How Come Buford and Gregg Popovich Get a Pass for Blowing the Kawhi Leonard Trade?

[cupcakesnake]

Popovic and Buford have not been given a pass for this.

After 2 decades of being the gold standard for front offices and coaching staff in nearly EVERY category of analysis, they've both been downgraded for a lack of success in the post Duncan era. Pop used to be the consensus GOAT and the best current coach. Now we say he's top 5, but we hype him less than Spo, Nurse, Stevens and maybe Carlisle. The Spurs front office has been getting a lot of skepticism every since the Pau Gasol contract. No one liked the Kawhi trade for them. No one likes how they've piled up non-shooting talent and tried to cram them on the court together. Most people think they should be accumulating assets, rather than riding Aldridge and Derozan to the 10th seed for another year.

The Spurs brain trust is not currently being praised for their performance. However, the Pop and Bufo combo created the most impressive run of success in professional sports. Any downgrade of their status can't ignore the accomplishments. The Spurs post-Duncan transition hasn't been great, but it would be an overreaction to be overly critical of this legendary team. Strange to see a Lakers fan still moaning about this non-trade. You guys won a championship like 3 seconds ago.

[Baski]

This is hilarious. Lakers fans are so concerned for the Spurs well being that they feel the need to tell them that they made a mistake by not taking their castaways.

Just wow. At this point if Ingram doesn't turn into a Paul George level player at least, a lot of the posts in this thread will look ridiculous. They already do but wow.

"You should've taken our garbage instead of the Raptors' slightly more garbage garbage"

'

Uh little less then a year later the Lakers turned "there garbage" into Anthony Davis who was also an expiring.

If the deal the Lakers offered for AD was turned down by the Spurs for Kawhi Leonard, I'd also question the decision. But it's been shown multiple times in here that not only was a worse and useless (to the Spurs) package, it actually included an attempt to dump off a contract of a deadweight player. They also didn't have the No. 4 pick they gave to AD. We should at the very least not make the mistake of assuming the Lakers put the AD package on the table back in 2018.

Look I get it you want to defend your team but that Lakers package was not total trash and Ingram alone would be better going forward then anything the Spurs currently have and your still eating another year of Derozans contract two years later,

The Lakers package was not total trash, but neither was the Raptors' package. In the context of value at the time, both were trash (as facilitated by kawhi and his uncle) and the revisionist history to make it seem like BI was going to save the Spurs from mediocrity is what makes me go wow. Even at the time of the AD trade, the Lakers young guys were not viewed as even close to worth giving up AD for. Their best pick available at the time was what netted them Mo Wagner. Oh dear what a missed opportunity to not lap that stud up.

now if your argument is well at that time Ingram hadn't proven what he has now in N.O. ok but in hindsight its still a terrible deal.

It obviously is part of the argument. And also, what he is now is nothing that makes any Spurs fan regret picking the Raptors package.
Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't add anything to your point. But aside from that, the case has been made many times in this thread that even with hindsight, it was not a terrible deal, or at least not any more terrible than taking the Lakers offer would've been.
You can keep ignoring this point, but the Spurs have a plan based on their 22 years of sustained success, have stuck to it by taking the Raptors' package, and can see it coming to fruition somewhere in 2021/2022. Maybe you've closed your ears to hearing this, but IT IS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN. The Spurs aren't in a Rockets or Suns situation. They are not in any trouble (unless you believe not being a title contender for 2 years after 22 years straight is trouble, which, as I've said before, is extremely stupid and only leads to sustained failure) or lamenting the loss of the Pelicans' franchise player Brandon Ingram like some of you want them to be.

From day 1 I felt that Toronto giving up a pick to get an expiring for Derozan was a good enough deal, the fact that the expiring player was Kawhi Leonard was almost highway robbery. Raptors went all in and pulled off the miracle run in 2019 you can't take that away from them, and even if that had never happened and they end up losing to Philly, them clearing Derozan from the books is still a better situation then what SAS finds themselves in right now.I don't know what other offers the Spurs had, but whether you look at from how it looks today in late 2020 or based on what we knew in 2018, it was still a raw deal for SAS and their is a valid point to this thread.

The Raptors benefitting from the deal doesn't take away anything from the Spurs making a calculated choice to stay competitive and not take the Lakers castoffs. The Raptors gained a superstar and a fast track to the NBA title, which can't be negatively spun in anyway. This is why I said in my OP that it's dumb to look at the results of an inevitably lopsided trade and say the team that was setup to lose "blew it". Considering that the only team who has been seen to clearly benefit from the trade are the Raptors, the only "valid point" to this thread is that the Spurs taking a package they neither needed nor wanted from an arrogant rival that overplayed their hand is somehow a huge blunder. Oh look at that, it's not valid at all.

