Run for Play-In

[Gibbz]

It's still incredible that LeGM traded useful players for Russell Westbrook and the Lakers just let him do it.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Top 10 teams in each conference that got their best players through the draft:
Phoenix: Ayton, Booker, Bridges
Memphis: Ja Morant, Jaren Jackson, Desmond Bane
Golden State: Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Kumminga
Dallas: Doncic
Utah: Donovan Mitc , Gobert
Denver: Jokic, Murray, Porter Jr
Minnesota: KAT, Edwards
Pelicans: Zion Williamson
Philadelphia: Embiid, Maxey, Thybulle
Boston: Jason Tatum, Jaylen Brown
Milwaukee: Antetokoumpo
Toronto: Scottie Barnes, Siakam, Van Vleet
Cleveland: Mobley, Garland
Charlotte: Lamelo Ball
Atlanta: Trae Young

Pretty mucho all of them got their top player through a high pick, with a few notable exceptions that got it lower (Giannis & Jokic)

Top teams that didn't get their best players through the draft:
Lakers & Clippers (LA)
Nets (NY)
Miami

Notice a pattern? Unless you're LA, NY or Miami, you get your franchise players through the draft (almost invariably through a high pick)

Weird choice of players to list, but the pattern we see is that half of them are drafted outside of the top 10.

There are only a handful of real franchise players, but let's see how every top 10 team has acquired their best player.

Boston - Tatum - didn't tank, got the pick through a trade
Miami - Butler - trade
Bucks - Giannis - didn't tank, drafted at 15
Philly - Embiid - the mother of all tanks, back when the pick odds weren't as flat, led to a GM being blacklisted and the NBA intervening
Bulls - Lavigne - trade
Raptors - Siakam - drafted at 26
Cavs - Mobley - tanked
Charlotte - LaMelo - didn't tank, finished just outside of the playoffs
Brooklyn - Durant - FA
Atlanta - Young - tanked

Phoenix - Paul - trade
Memphis - Morant - didn't tank, had only the 8th best odds prior to draft lottery
G State - Curry - drafted 7th, didn't tank
Dallas - Doncic - trade
Utah - Mitc - trade
Denver - Jokic - tanking (yeah, I'm kidding)
Minnesota - KAT - tank
Clippers - Snake - FA
New Orleans - Zion - tanked, wanted out since the moment he was drafted
Lakers - LeBron - FA

So, yeah, not many tank jobs, much less successful ones.

[Rocalcio]

I am here. Thanks for the thread!

You’re welcome !

[Chinook]

My assertion was the Spurs weren't going to sign franchise players and no franchise player is going to force a trade to the Spurs. Aldridge is the only big free agent signing the Spurs have ever made and he's pretty far from a franchise player, and that was when they were le contenders.

Your assertion is flawed when you assume the Spurs are going to draft guys better than Aldridge if they just tank enough. LMA was the second-overall pick in his draft and the best player to come out that year (Lowry and Millsap are the only guys who have arguments). Getting someone that good would be really lucky. That you turn up your nose at him shows you have a really skewed idea of how teambuilding works. If you can sign an All-NBA player in his prime, you don't have a trouble as a free agent destination. Thinking that they are going to tank and grab their next Duncan is at least as flawed as thinking their going to woo their next Durant. They don't have to do either. They can sign an All-Star to pair with the one they already have and then trade for a third and be in business without having to go all-in on lottery balls.

[Dirks_Finale]

Looking at the schedule, it looks like they are going to get in. And since the Clippers suck, I do think they will get the 8 seed.

Still don't agree with the playin as there were already too many bad teams in the playoffs to begin with, but I guess it adds some excitement to a few more fan bases down the stretch. Also stops the intentional tanking so I do see the benefit.

[itzsoweezee]

Weird choice of players to list, but the pattern we see is that half of them are drafted outside of the top 10.

There are only a handful of real franchise players, but let's see how every top 10 team has acquired their best player.

