Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 680
  1. #251
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,079
    LOL what? The board mostly hated the McDermott signing. McDermott has never been anywhere close to as good a player as Poeltl has been these last two years.
    I don’t know about that…(the board hating the move - I remember being pissed and everyone talking about his spacing and how his deal was fair etc..). Agree he’s not as good as Jak but shooters are valued much differently than non-scoring Centers..

  2. #252
    Erryday I'm Hustlin' Robz4000's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Post Count
    37,924
    Over under: Spurs make 1.5 trades this trade deadline?
    Under imo

  3. #253
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,624
    That is where we disagree. Youíd think we would have learned this lesson with everyone saying the same thing about the Doug signing while I was immediately pissed off about it calling it stupid lol.

    Another season like this where his numbers (especially defensively) sink due to cir stances? That 20M looks a little more dicey. But ya, again, donít think itís catastrophic and Iím actually making the argument for KEEPING Jak at the heart of my post on it.

    Just want SA to move Doug/Zach so that money SA was going to pay them anyways just goes to Jak (a better player) instead while still adding draft capital
    I find this to be extremely wrong-headed.

    There's no good reason to think the Spurs should not sign Poeltl because of the "lesson" they learned with McDermott's contract. I didn't like the deal either, but if you recall it's because I didn't see it as a win-now move. The credit you're trying to give yourself was because you thought it was too much of a win-now move and that the team wasn't "picking a direction". The reality is that Doug's done exactly what they signed him to do, and he didn't prevent them from tanking or lose his role or value on that tanking team.

    If the Spurs learned anything from the signing it's that their cap space can be useful in multiple ways. It doesn't have to just be used to trade. They can use it to sign a caliber of player beyond what their amenities can afford them. If the Spurs were capped-strapped they likely would've lost Doug to a team for the MLE (he was fantastic the year before -- just because he's overpaid doesn't mean he's struggling to stay in the league). In that same way, they'd struggle to keep Poeltl this time if they could only offer him the MLE. They almost lost him last contract when he had to agree to basically the max contract the Spurs could offer to stay under the tax. By being able to overpay, they gain access to good players in a way analogous to Balmer's willingness to pay absurd tax bills allows the Clippers to continue to acquire talent in trades far beyond where their draft assets could take them.

    SA has like $80 Million in cap space next year. Acting they like they should let go of a player they want to save a fraction of it would be like being stranded on an island with a friend and killing that friend to conserve oxygen.

  4. #254
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,079
    I find this to be extremely wrong-headed.

    There's no good reason to think the Spurs should not sign Poeltl because of the "lesson" they learned with McDermott's contract. I didn't like the deal either, but if you recall it's because I didn't see it as a win-now move. The credit you're trying to give yourself was because you thought it was too much of a win-now move and that the team wasn't "picking a direction". The reality is that Doug's done exactly what they signed him to do, and he didn't prevent them from tanking or lose his role or value on that tanking team.

    If the Spurs learned anything from the signing it's that their cap space can be useful in multiple ways. It doesn't have to just be used to trade. They can use it to sign a caliber of player beyond what their amenities can afford them. If the Spurs were capped-strapped they likely would've lost Doug to a team for the MLE (he was fantastic the year before -- just because he's overpaid doesn't mean he's struggling to stay in the league). In that same way, they'd struggle to keep Poeltl this time if they could only offer him the MLE. They almost lost him last contract when he had to agree to basically the max contract the Spurs could offer to stay under the tax. By being able to overpay, they gain access to good players in a way analogous to Balmer's willingness to pay absurd tax bills allows the Clippers to continue to acquire talent in trades far beyond where their draft assets could take them.

    SA has like $80 Million in cap space next year. Acting they like they should let go of a player they want to save a fraction of it would be like being stranded on an island with a friend and killing that friend to conserve oxygen.
    This is wrong on many levels. I had an over arching theme about not picking a direction for years but with Doug specifically? I said it made no sense for a rebuilding team to give an aging non-defensive players multi year fully guaranteed deals. So it was not about him being win-now. It was 99% his contract length given the cir stances of being in a rebuild and how it would be a bad deal that was not any upside in terms of him being tradable and using cap space to sign a player that would not do anything but possibly suck minutes while also not netting us anything in a trade. Which so far is exactly what has happened.

