Spurs trade ideas

[scott]

I’d flip a couple of seconds for Tyus, but apparently that won’t get it done and I’m not going to be overly heartbroken about it. That’s kind of what I view the warchest of SRPs for - to add short term veteran help from time to time.

Even if Tyus only gets you basically 48 minutes of having Tre Jones… that seems like a good thing, given our current roster.

My only hesitation would be that it freezers out Blake, so you have to ask yourself how you feel about that.

However, I don’t hate the idea of using these SRP’s for someone like Tyus, who can show out for 30 games throwing lobs to Wemby, then we’ll have his bird rights to facilitate a S&T for him to his next destination. Not gonna cry over it if it doesn’t happen though.

[baseline bum]

I’d flip a couple of seconds for Tyus, but apparently that won’t get it done and I’m not going to be overly heartbroken about it. That’s kind of what I view the warchest of SRPs for - to add short term veteran help from time to time.

Even if Tyus only gets you basically 48 minutes of having Tre Jones… that seems like a good thing, given our current roster.

My only hesitation would be that it freezers out Blake, so you have to ask yourself how you feel about that.

However, I don’t hate the idea of using these SRP’s for someone like Tyus, who can show out for 30 games throwing lobs to Wemby, then we’ll have his bird rights to facilitate a S&T for him to his next destination. Not gonna cry over it if it doesn’t happen though.

Washington will take what they can get for him Thursday. He's a rental and he has to have no intention of re-signing there.

[Ariel]

Honestly, I don't understand the urgency to burn the war chest of picks and future cap space on Trae Young... for what, an immediate 1st round playoffs exit?
Just keep the picks, in the offseason sign a vet PG who can shoot (Monte Morris, Tyus Jones), use Toronto's pick on Dillingham and the Spurs own on Sarr if available, if not maybe shop it or trade down to pick a wing prospect (Cody Williams, Buzelis, Holland, etc). Use the 2nd rounder on a backup big like Adem Bona, and thank Bassey for rendered services and send him home.
Then try to find a 3&D guy who won't command a lot, and ask Pop whether he wants to retire or actually coach this team for a change.
That right there should be enough to at least be in play in contention and not piss off Vic, and the team remains flexible and loaded with assets when a REAL star becomes available, where you can use Collins' awful contract and other players and picks. If not, dump his contract in the '25 offseason (by then, an expiring) for a few 2nds and make a max offer for Donovan Mitc or Markkanen, or bring back Derrick.
In all honesty, I believe this is a much more solid plan long term than emptying the Spurs' pockets for a quick "fix" that may yield nothing but short term highlights and long term tears.

[baseline bum]

Honestly, I don't understand the urgency to burn the war chest of picks and future cap space on Trae Young... for what, an immediate 1st round playoffs exit?
Just keep the picks, in the offseason sign a vet PG who can shoot (Monte Morris, Tyus Jones), use Toronto's pick on Dillingham and the Spurs own on Sarr if available, if not maybe shop it or trade down to pick a wing prospect (Cody Williams, Buzelis, Holland, etc). Use the 2nd rounder on a backup big like Adem Bona, and thank Bassey for rendered services and send him home.
Then try to find a 3&D guy who won't command a lot, and ask Pop whether he wants to retire or actually coach this team for a change.
That right there should be enough to at least be in play in contention and not piss off Vic, and the team remains flexible and loaded with assets when a REAL star becomes available, where you can use Collins' awful contract and other players and picks. If not, dump his contract in the '25 offseason (by then, an expiring) for a few 2nds and make a max offer for Donovan Mitc or Markkanen, or bring back Derrick.
In all honesty, I believe this is a much more solid plan long term than emptying the Spurs' pockets for a quick "fix" that may yield nothing but short term highlights and long term tears.

That Toronto pick has a great chance of not conveying and I'd be surprised if Dillingham is on the board anyways at #7. Sarr is going #1 most likely. If the Spurs fall to #4 or worse they're probably not getting Sarr or Risacher and maybe not Williams either. No thanks on one of the G-League Ignite guys top 5.

[Ariel]

That Toronto pick has a great chance of not conveying and I'd be surprised if Dillingham is on the board anyways at #7. Sarr is going #1 most likely. If the Spurs fall to #4 or worse they're probably not getting Sarr or Risacher and maybe not Williams either. No thanks on one of the G-League Ignite guys top 5.