Boston - Tatum - didn't tank, got the pick through a trade
Miami - Butler - trade
Bucks - Giannis - didn't tank, drafted at 15
Philly - Embiid - the mother of all tanks, back when the pick odds weren't as flat, led to a GM being blacklisted and the NBA intervening
Bulls - Lavigne - trade
Raptors - Siakam - drafted at 26
Cavs - Mobley - tanked
Charlotte - LaMelo - didn't tank, finished just outside of the playoffs
Brooklyn - Durant - FA
Atlanta - Young - tanked

Phoenix - Paul - trade
Memphis - Morant - didn't tank, had only the 8th best odds prior to draft lottery
G State - Curry - drafted 7th, didn't tank
Dallas - Doncic - trade
Utah - Mitc - trade
Denver - Jokic - tanking (yeah, I'm kidding)
Minnesota - KAT - tank
Clippers - Snake - FA
New Orleans - Zion - tanked, wanted out since the moment he was drafted
Lakers - LeBron - FA

So, yeah, not many tank jobs, much less successful ones.

This is not very hard — you need to tank unless your team is in a big market. If you’re in a small market and have a superstar, you might be able to get by without tanking. The spurs are a small market team with no superstar. They need to tank or be stuck in the play-in mediocrity for years. They already screwed up their timing because Murray is about to approach his prime and no one else on the team is anywhere near his level.

[Russ]

It's still incredible that LeGM traded useful players for Russell Westbrook and the Lakers just let him do it.

He did it at the end of his first run at Cleveland, too, then just left when it didn't work out.

[JPB]

Routing for your team to lose so you get det generational player like Nephew who ed up the franchose... Meanwhile, AD dodn't really lead NO anuwhere before transforming into Zion "next injury to happen" Williamson... #2 was drafted #15 by the way.

Truth is you certainly have as much chances at winning a LOBT by tanking than not, specially in a team like SA... So might as well play to win, you know the goal of pro sport... It's so aleatory ( o Porzingis, o Simmons) that just play the ing game and have fun.

I know that ironically, the Fakers are tanking but if symbolically we can oust them out of the PO picture... that would be fun... Then see what happens in the PO. You give experience to your core, eventually raise some players value and reputation wise to attract FAs, that's not bad either to be in.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I know that ironically, the Fakers are tanking but if symbolically we can oust them out of the PO picture... that would be fun... Then see what happens in the PO. You give experience to your core, eventually raise some players value and reputation wise to attract FAs, that's not bad either to be in.

No no, the fun is that Lakers aren't tanking at all - they don't own either of their picks so they have no incentive to tank. It'd be absolutely fantastic if the Spurs could send them packing, whether through the play in game or pushing them down the standings.

[spurraider21]

It's WAY easier to find examples of contenders that didn't get where they are by tanking than finding one that did. Assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next franchise player seems extremely antiquated. The Spurs have to sell themselves to free agents and sell their players/prospects to potential trade partners. Being bad doesn't do that. Having guys like Murray and Johnson stepping up, seeing ballast like Richardson or prospects like Primo playing important roles does. People keep trying to say the Spurs are dumb for not tanking in order to use their scouting expertise to draft a star. They don't consider that the Spurs might not be tanking BECAUSE their vaunted scouts told them it wasn't worth it.

spurs had loads of trouble attracting FA's even when they were a high end team. LMA was the one. other than him, who is the best FA we had signed in the pop era? brent barry? i dont know if there really has been a shift in that regard. other than those, our best FA guy was marcus morris and we saw what happened there

[Dex]

Looking at the schedule, it looks like they are going to get in. And since the Clippers suck, I do think they will get the 8 seed.

Still don't agree with the playin as there were already too many bad teams in the playoffs to begin with, but I guess it adds some excitement to a few more fan bases down the stretch. Also stops the intentional tanking so I do see the benefit.

The play-in made sense when COVID cut the season short so teams hadn't played an even amount of games, and there were several teams within reach of the 8 spot.

I don't love it as a standard practice. Imagine being the 8th seed and having a 4-5 game lead over the next in the standings...and then you get kicked out for having a bad game or two.

BUT the NBA knows they can get a few more "exciting playoff games" and the revenue that comes with it, so here we are.