    Again, the math on using Doug+Zach money is just a bonus that makes the math on Jakobs deal for the Spurs ďlessĒ risk because they are shifting the money they would pay no matter what. So itís a 3 year deal in a 4 year format which is great. I donít mind overpaying in context and Spurs have no cap issues; thatís no the point I was making.

    The point was 2 fold: Spurs need to be sharks in terms of squeezing any value out of their assets & 2 need to be very careful, cap flexibility aside, signing anyone to 80M deals especially older players with regards to the roster.

    So to your point: ďsigning players that allow them to acquire talent in tradesĒ that is exactly my worry. Doug doesnít have good value IMO, spurs wasted the space for no reason and I donít want the same with Jakob (although heís much better than Doug) and I would love to get some picks (even 2nds) for Zach/Doug and that makes Jaks deal a really good value then from the Spurs perspective
    Last edited by DPG21920; 01-27-2023 at 12:17 AM.

  5. #255
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    91,509
    I don’t know about that…(the board hating the move - I remember being pissed and everyone talking about his spacing and how his deal was fair etc..). Agree he’s not as good as Jak but shooters are valued much differently than non-scoring Centers..
    Not 20 minute a game shooters with no defense turning 30.

  6. #256
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,079
    Not 20 minute a game shooters with no defense turning 30.
    Well lets hope some team steps up and pays the toll then…

  7. #257
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,624
    This is wrong on many levels. I had an over arching theme about not picking a direction for years but with Doug specifically? I said it made no sense for a rebuilding team to give an aging non-defensive players multi year fully guaranteed deals. So it was not about him being win-now. It was 99% his contract length given the cir stances of being in a rebuild and how it would be a bad deal that was not any upside in terms of him being tradable and using cap space to sign a player that would not do anything but possibly suck minutes while also not netting us anything in a trade. Which so far is exactly what has happened.
    "Sucking minutes" is a fancy way of saying, "playing". That's all it is. They need to field a team each season, not just "collect assets". I get the desire to cycle players, but I don't believe in being the Hinkie Sixers. I would not've preferred Wieskamp get McDermott's minutes. Last season was fine, with a mix of cool moments and things to look forward to. To assume the Spurs signed him assuming they'd trade him immediately was not an actual standard to grade the acquisition. Predicting that he'd play, play to the level at which he normally performed and that he'd do that job for the team for at least a large portion of his contract is not some great insight. More than probably any Spur since the Big Three, Doug has come in and done exactly what he was supposed to do. It's okay to have not liked him then and still not like him. But that's not enough to claim victory. As looking through his thread would show, basically no one liked the signing.

    Again, the math on using Doug+Zach money is just a bonus that makes the math on Jakobs deal for the Spurs “less” risk because they are shifting the money they would pay no matter what. So it’s a 3 year deal in a 4 year format which is great. I don’t mind overpaying in context and Spurs have no cap issues; that’s no the point I was making.
    It's not a good point. The Spurs are under the floor after this new contract; they're literally paying that money no matter what. You have to assume they'd used that floor room on something else and because of this signing, they'd bypass the "value" that acquisition would presumably convey. That's not a sound assumption at all. There's not a good reason to assume the Spurs would use that floor space given their struggle to use it this year. It's also not sound to assume that having those expirings is less valuable than having cap space. A non-simultaneous TE is not inherently superior to an expiring contract. It can't play a role for you on the court. It can't mentor your younger players. It can't be used in latter trades to match additional salary. The Spurs are better for having Richardson than for having a bit more cap space, and he's not grading out all that well right now. Collins especially is playing really well, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't have more trade value if he can prove he can be mostly healthy for multiple off-seasons in a row.

    The point was 2 fold: Spurs need to be sharks in terms of squeezing any value out of their assets & 2 need to be very careful, cap flexibility aside, signing anyone to 80M deals especially older players with regards to the roster.
    We gotta nip this in the bud. There's a difference between players who are beyond their early years and guys who are aging. McDermott's contract takes him through his prime (when his skill is most honed before his body breaks down). Poeltl's next deal is likely to be the same. The Spurs don't have to sign contracts with the next contract in mind. They can sign guys they expect to only hold out for their deal. This isn't the NFL; NBA players in their early 30s are still fine physically.

    So long as the Spurs have way too much cap space to trade away, they aren't going to use it completely efficiently. The benefit of having so much is that they don't have to. They can use overwhelming force to achieve their ends. In case you're wondering, they're more likely to need $20 Million less in four years than they do now. Even if they're spending close to the cap, the cap will be bigger, and that amount of money will be much closer to what role-players make. When they're getting ready to extend a guy like Wemby on a contract starting at $50 Million a year, they aren't going to care that Poeltl is on the books for $23 Million in his final year. It's not a thing.

