2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[MartinToVaught]

Between how unserious the actual game is and how dull the events have become, it's probably time to retire the All-Star Break and just give the players a week off, or figure out some other way to use the time. It's beyond parody to watch a team score 211 points and still manage to be bored by it because they shot almost 100 threes to do it.

[Clyde Frazier]

Between how unserious the actual game is and how dull the events have become, it's probably time to retire the All-Star Break and just give the players a week off, or figure out some other way to use the time. It's beyond parody to watch a team score 211 points and still manage to be bored by it because they shot almost 100 threes to do it.

Good thread on why that won't happen anytime soon:

Read on Twitter

[AEnigma]

Jordan never let partying and hangovers affect him.

[eminence]

Jordan never let partying and hangovers affect him.

MJ's most elite athletic trait: hangover recovery

[Texas Chuck]

no idea why all of the sudden we are hand-wringing over the all-star game.

[Owly]

1. In the modern NBA, relying on building a core for 6-7 years before being a serious contender is a lot trickier than it was in the past. Now, maybe Wemby will be game for this an exception to the rule, but teams nowadays cannot expect a superstar to just wait around for a half decade

With rookies ...
6-7 "before ... serious contender" is a little long.

But a rookie walking away from their team on the first contract ... has anyone done that?
I haven't checked CBA stuff in a long while and was never an expert. But isn't trying to do it on the first contract giving up too much money. And then ... maybe if you sign a shorter 2nd (a la LeBron) ... even then you should have 5 years of assumed control before they can can say "I'm going ... trade me or get nothing" and time evaporates the value of your asset. And if you're willing to risk it (that you will be better, accepting that they could leave) and it is about team goodness you could still pay them more (and notionally have that winner after that 7th year).

Now it might not just be about team goodness. And you are playing "chicken" with a huge asset. And maybe not being great, not being a serious contender for 7 years damages relationships with that player. So like I say there's something of an inflection point at maybe 5 years experience (depending somewhat on the second contract ... certainly from 2 years out the rental value starts falling and the player leverage starts to increase) I think team the more common and greater mistake is being to "now" focused rather than too much focused on where the team could be after year 5.

[eminence]

1. In the modern NBA, relying on building a core for 6-7 years before being a serious contender is a lot trickier than it was in the past. Now, maybe Wemby will be game for this an exception to the rule, but teams nowadays cannot expect a superstar to just wait around for a half decade

With rookies ...
6-7 "before ... serious contender" is a little long.

But a rookie walking away from their team on the first contract ... has anyone done that?
I haven't checked CBA stuff in a long while and was never an expert. But isn't trying to do it on the first contract giving up too much money. And then ... maybe if you sign a shorter 2nd (a la LeBron) ... even then you should have 5 years of assumed control before they can can say "I'm going ... trade me or get nothing" and time evaporates the value of your asset. And if you're willing to risk it (that you will be better, accepting that they could leave) and it is about team goodness you could still pay them more (and notionally have that winner after that 7th year).

Now it might not just be about team goodness. And you are playing "chicken" with a huge asset. And maybe not being great, not being a serious contender for 7 years damages relationships with that player. So like I say there's something of an inflection point at maybe 5 years experience (depending somewhat on the second contract ... certainly from 2 years out the rental value starts falling and the player leverage starts to increase) I think team the more common and greater mistake is being to "now" focused rather than too much focused on where the team could be after year 5.

Leaving after the 1st deal is difficult, I believe ~7 is the earliest possible without extreme measures - like Hayward did in Utah

[Doctor MJ]

1. In the modern NBA, relying on building a core for 6-7 years before being a serious contender is a lot trickier than it was in the past. Now, maybe Wemby will be game for this an exception to the rule, but teams nowadays cannot expect a superstar to just wait around for a half decade

With rookies ...
6-7 "before ... serious contender" is a little long.

But a rookie walking away from their team on the first contract ... has anyone done that?
I haven't checked CBA stuff in a long while and was never an expert. But isn't trying to do it on the first contract giving up too much money. And then ... maybe if you sign a shorter 2nd (a la LeBron) ... even then you should have 5 years of assumed control before they can can say "I'm going ... trade me or get nothing" and time evaporates the value of your asset. And if you're willing to risk it (that you will be better, accepting that they could leave) and it is about team goodness you could still pay them more (and notionally have that winner after that 7th year).