[Baski]

Some LAL fans' insistence here that Spurs are somehow worse off without their assets even as our situation has been laid out over and over is a peculiar perspective rooted in disbelief at the rejection. No thank you. We're not interested. Have to make sure the doors are locked in case they come banging on the windows at a red light screaming about their totally awesome package from going on three years ago. So weird, man.

This is what makes me go wow. The Spurs just missed the POs for the first time in 22 years. You would think the team has zero assets with zero prospects and zero chance to compete for a title in the next few years with the way mostly Laker fans are talking. The team has already won more NBA titles than 70% of the league will ever win no matter what they try. Is missing the POs a few years gonna spell the end for them? Make the team lament not taking Brandon Ingram? Sensible answer is No obviously, but with what I'm seeing in this thread, just wow.

There's a post from "Spanish Laker" saying that the Spurs will "regret that decision for the next 10 years"

I mean................they very well may not win a title in the next 10 years, or even make the POs in that span, but to talk like passing on Brandon Ingram could ever be the reason for that is just....................delusional? I dunno what word fits here, but Jesus Christ Lakers fans.

[Ruaidri]

Amen

[druggas]

My point still stands. Popovich was NEVER going to deal with the Lakers, which cut the Spur's trade partners in half. The Spurs could have asked for the moon and with Uncle pushing the Lakers to get a deal done, Spurs might have come away with a better deal. That always gets swept under the rug when discussing Kawhi. Also, no one really knew how injured Kawhi was. And the Lakers were in the same boat as all the other teams when it came to Kawhi walking.

[Bornstellar]

I just want to point out that anyone who thinks Spurs wouldn't be in the same position they are now with Brandon Ingram and scrubs leading the way is delusional. The Lakers offer wasn't some god father offer. And it only looks better for NOP because they happened to win the #1 pick that season. Had they not gotten Zion, in reality all they traded AD for was BI, some scrubby wings (Hart/Lonzo) and Jaxon Hayes I am not a DeRozan fan but imho, Derozan/Poeltl/Johnson >>>> maxing Brandon Ingram + scrubs. Let's not forget at the end of 2018, BI was looking like a bust and he had that weird blood issue everyone seems to have forgotten.

People also tend to forget the conception of Kawhi after the 2018 season was much different than when he won in 2019. He was coming off of an injury no one knew anything about and he demanded a trade to one team and would not give assurances to any other team. Anyone who acts like the Spurs were getting these epic offers for Kawhi is seriously delusional or it's revisionist history at best.

I don't blame that AT ALL for not taking that crap LAL package. I do however completely blame them by not forcing Kawhi to play a month or two to up his value and then trading him. Spurs wanted to cut all the noise from the previous season and made their move too quickly to move on. They should have been patient, that was the true eff up.

[levon]

https://www.axios.com/nbas-best-25-under-25-aad288c8-1784-459c-b931-893dd2ca5b62.html
I'll post this one but there are numerous others that corroborate this.

25th: Lonzo Ball
9th: Brandon Ingram, ranked over guys like Jaylen Brown, JJJ, De'Aaron Fox, Devin Booker, etc.

You know who's unlisted here? Keldon Johnson. Lonnie Walker. Dejounte Murray.

The longer the Spurs fall in love with their own guys, the better off I am as a Lakers fan, so by all means, stay the course. There was a time when I thought Jordan Clarkson, Julius Randle, and Larry Nance Jr were the next big things too.

Something tells me if I start another thread like this in 2 years evaluating the Spurs transition, I'm going to be hit with the same defensive company lines, so I'll steer clear next time.

This is just... a list. No explanations for the choices which is strange. Why would these be a given? But let's say the list is fine.

Context matters.

DJ just finished his FIRST season as a starter after missing all of last season with an injury.

Lonnie just finished his FIRST season with the Spurs after also missing all of last season with an injury.

Keldon just finished his FIRST season with the Spurs since he's a rookie and spent most of the season developing in Austin.

It's fine if you equate LAL young guys - none of which are on the team anymore - to ours, but with respect, our development is known to be better. While Keldon and Derrick have made the biggest and most noticeable improvements (and the numbers show it), DJ and Lonnie have as well.

The other context is that this article was written pre-bubble: would either BI or Ball be ranked above Brown, Booker, Mitchell, Bam, Zinger, and MPJ after what they showed in the bubble? So already they've slipped. I can't speak to BI, but I know that Ball had an abysmal bubble; all three of our aforementioned prospects fared better. Too small a sample size? Ok. Let's see how everyone's development progresses and which players will have more meaningful impacts on their respective teams.

