Call Your Ideal Off-Season

[LeBowen]

Butler doesn't care about regular season, we need someone who does.

[Ariel]

I imagine you understand this, but there is an asymmetry to how partially-guaranteed money is applied. For the Spurs, Graham's deal only counts as the guaranteed portion for matching purposes, but the other team has to be able to take his full contract into space or an exception. Therefore, the Spurs are renting more than $12 Million from the other team. If that team uses a TE, the non-guaranteed portion does not get added back. If they use cap space, they have to avoid making other moves that could drop them below $13 Million until after they complete the trade and waive Graham. Considering the absolute flood of seconds the Spurs have, it's well worth it for them to secure that cap space with a reliable partner rather than shopping the deal around hoping for a lower price.

As I recall, that is only for trade matching purposes, but once the trade is completed, then you can waive the player and only the guaranteed portion of the deal becomes dead money. So in this case, yes, you'd have to find a team that can accomodate Grahams ENTIRE salary (12.65M total: 2.85M guaranteed + 9.8M nonguaranteed) but then you waive him / buy him out and only the 2,85M guaranteed become dead money (see Gallinari, Lamar Stevens, even Graham himself if waived). I don't see that as a big problem that would restrict the options the Spurs have.

I'm skeptical of this reasoning. There's a massive difference in renting one year of cap space after the market has locked in and renting a year and change before the off-season starts. Yes, it could happen, just like the Spurs took Graham's two remaining years for Richardson and seconds. But the Spurs were deep in a rebuild, fully tanking for Wemby. I don't know if there will be an equivalent situation for Flagg. I don't think the Spurs should wait until 2025 to make moves anyway, so it might be worth it for them to trade the extra value to put Collins in a deal rather than trying to save money at the expense of improving their roster. But only time will tell how PATFO approaches this situation.

You're basically asking a team to take one more year of salary for picks, For reference, Dallas took Richaun Holmes from Sacramento in exchange for the 25th pick (Olivier-Maxence Prosper), it was slightly more salary (about 13M annually) but for TWO seasons, and if you take into consideration the projected raise of the cap, Collins salary in 2 years will roughly be equivalent to that amount 2 years ago. And in the scenario I laid out the third team would only be asked to take on ONE extra year. So I'd think if a late first was enough to rid you of 2 years of such a contract, then a few 2nds could be enough to get a team to add one more year of (roughly) similar salary. There are always rebuilding teams. And in any case, I'd NEVER put a lottery pick on the table to rid yourself of a mid salary, short term deal like Collins. Seems like a gross mismanagement of assets.

Brogdan's cap hold is $33 Million. There's no way the Spurs should be planning on keeping that hold on the books in 2025 in order to re-sign Brogdan afterwards. It's hard to imagine dude warrants a deal starting at more than that.

Yeah, this one I'd give to you. I didn't realize Brogdon's cap hold was THAT large. Definitely lowers the price I'd be willing to pay if there are viable free agents for next offseason (Donovan Mitc , Lauri Markkanen, Derrick White, etc) so that you can safely renounce him without regret if necessary.

[TD 21]

I imagine you understand this, but there is an asymmetry to how partially-guaranteed money is applied.

I didn't bother reading the rest of this, but for future reference, this is essentially what I mean when I say something like "I follow the league closely".

It's not for the nefarious reasons you infer, but to say with the exception of certain CBA minutia, presume I already know or understand.

[R. DeMurre]

The more I look at it, the more I think that a few minor adjustments are all that will be done outside of the draft. There are no splurge-worthy free agents, so I look for the Spurs to search out bargains. The two I'm liking at the moment are Delon Wright and Goga Bitadze. Wright has size, defense, and combo guard skills, and Goga has illustrated he can be an impactful back up center. Neither breaks the bank.

[Chinook]

Well now that we know the picks the Spurs have, we can see the Spurs have $131 Million in committed (but not necessarily guaranteed) salary for next year. With the MLE, LLE and cap holds, that means the Spurs are currently over next year's cap. They're currently looking at $117 Million in guaranteed salary. It gives them right around $24 Million in cap space they can make without trading away or stretching anyone. If they're going to waive Graham, I think it's irresponsible to not pay someone else to eat the guaranteed salary. If they do that and stretch/waive Collins, they would JUST open up enough room to sign a first-tier max like Quickley or Claxton. Seeing as those guys are RFAs on top of their questionable fit, I don't think that's the best way to go. I don't think many scenarios justify paying Collins $7 Million a year for five years to not play for them. It does mean with a bit of effort the Spurs can pitch their potential for cap space to make a special deal work out. I've spilled enough ink talking about why that's not the ideal route to go in my mind. But they have that option.