Now it might not just be about team goodness. And you are playing "chicken" with a huge asset. And maybe not being great, not being a serious contender for 7 years damages relationships with that player. So like I say there's something of an inflection point at maybe 5 years experience (depending somewhat on the second contract ... certainly from 2 years out the rental value starts falling and the player leverage starts to increase) I think team the more common and greater mistake is being to "now" focused rather than too much focused on where the team could be after year 5.

Leaving in free agency is no longer the concern when it comes to superstars. Trade demands are.

[Owly]

1. In the modern NBA, relying on building a core for 6-7 years before being a serious contender is a lot trickier than it was in the past. Now, maybe Wemby will be game for this an exception to the rule, but teams nowadays cannot expect a superstar to just wait around for a half decade

With rookies ...
6-7 "before ... serious contender" is a little long.

But a rookie walking away from their team on the first contract ... has anyone done that?
I haven't checked CBA stuff in a long while and was never an expert. But isn't trying to do it on the first contract giving up too much money. And then ... maybe if you sign a shorter 2nd (a la LeBron) ... even then you should have 5 years of assumed control before they can can say "I'm going ... trade me or get nothing" and time evaporates the value of your asset. And if you're willing to risk it (that you will be better, accepting that they could leave) and it is about team goodness you could still pay them more (and notionally have that winner after that 7th year).

Now it might not just be about team goodness. And you are playing "chicken" with a huge asset. And maybe not being great, not being a serious contender for 7 years damages relationships with that player. So like I say there's something of an inflection point at maybe 5 years experience (depending somewhat on the second contract ... certainly from 2 years out the rental value starts falling and the player leverage starts to increase) I think team the more common and greater mistake is being to "now" focused rather than too much focused on where the team could be after year 5.

Leaving in free agency is no longer the concern when it comes to superstars. Trade demands are.

So I don't follow the personal drama side stuff too closely. Maybe I've missed the details on "player empowerment" as pertaining to forcing trades ...

But the question is how you leverage the trade without the threat of free agency.

I know there's some dark arts stuff ... faking/exaggerating injury for instance but ... it's not without risk, it's not without PR damage and the team doesn't have to play ball. Say you're 3 years from the end of your contract ... are you going to sit out 3 years ... and expecting to get paid? To me on the team side I'd be inclined to wait it out unless there's good offers right away. If it came to this though I'd say it's come back to relationships and if they've been damaged. But if not ... "You accepted our contract, we've got three more years of control, we're building we expect to be a great team by the time you get to decide where to play ..." and then either you decide to bail at the point teams start to consider it more a rental or you ride it out.

[Doctor MJ]

With rookies ...
6-7 "before ... serious contender" is a little long.

But a rookie walking away from their team on the first contract ... has anyone done that?
I haven't checked CBA stuff in a long while and was never an expert. But isn't trying to do it on the first contract giving up too much money. And then ... maybe if you sign a shorter 2nd (a la LeBron) ... even then you should have 5 years of assumed control before they can can say "I'm going ... trade me or get nothing" and time evaporates the value of your asset. And if you're willing to risk it (that you will be better, accepting that they could leave) and it is about team goodness you could still pay them more (and notionally have that winner after that 7th year).

Now it might not just be about team goodness. And you are playing "chicken" with a huge asset. And maybe not being great, not being a serious contender for 7 years damages relationships with that player. So like I say there's something of an inflection point at maybe 5 years experience (depending somewhat on the second contract ... certainly from 2 years out the rental value starts falling and the player leverage starts to increase) I think team the more common and greater mistake is being to "now" focused rather than too much focused on where the team could be after year 5.

Leaving in free agency is no longer the concern when it comes to superstars. Trade demands are.

So I don't follow the personal drama side stuff too closely. Maybe I've missed the details on "player empowerment" as pertaining to forcing trades ...

But the question is how you leverage the trade without the threat of free agency.

I know there's some dark arts stuff ... faking/exaggerating injury for instance but ... it's not without risk, it's not without PR damage and the team doesn't have to play ball. Say you're 3 years from the end of your contract ... are you going to sit out 3 years ... and expecting to get paid? To me on the team side I'd be inclined to wait it out unless there's good offers right away. If it came to this though I'd say it's come back to relationships and if they've been damaged. But if not ... "You accepted our contract, we've got three more years of control, we're building we expect to be a great team by the time you get to decide where to play ..." and then either you decide to bail at the point teams start to consider it more a rental or you ride it out.