With the Spurs own pick my target is Sarr, if unavailable I said trade down and pick a lesser prospect. Just because Ignite is bad doesn't mean the prospects necessarily will be, they have huge question marks but in a draft class where everyone does, at a certain price tag it becomes a worthwhile risk. I remember distinctly people saying that Eason was dumb as a brick, that GG Jackson was undraftable, lots of strong mainstream takes are the reason prospects slide and value picks are made. They may not pan out, or you may hit a home run.
Dillingham is too small, a lot of teams will pass on that archetype and are already set at PG (Detroit, Charlotte, Portland, Memphis, Atlanta, etc). Maybe Washington could pick up Dillingham, but I think they'll try a wing first. He's really talented, and in a draft where every player seems flawed, the trick may be to pick one who actually has tangible strengths. Mid term he'll help Vic and the team, If long term he isn't conducive to winning you can always flip him for something else. The key is not to burn the pick into another Primo. Spurs have repeatedly failed when trying to outsmart themselves (Vassell over Halliburton, Primo over Sengun, etc), just take a guy who you know can play... and Dillingham can.

[vy65]

Honestly, I don't understand the urgency to burn the war chest of picks and future cap space on Trae Young... for what, an immediate 1st round playoffs exit?
Just keep the picks, in the offseason sign a vet PG who can shoot (Monte Morris, Tyus Jones), use Toronto's pick on Dillingham and the Spurs own on Sarr if available, if not maybe shop it or trade down to pick a wing prospect (Cody Williams, Buzelis, Holland, etc). Use the 2nd rounder on a backup big like Adem Bona, and thank Bassey for rendered services and send him home.
Then try to find a 3&D guy who won't command a lot, and ask Pop whether he wants to retire or actually coach this team for a change.
That right there should be enough to at least be in play in contention and not piss off Vic, and the team remains flexible and loaded with assets when a REAL star becomes available, where you can use Collins' awful contract and other players and picks. If not, dump his contract in the '25 offseason (by then, an expiring) for a few 2nds and make a max offer for Donovan Mitc or Markkanen, or bring back Derrick.
In all honesty, I believe this is a much more solid plan long term than emptying the Spurs' pockets for a quick "fix" that may yield nothing but short term highlights and long term tears.

You think a 10-40 team, with Monte Morris/Tre Jones older brother + unproven 6’3” pg who’ll more likely be Reed Sheppard than Dillingham and some anonymous 3/D player is making the play in?

[Ariel]

You think a 10-40 team, with Monte Morris/Tre Jones older brother + unproven 6’3” pg who’ll more likely be Reed Sheppard than Dillingham and some anonymous 3/D player is making the play in?

I said "be in play in contention", as in don't be out by the all star break. Just be compe ive, respectable, and continue growing. A of a lot of the Spurs problems come from roster make up and coaching, I don't see why a team with the current young core a year older, playing EVERY SECOND OF EVERY GAME WITH A CAPABLE PG WHO CAN SHOOT, a wing or 2 that can defend and shoot, and a rim protector when Vic is out, with COACHING AND ACCOUNTABILITY (i.e., Vassell doesn't take a long, contested 3 when Vic is open for a 2 that will be enough, and says he'll do it again after the game). Take a look at the stands, Houston, Golden State, Brooklyn are not far from the play in and are barely playing above 0.400.

[vy65]

I said "be in play in contention", as in don't be out by the all star break. Just be compe ive, respectable, and continue growing. A of a lot of the Spurs problems come from team make up and coaching, I don't see why a team with the current young core a year older, playing EVERY SECOND OF EVERY GAME WITH A CAPABLE PG WHO CAN SHOOT, a wing who can defend and shoot, and a rim protector when Vic is out, AND ACCOUNTABILITY (i.e., Vassell doesn't take a long, contested 3 when Vic is open for a 2 that will be enough, and says he'll do it again after the game). Take a look at the stands, Houston, Golden State, Brooklyn are not far from the play in and are barely playing above 0.400

Even if I spotted that team 100% more wins than this current iteration has, that would make them 20-30, which would be good enough for 13th in the conference and a solid 5 games out of the 10th spot. The Grizz are currently 6.5 games out, so even a generous view of that proposed teams compe iveness would not have them in play-in contention.