    So to your point: “signing players that allow them to acquire talent in trades” that is exactly my worry. Doug doesn’t have good value IMO, spurs wasted the space for no reason and I don’t want the same with Jakob (although he’s much better than Doug) and I would love to get some picks (even 2nds) for Zach/Doug and that makes Jaks deal a really good value then from the Spurs perspective
    You quoted me as if I said that, when I didn't and literally meant the opposite. The point is that they can sign players to have them, without any intension to trade then, and by being able to pay more without it actually hurting them. An issue a lot of fans have is that they don't realize the Spurs don't have the available roster spots to absorb the contracts to use their cap space. They'd need to be willing to dump more than half their roster, and I don't think they want to move more than two or three guys. If they do find a way to grab more picks this year, that issue with get worse. So the opportunity cost of not using cap space for a trade is pretty small for them. If they instead use it to pay a premium for the guys they want, they can get a lot of use out of it that would instead just be rolled into floor payments. Teams that have a bunch of young players do this all the time. That's why NO paid Steven Adams so much. The Spurs have no business denying themselves what they want at this point. Once their moves might actually have an opportunity cost, then they can act like they're poor.

  8. #258
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,079
    I’m sorry - I get what you are saying but I just see it differently. I am of the belief that just because you have money does not mean you should sign mediocre players (not Jak) or overpay because you can. It’s silly (IMO), wasteful to a degree and carries some risk that are just flat out unnecessary. It’s not about acting poor or whatever. It’s about being consistent with your vision, being absolutely steadfast in only securing assets right now alongside development of your youth and making sure you arent being wasteful for no reason.

    You can sign lots of players - doesn’t have to be 3-4 year deals that are fully guaranteed especially when you aren’t going to win anyways with said player. That makes no sense. Give Doug 1 year, 40M I don’t care. Just not 3-4 years. That is the point.

    I don’t care about the floor, or how much cap space and don’t need to assume anything. Doug does nothing for this team, sucks on defense, doesn’t fit the future and has no place with that contract on this team. Paying Jak, a good player with less risk than Doug in my context, Dougs money and Collins is just smart - there is no way around it. The only path should be signing vets for purposes of flipping them for assets. Youth? Ya, can keep and pay and develop. But I’m sorry, there’s plenty of vets that can mentor and not change win/losses that don’t require you to overpay and add many years to a deal.

    If they are not trade assets, don’t use your space period IMO. Trade Josh. Trade Doug. Replace with other mentors - no biggie IMO. Cap space is a weapon, use it wisely to get assets that serve more of a purpose than “mentoring”.

    Being able to be lazy because you can does not strike me as a strong argument. It’s just lazy and goes to my point of a FO being fully in tune and razor sharp which is what needs to happen for the Spurs. They have a lot to prove and work to do.

  9. #259
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Post Count
    4,798
    Iím sorry - I get what you are saying but I just see it differently. I am of the belief that just because you have money does not mean you should sign mediocre players (not Jak) or overpay because you can. Itís silly (IMO), wasteful to a degree and carries some risk that are just flat out unnecessary. Itís not about acting poor or whatever. Itís about being consistent with your vision, being absolutely steadfast in only securing assets right now alongside development of your youth and making sure you arent being wasteful for no reason.

    You can sign lots of players - doesnít have to be 3-4 year deals that are fully guaranteed especially when you arenít going to win anyways with said player. That makes no sense. Give Doug 1 year, 40M I donít care. Just not 3-4 years. That is the point.

    I donít care about the floor, or how much cap space and donít need to assume anything. Doug does nothing for this team, sucks on defense, doesnít fit the future and has no place with that contract on this team. Paying Jak, a good player with less risk than Doug in my context, Dougs money and Collins is just smart - there is no way around it. The only path should be signing vets for purposes of flipping them for assets. Youth? Ya, can keep and pay and develop. But Iím sorry, thereís plenty of vets that can mentor and not change win/losses that donít require you to overpay and add many years to a deal.

    If they are not trade assets, donít use your space period IMO. Trade Josh. Trade Doug. Replace with other mentors - no biggie IMO. Cap space is a weapon, use it wisely to get assets that serve more of a purpose than ďmentoringĒ.

