy that's not based on performance. That's how you get a bad locker-room and lack of flow. Under neither paradigm is force-feeding Sochan minutes and ignoring a guy who plays well the answer. Hinkie wouldn't do it. Kerr wouldn't do it. If you think Sochan is ready for the next step but he's being blocked by KBD or Roby playing well, then you trade that player and promote Sochan. It's just an elegant solution.

    That's not the same thing as starting Bonner or Beli over them. We'd agree if we were talking about a vet getting the minutes because of hierarchy without them earning it with their play.
    If that's supposed to be you quoting me, you might want it to actually be accurate instead of your interpretation of it.

    Where the Spurs were, it definitely is and they finally were able to face it which is primarily why they traded Murray.

    Roby and Bates-Diop aren't fetching much, if anything on their own even with a good %/volume season from 3.

    I'm not concerned with that though. That's not overly difficult once you get the centerpiece(s).

    That's just it, again Sochan being in the position he's in isn't performance based, it was clearly predetermined based on archaic think. That's my biggest gripe is that even in this state, it doesn't appear things are changing around here.

  13. #163
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,907
    Not exactly following the discussion about Sochan and KBD and Roby. Don't particularly understand what the dispute is. Maybe Pop is screwing it up, no surprise. Or maybe Sochan was overdrafted?

    Hinkie's problem was he didn't have an eye for talent. He knew how to play odds and do simulations like a video game but didn't have the human touch to work the traditional media, give his coaches useful vets to at least be compe ive for a half and didn't understand roster construction. Numbers yes people no.

    The only young players under Hinkie who didn't while healthy play significant minutes even as rookies were second rounders and free agents, some of whom would take years and multiple teams to develop. Everyone played good minutes from the first round if they weren't injured.

    Hinkie would still be there today if he had signed Mills in 2014 to give Brown someone to be his locker room leader and be the leader to the media. They would have been just as bad but at least more entertaining and brown would have had an advocate in a locker room where he didn't have one. They would have been less embarrassing and the NBA would have never stepped in. Even Mills missing the first half of the year with shoulder surgery would have been an excuse to their benefit. But Hinkie was too arrogant.

    If Sochan isn't good enough to get minutes ahead of kbd and Roby this season by the break then he's probably safe to rename to SoBust. These are trash, fringe players. KBD is lucky Luka had personality flaws or he would have been cut last year. OKC put Roby on waivers.

    This isn't like Parker having to wait 4 games behind Daniels, Antonio was coming off a western conference finals where he scored 19 points a game.

    And as frustrated as I am with Branham getting the Pop treatment, at least I can understand it. McDermott, Richardson, Vassell, and soon enough Keldon at the sf means there are real NBA players ahead of him, not 13th men like kbd and Roby.

    If Primo and Sochan don't turn into real NBA players real soon then Wright will find himself watching from home like Hinkie once Pop and RC aren't around to protect him. Vassell at least looks like a solid rotation wing, but there's players who went behind him that would definitely go before him now.

    When the draft is the only way left to improve your small market team you better nail the draft.

  14. #164
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    If that's supposed to be you quoting me, you might want it to actually be accurate instead of your interpretation of it.
    If I wanted to quote you directly, I would have. But I did capture the point of what you said. If I had cleaved more strongly to your words, it would've only come across as a stronger indicator that you though you were making a legit value judgment. It's pretty clear that you consider me being willing to "accept mediocrity" was itself an argument in and of itself. As if striving for excellence ... in our entertainment ... was a self-evident virtue.

    Where the Spurs were, it definitely is and they finally were able to face it which is primarily why they traded Murray.
    Again, your opinion. The Spurs do seem to share that opinion. I agree there. But I also know you don't think the Spurs having an opinion is lockdown evidence that it's the right thing to do.

    Roby and Bates-Diop aren't fetching much, if anything on their own even with a good %/volume season from 3.
    We're not again going over the KBD thing again. If Roby is randomly one of the best three-and-D players in the league, the Spurs should absolutely extend him and not give a about Sochan, especially this year. Again (again) Roby isn't likely at all to be that guy. But if he were, that's near Sochan's eventual ceiling anyway. Trying to toss that away to give the priority to Sochan would be a "boat versus mystery box" scenario.

    I'm not concerned with that though. That's not overly difficult once you get the centerpiece(s).
    Yes, it is, because those guys are already gone. You don't get a centerpiece and then try to start figuring out a roster from scratch. That's how you end up with that piece walking before you do anything. You either continue to build assets or you continue to try to build a strong supporting cast. You don't piss away both of those options just because you want to prove you were smart to draft a certain guy high as soon as possible.

    That's just it, again Sochan being in the position he's in isn't performance based, it was clearly predetermined based on archaic think. That's my biggest gripe is that even in this state, it doesn't appear things are changing around here.
    Nah. You may like that in a vacuum, but you've said multiple times in this discussion that Sochan should be getting the minutes regardless of his performance. That's predetermined, and despite whatever angle you're trying to push, playing rookies trying as a way to justifying an investment isn't new-fangled. It's an old idea that itself needed innovation. Sochan started last game, so it's not even clear what role he's in right now, let alone if he's earning a higher one or not. We've yet to see the team at full strength and have no idea who fits where and how much anyone should play. I do feel like even if development is the goal, the Spurs have to try to make a system where guys can get developmental touches.

