RealGM

If Warriors are offering the TPE for these players, which player would need the most added incentives to acquire? And how about the least?

Rank them! (1st = the highest cost & 4th = the lowest cost)

- Evan Fournier (Magic)
- Dennis Schroder (Thunder)
- Rudy Gay (Spurs)
- Kelly Oubre (Suns)

I have Gay as easily the most available, cheapest to acquire.

Rudy might not require adding value to get, the others would require something else from the Warriors. I'm a Suns fan and love Kelly but my cost chart (most expensive to get to least ), Schroder/ Oubre/ Fournier/ Rudy.

Gay probably comes just for eating the contract--might could even get the Spurs to throw in a future 2nd or something.
Other 3 probably cost the 21 GSW 1st with slightly different protections.

Texas Chuck wrote:Gay probably comes just for eating the contract--might could even get the Spurs to throw in a future 2nd or something.
Other 3 probably cost the 21 GSW 1st with slightly different protections.

Chuck man... No. It's one thing to say SA would have to pay to trade Gay for a TE. It's another to argue they'd actually do it. They're literally getting nothing out of that deal.

money is a real thing. I shouldn't have to explain that to any board regs in 2020. Especially not in the current financial climate.

Texas Chuck wrote:money is a real thing. I shouldn't have to explain that to any board regs in 2020. Especially not in the current financial climate.

Money is always valuable, but whether it can motivate trades depends on specific situations. The Spurs are in a good financial shape. It's mind-boggling that you've had multiple instances of treating SA like a team looking at the repeater tax.

It's just not reasonable to think SA is going to pay to get rid of good players on expiring deals. I'm trying really hard to see your view on this, but this take feels just as bizarre as when you were cringing at Spurs fans for not considering valueless filler a couple of years ago.

Oubre is most valuable while Gay is least.

I can see all of Gay, Shroeder, and Fournier all let go for nothing, maybe a SRP migh be needed for Shroeder and Fournier, but the salary saving alone in a time financial upheaval is too attractive for teams nowhere near contender ready. Suns might think they have a solid shot at the playoffs next year and wont dump Oubre for nothing, they had an impressive bubble showing.

If youre not a contender, there's no point paying a 15mil salary for a non impact player youre unlikely to keep around the future core you're tryikng to build.

I think Gay requires a 2nd or 2 at most with the TPE

Still a useful rotation guy

Schroeder is the most valuable I believe
Then Fournier or Oubre are a toss up depending what you need. Oubre is better for GSW though
Then Gay

I’d rank it as Oubre, Fournier, Shroder, Gay. The middle two are very close for me and are determined mostly by the positions they play.

Vae Victus wrote:Oubre is most valuable while Gay is least.

I can see all of Gay, Shroeder, and Fournier all let go for nothing, maybe a SRP migh be needed for Shroeder and Fournier, but the salary saving alone in a time financial upheaval is too attractive for teams nowhere near contender ready. Suns might think they have a solid shot at the playoffs next year and wont dump Oubre for nothing, they had an impressive bubble showing.

If youre not a contender, there's no point paying a 15mil salary for a non impact player youre unlikely to keep around the future core you're tryikng to build.

why is Oubre the most valuable? coming off injury. not a good outside shooter.

tiderulz wrote:

Vae Victus wrote:Oubre is most valuable while Gay is least.

I can see all of Gay, Shroeder, and Fournier all let go for nothing, maybe a SRP migh be needed for Shroeder and Fournier, but the salary saving alone in a time financial upheaval is too attractive for teams nowhere near contender ready. Suns might think they have a solid shot at the playoffs next year and wont dump Oubre for nothing, they had an impressive bubble showing.

If youre not a contender, there's no point paying a 15mil salary for a non impact player youre unlikely to keep around the future core you're tryikng to build.

why is Oubre the most valuable? coming off injury. not a good outside shooter.

Mainly his team will consider him more valuable to them, than losing him for nothing, since OKC is going to blow up mode, PHX might be thinking they got a solid chance to sneak into the PO next year. However if PHX thinks they can sign better players for the money savings they gain from dumping Oubre for nothing, then yea, sure, dump Oubre and go after those FAs. Also i thought Oubre had a good season for PHX? I mean, tbf i didnt watch them much, so i could be mistaken.

Chinook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:money is a real thing. I shouldn't have to explain that to any board regs in 2020. Especially not in the current financial climate.

Money is always valuable, but whether it can motivate trades depends on specific situations. The Spurs are in a good financial shape. It's mind-boggling that you've had multiple instances of treating SA like a team looking at the repeater tax.

It's just not reasonable to think SA is going to pay to get rid of good players on expiring deals. I'm trying really hard to see your view on this, but this take feels just as bizarre as when you were cringing at Spurs fans for not considering valueless filler a couple of years ago.

I have no idea what you are talking about from years ago, but this is really simple for me: Is Rudy Gay worth his current contract? No. So in theory the Warriors deserve an asset. And because he's no difference maker, there is zero chance they would take him and the massive tax bill he comes with for free.

As to my other deal, it created huge flexibility for the Spurs and I am absolutely convinced that huge TPE's/cap space could return more value than LMA/DD as players at this point. I understand you disagree, but I feel really comfortable in my position.