    Being able to be lazy because you can does not strike me as a strong argument. Itís just lazy and goes to my point of a FO being fully in tune and razor sharp which is what needs to happen for the Spurs. They have a lot to prove and work to do.
    It's been fascinating watching you two go at it... I see what you're saying but I don't agree with it either. I don't see where saving money on Doug and Zach makes any sense at all in our present situation because we don't really 'save' anything. Now if we can turn them in an asset we like, then I'm all for it or if we just want the roster spot for someone else, then that's fine but, I don't see the need.

    But interesting discussion anyways...

  10. #260
    Formerly Spurs21 KingKev's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    5,302
    Jak looking like lately.

  11. #261
    Remember Cherokee Parks The Truth #6's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Post Count
    5,774
    Jak looking like lately.
    I guess we’ll only be getting two first round picks for him, not three!

    But for me, the real question is if the spurs are actually expecting to get two first round picks, or if that’s just a good bluff as we push towards the actual trade deadline.

  12. #262
    Veteran offset formation's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    5,424
    I guess we’ll only be getting two first round picks for him, not three!

    But for me, the real question is if the spurs are actually expecting to get two first round picks, or if that’s just a good bluff as we push towards the actual trade deadline.
    It's bluff when even a spurs message board largely sees it as a bunk starting point. Could they get two FRPs? It's feasible but they'd be heavily protected and likely involve a third team with other player movement, so not really a two FRP haul.

    His game is simply limited too much to garner those kind of assets right now. And it appears as if the one thing he did at a really high level (defense) is no longer being done at a high level.

  13. #263
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Post Count
    1,579
    Salary floor makes it that we overpay more without Jakob contract next year. Cap rising and new CBA makes this a good deal than signing vet minimum guys and giving them 4 million bonuses each next year.

  14. #264
    Formerly Spurs21 KingKev's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    5,302
    According to BR Bulls want 2 FRPs for Caruso lol

    Thatís basically what we charged them for DDR and ate Aminuís contract along the way

  15. #265
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Post Count
    1,579
    I’m sorry - I get what you are saying but I just see it differently. I am of the belief that just because you have money does not mean you should sign mediocre players (not Jak) or overpay because you can. It’s silly (IMO), wasteful to a degree and carries some risk that are just flat out unnecessary. It’s not about acting poor or whatever. It’s about being consistent with your vision, being absolutely steadfast in only securing assets right now alongside development of your youth and making sure you arent being wasteful for no reason.

    You can sign lots of players - doesn’t have to be 3-4 year deals that are fully guaranteed especially when you aren’t going to win anyways with said player. That makes no sense. Give Doug 1 year, 40M I don’t care. Just not 3-4 years. That is the point.

    I don’t care about the floor, or how much cap space and don’t need to assume anything. Doug does nothing for this team, sucks on defense, doesn’t fit the future and has no place with that contract on this team. Paying Jak, a good player with less risk than Doug in my context, Dougs money and Collins is just smart - there is no way around it. The only path should be signing vets for purposes of flipping them for assets. Youth? Ya, can keep and pay and develop. But I’m sorry, there’s plenty of vets that can mentor and not change win/losses that don’t require you to overpay and add many years to a deal.

    If they are not trade assets, don’t use your space period IMO. Trade Josh. Trade Doug. Replace with other mentors - no biggie IMO. Cap space is a weapon, use it wisely to get assets that serve more of a purpose than “mentoring”.

    Being able to be lazy because you can does not strike me as a strong argument. It’s just lazy and goes to my point of a FO being fully in tune and razor sharp which is what needs to happen for the Spurs. They have a lot to prove and work to do.
    Doubt you make a dent on the salary floor with this method. You would likely end up giving millions in bonuses for the next three years.

  16. #266
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    2,259
    Anyone scoffing a 4 year, $80 million deal on Poetl is nuts. That would be starting around $18 million next year, which is Marcus Morris or Derrick White money. $18 million out of a $134 million cap ain't bad at all for a quality starting center. If he tells the team he wants to be back and they believe him, then it would be re ed to sell low on him for something like one protected first.
    What exactly is a "quality starting center"? I don't think Poeltl has even contributed to the spurs winning, on the account that we literally win fewer and fewer games ever year he has been on the team...