Well, did you see what happened in Brooklyn? I grant you that Wemby may well have a very different mindset than the Brooklyn Nots, but I think it's pretty well-established now that you're really always on the clock with superstars nowadays.

[Owly]

Leaving in free agency is no longer the concern when it comes to superstars. Trade demands are.

So I don't follow the personal drama side stuff too closely. Maybe I've missed the details on "player empowerment" as pertaining to forcing trades ...

But the question is how you leverage the trade without the threat of free agency.

I know there's some dark arts stuff ... faking/exaggerating injury for instance but ... it's not without risk, it's not without PR damage and the team doesn't have to play ball. Say you're 3 years from the end of your contract ... are you going to sit out 3 years ... and expecting to get paid? To me on the team side I'd be inclined to wait it out unless there's good offers right away. If it came to this though I'd say it's come back to relationships and if they've been damaged. But if not ... "You accepted our contract, we've got three more years of control, we're building we expect to be a great team by the time you get to decide where to play ..." and then either you decide to bail at the point teams start to consider it more a rental or you ride it out.

Well, did you see what happened in Brooklyn? I grant you that Wemby may well have a very different mindset than the Brooklyn Nots, but I think it's pretty well-established now that you're really always on the clock with superstars nowadays.

I mean not closely. But I'll look it over.

Harden: Is starting to seem like an outlier in terms of purported willingness to openly give low effort. If this is true ... I think ... is he going to do that for 3 years (or is it ultimately a bluff). As I say I'm not all over the details but I think that contract was winding down - couldn't/didn't he opt out after that season. Unless I get good offers ... can a team not wait it out. Is a player going to open up contract and competitive integrity questions by not playing hard ... Harden is said to have ... doing it longer term ... seems like a risk.

Irving: Don't know about contract, was he not expiring too. But in any case ... a massive headache. I didn't go down the rabbit hole but if you want to go to vaccine conspiracies and promoting material that approvingly cites Hitler ... you can probably get out of place. I'm not sure everyone's willing to take that hit. And I think the team - rightly - starts seeing you as a liability. And perhaps isn't so much forced to trade you as is made to re-evaluate your value and want to trade you.

Durant: Was perceived by some (perhaps many) as the best player in the game (think I recall Dunc'd On, especially Nate, on that train) which will give you more leverage. That said ... didn't get traded at the time of trade demand, had to back off from it. Viability of team construction at top level was I think perhaps coming into question (Simmons far less productive than previously; Irving having been a very open, very public distraction now gone too). Like Irving he had an injury history that might make you uneasy on the latter years. Not the guy you want for a rebuild. And looking at Reference they got ... 5 firsts? Bridges had very strong impact footprint on a good team iirc, Johnson was a viable rotation player on a good team ... the Nets were already out on now and this seems like a decent return (picks value can vary enormously of course, I haven't looked closely at those picks etc).

My vague impression on bits I'd heard were the Nets kind of turned over the keys to KD, weren't well run. That could be a factor. But honestly it was always somewhat of a flawed construction with 3 guys happiest with the ball, mostly with not great defensive reps, mostly (perhaps all) to varying degrees not great intangibles guys, older and with injury/unavailability issues ... not that I didn't get going all in on the big (offensive) talent, but if you're queasy about paying Harden and he senses that or whatever set him off and he's a flight risk ... and then you don't get a return on him ... I think there's a logic to these moves beyond ... "Player X wants out so I must accede."

Like I say I don't watch the drama side too closely so tell me if anything above is wrong or I missed any huge beats. I'm still inclined to believe that until the contract starts running down and walking is a threat and trade value is about to start really dropping ... the player doesn't have the leverage. Unless they want to go with some nuclear option.

[Doctor MJ]

So I don't follow the personal drama side stuff too closely. Maybe I've missed the details on "player empowerment" as pertaining to forcing trades ...

But the question is how you leverage the trade without the threat of free agency.

I know there's some dark arts stuff ... faking/exaggerating injury for instance but ... it's not without risk, it's not without PR damage and the team doesn't have to play ball. Say you're 3 years from the end of your contract ... are you going to sit out 3 years ... and expecting to get paid? To me on the team side I'd be inclined to wait it out unless there's good offers right away. If it came to this though I'd say it's come back to relationships and if they've been damaged. But if not ... "You accepted our contract, we've got three more years of control, we're building we expect to be a great team by the time you get to decide where to play ..." and then either you decide to bail at the point teams start to consider it more a rental or you ride it out.

