Be Patient, But For Who?

[itzsoweezee]

wemby's sidekick might be in the 9th grade right now.

Parker didn't come until the 2001 draft, Manu in 2002-03.

We'll probably need to fight through a few Derek Andersons and Samaki Walkers for the next 3 years or so.

The problem with your analogy is that Tim had David Robinson. Wemby has no one even close to all star caliber.

And Robinson’s prime years were wasted with terrible supporting player after terrible supporting player. The spurs cannot this up again.

[Knoxxx]

How does this thread differ from the likely offseason scenarios thread or the free agent signings thread? Seems like we have multiple threads on the same topic or just slight variations. And no, I am not a serial complainer about people starting bad threads, normally.

[DAF86]

Because they don't change the window but are expensive (both in terms of assets and long-term commitment). It's okay to be expensive if you open up a window like that group with Lebron does. You're basically having Wemby play the Wade role to their Shaq. Otherwise, what they need is a vet who can help build a winning culture for Wemby and to a lesser extent Vassell. Ideally, such a player would take some of the pressure off Vassell and the new PG to make plays for the rest of the team while adding a defensive presence. That's why Durant is at the top of my wish list, then Butler. In the next tier, Middleton is basically the perfect guy for a Spurs team that is still working its way toward being a contender, with Paul George requiring too much sacrifice to be ideal along with being too injury-prone. Then you start basically having to miss out on certain qualities which is how you run into guys like Hayward and DeRozan, who check some boxes and are much more affordable but who leave some boxes unchecked and would hopefully only be around for a short period of time.

I disagree guys like Mitc and Markannen wouldn't open any kind of window. Sure, they might not become instant championship contenders as soon as they get here, but eventually they will, and you will be already set to contend for the next decade.

[Chinook]

The hype was wrong 9 times so it has to be wrong the 10th time..

Just to be clear, this is already a bad attempt to counter this. First, this isn't about "hype". The hype wasn't wrong with any of those players. They're all great. What was wrong was the impulse to rush. It should give a person pause that that impulse has never born fruit. What you're criticizing is called inductive reasoning. It's not designed to make definitive statements about the world. Pointing out that it can be wrong isn't news -- it's built into the system. That's true for the multiple arguments folks are making about the Spurs' drafting and how that should be evidence the team can't go that route. The actual splitting point is what we should question, and when you find yourself trying to will your team into making a decision that has almost exclusively cost franchises their stars, it should give you pause. Instead, fans are looking for reasons to justify that impulse to the exclusion of the many methods of team-building that have worked in the past.

This team is two pretty good role players in their prime, and (the difficult part) a corrective patch for Sochan brain, shy of competing for a place in conference finals.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I would project such a team to lose in the first round four to six games, depending on their draw. People do not appreciate how much growth is left in Wemby's game, and they simultaneously disrespect every other star in NBA history by trivializing their career progression.

[Chinook]

I disagree guys like Mitc and Markannen wouldn't open any kind of window. Sure, they might not become instant championship contenders as soon as they get here, but eventually they will, and you will be already set to contend for the next decade.

That's not how the NBA works. They'd "be set" for two years -- two non-contending years. Then they'd be drowning in salary obligations. Then sooner than you'd think, those players will be on the downside of their careers but still making a ton of money. If you want to make a win-now move, make a real win-now move for a guy who can get the team a le. If you want to build for the future, build for the future with a guy who can help lay the foundation. Don't bring in a guy in his early prime who costs a lot but doesn't have the intangibles to take the team to the mountain top. Get Wemby a Shaq or a Millsap. Do not get him a Jermaine O'Neal.

[Chinook]

How does this thread differ from the likely offseason scenarios thread or the free agent signings thread? Seems like we have multiple threads on the same topic or just slight variations. And no, I am not a serial complainer about people starting bad threads, normally.

We're going to be having the same arguments over and over for at least the next 2.5 months, if not all the way through August. It's basically going to be folks asking "Are we there yet?" for the entire car ride.

[Pauleta14]

I think this is a perfectly sound approach based entirely upon the wrong premise, which is that Wemby will take a number of years before he is ready to be a championship centerpiece. What’s we’ve seen, however, is that Wemby’s rate of development is significantly greater than any other player before him. If he were on a normal development trajectory, then this approach would make a ton of sense. But if you believe he is on an accelerated developmental trajectory then the team building around him should be accelerated commensurately.

I base my team building philosophy around the idea that Year 3 Wemby will be a championship centerpiece. If that is true, you should start putting some of the most key elements around him in Year 2, to allow proper time for them to gel.

Just my $0.02.

This.

If we consider Victor stunning development rate, he’s at year 3 already, another season at the same rate and he’ll be at least year 5.