  17. #267
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    39,398
    What exactly is a "quality starting center"? I don't think Poeltl has even contributed to the spurs winning, on the account that we literally win fewer and fewer games ever year he has been on the team...
    Derozan traded in 2021. DJ traded in 2022. Two consecutive years of offloading an All Star for picks. Jak isn’t the reason we’re losing more each year.

  18. #268
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    209
    I agree with the general premise that the Spurs cannot have 65-75 million tied up in Keldon/Dev/Jak/Tre. All those guys are already here and the Spurs are a bottom five team. At the same time letting them walk for nothing also doesn't help. Spurs really should trade Jak at the deadline for picks and cap savings. Not sure what they do with Tre come summer.

  19. #269
    Veteran offset formation's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    5,424
    I agree with the general premise that the Spurs cannot have 65-75 million tied up in Keldon/Dev/Jak/Tre. All those guys are already here and the Spurs are a bottom five team. At the same time letting them walk for nothing also doesn't help. Spurs really should trade Jak at the deadline for picks and cap savings. Not sure what they do with Tre come summer.
    I have a feeling that Tre's future will heavily depend on which player we end up drafting. If it's Scoot, Black, Wallace or even a high end SG with some ball handling skills like one of the Thompson twins, I could see them moving on. If it's Wembanyama, my guess is they extend him on as team friendly a deal as possible.

  20. #270
    Formerly Spurs21 KingKev's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    5,302
    I have a feeling that Tre's future will heavily depend on which player we end up drafting. If it's Scoot, Black, Wallace or even a high end SG with some ball handling skills like one of the Thompson twins, I could see them moving on. If it's Wembanyama, my guess is they extend him on as team friendly a deal as possible.
    I think he gets retained regardless so long as he takes a fair deal. His brother just got 29mm over 2yrs so if that is his number Iíd bid him adieu. However, at 10-12mm a year he makes sense and hopefully we are in a position to repatriate him back to the bench as a quality backup.

    Tre/Vassell/Keldon would make a solid bench mob if we could put together a proper starting lineup

  21. #271
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    209
    Tre/Vassell/Keldon would make a solid bench mob if we could put together a proper starting lineup [/QUOTE]

    Sad but true. It sucks the Spurs went the treadmill route after the Leonard disaster. All these years later and it still only year one in a full blown rebuild.

  22. #272
    Veteran offset formation's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    5,424
    I think he gets retained regardless so long as he takes a fair deal. His brother just got 29mm over 2yrs so if that is his number I’d bid him adieu. However, at 10-12mm a year he makes sense and hopefully we are in a position to repatriate him back to the bench as a quality backup.

    Tre/Vassell/Keldon would make a solid bench mob if we could put together a proper starting lineup
    That's gonna be one expensive **bench** unit if they extend Tre and Vassell too. We'd have to have most of the starters on rookie deals and MLEs.

  23. #273
    Formerly Spurs21 KingKev's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    5,302
    That's gonna be one expensive **bench** unit if they extend Tre and Vassell too. We'd have to have most of the starters on rookie deals and MLEs.
    That really is the sweet spot for contention these days. As the years go on the lux tax bill gets higher to keep a squad like that intact.

    If we had a max player surrounded by quality vets on exceptions coupled with lottery talent on rookie scale contracts it actually would work. Really I’m just being facetious; pointing out that our young core’s upside is that of a high quality bench.

  24. #274
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,079
    Doubt you make a dent on the salary floor with this method. You would likely end up giving millions in bonuses for the next three years.
    Who cares about salary floor? The money is spent one way or other imo.

  25. #275
    The Dude minds DPG21920's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    76,079
    It's been fascinating watching you two go at it... I see what you're saying but I don't agree with it either. I don't see where saving money on Doug and Zach makes any sense at all in our present situation because we don't really 'save' anything. Now if we can turn them in an asset we like, then I'm all for it or if we just want the roster spot for someone else, then that's fine but, I don't see the need.

    But interesting discussion anyways...
    Moving Doug + Zach is more about getting some picks (prob 2nds) that way it keeps the spending efficient. The money is just back room accounting and side effect imo. It’s more about being efficient, getting picks hopefully and turning vets like Josh & Doug especially into trade assets vs just highly paid mentors (even if their money doesn’t prevent anything at the moment). I want no unnecessary anchors and as many picks as possible personally

    It’s all about value and just showing a path where you can do good work and help keep Jak if that’s the goal (to Chinooks point it may not be the goal of the fo. I disagree that it’s “ok” if that’s the case is all. No excuse for being lazy just because you can be)

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
  •