Unlike others on here (not you), I'm not in the business of putting young athletes down to further my partisan agenda. I want the young Spurs and the young former Lakers to succeed. There's more than enough room in the league for that. I'm simply pointing out how Ingram and Ball are valued league-wide compared to the Spurs guys. You may ascrine that to pedigree, opportunity, exposure, or time, but the fact of the matter is they'd be the two most valuable young assets on the Spurs today. And if the Spurs develop better, perhaps even more valuable. And you'd still have the other young guys that you could make a decision on. It could be that you trade Ingram and Ball for an AS that suits your development window better. As I've stated before, the error, as I see it and as others around the NBA have echoed, is not that the Spurs failed in acquiring what they wanted according to their criteria. The error was the criteria itself. In hindsight, it proved unimaginative and too concerned with fit/culture. It could have played out differently. Hell, BI's career could have ended after the blood clot, or he could have never become a young max player.

I maintain that it was a perfectly reasonable trade at the time, but that trades should always be visited after some time. For instance, the AD trade could have been disastrous. The Kawhi trade could have been disastrous for the Raptors, etc. For this particular trade, the framing was always going to be, okay, the Spurs are just delaying the inevitable rebuild for Pop's twilight years, but is that going to hurt the team? And I think that yes, it has. The "staying competitive while rebuilding" angle is great if you also accumulate valuable assets and don't lose guys like, say, Bertans (I know it was the MM debacle). AKA the Miami model. Instead it seems to me that the Spurs are overplaying disgruntled "stars" who get them nowhere, not to mention players like Bryn Forbes prior to this offseason, and selling their 8th seed-adjacent win totals as something admirable, instead of just taking the full plunge that all orgs should take with their youth.

[levon]

I guess what 20 years of excellence looks like is the ability to convince your fanbase (even the intelligent basketball minds) that Poetl and Keldon Johnson is somehow better than an at-absolute-worst top 15 twenty-three year old player in the league. Even after you lose out on free agents in the class of Marcus Morris. I wonder when the house money runs out.

[DoctorX]

Some LAL fans' insistence here that Spurs are somehow worse off without their assets even as our situation has been laid out over and over is a peculiar perspective rooted in disbelief at the rejection. No thank you. We're not interested. Have to make sure the doors are locked in case they come banging on the windows at a red light screaming about their totally awesome package from going on three years ago. So weird, man.

This is what makes me go wow. The Spurs just missed the POs for the first time in 22 years. You would think the team has zero assets with zero prospects and zero chance to compete for a title in the next few years with the way mostly Laker fans are talking. The team has already won more NBA titles than 70% of the league will ever win no matter what they try. Is missing the POs a few years gonna spell the end for them? Make the team lament not taking Brandon Ingram? Sensible answer is No obviously, but with what I'm seeing in this thread, just wow.

There's a post from "Spanish Laker" saying that the Spurs will "regret that decision for the next 10 years"

I mean................they very well may not win a title in the next 10 years, or even make the POs in that span, but to talk like passing on Brandon Ingram could ever be the reason for that is just....................delusional? I dunno what word fits here, but Jesus Christ Lakers fans.

If the Clippers upset the Lakers in the playoffs this upcoming season I'm going to laugh real hard. I'm going to laugh because I know we will see Laker fans create bunch of new threads of how the Spurs should have taken the chosen one BI. Obviously those threads will be made out of spite due to losing to Kawhi who they felt should have been a Laker if it wasn't for the Spurs.

[G R E Y]

https://www.axios.com/nbas-best-25-under-25-aad288c8-1784-459c-b931-893dd2ca5b62.html
I'll post this one but there are numerous others that corroborate this.

25th: Lonzo Ball
9th: Brandon Ingram, ranked over guys like Jaylen Brown, JJJ, De'Aaron Fox, Devin Booker, etc.

You know who's unlisted here? Keldon Johnson. Lonnie Walker. Dejounte Murray.

The longer the Spurs fall in love with their own guys, the better off I am as a Lakers fan, so by all means, stay the course. There was a time when I thought Jordan Clarkson, Julius Randle, and Larry Nance Jr were the next big things too.

Something tells me if I start another thread like this in 2 years evaluating the Spurs transition, I'm going to be hit with the same defensive company lines, so I'll steer clear next time.

This is just... a list. No explanations for the choices which is strange. Why would these be a given? But let's say the list is fine.

