Reply With Quote
Poeltl is mailing it in. I don't blame him.
This is my concern. IF this trend continues and Sa is still bad for a year or two (hopefully not more) then Jak getting way more expensive is a negative.
Spurs have to weigh their offers carefully vs prospect of paying him 80m+ and how fast they think this turns around. It’s not an easy situation imo despite agreeing that Jak is very good and definitely has a place and future on this team.
Poeltl is mailing it in. I don't blame him.
What the would you pay Tre Jones for? And Vassell is on a cheap contract for two more years after this one.
Oh I get where you're coming from... I just don't agree with the premise that moving Doug and Zach for 2nd's, at this time, is an efficient use of money..
This is the issue you keep having. You think the Spurs have this plan you agree with but are for some reason not following it. They aren't on the binary you assign to them. Their goal is not to be the Hinkie Sixers, so they aren't subordinating their roster decisions to that end. They signed McDermott because they wanted him. That's it and that's all. Doug hasn't changed at all over the past two years. So unless the Spurs changed what they want, they're probably still happy with him. It's fine to just not like McDermott, just as it's fine to want to move on from Poeltl. But the Spurs didn't learn something from signing Doug. They are getting exactly what they likely want out of him, and him being on the team isn't preventing them from doing anything else. Just as the Spurs are going to let tens of millions of cap space dollars expire this year, the cap space they used on McDermott this year and next would not have been used. Like not at all, under any cir stances.
That's so much worse that I don't think you're actually being serious. The only time Doug's contract actually had an opportunity cost was last year. The money they gave him could've gone to someone else to bring in an asset. Just like Westbrook requires an asset for the Spurs to take because it could take up so much of their cap space, that McDermott deal would be awful. Only if it could somehow come with two min years appended it to it that you can even argue it's better.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 think worrying about cap space in three to four years sort of reveals a gap in your understanding of how a rebuilding team's finances work. Even if Wemby or Scoot is a superstar and the Spurs get back on the path of contention, the Spurs are going to have cap space for years simply because the guys who are on their roster aren't going to cost enough to take all of the cap space. The Durant Thunder, Embiid Sixers and Morant Grizzlies all had substantial cap space well after they stopped rebuilding. Especially if the team structed Jakob's contract to be descending, there's not a reasonable scenario where they are hurting for cap in 2027 and are blaming Poeltl's modest salary. That's even more true because if the Spurs do turn things around and have him on the team, he's almost certainly going to be a big part of that. We're talking about a contract on par with what Tiago Splitter got back in 2014, except Poeltl is going to be two years younger and has been healthy. The extent to which this deal is an anchor outside of the scenario where Jakob has career-derailing injury is almost non-existent.
This is never and should never be a thing. The present matters. That you're willing to sacrifice an unknown percentage of your life as a fan hoping that the future will be better is a personal choice, I guess. But not only is that not a choice a team can actually make, but there's no rationale for why rebuilding has to mean not having vets that you like and can market and that the others like playing for. Mentoring does not mean merely taking a guy under your wing in a TV-show style. McDermott does certain things well, and having him do those things can develop parts of guys' games that random others can't. Vassell's improvement as a movement shooter might well be thanks to being able to practice with Doug. And because Doug has a multi-year deal and isn't playing for his next contract, he might be more inclined to work with a guy who's not his compe ion anymore. That the Spurs have seen Murray and Jones have huge leaps in development over the past two years might also be attributable to the people they put around them. The Spurs have a luxury of not having to worry about McD's lack of D hurting them since they don't care about winning games. So they can use all the good and maybe even take advantage of the point differential he's hanging on his team.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.
This comes off as obstinance masquerading as principle. If you don't use cap space, you're wasting it. There aren't enough trades or roster spots to use the space. Letting it rot just so they don't sign guys you don't like falls apart if you look at it for more than a second. Instead of settling for "mentors" they don't want in order to try for record floor payments, they use that money to have players they want on the team, while still having plenty to do any trade. Instead of hoping whatever min cast-off for horrible contract dumped from another team is going to care enough to fit in and have skills the young guys need, they are picking guys they want to do that and reaping that value. And they're losing just as you want.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 lazy" is a dishonest way to interpret overpaying for guys. They aren't trying to follow your orders and just failing to do so. Them not being the Sixers isn't them being insubordinate. If they want to keep Poeltl, then they shouldn't trade him for anything just to not "risk" him walking. They should have a high price tag and then negotiate this summer. If they think he's helping what they want to do, they should be wiling to outbid teams to keep him. They have that leverage, in the same way that a team with a high pick and reach for the guy they want or a team or a team with more assets can outbid the trade market. The only difference is that the opportunity cost for the Spurs is way lower, since they have more space than they can realistically use. You want them to be smart and diligent, but you also want them to ignore the rest of the tools at their disposal for the one, one-dimensional way of using cap space that you approve of. That's far lazier than them exerting their leverage through multiple avenues.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.