Well, did you see what happened in Brooklyn? I grant you that Wemby may well have a very different mindset than the Brooklyn Nots, but I think it's pretty well-established now that you're really always on the clock with superstars nowadays.

I mean not closely. But I'll look it over.

Harden: Is starting to seem like an outlier in terms of purported willingness to openly give low effort. If this is true ... I think ... is he going to do that for 3 years (or is it ultimately a bluff). As I say I'm not all over the details but I think that contract was winding down - couldn't/didn't he opt out after that season. Unless I get good offers ... can a team not wait it out. Is a player going to open up contract and competitive integrity questions by not playing hard ... Harden is said to have ... doing it longer term ... seems like a risk.

Irving: Don't know about contract, was he not expiring too. But in any case ... a massive headache. I didn't go down the rabbit hole but if you want to go to vaccine conspiracies and promoting material that approvingly cites Hitler ... you can probably get out of place. I'm not sure everyone's willing to take that hit. And I think the team - rightly - starts seeing you as a liability. And perhaps isn't so much forced to trade you as is made to re-evaluate your value and want to trade you.

Durant: Was perceived by some (perhaps many) as the best player in the game (think I recall Dunc'd On, especially Nate, on that train) which will give you more leverage. That said ... didn't get traded at the time of trade demand, had to back off from it. Viability of team construction at top level was I think perhaps coming into question (Simmons far less productive than previously; Irving having been a very open, very public distraction now gone too). Like Irving he had an injury history that might make you uneasy on the latter years. Not the guy you want for a rebuild. And looking at Reference they got ... 5 firsts? Bridges had very strong impact footprint on a good team iirc, Johnson was a viable rotation player on a good team ... the Nets were already out on now and this seems like a decent return (picks value can vary enormously of course, I haven't looked closely at those picks etc).

My vague impression on bits I'd heard were the Nets kind of turned over the keys to KD, weren't well run. That could be a factor. But honestly it was always somewhat of a flawed construction with 3 guys happiest with the ball, mostly with not great defensive reps, mostly (perhaps all) to varying degrees not great intangibles guys, older and with injury/unavailability issues ... not that I didn't get going all in on the big (offensive) talent, but if you're queasy about paying Harden and he senses that or whatever set him off and he's a flight risk ... and then you don't get a return on him ... I think there's a logic to these moves beyond ... "Player X wants out so I must accede."

Like I say I don't watch the drama side too closely so tell me if anything above is wrong or I missed any huge beats. I'm still inclined to believe that until the contract starts running down and walking is a threat and trade value is about to start really dropping ... the player doesn't have the leverage. Unless they want to go with some nuclear option.

So I think the big thing really is that the Nets would be in better shape now if they'd never signed KD/Kyrie. They were a playoff team that realistically could have kept that up with a positive culture, now they're a lottery team without draft assets.

Of course, you can argue that the reason they were so out of control with KD/Kyrie is because that's what it took to woo them, and so it's different when you draft a guy, but that really just depends on the guy. So long as Wemby is content with what the Spurs are doing, it's fine. When he isn't, it's not.

In terms of not having to trade a guy just because he asks for it, that's true, but you have to ask what positives you're expecting to get simply by having a guy on your roster who has made clear he doesn't want to be there.

I'm not predicting any kind of doom & gloom specifically for the Spurs, but I do think that if the Spurs still suck 4-5 years from now, neither Wemby nor the fanbase is going to be excited for what's to come. Fine to be patient and to expect a gradual improvement from here, but this is a different thing from my perspective than just waiting 6-7 years. At every step along the way I expect the Spurs to be reflecting on how things are going, and if Wemby's as good as we think he'll be but we don't see a team getting better and better, things will probably need to change.

[Outside]

I know the Spurs record and SRS is awful, but the few times I've watched them play, I do think they have talent on the roster besides Wemby, at least something to build around. Perhaps others who have watched them more consistently have a different opinion.

For a long time, the Spurs were the gold standard for assembling and keeping a roster. That took a hit with Kawhi, but there's a lot of mystery surrounding that situation. We'll see if they can regain that reputation. Wemby as a centerpiece gives them that chance.

[Owly]

Well, did you see what happened in Brooklyn? I grant you that Wemby may well have a very different mindset than the Brooklyn Nots, but I think it's pretty well-established now that you're really always on the clock with superstars nowadays.

I mean not closely. But I'll look it over.