[Rummpd]

Please knock LeRoid, Westbrick, HOward, and DaQuit out either way but best would be making Fakers miss play in.

[spurs10]

The play-in made sense when COVID cut the season short so teams hadn't played an even amount of games, and there were several teams within reach of the 8 spot.

I don't love it as a standard practice. Imagine being the 8th seed and having a 4-5 game lead over the next in the standings...and then you get kicked out for having a bad game or two.

BUT the NBA knows they can get a few more "exciting playoff games" and the revenue that comes with it, so here we are.

Have to agree. That's why you play 82 !#%ing games. Either you make it or you don't.

[ZeusWillJudge]

Weird choice of players to list, but the pattern we see is that half of them are drafted outside of the top 10.

There are only a handful of real franchise players, but let's see how every top 10 team has acquired their best player.

Boston - Tatum - didn't tank, got the pick through a trade
Miami - Butler - trade
Bucks - Giannis - didn't tank, drafted at 15
Philly - Embiid - the mother of all tanks, back when the pick odds weren't as flat, led to a GM being blacklisted and the NBA intervening
Bulls - Lavigne - trade
Raptors - Siakam - drafted at 26
Cavs - Mobley - tanked
Charlotte - LaMelo - didn't tank, finished just outside of the playoffs
Brooklyn - Durant - FA
Atlanta - Young - tanked

Phoenix - Paul - trade
Memphis - Morant - didn't tank, had only the 8th best odds prior to draft lottery
G State - Curry - drafted 7th, didn't tank
Dallas - Doncic - trade
Utah - Mitc - trade
Denver - Jokic - tanking (yeah, I'm kidding)
Minnesota - KAT - tank
Clippers - Snake - FA
New Orleans - Zion - tanked, wanted out since the moment he was drafted
Lakers - LeBron - FA

So, yeah, not many tank jobs, much less successful ones.

LOL. GSW got Durant as a free agent. All they had to do was put together a 73 win season, so that he would agree to come there and get a ring. The Spurs can try that route. The Lakers got LeBron as a FA. All that took was being Los Angeles. The Spurs could try that route, too, but I don't give it much chance for success.

And Brooklyn didn't get Durant as a FA - it was a sign and trade deal. He had a torn Achilles, and GSW still had to send out a first round pick. But GSW got a better pick the next year by... tanking.

The Hawks didn't get Trae Young by just tanking. They took Doncic with the 3 pick, and then traded him to Dallas who had the 5 pick from... tanking. Plus Atlanta got another pick. Weird that you said Doncic came through a trade, but not Trae Young, since it was the same trade.

Memphis may not have tanked, but they were "strategically bad" to get the 8 pick, and THEN got lucky with ping pong balls to get Morant. That was a LOT less likely to happen if they had finished 11.

Boston got Tatum through a VERY complicated pick swap, via Brooklyn who was on a campaign of tanking to build up picks, and leveraging them into players. (See: Sean Marks) So the very high draft pick responsible for Tatum came as a result of a team playing very badly to begin with. They just did the deal in reverse order.

I could go on, but I won't. Yeah, some guys get overlooked and come up big from mid to late first round. But most of the guys on your list were lottery picks originally, and mostly up in the 1-8 range. Every year some of you try to make the case that a mediocre draft pick is almost as good as a high draft pick. It isn't. Everyone available at 15 was available at 4, not the other way around. That never changes. A good FO helps, luck helps, but there's no subs ute for having a high pick.

[duncan2150]

Anthony Davis coming back for LA this week, maybe they will win a game or two....

Not totally related but PG13 is also coming back for the Clipps in the next few days.