Last edited by Chinook; 01-27-2023 at 05:36 PM.
the gobert trade broke the market lolAccording to BR Bulls want 2 FRPs for Caruso lol
That’s basically what we charged them for DDR and ate Aminu’s contract along the way
Jones is a good player. They should've given him and extension at the beginning of the season when he might've been cheaper. There's a price tag they shouldn't go beyond but a salary that puts him as a well-paid backup or low-end starter would fit given their new PG would probably be a rookie-salary guy.
Vassell is in his third year, not his second. He only has one more year on his rookie contract after this one.
It definitely looks like it.
Worrying about how Poeltl potentially fits w Wembanyama seems like wasted energy to me. Even great players like Olajuwon, Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, and Giannis didn't win their first championships until their 7th/8th/9th seasons-- if Victor is able to eventually bring a le to a team starting near the bottom like the Spurs, chances are statistically overwhelming that Poeltl won't be a part of it.
I'm fairly sure fans around the NBA laugh equally when they hear spurs want 2 FRPs for Poetl.
Exactly!
They were also shocked at the returns Gobert and Dejounte got, and probably with Jrue Holiday too.
2 firsts is a fine opening offer for the Spurs. That doesn't mean they will never accept anything less. It's still almost 3 weeks from the deadline and there is no need to panic sell just yet.
Then what is the issue here. You want ier players to be paid the same money as better players? You are fine paying 2 million player 7 million but scoff at your 16 million guy getting 20?.
It is a tad funny that we weren’t ready to pay DJ on his next contract yet we are about to distribute the difference between what we probably would have offered him and what the market value would be for him in 2024 amongst the roster.
Think about this. DJM’s next deal will probably be 30-35ish a year and I’m sure PATFO would only have wanted to pay him 20-25/yr (despite the fact he well outplayed his current deal) so they moved on. That 10mm difference is what we perennially pay in dead cap. This year that 10mm will go towards bonuses for the worst defensive team in NBA history.
Yeah it's like paying Tre DJ salary this year. The only small difference is the 2 unprotected picks. An unprotected swap and a lottery protected pick.
And Murray wanted out anyway.
I’ve made clear my thoughts tbh
I understand the value in the trade and I think it was the right move but we can’t always expect homegrown talent to take money off the table. Especially when we aren’t cash strapped.
I obviously disagree but last thing I’ll say is no where do I think spurs think like me. I literally said that they don’t in a post or two ago.
They think like you and it’s been an issue for me last few years with how lazy they’ve been and how much meat they have left on the bone.
You don’t agree obviously and don’t care about stockpiling assets and love that players just play and you always argue “that’s use enough”. I violently disagree and think it’s a sign of complacent at best and that they are incapable of maximizing assets at worst.
You disagree and that’s fine. But the best FO like GS for example never take their foot off the gas and constantly look to make shrewd moves. SA has just ignored trades for far too long, overpaid character and mentoring to no avail and greatly over value mentoring (not that it’s not important but it shouldn always come with caveat that those players are trade assets imo).
YA, are their own picks the most important thing BIG picture? Yes. Agree. I diverge from you on that making it normal or acceptable to let so many assets just walk for nothing and not being more aggressive and calculated with regards to asset management
I never said I was worried about cap space; that seems like gas lighting (not in a serious way but in an ignorant of my position way). I said Jak can stay and have no issues with it. I’m talking about a nuanced mindset while constantly acknowledging it’s not a huge issue either way.
And not once did I say trade Jak out of fear of walking. Not once. It’s a continued misconstrued view of my take. I said they have to think hard about if THEY want to pay Jak that much. Has nothing to do with fear of him walking.
Last edited by DPG21920; 01-27-2023 at 06:50 PM.
This is a great point that fans always over look in regard to the draft, the trade market, and free agency.