[Chinook]

I didn't bother reading the rest of this, but for future reference, this is essentially what I mean when I say something like "I follow the league closely".

It's not for the nefarious reasons you infer, but to say with the exception of certain CBA minutia, presume I already know or understand.

I'm not going to open up that can of worms again, Teeds. Just as I didn't post my long reply to the last exchange we had, I am not going to post the long response I had this time. All I'll say is that I'm not going to stop talking about stuff like this if what you said gives me the impression that you don't understand the situation in the same way I do. I don't talk about that to be condescending. I do it because I'm taking it seriously enough to dig to the roots of the argument and explain where I think the disagreement comes from.

[MultiTroll]

FFS bring them back.

A look back at the Silver Dancers, a Spurs staple for more than three decades (mysanantonio.com)

[scott]

Well now that we know the picks the Spurs have, we can see the Spurs have $131 Million in committed (but not necessarily guaranteed) salary for next year. With the MLE, LLE and cap holds, that means the Spurs are currently over next year's cap. They're currently looking at $117 Million in guaranteed salary. It gives them right around $24 Million in cap space they can make without trading away or stretching anyone. If they're going to waive Graham, I think it's irresponsible to not pay someone else to eat the guaranteed salary. If they do that and stretch/waive Collins, they would JUST open up enough room to sign a first-tier max like Quickley or Claxton. Seeing as those guys are RFAs on top of their questionable fit, I don't think that's the best way to go. I don't think many scenarios justify paying Collins $7 Million a year for five years to not play for them. It does mean with a bit of effort the Spurs can pitch their potential for cap space to make a special deal work out. I've spilled enough ink talking about why that's not the ideal route to go in my mind. But they have that option.

At this point I think we just gotta roll with Collins until such time his contract is needed as ballast for some other trade. Same with Keldon, imvho

[TD 21]

I'm not going to open up that can of worms again, Teeds. Just as I didn't post my long reply to the last exchange we had, I am not going to post the long response I had this time. All I'll say is that I'm not going to stop talking about stuff like this if what you said gives me the impression that you don't understand the situation in the same way I do. I don't talk about that to be condescending. I do it because I'm taking it seriously enough to dig to the roots of the argument and explain where I think the disagreement comes from.

You're still not getting this. I meant in a general sense, you don't need to tell me what the financial situation is on a team or the contractual status of a player or whether they're having a good season or are held in good stead by their organization/fans, etc.

I'm well aware of all of that and I don't say that to be condescending or pat myself on the back.

[Chinook]

As I recall, that is only for trade matching purposes, but once the trade is completed, then you can waive the player and only the guaranteed portion of the deal becomes dead money. So in this case, yes, you'd have to find a team that can accomodate Grahams ENTIRE salary (12.65M total: 2.85M guaranteed + 9.8M nonguaranteed) but then you waive him / buy him out and only the 2,85M guaranteed become dead money (see Gallinari, Lamar Stevens, even Graham himself if waived). I don't see that as a big problem that would restrict the options the Spurs have.

Teams have to have the salary space to take the whole contract, which limits the teams who can do that deal and thus drives up the price. For teams that have trade exceptions, they'd have to be willing to spend the whole amount, even though they are only will take the hit for the guaranteed amount. Teams also aren't guaranteed to have this as their first trade of the off-season. The idea that they could just waive Graham and then have the space again still relies on that timing working with other deals. If Graham were only a $2.8M/1 deal, then there'd only need to be cash to make it work. But he's not, so the Spurs need to pay more. Whether it's multiple seconds is its own matter, but I don't think it's sound to just evaluate the guaranteed salary.

You're basically asking a team to take one more year of salary for picks,

You're again overlooking the practical difference between selling cap space during the off-season and selling it in advance. The Mavs got a first for Holmes using a newly minted TE from the Bertans-Wallace/Lively trade. That was all done during the draft to immediately get the Mavs players they wanted. It wasn't done during the season when Dallas had no idea which pieces they were getting. During an off-season a team might take Collins as an expiring for cheap after not finding anything better to do with their space. But during the deadline, the team wouldn't have a chance to explore the market to see if they could get more value (not unlike how Dallas got a first for absorbing less money than the seconds going for Collins in your scenario). Timing changes value. Obviously I don't know if a team would take on Collins' second year for only seconds. , on RGM someone proposed the Spurs and Bucks swap Collins and Branham for Lopez. But there's a real difference between trading for one year in June/July and trading for a year-and-a-half in January or February, even if the financial commitment is the same.

[The Truth #6]

If the Spurs get a decent point guard/Dillingham there might be just enough flashes to see if Keldon's game looks different playing alongside such a player. He's pulled his game back and looks lost in the process, but someone collapsing the defense could resurrect, so to speak, his still young career.