Context matters.

DJ just finished his FIRST season as a starter after missing all of last season with an injury.

Lonnie just finished his FIRST season with the Spurs after also missing all of last season with an injury.

Keldon just finished his FIRST season with the Spurs since he's a rookie and spent most of the season developing in Austin.

It's fine if you equate LAL young guys - none of which are on the team anymore - to ours, but with respect, our development is known to be better. While Keldon and Derrick have made the biggest and most noticeable improvements (and the numbers show it), DJ and Lonnie have as well.

The other context is that this article was written pre-bubble: would either BI or Ball be ranked above Brown, Booker, Mitchell, Bam, Zinger, and MPJ after what they showed in the bubble? So already they've slipped. I can't speak to BI, but I know that Ball had an abysmal bubble; all three of our aforementioned prospects fared better. Too small a sample size? Ok. Let's see how everyone's development progresses and which players will have more meaningful impacts on their respective teams.

Unlike others on here (not you), I'm not in the business of putting young athletes down to further my partisan agenda. I want the young Spurs and the young former Lakers to succeed. There's more than enough room in the league for that. I'm simply pointing out how Ingram and Ball are valued league-wide compared to the Spurs guys. You may ascrine that to pedigree, opportunity, exposure, or time, but the fact of the matter is they'd be the two most valuable young assets on the Spurs today. And if the Spurs develop better, perhaps even more valuable. And you'd still have the other young guys that you could make a decision on. It could be that you trade Ingram and Ball for an AS that suits your development window better. As I've stated before, the error, as I see it and as others around the NBA have echoed, is not that the Spurs failed in acquiring what they wanted according to their criteria. The error was the criteria itself. In hindsight, it proved unimaginative and too concerned with fit/culture. It could have played out differently. Hell, BI's career could have ended after the blood clot, or he could have never become a young max player.

I maintain that it was a perfectly reasonable trade at the time, but that trades should always be visited after some time. For instance, the AD trade could have been disastrous. The Kawhi trade could have been disastrous for the Raptors, etc. For this particular trade, the framing was always going to be, okay, the Spurs are just delaying the inevitable rebuild for Pop's twilight years, but is that going to hurt the team? And I think that yes, it has. The "staying competitive while rebuilding" angle is great if you also accumulate valuable assets and don't lose guys like, say, Bertans (I know it was the MM debacle). AKA the Miami model. Instead it seems to me that the Spurs are overplaying disgruntled "stars" who get them nowhere, not to mention players like Bryn Forbes prior to this offseason, and selling their 8th seed-adjacent win totals as something admirable, instead of just taking the full plunge that all orgs should take with their youth.

Well the focus frankly keeps shifting in this thread, from insisting it was a 'Godfather offer' when a better one was made for AD, to isolating BI vs. DD, to insisting that Ball/Hart are the better prospects for a guard-heavy team that didn't have use for them, to you just now in your subsequent post to this one insisting that PATFO has hoodwinked the fanbase into passing on the great BI (who again hasn't made a difference to winning - a charge often leveled at DD but we should just go ahead and get a younger version because he hits 3s - I'm being slightly facetious, I think he's a good talent just not the rare max difference maker).

But the point about philosophy is an important one. People keep saying 'hold off on the rebuild because of Pop's legacy' but ignore that this is the method the Spurs have been employing for decades. It's just that when the Spurs were super successful there was no notice of developing younger players. So to say that about a team for whom it has worked so well for so long, and to suggest that it no longer works because we have missed the playoffs ignores that we made it for 22 straight years in part because of that philosophy. Should we have just laid down and broken everything up and go all young after #2? Why? That's a loser defeatist attitude. Some may argue it's prudent in a rebuild, but that would mean the Spurs scrapping their development program for the young guys. Why would we consider shortchanging that process for a whole new young group when that very methodical process is what gets the best out of young guys? It's asking to shoot ourselves in the foot twice - get more young guys, don't put them through the development process - THAT is a recipe for mediocrity.

Not all small market teams are the same either. Heat have a great program, no question. But the lure of the beach is different than the lure of other small markets. We've just missed the playoffs once and people are writing the Spurs off like they're done or treadmiling because we were 7th and 8th the two years prior, again ignoring that we had 200 games lost due to player injuries to get there.

If the argument is a different building philosophy results in specifically the LAL package well that's sort of repackaging the same position that the LAL package is better. Keep in mind that the All Star part of the three things we required doesn't necessarily mean vet, but it just happened to work out that way with DD. And for non-basketball reasons, I can't stress enough how much PATFO didn't want Ball, and it's probably far less to do with him.