Every rules have exceptions and Wemby is the definition of one

[Pauleta14]

Chinook

None of the "superman" players you named had even close to Victor's progression's rate during their rookie season, which makes your point moot

Just go back check your most optimistic predictions for Victor's rookie season to realise how wrong you were and then imagine how far he'll be next season from your present predictions.

He's not a normal "case" and shouldn't be treated like one

[DAF86]

That's not how the NBA works. They'd "be set" for two years -- two non-contending years. Then they'd be drowning in salary obligations. Then sooner than you'd think, those players will be on the downside of their careers but still making a ton of money. If you want to make a win-now move, make a real win-now move for a guy who can get the team a le. If you want to build for the future, build for the future with a guy who can help lay the foundation. Don't bring in a guy in his early prime who costs a lot but doesn't have the intangibles to take the team to the mountain top. Get Wemby a Shaq or a Millsap. Do not get him a Jermaine O'Neal.

How do Shaq and Milsap end in the same grouping?

Let's agree to disagree, I guess. I fail to see how an established star in his prime like Mitc wouldn't be a good get, but a flawed player, that is also past his prime, like DeRozan would.

I would even prefer Mitc over guys like Durant or Lebron. Unless you bring absolute top players (Jokic, Luka, Giannis) you won't become a championship contender right away, you'll need to give the team some time to gel. A guy like Mitc can afford to wait 2 or 3 years for the team to get where it needs to. There's no guarantee a Lebron, a Durant, or a Curry is still good 3 years from now.

[Brazil]

This board generally praises OKC for stacking picks, building up from scratch, not throwing money at washed up FAs but when the Spurs do the same, FO sucks

Spurs wanted to know what they had with Victor before committing now they know, let's see what next moves are going to be.

They developped a first round pick in a healthy potential goat, if you don't see the great work they are doing developing Victor incredible skill set you are blind. I'm fine for now with FO not giving up picks and flexibility on whatever flavor of the month FA.

[Kevin]

This board generally praises OKC for stacking picks, building up from scratch, not throwing money at washed up FAs but when the Spurs do the same, FO sucks

Spurs wanted to know what they had with Victor before committing now they know, let's see what next moves are going to be.

They developped a first round pick in a healthy potential goat, if you don't see the great work they are doing developing Victor incredible skill set you are blind. I'm fine for now with FO not giving up picks and flexibility on whatever flavor of the month FA.

Wright is nowhere near the drafter that Presti is. Biggest difference right there.

I'd go all in on Lauri and Trea Young and form a affordable big three for the next three years.

[scott]

It's a good think we have some scientific ways to approximately measure Wemby's "readiness". In my opinion, this is the best one.

I'm only but one person, and reasonable people are free to disagree, but I'm not sure how you look at this chart and come away with "it will be at least a few more YEARS before Wemby's window is open"

[CorrectCrusader]

I don't think we have to worry about getting too good too quick with Wemby because of how stacked the west is.

[Chinook]

How do Shaq and Milsap end in the same grouping?

They're not. They're literally in opposite groupings. Did you not read anything I wrote?

[DAF86]

They're not. They're literally in opposite groupings. Did you not read anything I wrote?

They are in the same grouping as in the "players to get" group. I understand Shaq would be a Lebron and Milsap would be a DeRozan. I just think it's very bad reasoning.

[DAF86]

just to remain in the whole "Wemby=Wade, Lebron=Shaq" analogy. The Heat got one flukey championship out of that pairing and then, when Shaq left, they had to start all over again with them staying in mediocrity for a long ass time untill Lebron decided to join them. Do you really want to follow that path? If instead of a Shaquille O'neal, the Heat would have gotten a, let's say, an Amare Stoudamire (the analogy isn't perfect because I think Mitc will prove to be better for longer), I think it is safe to say the Heat would have built a contender for a longer period of time.

[itzsoweezee]

This board generally praises OKC for stacking picks, building up from scratch, not throwing money at washed up FAs but when the Spurs do the same, FO sucks

Spurs wanted to know what they had with Victor before committing now they know, let's see what next moves are going to be.

They developped a first round pick in a healthy potential goat, if you don't see the great work they are doing developing Victor incredible skill set you are blind. I'm fine for now with FO not giving up picks and flexibility on whatever flavor of the month FA.

This is not an either/or situation. The spurs are in a good position to do both. Upgrade the roster with vets, continue to collect/develop assets, and turn assets into major upgrades when the opportunity strikes.

[Chinook]

It's a good way we some scientific ways to approximately measure Wemby's "readiness". In my opinion, this is the best one.