"We could have picked him at 23, but we took him at 11". No, you couldn't have taken him at 23, because you don't have the 23rd pick, you only have the 11th pick.
"Well we could have traded down and then picked him at 23!" Could we have? Did the team at 23 want to make that trade?
"The Lakers got him for a bench player and a 2nd rounder! We could have done that!" Could we? Did the other team want our bench player?
"The Pacers signed him for $12mm/year! We could have done that!" Could we have? What if dude just likes ing Indiana for some reason?
"We could have at least gotten him on an offer sheet!" What if he didn't want our offer sheet?
We as fans make assumptions as to what the other party to the transaction should/will do, forgetting that they also have free will and their own interests.
Spurs not only have the luxury of overpaying for what they want, but they often NEED to overpay for what they want, especially while they suck.
This is an interesting point here. The Spurs have overvalued mentoring, have turned 3 different #29 overall picks into significant contributors/assets, and are known for developing players. Meanwhile, the Warriors have lotto picks like Wiseman and mayybe Kuminga who they are ready to sell because they aren't living up to potential (maybe this is not truly the case with Kuminga, that's just what I've heard... but I like him as a player).
Two different philosophies towards team building, but obviously the Warriors are much better than the Spurs so it's hard to not say the Warrior's approach is better.
I think the Warriors turned non consensus players into world beaters in Steph, Klay, Dray, Poole etc..into great players too. They are just at a different timeline now so development of their youth is not priority because they are contenders.
Spurs don’t have anything else to focus on but development so they better be good at it and they have. I am not saying that spurs have done poorly at development; there is definitely something to have good vets around so you don’t turn into Rockets. I’m simply saying they have over valued that, over paid for that (I know Chinook doesn’t care about that) and for years with Mills/LMA/Rudy and many others let them walk for nothing for absolutely no reason IMO.
Spurs can both land vets like Doug and get what they want and either 1) not overpay them for no reason to where they apparently have little to no trade value or 2) seek some other guys that may not quite be Doug, but that big picture still accomplish goals without the need to “overpay because they can”. When you are truly competing and you need to overpay for good players? Sure I get that. Overpaying for older role players that have terrible defense and don’t fit the timeline at all or have any upside due to their game/contracts? That does not sound like smart business.
Big picture I am saying mediocre to bad players are always that regardless of cir stances and overpaying because you have margin for errors doesn’t strike me as smart business because it does carry risk (unlike IMO Chinooks assumption that NOT using cap space is wasteful. It’s not because there is always opportunities to use it unlike with Doug type deals where you may find yourself stuck possibly for absolutely no good reason).
It’s like saying because something bad didn’t happen that it justifies the logic when you took a risk. No, you just got lucky or cir stances aided you. Does not make it completely sound logic.
I’m hoping that Dougs shooting and now that it’s a 2 year deal vs 4 for teams will allow for them to trade and net picks even if it’s taking on a Westbrook type deal. That would be a great thing and would show that Spurs FO mind is in the right place.
But I will never agree to saying it’s ok to sign terribly flawed players to well above market average long term deals during a rebuild when they have no upside and no place in our future. It doesn’t make sense even if it does not end up harming us.
I see things a little bit in reverse, and I think this is Chinook's point as well. The current Spurs (not the Mills/LMA/Rudy/Gasol Spurs) HAVE to overpay, because a vet who provides mentorship value requires that premium in order to be here. And currently, there is no opportunity cost to overpaying them. Having Doug on his deal doesn't prevent us from having any other player, so in the now, overpaying is kind of irrelevant.
On the other hand (to the second bolded portion), when you are truly competing is when you can' afford to overpay for good players, because it comes at an opportunity cost. Overpaying your role playing vet could mean you can no longer keep another role playing vet, so you have to be more diligent in ensuring you are getting good value out of your roster construction.
I definitely see your point about wanting to trade all these vets before they walk for nothing, but that really isn't practical. Sometimes you're just going to lose guys to Free Agency, and that's okay. Of late, it seems like the Spurs have done a better job of extracting some value for those players who have it on the way out as opposed to letting them die on the vine until they reach a buy-out or just vanish as Free Agents. Ideally, we'd trade everyone before they hit FA or do a S&T for them, but that just isn't that realistic.
mcdermott was never a 4 year deal
mcdermott is the type of guy who will have trade value as an expiring deal, but also might not have been willing to settle for a 1 year deal at his age. given the state of the spurs, they probably did have to overpay to land players.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