But there are other players on that list of top prospects like Trae Young or Booker whose teams chose the route you suggest for the Spurs and these teams have just made the turn to acquire vets to compete. They're great talents, but were stuck with a largely young group not making any significant progress which builds frustration for the young great players and pressure for the franchises to get better. They get better by acquiring vets and want to compete. That sounds like the Spurs - youth and vets and wanting to compete. Of course, Spurs don't have a Trae or Booker level talent, but sucking organically doesn't guarantee you'll get great players at a higher spot. Trading for #2, drafting Tony and Manu are instances of restocking while competing. Where was Steph picked? Where was Giannis?

As to more recent selections, Dejounte Murray was invited to the green room on draft night but dropped to us at 29. Two other lottery projected talents in Lonnie Walker IV and Keldon Johnson also fell to us. Devin Vassell was rated in to top 10 for a long time (KOC has him as the 6th best prospect) also fell slightly to us. Tre Jones was a projected late first round early second round pick. Like would Magic fans not rather have Lonnie than much maligned Mo? I'm not saying Lonnie is a top-5 talent, simply adding to the case that but for surefire selections like LBJ or KD, where a guy is selected isn't where he ends up, and where he is selected goes a long way in getting the most out of his talents.

As to the free agency issue, well the one time we HAD significant money to spend we lured LMA to the Spurs which was a big get. All the other seasons I believe we were strapped for spending and could afford players with MLE or whatever. MM is not some judgement about the Spurs not being able to attract talent but a judgement on his **** turning back on his word.

As it stands, all of this once again boils down to BI and wouldn't the Spurs be so better off with him now. Well, given BI and Ball and Hart and Deng's contract? Once again, no.

As it stands, we're on the brink of the young guys better developed and being given bigger responsibilities. We're on the brink of four oldest vets coming off the books. We're on the brink of having the second highest cap space in 2021. Let's wait and see how things continue to play out with both the progression of our young guys and what we do with our cap space before declaring a fault in philosophy that has sustained us for over two decades.

[Bornstellar]

I guess what 20 years of excellence looks like is the ability to convince your fanbase (even the intelligent basketball minds) that Poetl and Keldon Johnson is somehow better than an at-absolute-worst top 15 twenty-three year old player in the league. Even after you lose out on free agents in the class of Marcus Morris. I wonder when the house money runs out.

Not saying Ingram isn't better now just saying he isn't moving the needle and he is not a player to build around. Building around Brandon Ingram is not some receipe for success, and had NOP not won the #1 pick that year, they'd be preparing for a 20 win season so in a sense I am glad the Spurs did not trade KL to pay Brandon Ingram 30 million a season

Keldon Johnson will be better than BI too, just wait

[Metallikid]

It wasn't entirely out of pure spite from the Spurs perspective. Buford likely already knew that one way or another AD would come to the Lakers so they didn't send Kawhi there because then they would have formed a big three that would easily dominate the NBA for the next half decade or longer. With Kawhi and LeBron on separate teams the Spurs, however small, still have a chance down the line.

[DoctorX]

It wasn't entirely out of pure spite from the Spurs perspective. Buford likely already knew that one way or another AD would come to the Lakers so they didn't send Kawhi there because then they would have formed a big three that would easily dominate the NBA for the next half decade or longer. With Kawhi and LeBron on separate teams the Spurs, however small, still have a chance down the line.

Agreed. I would say not just the spurs but the rest of the league now has a chance to win that there is no Laker super team.

[DoctorX]

I guess what 20 years of excellence looks like is the ability to convince your fanbase (even the intelligent basketball minds) that Poetl and Keldon Johnson is somehow better than an at-absolute-worst top 15 twenty-three year old player in the league. Even after you lose out on free agents in the class of Marcus Morris. I wonder when the house money runs out.

Not saying Ingram isn't better now just saying he isn't moving the needle and he is not a player to build around. Building around Brandon Ingram is not some receipe for success, and had NOP not won the #1 pick that year, they'd be preparing for a 20 win season so in a sense I am glad the Spurs did not trade KL to pay Brandon Ingram 30 million a season

Keldon Johnson will be better than BI too, just wait

Pelicans lucked out with getting Zion. If they didn't get Zion then they would have looked a lot worse in the Davis trade. Zion covers up how bad of a trade it was.

[IgorK]

They get a pass from me for not trading with the Lakers. Kawhi didn't deserve to be there after tanking his value and sabotaging the Spurs title hopes by sitting out a year and refusing to communicate with them.