    I doubt the team is so superficial as to care more about Sochan because he had fewer players picked above him than Primo, Vassell, Johnson or even Wesley and Branham. I imagine instead they have certain goals they want to see each guy reach and a place in their developmental pipeline they want the guys to be at. If we are handicapping it, Primo is supposedly the blue-chipper. Johnson is the face of the team. Poeltl is their best player. Vassell was the top option with Johnson out. It's very possible that the Spurs' goal this year is to see if any of those three perimeter guys is a true long-term keeper, and it might serve them to not have a developmental PF who can't score and who could use time learning how to get his shot off in the NBA taking up touches. Maybe having some role-players who can do their job while not demanding game-plan attention might work with that. Maybe once Sochan gets his shot right, he'll be a great fit with them. Maybe that's what next year will bring while this year, they let KBD or Roby do that job. It feels like the Spurs could have a good plan in place with solid priorities while not considering kowtowing to fan curiosity about their picks being chief among them.

  15. #165
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Not exactly following the discussion about Sochan and KBD and Roby. Don't particularly understand what the dispute is. Maybe Pop is screwing it up, no surprise.
    TL;DR: We're fanficking a scenario where KBD or Roby gets bitten by a radioactive basketball and becomes an elite role-player ala Danny Green or Robert Covington and if in that situation the Spurs should play them or bench them to develop guys with a perceived higher ceiling. In real life, Sochan started despite KBD and Roby both being active last game. They aren't keeping him from playing. There's no reason to panic. We're just talking about fan theories.

    I don't disagree with the Hinkie evaluation except I think he allowed Brown to play whomever he wanted, though he might've pushed for Brown to play two-center combos to justify the three fives he picked in the lotto in consecutive years. The Sixers were rewarded not only by finding a couple of All-Stars with their top picks but also unearthing some solid role-players after the first round. The Spurs could have the same tiered success while avoiding the worst of Hinkie's pitfalls

  16. #166
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,907
    TL;DR: We're fanficking a scenario where KBD or Roby gets bitten by a radioactive basketball and becomes an elite role-player ala Danny Green or Robert Covington and if in that situation the Spurs should play them or bench them to develop guys with a perceived higher ceiling. In real life, Sochan started despite KBD and Roby both being active last game. They aren't keeping him from playing. There's no reason to panic. We're just talking about fan theories.

    I don't disagree with the Hinkie evaluation except I think he allowed Brown to play whomever he wanted, though he might've pushed for Brown to play two-center combos to justify the three fives he picked in the lotto in consecutive years. The Sixers were rewarded not only by finding a couple of All-Stars with their top picks but also unearthing some solid role-players after the first round. The Spurs could have the same tiered success while avoiding the worst of Hinkie's pitfalls
    Ehhh, I think kbd or Roby would have popped by now if they were on their way to be Green or Covington. I think both of those guys had signed long term deals worth north of $10 million after year 4 for Covington and year 3 for Green. The only reason Covington didn't get a good deal before that was being locked into the 4 year Hinkie special. He probably would have had decent deal as soon as after year 2. And of course Covington was with 1 team, Green with 2. This is team 3 for both the other guys.

    And I realize that is being strict. Sure, they could become useful players, like a Richaun Holmes or Jerami Grant or Christian Wood. I guess in some cases I feel those guys pop early anyway (Grant basically never planning less than 20 minutes a game) or were superior athletes who could grow into their games or relative maturity.

    I just think kbd is too stiff and Roby not big enough for those guys to fit that category. Maybe Roby can be a poor man's Dwight Powell, but even Powell won't be playing much this year supposedly.

    Back to Hinkie, he even gets too much credit for the under the radar guys. He only had Covington because if I remember right the Rockets cut him, and I suspect Morey had to tell Hinkie to sign him. Hinkie didn't find him on his own.

    And I didn't think at the time that Hinkie did enough 'gold panning' if I could borrow a phrase. Yes, he would sign some guys to the Hinkie special, but that team was such trash that he should have turned over every rock in the gleague and cycled through everyone. There's no way Simmons should have been free for the Spurs to get as one example.

    Now I'm bracing myself for disappointment with the Spurs not churning through 2 ways and eventually 10 days and spots 13 14 15 to pan for whatever talent they can squeeze out of the gleague and Europe. They should spend this year sifting through the ashes to find anything for the future.

  17. #167
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Post Count
    1,759
    Sochan is getting more minutes than Roby , KBD might start though. Pairing Sochan with the bench group with more spacing has its benefits. The ability to control his matchups would give him more confidence his rookie year.