[Chinook]

spurs had loads of trouble attracting FA's even when they were a high end team. LMA was the one. other than him, who is the best FA we had signed in the pop era? brent barry? i dont know if there really has been a shift in that regard. other than those, our best FA guy was marcus morris and we saw what happened there

We've already talked about the other players, but just in the last few years, Aldridge, West, Gasol, Lee Martin, Miller, Gay, Beli, Carroll and Dieng were all players who were coveted that SA was able to sign. STers hating all or most of those players isn't the same thing as those guys not having legit options in free agency and choosing the Spurs. They only had cap space for two seasons before last year. In both of those seasons, they made big signings. Before anyone tries to go on about Gasol in 2016, this is the list of free agents that year: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2...ill-available/

Of guys who changed teams, he's a worst the fourth guy on the list behind Durant (who was always going to GS)m Horford (who wasn't actually better but was much younger and might have still been around the team all of these years later) and Howard (who was a bigger name but was very much in decline). They didn't even have the cap space to keep Boban that summer. They only had enough to offer Pau like $15 Million and got it done.

The next summer, the Spurs didn't have cap space but had a plan to use a LMA trade to get Paul or Conley. They apparently felt confident enough in whatever tampering they were doing to basically dump Aldridge and Green and re-up Mills and Gasol (at a smaller APY to save money). I doubt that happens if there is no real interest on the player's parts. Of course Paul got traded and Conley re-upped after the Grizzlies signed Parsons. But considering they didn't even have cap space, I don't see that as a failure. They made the WCF with Aldridge playing well.

The next summer, they got Gay to agree to an MLE deal. No, it wasn't just his value. People got crazy money that summer (Millsap got $91M/3 and Hill got $20 Million a year as examples). This was with Leonard already starting his bull and not even trying to recruit for the Spurs. The next year, the Leonard drama basically killed free agency. The year after that they got Carroll, who was a good player before he became a Spur and was coveted. That big-market seeking Klutch agreed to a deal with the Spurs is a sign they didn't think SA was a bad landing spot to direct their players to (also agreeing to an extension for Murray later that summer), though Morris flipped for more money than SA could offer. Last year as mentioned, the Spurs got Dieng to sign with them over teams like Miami who wanted him even though the team didn't have a ton of playing time available. That was the cheap COVID year where the Spurs had tons of dead money and big contracts on their books.

So last summer is probably the first summer since 2015 that the Spurs could come to play with a max contract. The team chose instead of rebuild and take on salaries as opposed to playing the bad free agent market. I don't know if they would have done that had they known how good Murray would be this season, but this was the first time you could even wonder if they could attract a big-name guy since they actually signed one the previous time they had max space. I'm not arguing that in 2003, the Spurs weren't seen as a big destination. They were boring and had a hard-ass coach. But the Spurs of the early 2020s have a young All-Star (who actually networks) and loads of assets. They aren't the team of old.

[TD 21]

Many of the teams below the Spurs aren't in the same position as them. A lot of them are perennial losers like SAC that know at this point they don't have to win to keep fan engagement. Houston's always thought it was smarter than the rest of the room. Detroit's actually been trying to win in recent weeks. The Pelicans know full well that they can't stop Zion from leaving. They aren't trying to appeal to him.

Nice try. Teams like the Kings, Rockets and Pistons are in precisely the same position: Bad and in desperate need of an infusion of talent. The Spurs being less bad for a lot less longer is a nominal difference. No star is going to be more apt to stay here than those places because they fight for the play-in here.

Whether the Pelicans can do anything about Williamson or not, their jobs likely hang in the balance and they have no other means to get a talent like that, so they'll still exhaust every opportunity.

So "tanking" isn't specific. Don't go around demanding details when your plan seems to be 1) Lose a bunch of games, 2) ????? 3) Profit.

My plan is simple: Give yourself the best odds possible to get the best talent possible, then adjust accordingly. The flattened odds help teams like this, who have some good, young veterans and don't want to do a full scale re-build. They could have tanked post trade deadline, had a legit shot at lucking into Banchero (I say him because the go-to potential and positional fit) and not had to do so again.

I said the Spurs need to be aggressive in moving guys that don't fit the long-term contending goal. Originally I meant that to apply to Murray, though White proved himself to be the more expendable. Johnson, Poeltl and Vassell are next under the microscope. They need to use trades to upgrade their draft picks.