Secondly the Lakers were not offering the same deal they were offering the Pelicans for Davis. I will also say I'm not amazed by Ingram. To me he is an empty stat player that can't win you games. There are plenty of them throughout the league. So I don't care about missing out on him.

Spur screwed up in my eyes not trading Kawhi during the trade deadline of 2018 when they could have gotten Tatum and Jaylen Brown for him. I have heard the Celtics offered both for him around January of 2018. That was a mistake by RC and Pop for not pursuing that trade.

Thirdly I don't get why Laker fans continue to complain about the Spurs not trading Kawhi to them. You just won a god damn title and are still complaining about not getting Kawhi. To me that's just ludicrous. What did you want a super team of Davis,Kawhi,Lebron?

I largely agree with you, but in the end, DeRozan was also not an impact player. Ingram still has his entire future ahead of him and could've been used as a trade chip in the future. Right now the Spurs have virtually nothing - no picks from other teams, no future All-Star, nothing. The Lakers package would've been better than what they ended up with.

[IgorK]

As it stands, we're on the brink of the young guys better developed and being given bigger responsibilities. We're on the brink of four oldest vets coming off the books. We're on the brink of having the second highest cap space in 2021. Let's wait and see how things continue to play out with both the progression of our young guys and what we do with our cap space before declaring a fault in philosophy that has sustained us for over two decades.

Who are the young guys you're excited about? Any of them better than BI? Are any of them significantly better than Ball, even? The one young guy you had who had even remotely looked interesting (Bryn Forbes) you let walk this offseason. The cap space might be nice, but the Spurs FO is 'savvy' with their money (read: they're not spending it on just anyone).

So right now, your future isn't much to be excited about.

[G R E Y]

Who are the young guys you're excited about? Any of them better than BI? Are any of them significantly better than Ball, even? The one young guy you had who had even remotely looked interesting (Bryn Forbes) you let walk this offseason. The cap space might be nice, but the Spurs FO is 'savvy' with their money (read: they're not spending it on just anyone).

So right now, your future isn't much to be excited about.

They've been discussed thread. I've literally just listed them in the response you cut. That you completely dismiss them and suggest that Bryn is the only one who looks remotely interesting - so much so we let him walk! stellar logic - speaks to both your lack of knowledge about our young group (understandable) and overlooking them (that's on you).

BI keeps being returned to as if he's some glorious player and what tends to happen is each side either plays him up too much or plays him down too much. The fact remains that though BI is a nice young talent, it wasn't enough for us to accept him if it meant taking on a bad contract dump and two players we didn't need as we like the group of 2s and 3s we have in the system. And if you can't see why a Ball on the Spurs would never happen then there's no point in explaining. But he also isn't a great enough asset for us to move who we have at PG. Interestingly, NOP drafted a projected starter in Kira. So we'll see how that turns out.

The last time we had big cap space we got LMA who was a big get that summer. Just about all other times it was far smaller acquisitions because we had less money to spend. Now that we're on the brink of huge cap space, it's hard to criticize when we haven't used it yet. Or did you mean it as a compliment? Hard to tell with the way it was worded, but yes I agree, we're not spending it on just anyone.

We're at a point that people kept saying we should go for - youth with vets coming off the books, worked diligently towards it, all the while the wonderous package we ought to have taken from LAL has yet to have a better season - yes we're excited about where we're headed, thank you.

Time to roll up the windows! The light's just turned green.

[chitownsalesmen]

This is hilarious. Lakers fans are so concerned for the Spurs well being that they feel the need to tell them that they made a mistake by not taking their castaways.

Just wow. At this point if Ingram doesn't turn into a Paul George level player at least, a lot of the posts in this thread will look ridiculous. They already do but wow.

"You should've taken our garbage instead of the Raptors' slightly more garbage garbage"

'

Uh little less then a year later the Lakers turned "there garbage" into Anthony Davis who was also an expiring.

If the deal the Lakers offered for AD was turned down by the Spurs for Kawhi Leonard, I'd also question the decision. But it's been shown multiple times in here that not only was a worse and useless (to the Spurs) package, it actually included an attempt to dump off a contract of a deadweight player. They also didn't have the No. 4 pick they gave to AD. We should at the very least not make the mistake of assuming the Lakers put the AD package on the table back in 2018.