  18. #168
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Ehhh, I think kbd or Roby would have popped by now if they were on their way to be Green or Covington. I think both of those guys had signed long term deals worth north of $10 million after year 4 for Covington and year 3 for Green. The only reason Covington didn't get a good deal before that was being locked into the 4 year Hinkie special. He probably would have had decent deal as soon as after year 2. And of course Covington was with 1 team, Green with 2. This is team 3 for both the other guys.

    And I realize that is being strict. Sure, they could become useful players, like a Richaun Holmes or Jerami Grant or Christian Wood. I guess in some cases I feel those guys pop early anyway (Grant basically never planning less than 20 minutes a game) or were superior athletes who could grow into their games or relative maturity.

    I just think kbd is too stiff and Roby not big enough for those guys to fit that category. Maybe Roby can be a poor man's Dwight Powell, but even Powell won't be playing much this year supposedly.

    Back to Hinkie, he even gets too much credit for the under the radar guys. He only had Covington because if I remember right the Rockets cut him, and I suspect Morey had to tell Hinkie to sign him. Hinkie didn't find him on his own.

    And I didn't think at the time that Hinkie did enough 'gold panning' if I could borrow a phrase. Yes, he would sign some guys to the Hinkie special, but that team was such trash that he should have turned over every rock in the gleague and cycled through everyone. There's no way Simmons should have been free for the Spurs to get as one example.

    Now I'm bracing myself for disappointment with the Spurs not churning through 2 ways and eventually 10 days and spots 13 14 15 to pan for whatever talent they can squeeze out of the gleague and Europe. They should spend this year sifting through the ashes to find anything for the future.
    Yeah, as I said, it's not likely at all for those guys (especially KBD) to break out. Green didn't get eight figure until after year six, through. He had one year with CLE, a partial year with SA, a full (but truncated) season with SA, then a three-year deal for less than the MLE from the Spurs. We're talking about a time when the MLE was $5 Million. Very few players were making eight figures.

    I don't like Hinkie and am glad he's gone. I agree with your take on his philosophy. I'm just saying that even the most extreme tanking team is fine with playing guys who earn it. A lot of fans are impatient and want young guys to be better than they are. I get the desire to see them, and sometimes the Spurs are overly cautious like not starting Leonard right away. But they aren't nearly as rigid as some are making them out to be. Green, Mills, Neal, Baynes and even Forbes are examples of that.

  19. #169
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,907
    Yeah, as I said, it's not likely at all for those guys (especially KBD) to break out. Green didn't get eight figure until after year six, through. He had one year with CLE, a partial year with SA, a full (but truncated) season with SA, then a three-year deal for less than the MLE from the Spurs. We're talking about a time when the MLE was $5 Million. Very few players were making eight figures.

    I don't like Hinkie and am glad he's gone. I agree with your take on his philosophy. I'm just saying that even the most extreme tanking team is fine with playing guys who earn it. A lot of fans are impatient and want young guys to be better than they are. I get the desire to see them, and sometimes the Spurs are overly cautious like not starting Leonard right away. But they aren't nearly as rigid as some are making them out to be. Green, Mills, Neal, Baynes and even Forbes are examples of that.
    Right, but my point on the Green contract which totaled more than $10 over 3 years was that he had 'arrived', enough to get a 'real' multi year deal rather than one of those fake multi-year minimum deals that isn't guaranteed. I was comparing that to KBD for instance, who might be on a multi-year deal but it's a minimum that according to sportrac doesn't even guarantee until opening night. KBD I'm sure would be thrilled to get a 60% MLE deal instead.

  20. #170
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    If I wanted to quote you directly, I would have. But I did capture the point of what you said. If I had cleaved more strongly to your words, it would've only come across as a stronger indicator that you though you were making a legit value judgment. It's pretty clear that you consider me being willing to "accept mediocrity" was itself an argument in and of itself. As if striving for excellence ... in our entertainment ... was a self-evident virtue.

    Yes, it is, because those guys are already gone. You don't get a centerpiece and then try to start figuring out a roster from scratch.

    Nah. You may like that in a vacuum, but you've said multiple times in this discussion that Sochan should be getting the minutes regardless of his performance. That's predetermined, and despite whatever angle you're trying to push, playing rookies trying as a way to justifying an investment isn't new-fangled.

    It feels like the Spurs could have a good plan in place with solid priorities while not considering kowtowing to fan curiosity about their picks being chief among them.
    What the are you even talking about? You're like the Irving of SpursTalk: I understand all the words, but the way you structure them is so convoluted it's unclear what you're saying half the time.

    No, it isn't. I'm not talking at a championship contender level, nor did I say you start after the fact. The way they've delayed the inevitable here, there's already pieces in place that can fit around any centerpiece (Johnson and Vassell) and four others who have legit shots at it (Primo, Sochan, Branham, Wesley).

    I said to start. Predetermined is fine in that case, it's not fine when it's hanging onto some archaic nonsense.

    Despite your constant defense of them, the Spurs have lost all benefit of the doubt by prioritizing Pop and their precious "culture"/"program" above all else.

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
  •