This team has a fundamental talent problem. Vassell, it’s second best player, is a fourth option on a contending team. Sochan might have promise. Keldon should be a 7th-8th man. Tre is fine, I guess. Everyone else is flotsam. Adding more flotsam/unprovens who need 3-5 years to develop is not a path to success when Vic could be a top 25 player next year.

They should seriously consider monetizing some of their assets. Bird in hand isn’t always worth 2 in the bush.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Even if I spotted that team 100% more wins than this current iteration has, that would make them 20-30, which would be good enough for 13th in the conference and a solid 5 games out of the 10th spot. The Grizz are currently 6.5 games out, so even a generous view of that proposed teams compe iveness would not have them in play-in contention.

This team has a fundamental talent problem. Vassell, it’s second best player, is a fourth option on a contending team. Sochan might have promise. Keldon should be a 7th-8th man. Tre is fine, I guess. Everyone else is flotsam. Adding more flotsam/unprovens who need 3-5 years to develop is not a path to success when Vic could be a top 25 player next year.

They should seriously consider monetizing some of their assets. Bird in hand isn’t always worth 2 in the bush.

Well, of course if you label any potential prospect coming in as 'flotsam' your argument is perfect.

Of course that gratuitous characterization is .

[baseline bum]

With the Spurs own pick my target is Sarr, if unavailable I said trade down and pick a lesser prospect. Just because Ignite is bad doesn't mean the prospects necessarily will be, they have huge question marks but in a draft class where everyone does, at a certain price tag it becomes a worthwhile risk. I remember distinctly people saying that Eason was dumb as a brick, that GG Jackson was undraftable, lots of strong mainstream takes are the reason prospects slide and value picks are made. They may not pan out, or you may hit a home run.
Dillingham is too small, a lot of teams will pass on that archetype and are already set at PG (Detroit, Charlotte, Portland, Memphis, Atlanta, etc). Maybe Washington could pick up Dillingham, but I think they'll try a wing first. He's really talented, and in a draft where every player seems flawed, the trick may be to pick one who actually has tangible strengths. Mid term he'll help Vic and the team, If long term he isn't conducive to winning you can always flip him for something else. The key is not to burn the pick into another Primo. Spurs have repeatedly failed when trying to outsmart themselves (Vassell over Halliburton, Primo over Sengun, etc), just take a guy who you know can play... and Dillingham can.

The two Ignite guys can't shoot, they're both like 27% from the three point line. And trade down to where? If the Spurs fall to #4 in the draft, which will happen with a probability of 60% or higher, Dillingham is probably going to be the best player available. If you want him there is no trading down.

[vy65]

Well, of course if you label any potential prospect coming in as 'flotsam' your argument is perfect.

Of course that gratuitous characterization is .

This was a necessary comment. As always, many thanks for your contributions.

[vy65]

The two Ignite guys can't shoot, they're both like 27% from the three point line. And trade down to where? If the Spurs fall to #4 in the draft, which will happen with a probability of 60% or higher, Dillingham is probably going to be the best player available. If you want him there is no trading down.

I like Dillingham, but does anyone think his ceiling is #2 on a contending team?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This was a necessary comment. As always, many thanks for your contributions.

Of course it was. Your entire argument was fluff around that you think uncertain prospects are 'flotsam.'

We can go into why it is gratuitous if you like. It should be obvious but YMMV.

[baseline bum]

I like Dillingham, but does anyone think his ceiling is #2 on a contending team?

Probably, but I think he's the second best bet in this draft at getting an allstar after Sarr.

[vy65]

Of course it was. Your entire argument was fluff around that you think uncertain prospects are 'flotsam.'

We can go into why it is gratuitous if you like. It should be obvious but YMMV.

Somebody really wants some attention tonight.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Somebody really wants some attention tonight.

Nah. I just think that grouping all potential prospects with the ones you do not like on the squad as a disparaging characterization is not a good argument.

ie gratuitous .