[RC_Drunkford]

I can't wait to see Pop play a Collins/Keldon/Branham/Dillingham line up. Then call time out cause they can't guard anybody, yell at them and trot out the same line up again.

[SpurSpike]

I can't wait to see Pop play a Collins/Keldon/Branham/Dillingham line up. Then call time out cause they can't guard anybody, yell at them and trot out the same line up again.

If Spurs get Dilly they should try trading Branham this off season.

[Mitch Cumsteen]

My ideal off season:
1. Draft Dillingham and either Holland, Williams or Castle.
2. Sign Chris Paul to a mid level-ish deal for 2 years
3. Sign Nic Batum to a one year deal
4. Trade a 2nd round pick(s) to Memphis for Luke Kennard. I think the Griz are going to cut him outright to avoid tax, and they might as well get something for him.

That would give the Spurs a dynamic scorer/shooter at PG, an upside defensive wing, veteran leadership/mentoring for said PG and upside wing, and much needed outside shooting. If they could squeeze in another big (or keep Bassey healthy), that would pretty much check off all of my boxes.

[LeBowen]

What would be the ideal, realistic win now scenario?
Keep both 2024 picks.

Draft Castle and Knecht.
Collins+picks for Markkanen.
Get Patrick Williams or Oubre in FA.
Get a backup big rim protector in FA. Claxton would be ideal if he's willing to come off the bench. If not, one of the veterans.

Keep all the Hawks picks and 2025 Spurs pick in Markkanen trade.
If they value Keldon, use him.

If not, have Keldon, Sochan, Devin and all the leftover 2026 and onwards picks at the ready if there's a chance for a superstar trade.

Castle-Devin-FA-Markkanen-Wemby
Tre-Knecht-Keldon-Sochan-FA

Should be enough for a play-in spot.

I'd like one of Naz Reid, Herb Jones or Trey Murphy, but they won't be available.
Bridges would also be an option, but Nets are asking for too much and he's turning 28 before the season starts.

[Dverde]

Derrick Jones Jr. please

[Chinook]

So who would folks replace Keldon with as the team's sixth man? I have seen multiple trade ideas where the Spurs basically get rid of Johnson almost as a way to add value to SA's ledger. I've said it before, but I don't think there's an upgrade to his role in the draft or free agency. On a declining contract Johnson is basically getting 133 percent of the MLE over the rest of his deal. I don't think trading him away should be an option the Spurs explore much at all this year, but even in the few cases where it makes sense, the Spurs should legitimately have a plan on how to replace him. Despite the talk of how replaceable Keldon is, he's a top-10 Spur in the post-Kawhi era. I know that seems like a low bar, but we're still talking about six years and dozens of players passing through.

[scott]

So who would folks replace Keldon with as the team's sixth man? I have seen multiple trade ideas where the Spurs basically get rid of Johnson almost as a way to add value to SA's ledger. I've said it before, but I don't think there's an upgrade to his role in the draft or free agency. On a declining contract Johnson is basically getting 133 percent of the MLE over the rest of his deal. I don't think trading him away should be an option the Spurs explore much at all this year, but even in the few cases where it makes sense, the Spurs should legitimately have a plan on how to replace him. Despite the talk of how replaceable Keldon is, he's a top-10 Spur in the post-Kawhi era. I know that seems like a low bar, but we're still talking about six years and dozens of players passing through.

IMO, there is a clear and obvious upgrade to this role who happens to be a FA this year, but will likely cost a little more than Keldon, and that is Malik Monk. He's already obviously quite proven in this role (5th and then 2nd in 6OTY voting in the last two seasons), and it a more fluid scorer than Johnson. Keldon, despite putting up scoring numbers, seems to labor to get his, whereas Monk's seem to come more naturally in the flow of the game.

Personally, I like a Cam Thomas-like player as a potential ideal 6th man. With that said, I don't think Cam is worth going and expending considerable assets to acquire (but would be fun in a Bridges-Thomas-Cam Johnson mega deal to completely shake up both rosters).

I just don't know how well Keldon really fits in the style the Spurs want to play. He was part of a very productive closing lineup for the Spurs, but there were times when paired with Wemby and Vassell that seemed to really disrupt the flow of the offense, and he's of course not very useful on defense either.

The Spurs seem hopeful that Branham could fill that 6th man scorer role, but the jury is still out. If the Spurs draft Dillingham, he could be that 6th man scorer in his rookie year before taking over the starting gig next year. If they take Holland, I also see him as a potential contender for that role (and a direct replacement for Keldon's minutes).