They need to keep their cap space flexibility and constantly woo free agents. That's easier now with Murray than it was this time last year with an outgoing DMDR. Ultimately, the Spurs need to acquire three stars of varying impact through trades, the draft and free agency. While it's idea to draft or trade up for in the draft for the top star, getting the second or third guy and acquiring the top guy in another way also works. That's why the Spurs need to have assets and not a full cap sheet of low-ceiling players. A star on an awful team is just a pending departure. A star on a compe ive team is a recruitment tool.

If I were the Spurs, I would be open to a huge offer for Murray during the draft. I'd try to play the board as best as I could to raise that prospect standard on the team. There are a number of forwards I like and would want the Spurs to pick up. Getting one of those and a combo-guard would be nice, though I would also be shopping one of two of the picks for a disgruntled star. The Spurs have good contracts, a number of prospects and future picks, they can improve their position even if they don't land a big fish themselves. Peeling off someone like Randle, Ingram, Collins or even like Nance seems very possible.

Then rinse and repeat. You try to win games, use trades to improve your draft position, stay flexible and opportunistic and constantly look at ways to acquire talent and get value for pieces that don't fit.

Good luck getting divas to stay here, especially those not ingrained in this atypical "culture". I'd also argue it makes sense to extend the Johnson's and Vassell's already. Wings who are at least decent from 3 and non physical liabilities on D will always have re-sale value and their likely projected ranges make for nice matching salary.

The rest is basically what I've been advocating for, for this draft. I'm not opposed to seeing if someone is willing to blow them away for Murray either. Otherwise, try to trade up for Banchero. Once that fails, try for Murray. If that fails, try to trade for Collins.

[Chinook]

Nice try. Teams like the Kings, Rockets and Pistons are in precisely the same position: Bad and in desperate need of an infusion of talent.

That's a superficial way of reading it. The Kings, Rockets and Pistons all have quite a bit of talent (more than the Spurs), but they have to grow that talent. The Spurs are actually doing a great job growing the talent they have, but their seed stock hasn't been great. So it's basically the opposite position. That's just in terms of talent. But the extension of it is that those teams being bad is necessary because they don't have players who can play. The Spurs aren't horse-whipping themselves to get where they are. They'd have to make the conscious choice to lose, because their young players are performing well enough to make a play-in game. It would behoove those teams you mentioned to get their guys playoff experience rather than just bringing in new guys. But they can't because they suck too bad.

No star is going to be more apt to stay here than those places because they fight for the play-in here.

They obviously would, because they'd be on a team that would make the playoffs rather than a team that even with them has an awful culture. If the Spurs can already outperform teams with more talent, then getting an infusion of talent would be more useful to them. They already have a number of complimentary players, as the White trade shows. Those teams you mentioned don't. They have talented youngsters who all want the ball and need to learn fit it, with a number of them having bad at udes about it.

My plan is simple: Give yourself the best odds possible to get the best talent possible, then adjust accordingly. The flattened odds help teams like this, who have some good, young veterans and don't want to do a full scale re-build. They could have tanked post trade deadline, had a legit shot at lucking into Banchero (I say him because the go-to potential and positional fit) and not had to do so again.

I don't actually think that's specific. The closest you get is drafting Banchero. If you really wanted to do this kind of thing, you'd have acquire as many lotto picks as possible, preferably with less protection and trade anyone you want. Increasing the odds of getting higher priority to roll the dice on a guy and then building from there into a le team feels extremely difficult. You could get lucky, but the flip side of that is just getting normal returns, and for many reasons, average top-five selections are much worse for a team than obvious busts.

The most strategy in your plan is a controlled tank this season, but this isn't like the past where you could shut down DeRozan or Aldridge and lose a bunch of games while giving young guys a chance to grow. Those young guys getting a chance to grow are the ones winning the games. So tanking would mean giving up a ton of developmental upside of players who might become le-worthy rotation players or trade pieces. Murray's All-Star nod this year was a huge value bump for the team. No matter how you intend to play this summer, having DJM move into the Sabonis/Siakam/Simmons tier, if not the Brown/Adebayo/Lavine tier only helps. Keldon playing well down the stretch combined with his networking might raise his value substantially. There's little down in my mind that White developing a friendship with Tatum and the others added to the value Boston was willing to pay for him.