[BacktoBasics]

With the Spurs own pick my target is Sarr, if unavailable I said trade down and pick a lesser prospect. Just because Ignite is bad doesn't mean the prospects necessarily will be, they have huge question marks but in a draft class where everyone does, at a certain price tag it becomes a worthwhile risk. I remember distinctly people saying that Eason was dumb as a brick, that GG Jackson was undraftable, lots of strong mainstream takes are the reason prospects slide and value picks are made. They may not pan out, or you may hit a home run.
Dillingham is too small, a lot of teams will pass on that archetype and are already set at PG (Detroit, Charlotte, Portland, Memphis, Atlanta, etc). Maybe Washington could pick up Dillingham, but I think they'll try a wing first. He's really talented, and in a draft where every player seems flawed, the trick may be to pick one who actually has tangible strengths. Mid term he'll help Vic and the team, If long term he isn't conducive to winning you can always flip him for something else. The key is not to burn the pick into another Primo. Spurs have repeatedly failed when trying to outsmart themselves (Vassell over Halliburton, Primo over Sengun, etc), just take a guy who you know can play... and Dillingham can.

Out of curiosity when has trading back from a top 6 pick worked out? I’d be interested in that.

[vy65]

Nah. I just think that grouping all potential prospects with the ones you do not like on the squad as a disparaging characterization is not a good argument.

ie gratuitous .

Not an accurate description of what I said, but your pathology for attention is on display. Try again sweet cheeks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This team has a fundamental talent problem. Vassell, it’s second best player, is a fourth option on a contending team. Sochan might have promise. Keldon should be a 7th-8th man. Tre is fine, I guess. Everyone else is flotsam. Adding more flotsam/unprovens who need 3-5 years to develop is not a path to success when Vic could be a top 25 player next year.

Now we can go through line by line and demonstrate how you did each of those things semantically.

The only pathology I see here is dissembling from you.

[vy65]

Even if I spotted that team 100% more wins than this current iteration has, that would make them 20-30, which would be good enough for 13th in the conference and a solid 5 games out of the 10th spot. The Grizz are currently 6.5 games out, so even a generous view of that proposed teams compe iveness would not have them in play-in contention.

This team has a fundamental talent problem. Vassell, it’s second best player, is a fourth option on a contending team. Sochan might have promise. Keldon should be a 7th-8th man. Tre is fine, I guess. Everyone else is flotsam. Adding more flotsam/unprovens who need 3-5 years to develop is not a path to success when Vic could be a top 25 player next year.

They should seriously consider monetizing some of their assets. Bird in hand isn’t always worth 2 in the bush.

Well, of course if you label any potential prospect coming in as 'flotsam' your argument is perfect.

Of course that gratuitous characterization is .

You don’t understand English. And this was a super necessary argument to have in the first place. Great job baby.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don’t understand English. And this was a super necessary argument to have in the first place. Great job baby.

Now underline the next sentence where you group anyone else brought in as . The context is you ting on Dillingham.

[Ariel]

Out of curiosity when has trading back from a top 6 pick worked out? I’d be interested in that.

Does the Mavs moving from 6 (Robert Tractor Traylor) to no. 9 (Dirk Nowitzki) ring a bell? Last year Mavs moved back from 10 to 12, dumped Bertans and still got their guy in Lively.
I'm not saying it necessarily works every time, but if you really don't love anyone and you think it's the same tier of players several spots below, why not move back and pick up assets if possible?

[vy65]

Now underline the next sentence where you group anyone else brought in as . The context is you ting on Dillingham.

No, you stupid ing disingenuous piece of . That’s why I said “unprovens who need 3-5 years to develop.”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you stupid ing disingenuous piece of . That’s why I said “unprovens who need 3-5 years to develop.”

And I said unproven prospects before.

Squirm more. Your argument that the club should trade away assets for proven talent because they might be flotsam is harebrained nonsense. Deal with it.

[vy65]

And I said unproven veterans before.

Squirm more. Your argument that the club should trade away assets for proven talent because they might be flotsam is harebrained nonsense. Deal with it.

I don’t give a what you were saying. I literally wasn’t responding to you. I’m not squirming at all. I’m just calling you out for being a lying piece of who refuses to accept basic reality because you have some sick pathology for picking unnecessary internet fights. Seek help bro, hope you get better.