Look I get it you want to defend your team but that Lakers package was not total trash and Ingram alone would be better going forward then anything the Spurs currently have and your still eating another year of Derozans contract two years later,

The Lakers package was not total trash, but neither was the Raptors' package. In the context of value at the time, both were trash (as facilitated by kawhi and his uncle) and the revisionist history to make it seem like BI was going to save the Spurs from mediocrity is what makes me go wow. Even at the time of the AD trade, the Lakers young guys were not viewed as even close to worth giving up AD for. Their best pick available at the time was what netted them Mo Wagner. Oh dear what a missed opportunity to not lap that stud up.

now if your argument is well at that time Ingram hadn't proven what he has now in N.O. ok but in hindsight its still a terrible deal.

It obviously is part of the argument. And also, what he is now is nothing that makes any Spurs fan regret picking the Raptors package.
Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't add anything to your point. But aside from that, the case has been made many times in this thread that even with hindsight, it was not a terrible deal, or at least not any more terrible than taking the Lakers offer would've been.
You can keep ignoring this point, but the Spurs have a plan based on their 22 years of sustained success, have stuck to it by taking the Raptors' package, and can see it coming to fruition somewhere in 2021/2022. Maybe you've closed your ears to hearing this, but IT IS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN. The Spurs aren't in a Rockets or Suns situation. They are not in any trouble (unless you believe not being a title contender for 2 years after 22 years straight is trouble, which, as I've said before, is extremely stupid and only leads to sustained failure) or lamenting the loss of the Pelicans' franchise player Brandon Ingram like some of you want them to be.

From day 1 I felt that Toronto giving up a pick to get an expiring for Derozan was a good enough deal, the fact that the expiring player was Kawhi Leonard was almost highway robbery. Raptors went all in and pulled off the miracle run in 2019 you can't take that away from them, and even if that had never happened and they end up losing to Philly, them clearing Derozan from the books is still a better situation then what SAS finds themselves in right now.I don't know what other offers the Spurs had, but whether you look at from how it looks today in late 2020 or based on what we knew in 2018, it was still a raw deal for SAS and their is a valid point to this thread.

The Raptors benefitting from the deal doesn't take away anything from the Spurs making a calculated choice to stay competitive and not take the Lakers castoffs. The Raptors gained a superstar and a fast track to the NBA title, which can't be negatively spun in anyway. This is why I said in my OP that it's dumb to look at the results of an inevitably lopsided trade and say the team that was setup to lose "blew it". Considering that the only team who has been seen to clearly benefit from the trade are the Raptors, the only "valid point" to this thread is that the Spurs taking a package they neither needed nor wanted from an arrogant rival that overplayed their hand is somehow a huge blunder. Oh look at that, it's not valid at all.

I don't know this to be the case, but I'm imagining the Lakers would have had Ingram in the trade offer, because what would they exactly do with LeBron, Ingram and Leonard all on the team then? The only good point that you brought up was the 4th pick wasn't awarded to the Lakers, and had some Leonard trade been constructed it wouldn't likely have been that high so I'll give you that but that was the 4th pick in a 2 man draft so its not a huge needle pusher IMO.

The rest of what you said is hogwash, you got a late 1st from Toronto and a bad contract in Derozan for an expiring Leonard who went on to win another finals MVP, however you want to slice it the Spurs got hosed. I'm not saying the Lakers deal was the best offer on the table(Idk what the reported offer at the time was) but look at what the Lakers did eventually give up for an expiring AD, look at what GS was able to squeeze out of the last minute KD sign and trade where they really had no leverage as KD was injured and had to pull something off quick and still got Russell, look at what OKC got for Paul George, the list goes on the Spurs got horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade.

[G R E Y]

'

Uh little less then a year later the Lakers turned "there garbage" into Anthony Davis who was also an expiring.

If the deal the Lakers offered for AD was turned down by the Spurs for Kawhi Leonard, I'd also question the decision. But it's been shown multiple times in here that not only was a worse and useless (to the Spurs) package, it actually included an attempt to dump off a contract of a deadweight player. They also didn't have the No. 4 pick they gave to AD. We should at the very least not make the mistake of assuming the Lakers put the AD package on the table back in 2018.

Look I get it you want to defend your team but that Lakers package was not total trash and Ingram alone would be better going forward then anything the Spurs currently have and your still eating another year of Derozans contract two years later,

The Lakers package was not total trash, but neither was the Raptors' package. In the context of value at the time, both were trash (as facilitated by kawhi and his uncle) and the revisionist history to make it seem like BI was going to save the Spurs from mediocrity is what makes me go wow. Even at the time of the AD trade, the Lakers young guys were not viewed as even close to worth giving up AD for. Their best pick available at the time was what netted them Mo Wagner. Oh dear what a missed opportunity to not lap that stud up.

now if your argument is well at that time Ingram hadn't proven what he has now in N.O. ok but in hindsight its still a terrible deal.