Good luck getting divas to stay here, especially those not ingrained in this atypical "culture". I'd also argue it makes sense to extend the Johnson's and Vassell's already. Wings who are at least decent from 3 and non physical liabilities on D will always have re-sale value and their likely projected ranges make for nice matching salary.

Extending to fair contracts is one thing; extending and then building the organization's marketing and recruitment around them is another. Yeah, it's fine to extend Johnson (Vassell still has another year to go) to good value while still looking to upgrade. It's not fine to pass up on forwards because you think you're set with Keldon's spot. That's why I'm both in favor of seeking a Poeltl trade and offering him a max extension. The value on that extension is just too good even if the team ends up moving away from him.

The rest is basically what I've been advocating for, for this draft. I'm not opposed to seeing if someone is willing to blow them away for Murray either. Otherwise, try to trade up for Banchero. Once that fails, try for Murray. If that fails, try to trade for Collins.

I'm only a fan of trading up with the first pick if the team thinks they're getting a star or if the value is just too good (like going from 11 to 7 using the Lakers pick for example). Right now, it's a matter of odds. During the draft, it's specific humans being selected. The picks aren't any different -- they'll all bring in a specific player that the team will work with. If the Spurs have their target(s), they should use their picks and players to get them. Otherwise, BPA for rotation players and move on. I don't think drafting a decent prospect affects what the team should do in terms of trying to acquire players. If they win the lotto and get their guy, then yeah, they probably don't need to go all out trading for a vet at the same position. But if they draft Jaden Ivy and Lavine still wants to come over, that's fine. They need at least two more stars. If the Spurs draft Murray and can trade for Collins without giving up their game, that's even better.

[Dverde]

If Spurs eliminate The Lakers and LeBron leaves. They would have broken up two LeBron super teams

[Sugus]

If Spurs eliminate The Lakers and LeBron leaves. They would have broken up two LeBron super teams

As much as I'd like the Spurs to tank out the season, this is too delicious to pass up, tbh.

Not sure why there's so much doom and gloom here recently, when the Spurs are in a win-win situation, tbh. Get a chance to knock out the Fakers, else get a higher pick, me gusta.

[TD 21]

The Kings, Rockets and Pistons all have quite a bit of talent (more than the Spurs), but they have to grow that talent. It would behoove those teams you mentioned to get their guys playoff experience rather than just bringing in new guys.

None of them have quite a bit of talent. They need far more before they can even begin to think about gaining experience through a brief playoff experience.

They obviously would, because they'd be on a team that would make the playoffs rather than a team that even with them has an awful culture.

The play-in isn't the playoffs and nobody cares who gets 10th, most likely loses a meaningless game to who gets 9th, who then plays another meaningless game(s) to see who gets 8th for the right to be destroyed by the Suns.

I don't actually think that's specific. The closest you get is drafting Banchero. Increasing the odds of getting higher priority to roll the dice on a guy and then building from there into a le team feels extremely difficult. You could get lucky, but the flip side of that is just getting normal returns, and for many reasons, average top-five selections are much worse for a team than obvious busts.

The most strategy in your plan is a controlled tank this season, but this isn't like the past where you could shut down DeRozan or Aldridge and lose a bunch of games while giving young guys a chance to grow. Those young guys getting a chance to grow are the ones winning the games. So tanking would mean giving up a ton of developmental upside of players who might become le-worthy rotation players or trade pieces.

Well, it meets my criteria. Basically, if you're foolish enough to play yourself out of decent odds for a high end talent, then try to put together a package for it. Obviously, the truly elite talents (the likes of which this draft projects to lack), no one is giving up.

Every path to a le team is extremely difficult. It's not about coming up with the most complex plan possible; it's actually the exact opposite.

Wrong. They could have easily limited or altogether shut down Murray, Poeltl and Johnson.

I'm only a fan of trading up with the first pick if the team thinks they're getting a star or if the value is just too good (like going from 11 to 7 using the Lakers pick for example). They need at least two more stars. If the Spurs draft Murray and can trade for Collins without giving up their game, that's even better.

That goes without saying. Murray and Collins would be an either/or considering the assets required to get one and the fact that neither can play the three or function as a full time five.