In the end, seems like the desire to move Keldon is less about Keldon the player or person and more about his fit and the desire to capitalize on his value while he still has some (his contract helps in that regard).

[spurraider21]

second malik monk

[CGD]

So who would folks replace Keldon with as the team's sixth man? I have seen multiple trade ideas where the Spurs basically get rid of Johnson almost as a way to add value to SA's ledger. I've said it before, but I don't think there's an upgrade to his role in the draft or free agency. On a declining contract Johnson is basically getting 133 percent of the MLE over the rest of his deal. I don't think trading him away should be an option the Spurs explore much at all this year, but even in the few cases where it makes sense, the Spurs should legitimately have a plan on how to replace him. Despite the talk of how replaceable Keldon is, he's a top-10 Spur in the post-Kawhi era. I know that seems like a low bar, but we're still talking about six years and dozens of players passing through.

I think it's foolish to trade him for just the sake of it. But, he has value in his own right not least of which is because of his contract's structure, so in my view it would be equally unwise not to explore using it to upgrade the roster. But no rush yet -- I think the window for doing that starts this summer and goes through Feb 2026. It also would help if he has a better year than the last campaign to bolster his value so more.

[CGD]

second malik monk

The Magic will throw a stupid bag at him. No interest in playing that game for Malik freakin Monk

[mo7888]

The Magic will throw a stupid bag at him. No interest in playing that game for Malik freakin Monk

They've been linked to him, Klay, D'Lo and even PG13. They can't get them all..

[scott]

The die hard Kings fan I work with seems think something around $17MM/yr is what the Kings will offer, fwiw

[mo7888]

The die hard Kings fan I work with seems think something around $17MM/yr is what the Kings will offer, fwiw

I think that's around the max they are able to offer...he'll get more in FA..

[Chinook]

IMO, there is a clear and obvious upgrade to this role who happens to be a FA this year, but will likely cost a little more than Keldon, and that is Malik Monk. He's already obviously quite proven in this role (5th and then 2nd in 6OTY voting in the last two seasons), and it a more fluid scorer than Johnson. Keldon, despite putting up scoring numbers, seems to labor to get his, whereas Monk's seem to come more naturally in the flow of the game.

Personally, I like a Cam Thomas-like player as a potential ideal 6th man. With that said, I don't think Cam is worth going and expending considerable assets to acquire (but would be fun in a Bridges-Thomas-Cam Johnson mega deal to completely shake up both rosters).

I just don't know how well Keldon really fits in the style the Spurs want to play. He was part of a very productive closing lineup for the Spurs, but there were times when paired with Wemby and Vassell that seemed to really disrupt the flow of the offense, and he's of course not very useful on defense either.

The Spurs seem hopeful that Branham could fill that 6th man scorer role, but the jury is still out. If the Spurs draft Dillingham, he could be that 6th man scorer in his rookie year before taking over the starting gig next year. If they take Holland, I also see him as a potential contender for that role (and a direct replacement for Keldon's minutes).

In the end, seems like the desire to move Keldon is less about Keldon the player or person and more about his fit and the desire to capitalize on his value while he still has some (his contract helps in that regard).

For where the Spurs are and where some of us want the Spurs to be, I think having a forward at the sixth-man role is a much better fit than having a combo-guard. As I've said before, Keldon is a good fit with Vassell, Sochan and whomever comes in to play SF. He can fit with any two of them. Yes, he has to learn to be a sixth man, and everyone has to figure out how to balance their scoring efforts to be best for the team. That will be true if a guy like PG is brought in or if a guy like Dillingham is drafted (or both, ideally). A sixth man cannot be a passive shooter, because his main role is to be a go-to scorer off the bench. Sure ideally, a guy can be Manu and turn the bench into a supercharged unit. But that's not really the standard a player should be held to, in my opinion.

I'm not against Monk, though I would want them to more directly address the point-guard position if they go that route. But the idea should be to bring him in to compliment the top guys on the team already, not to replace some of them -- ESPECIALLY if he's going to make more money. Like maybe if it's a direct S&T where the Kings or a third team gets Johnson and the Spurs get to keep their MLE, I could see it. Then the MLE immediately has to be used to get a replacement for Keldon. It's also more likely than not in this case that the Spurs would still have that starting SF spot open, so the replacing that would likely come first. It's doable, but it's tight and would involve either a ring-chaser coming over or the Spurs to have developmental luck. On that note, while it's not ridiculous to want to give Branham or Holland the room to grow into the role, it's a questionable strategy unless the Spurs are okay with not winning much again this upcoming season. Sixth men are important, and leaving that spot up to chance is possibly even more worrying than drafting Holland or Williams and hoping that solves the SF question right away.