But all the other old stuff you want to drag in aside, Gay isn't worth his contract so getting it off for free or a future 2nd is a value win for the Spurs. And since they aren't a playoff team I happen to think its smart directionally. Again I understand you don't concede that and you disagree. Perfectly fine. But in terms of pure value, its a win for the Spurs, obviously.

Texas Chuck wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about from years ago, but this is really simple for me: Is Rudy Gay worth his current contract? No. So in theory the Warriors deserve an asset. And because he's no difference maker, there is zero chance they would take him and the massive tax bill he comes with for free.

I think that whole calculus is messed up. The question isn't whether Gay is worth his contract, since his salary is basically meaningless to the Spurs. It's whether not having Gay and a second-rounder is better than having them. Obviously it is not. If Gay were pushing SA into the tax or a problem in the locker room, then the argument exists. But for a team that is apparently tanking, it's shocking to think they should give up what should be a good second-rounder just not get rid of a guy who's been credited by all of the young players and who still offers things the team needs (size and scoring) off the bench.

Just because the Warriors may need more doesn't mean the Spurs should add more. The Spurs have no reason to be desperate to move Gay right now. I don't think SA cares at all about GS's financial situations, they aren't the ones doing the Spurs a favor.

As to my other deal, it created huge flexibility for the Spurs and I am absolutely convinced that huge TPE's/cap space could return more value than LMA/DD as players at this point. I understand you disagree, but I feel really comfortable in my position.

Like obviously we're all free to disagree, but I think you should reexamine your position. That trade doesn't either has the Spurs gaining $14 Million in cap space or carrying two TE's to try to take money in an off-season where teams aren't going to be looking to buy. Where are the horrendous contracts that SA would be taking that would get them more than moving LMA and DMDR to contenders for actual value? It seems much more likely that contenders who are trying to gear up for 2021 but don't want to tank next season would prefer good players on expiring deals. The only team that would prefer TE's to legit players on expiring deals are team that share the outlook you want the Spurs to have; namely that they cleave so tightly to the idea of value that they'd give up value just to rid themselves over overpaid players.

Like would I prefer LMA and DMDR and the MLE or $14M in cap and the room exception or two big TEs to take back bad players and future picks and the MLE?

But all the other old stuff you want to drag in aside, Gay isn't worth his contract so getting it off for free or a future 2nd is a value win for the Spurs. And since they aren't a playoff team I happen to think its smart directionally. Again I understand you don't concede that and you disagree. Perfectly fine. But in terms of pure value, its a win for the Spurs, obviously.

They didn't make the playoffs last year. That doesn't mean they should assume they wouldn't make it this upcoming season. OKC and Houston are both possible drop-outs, as is Utah. If you want to bet on the Spurs' ability to develop players and build around them, it makes sense to trust give them a chance to make the tweaks to the roster and develop the young players on their team rather than having them go against their whole organizational philosophy.

And I totally deleted White's name when I was editing that last post. You took offense to me and other Spurs fans not being willing to trade White as filler in a Gasol/Lee-Thomas swap. It wasn't just that you didn't like White; it was that you thought we were impeding the purpose of the thread by considering him a piece we'd like to keep in a fire sale. We're all wrong sometimes. I'm not calling you out for not knowing White would be a good player. But I think it speaks to why I'm so baffled by your normative application of "value". I think you believe that teams should be trying to maximize value at all times with the only exception being when they're in contending status. That feels like an alien concept to me that takes the idea of trade value to a logical extreme past the point of reason.

That's not a personal attack or anything. Everything I know about you suggests you're a good guy, a humble fan and a fair moderator. I'm sure I'd love to catch a game with you. But this particular philosophical disagreement is magnified because of the purpose of this sub-forum.

Chinook wrote: I think you believe that teams should be trying to maximize value at all times with the only exception being when they're in contending status. That feels like an alien concept to me that takes the idea of trade value to a logical extreme past the point of reason.

I think we are at the agreeing to disagree portion of the Rudy Gay talk. But I wanted to highlight and respond to this because I think you make a great point in general and a good one regarding me specifically.

Teams definitely do have goals between championship or bust and tanking. In fact most of the league falls in between those most of the time. And I can be guilty of losing sight of that. Not all the time obviously--for instance in my recent Spurs/Knicks trade I have the Knicks making a decision that isn't maximizing value or contending, but yeah I can fall too deep into theory at times and its fair to call me on it.

Gay (wouldn't even trade the TPE for him)
Schroeder (might trade the TPE for him but that's about it)
Fournier (not really the player I'd be targeting, but maybe TPE+2nds or a future 1st at most)
Oubre (TPE+any future GSW 1sts, or Paschall, not the MIN pick or #2 obviously. Maybe I'd try to do Wiggins+MIN pick for Oubre+someone else but that's not using the TPE)

KEMBAtheMETEOR wrote:Gay (wouldn't even trade the TPE for him)
Schroeder (might trade the TPE for him but that's about it)
Fournier (not really the player I'd be targeting, but maybe TPE+2nds or a future 1st at most)
Oubre (TPE+any future GSW 1sts, or Paschall, not the MIN pick or #2 obviously. Maybe I'd try to do Wiggins+MIN pick for Oubre+someone else but that's not using the TPE)

I pretty much agree with this. Although I think GSW wouldn't have interest in Schröder and could possibly have some interest in Gay if they moved Wiggins in a separate deal.