[Joseph Kony]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.

[exstatic]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.

…and pick 15th in the draft.

[slick'81]

i really dont get why anyone wants the Spurs to make the play in

Do we really want to watch them get embarrassed on national TV? And even if they make the playoffs by some miracle the prize is getting curbstomped by Phx.

glutton for punishment i guess

[Chinook]

None of them have quite a bit of talent. They need far more before they can even begin to think about gaining experience through a brief playoff experience.

The Rockets just drafted four first-rounders last year to go with Wood. Sacramento has two All-Star threats and a number of decent role-players. If you don't think getting a high pick is a talent infusion, I don't know why you want the Spurs to get worse in hopes of getting it. Teams shouldn't have to tank for multiple years in order to get the talent to be decent. That takes it from a decision a team makes during a season and a way a roster is built. Building a roster capable to repeatedly getting top-five picks means getting away from a team that can even use the talent they have. Of course, you could be trying to argue that the Rockets prospects improve would be "gaining talent", but that would be splitting hairs with what I said, so I'm assuming you don't think that.

The play-in isn't the playoffs and nobody cares who gets 10th, most likely loses a meaningless game to who gets 9th, who then plays another meaningless game(s) to see who gets 8th for the right to be destroyed by the Suns.

If you're asking me if I'd rather the Spurs get the sixth seed or the 10th seed, I'd prefer the former. I'm still rooting for them to get that ninth or even eighth seed. But the choice is between play-in and not now, so I'm rooting for them to make the play-in then win it and then to beat the Suns on their way to a le. My rooting interests aren't ambiguous. I don't think they'll get there or anything right now, and I've given my roadmap of how I'd want the off-season to go assuming they don't do that. But I don't have to worry about the cognitive dissonance trying to feel happy about a team losing. I get to want them to win and still find the silver lining of them not doing that. Being a Spurs fans has never been easier.

But yeah, it would be nice to see guys like Keldon and Vassell not only play in big moments but do so against the same team multiple games. How Murray adjusts to being gameplanned against will help determine his ceiling. Even assuming the Spurs get swept, I'm down with them showing what they can do. I would be signing a different tune if we were talking about them getting there by trading their picks for vets. But a young team with tons of assets? Yep. It's fine.

Every path to a le team is extremely difficult. It's not about coming up with the most complex plan possible; it's actually the exact opposite.

I'm assuming you mean "keep it simple, stupid". But that is like saying, "Your plan to go to school, get a degree and work experience and saving money to buy a home is needlessly complex. I'll just keep playing the lotto" is a good idea because it's simpler. Playing the odds isn't a way to build a roster. At best it's a way to acquire the initial building block. After that you have to deal with everything else, which isn't as simple as turning a switch. That's why teams that draft great players after tanking have a hard time figuring it out.

Wrong. They could have easily limited or altogether shut down Murray, Poeltl and Johnson.

First, they were the people I was talking about almost exactly. That's pretty apparent in the other paragraph put into the response. Guys like Murray and Johnson developing matters for the team, both because they are the best perimeter players on the roster and because they are the most integrated into the wider NBA network. Murray had a lot of players pushing for him to make the ASG, and Johnson improving to be a regular USANT member puts him around a lot of stars. That helps with recruiting players to the Spurs and getting value sending those players out.

Second, though, even if I just meant Primo and Vassell, they're more likely to improve on a compe ive rotation than one that may as well play in Austin. Playing them in a lineup where they are artificially the best players on the court for their side is likely to hurt them when they return to situations where they are not those guys. One of the main reasons why bad teams stay bad even after picking up talent is that they don't have structure in place to develop talent. Removing that structure has a cost, even if it's just for the last quarter of the season.

That goes without saying. Murray and Collins would be an either/or considering the assets required to get one and the fact that neither can play the three or function as a full time five.

Eh, count me as someone who'd be fine with the team playing too big for a while rather than too small. Plus, if it all works out, then Murray, Collins and Poeltl would pretty comfortably fill most of the front-court minutes. That's especially true given that Murray is likely to at least start the season off on the bench.