I'm only but one person, and reasonable people are free to disagree, but I'm not sure how you look at this chart and come away with "it will be at least a few more YEARS before Wemby's window is open"

This just relies on the assumption that production and readiness are the same thing. It's that assumption that is underpinning a lot of responses in this thread. The difference between 2019 and 2023 Jokic wasn't his production. His playoff performances were almost identical. But many of us watched that first round against the Spurs a remember Murray (Jamal) saving that series the Denver. The number look great, but the Spurs were absolutely able to bother Jokic with their gameplan, and Aldridge was a tough cover, even though LMA was in his last really good year. You can contrast that with the Nuggets absolutely demolishing a much better team in 2023's first round. Or how despite the fact that Wemby is a nightmare matchup for Jokic, Nikola dominated last game. Jokic in 2019 and Jokic in 2023 were very different despite the numbers looking the same.

In that same vein, 2027 Wemby will be completely different than 2023 Wemby, even though his averages aren't going to get THAT much higher. The numbers are already ridiculous, but they're inefficient. That's somewhat true when it comes to turnovers and TS%, but I mean that more in terms of how repeatable the ways of scoring are and how much energy he has to expend to play the way he does. His lack of go-to moves would absolutely be exploited in a playoff series, and while he has done a great job learning from his mistakes to avoid fouls, there are ways to plan around him defensively that a team locked into a series can use more effectively than one playing a single game in a stretch. People are confusing Wemby looking like arguably the best rookie ever with him not looking like a rookie. He definitely looks like a rookie. He's still just starting out his career and needs a lot of experience, practice and in general time to grow into a mature player. It's just his floor is so much higher than many folks projected.

[scott]

This just relies on the assumption that production and readiness are the same thing. It's that assumption that is underpinning a lot of responses in this thread. The difference between 2019 and 2023 Jokic wasn't his production. His playoff performances were almost identical. But many of us watched that first round against the Spurs a remember Murray (Jamal) saving that series the Denver. The number look great, but the Spurs were absolutely able to bother Jokic with their gameplan, and Aldridge was a tough cover, even though LMA was in his last really good year. You can contrast that with the Nuggets absolutely demolishing a much better team in 2023's first round. Or how despite the fact that Wemby is a nightmare matchup for Jokic, Nikola dominated last game. Jokic in 2019 and Jokic in 2023 were very different despite the numbers looking the same.

In that same vein, 2027 Wemby will be completely different than 2023 Wemby, even though his averages aren't going to get THAT much higher. The numbers are already ridiculous, but they're inefficient. That's somewhat true when it comes to turnovers and TS%, but I mean that more in terms of how repeatable the ways of scoring are and how much energy he has to expend to play the way he does. His lack of go-to moves would absolutely be exploited in a playoff series, and while he has done a great job learning from his mistakes to avoid fouls, there are ways to plan around him defensively that a team locked into a series can use more effectively than one playing a single game in a stretch. People are confusing Wemby looking like arguably the best rookie ever with him not looking like a rookie. He definitely looks like a rookie. He's still just starting out his career and needs a lot of experience, practice and in general time to grow into a mature player. It's just his floor is so much higher than many folks projected.

We're both starting off at the same point: Wemby has holes in his game to correct. The only difference in your take is those holes will take years for Wemby to fix, whereas my take is that the process will go much faster. We have the single best forward-looking predictive model (DARKO) seemingly backing up my perspective, whereas yours seems to be based on the historical progression of players who are not Wemby. We'll see which one turns out more accurate.

[Chinook]

They are in the same grouping as in the "players to get" group. I understand Shaq would be a Lebron and Milsap would be a DeRozan. I just think it's very bad reasoning.

There isn't a single "players to get" group. These players, including Young, Mitc and Mark, a paths the Spurs can take. DeRozan represents one way of going down one type of path, and Lebron represents one way of going down another type of path. Those paths are as different from each other as they are from the Young/Mitchel/Mark paths. Trying to pretend they are the same completely misses the point I was making. The "trading for a young star on a max contract" path has all of the downsides of "trade for an established centerpiece" path without any of the upsides. It also doesn't have any of the upside of the "acquire a transitional vet star" path and has larger downsides.

We can agree to disagree on which players make sense for the Spurs, but it's not really a matter of opinion if I was saying Millsap/Shaq or Lebron/DeRozan are pairings in the same group.

[JPB]

wemby's sidekick might be in the 9th grade right now.

Parker didn't come until the 2001 draft, Manu in 2002-03.

We'll probably need to fight through a few Derek Andersons and Samaki Walkers for the next 3 years or so.

spurs won a ile a couple years before that, and were still contenders before TP and Maun arrived. totally different sittuation.

Sorry but at this point, anybody believing spurs can take the patient road and just just wait another 3-4 year developing rooks before being compe ive and making the POs, then maybe in year 6-7 start to contend is plain deluded.