It obviously is part of the argument. And also, what he is now is nothing that makes any Spurs fan regret picking the Raptors package.
Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't add anything to your point. But aside from that, the case has been made many times in this thread that even with hindsight, it was not a terrible deal, or at least not any more terrible than taking the Lakers offer would've been.
You can keep ignoring this point, but the Spurs have a plan based on their 22 years of sustained success, have stuck to it by taking the Raptors' package, and can see it coming to fruition somewhere in 2021/2022. Maybe you've closed your ears to hearing this, but IT IS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN. The Spurs aren't in a Rockets or Suns situation. They are not in any trouble (unless you believe not being a title contender for 2 years after 22 years straight is trouble, which, as I've said before, is extremely stupid and only leads to sustained failure) or lamenting the loss of the Pelicans' franchise player Brandon Ingram like some of you want them to be.

From day 1 I felt that Toronto giving up a pick to get an expiring for Derozan was a good enough deal, the fact that the expiring player was Kawhi Leonard was almost highway robbery. Raptors went all in and pulled off the miracle run in 2019 you can't take that away from them, and even if that had never happened and they end up losing to Philly, them clearing Derozan from the books is still a better situation then what SAS finds themselves in right now.I don't know what other offers the Spurs had, but whether you look at from how it looks today in late 2020 or based on what we knew in 2018, it was still a raw deal for SAS and their is a valid point to this thread.

The Raptors benefitting from the deal doesn't take away anything from the Spurs making a calculated choice to stay competitive and not take the Lakers castoffs. The Raptors gained a superstar and a fast track to the NBA title, which can't be negatively spun in anyway. This is why I said in my OP that it's dumb to look at the results of an inevitably lopsided trade and say the team that was setup to lose "blew it". Considering that the only team who has been seen to clearly benefit from the trade are the Raptors, the only "valid point" to this thread is that the Spurs taking a package they neither needed nor wanted from an arrogant rival that overplayed their hand is somehow a huge blunder. Oh look at that, it's not valid at all.

I don't know this to be the case, but I'm imagining the Lakers would have had Ingram in the trade offer, because what would they exactly do with LeBron, Ingram and Leonard all on the team then? The only good point that you brought up was the 4th pick wasn't awarded to the Lakers, and had some Leonard trade been constructed it wouldn't likely have been that high so I'll give you that but that was the 4th pick in a 2 man draft so its not a huge needle pusher IMO.

The rest of what you said is hogwash, you got a late 1st from Toronto and a bad contract in Derozan for an expiring Leonard who went on to win another finals MVP, however you want to slice it the Spurs got hosed. I'm not saying the Lakers deal was the best offer on the table(Idk what the reported offer at the time was) but look at what the Lakers did eventually give up for an expiring AD, look at what GS was able to squeeze out of the last minute KD sign and trade where they really had no leverage as KD was injured and had to pull something off quick and still got Russell, look at what OKC got for Paul George, the list goes on the Spurs got horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade.

Like what part of #2 completely tanking his trade value by sitting out the year AND declaring publicly that he'd only re-sign in LA is comparable to any of the situations you mentioned? Just so ridiculous to keep making these bad comparisons to crap on what the Spurs took vs. what you think they ought to have, some hypothetical mystery great offer everyone keeps talking about but nobody mentions specifics supported with any credibility.

An expiring AD? Who are we kidding that he was ever going to do anything other than re-sign after it was clear to teams that he wanted LAL.

What OKC got for George is a perfect example of what happens when a team has leverage and OKC used it. We were put in a one hand tied behind our back negotiating position and still managed to get what we asked for.

Just absurd comparisons to the point that they highlight how different each set of circumstances were.

And it's disingenuous to not explore further what the effects of the deal are for us. For instance - the late 1st you dismiss turned into lottery projected Keldon Johnson. DD's supposed bad deal is coming off the books in 2021 when we'll have second most in cap space.

Just very poor reasoning laid out here.

[Bornstellar]

Who are the young guys you're excited about? Any of them better than BI? Are any of them significantly better than Ball, even? The one young guy you had who had even remotely looked interesting (Bryn Forbes) you let walk this offseason. The cap space might be nice, but the Spurs FO is 'savvy' with their money (read: they're not spending it on just anyone).

So right now, your future isn't much to be excited about.

The fact that you think Bryn Forbes of all players on the Spurs roster was the one young player who looked "remotely interesting" tells me you have watched 0 Spurs game and don't know anything about the team. That's fine, but please stop talking like you know anything about the Spurs young players when you clearly don't