Vic himself won't accept that. just watch the kid on the court, hsi behavior, his words, just another year in the bottom and things wouldn't go well, like the whole world of BB wouldn't understand not to see Wemby in meaningfull game by next year already... Spurs don't own the kid, he's been giving to them by the BB Gods, they have a responsability towards the spurs but towards basketball and the rest of the world too.

It's like a violonist entrusted a Stradivarius. You're not gonna play it with a mediocre band of musicians, in meaningless concerts for 4 years, waiting and hoping the other dudes "develop" skills they don't have, and sign new young prospect every year hoping they become virtuosos themselves... You might use the first year to get use to the Strad, then go play it with a quality band or ochestra for you to keep improving and quickly exploit its possibilites, and for the world to enjoy it.

[Sugus]

where do you guys get this tbh

I was thinking the exact same thing

Specifically, replacing Giannis/Luka with Kevin Durant: massive ego, cares deeply about his "legacy". The notion that he'd want to team up with a stacked team, who just eliminated him from the playoffs, and hinder his potential to be historically great, is absurd.......

And then the KD to the Warriors signing is announced, and the curtain falls. Everything's "absurd" until reality hits you like a brick house.

[DAF86]

There isn't a single "players to get" group. These players, including Young, Mitc and Mark, a paths the Spurs can take. DeRozan represents one way of going down one type of path, and Lebron represents one way of going down another type of path. Those paths are as different from each other as they are from the Young/Mitchel/Mark paths. Trying to pretend they are the same completely misses the point I was making. The "trading for a young star on a max contract" path has all of the downsides of "trade for an established centerpiece" path without any of the upsides. It also doesn't have any of the upside of the "acquire a transitional vet star" path and has larger downsides.

We can agree to disagree on which players make sense for the Spurs, but it's not really a matter of opinion if I was saying Millsap/Shaq or Lebron/DeRozan are pairings in the same group.

They are part of the same group, since those are the type of players you would get. I understand that each type of player with different goals in mind.

I just can't get behind the reasoning at all.

1st) before getting a DeRozan, I would rather add 2 or 3 veteran role players and develop the youngsters into primary options, and I think the results would be similar, clear improvement without trully contending for a championship.

2nd) I already adressed the Lebron/Durant scenarios in the Heat analogy. You would be getting them to build an extremely short window that will get you starting all over again in a couple of years. I still prefer this option to getting a DeRozan back, tbh.

[Sugus]

Trae and Garland are extremely overrated considering the hype they are getting on here.

Spurs shouldn't pursue either unless they can be had for 30 cents on the dollar of their perceived value IMO.

Both would be a massive mistake if Spurs had to pay 4 high end 1sts and pay near max money on the cap.

Hawks have been doing just fine without Tre the past 6 weeks, I wonder why that is.

Spurs aren't getting anyone at 30 cents a dollar of their perceived value, lol.

Unless Wemby becomes some LeBron-level pulling force and networking behind the scenes, the reality of San Antonio as a market kind of forces the Spurs' hands there. There's no "LA/Miami discount" to be had here.

Only thing Spurs would get on that kind of "deal" is perceivedly damaged goods player. Which is another reason the Spurs are tanking this season out and taking the longer approach, for better and worse.

[Chinook]

We're both starting off at the same point: Wemby has holes in his game to correct. The only difference in your take is those holes will take years for Wemby to fix, whereas my take is that the process will go much faster. We have the single best forward-looking predictive model (DARKO) seemingly backing up my perspective, whereas yours seems to be based on the historical progression of players who are not Wemby. We'll see which one turns out more accurate.

As far as I know, DARKO DPM doesn't even suggest it measures who's a championship centerpiece, so I don't see why it's evidence in either direction. Most advanced stats are calibrated by seeing if they are able to say good players are good. So this stat doing that doesn't give it strength. When I'm talking about the intangible gaps, they aren't going to be captured in a sample of data, especially not one that relies on Victor being the best player on a bad team getting all the shots he wants. It's a completely alien situation from the one I'm talking about. I don't know if there are stats that can answer these questions.

I do think it takes years to develop skills and experience. There's nothing about Wemby that makes me think he doesn't have a human brain and a physical body that has to obey the laws of physics and nature. I have not and am not saying Wemby will take seven years to develop. I have said that he deserves seven years to develop, and the Spurs need to be willing to see his progress clearly to avoid accelerating passed him and missing his window by making poor moves. They have the powder to be patient for multiple years rather than rushing him. It's in their best interest to take advantage of this necessary developmental time to draft and build other players either as part of the puzzle for a contending team or as trade pieces. If they don't act prematurely, they can always act later. If they act too soon, they won't be able to go back.