Harden: Is starting to seem like an outlier in terms of purported willingness to openly give low effort. If this is true ... I think ... is he going to do that for 3 years (or is it ultimately a bluff). As I say I'm not all over the details but I think that contract was winding down - couldn't/didn't he opt out after that season. Unless I get good offers ... can a team not wait it out. Is a player going to open up contract and competitive integrity questions by not playing hard ... Harden is said to have ... doing it longer term ... seems like a risk.

Irving: Don't know about contract, was he not expiring too. But in any case ... a massive headache. I didn't go down the rabbit hole but if you want to go to vaccine conspiracies and promoting material that approvingly cites Hitler ... you can probably get out of place. I'm not sure everyone's willing to take that hit. And I think the team - rightly - starts seeing you as a liability. And perhaps isn't so much forced to trade you as is made to re-evaluate your value and want to trade you.

Durant: Was perceived by some (perhaps many) as the best player in the game (think I recall Dunc'd On, especially Nate, on that train) which will give you more leverage. That said ... didn't get traded at the time of trade demand, had to back off from it. Viability of team construction at top level was I think perhaps coming into question (Simmons far less productive than previously; Irving having been a very open, very public distraction now gone too). Like Irving he had an injury history that might make you uneasy on the latter years. Not the guy you want for a rebuild. And looking at Reference they got ... 5 firsts? Bridges had very strong impact footprint on a good team iirc, Johnson was a viable rotation player on a good team ... the Nets were already out on now and this seems like a decent return (picks value can vary enormously of course, I haven't looked closely at those picks etc).

My vague impression on bits I'd heard were the Nets kind of turned over the keys to KD, weren't well run. That could be a factor. But honestly it was always somewhat of a flawed construction with 3 guys happiest with the ball, mostly with not great defensive reps, mostly (perhaps all) to varying degrees not great intangibles guys, older and with injury/unavailability issues ... not that I didn't get going all in on the big (offensive) talent, but if you're queasy about paying Harden and he senses that or whatever set him off and he's a flight risk ... and then you don't get a return on him ... I think there's a logic to these moves beyond ... "Player X wants out so I must accede."

Like I say I don't watch the drama side too closely so tell me if anything above is wrong or I missed any huge beats. I'm still inclined to believe that until the contract starts running down and walking is a threat and trade value is about to start really dropping ... the player doesn't have the leverage. Unless they want to go with some nuclear option.

So I think the big thing really is that the Nets would be in better shape now if they'd never signed KD/Kyrie. They were a playoff team that realistically could have kept that up with a positive culture, now they're a lottery team without draft assets.

Of course, you can argue that the reason they were so out of control with KD/Kyrie is because that's what it took to woo them, and so it's different when you draft a guy, but that really just depends on the guy. So long as Wemby is content with what the Spurs are doing, it's fine. When he isn't, it's not.

In terms of not having to trade a guy just because he asks for it, that's true, but you have to ask what positives you're expecting to get simply by having a guy on your roster who has made clear he doesn't want to be there.

I'm not predicting any kind of doom & gloom specifically for the Spurs, but I do think that if the Spurs still suck 4-5 years from now, neither Wemby nor the fanbase is going to be excited for what's to come. Fine to be patient and to expect a gradual improvement from here, but this is a different thing from my perspective than just waiting 6-7 years. At every step along the way I expect the Spurs to be reflecting on how things are going, and if Wemby's as good as we think he'll be but we don't see a team getting better and better, things will probably need to change.

Fwiw ...

I think I was pretty clear in the first two posts that there's a personal relationships side to things that matters

and maybe not being great, not being a serious contender for 7 years damages relationships with that player.

[If a player is using dark arts stuff to force their way out ...] If it came to this though I'd say it's come back to relationships and if they've been damaged. But if not ...

So there's 2 separate things (though somewhat/potentially related) ... does the player think you're not on track, not understand the construction ... which can be remedied if what you're doing pays off and there's does your star think you're jerks (which might not be able to be undone). And maybe you choose to be more collegiate and discuss avenues with them or maybe not or maybe they don't want that responsibility

So what you're expecting is for the player to honor their contract, do their best, you keep building you maintain that window and if you succeed within the time window you can pay the guy the most and have a good team. And as I've said there's a personality chemistry aspect to it too. But Houston won titles after an Olajuwon trade demand. The Lakers won titles after a Kobe trade demand. You build the contender and the chances are guys stay. Even where relationships are badly damaged ... the Bulls won a title after Pippen's trade demand. They won them all with some or many top players (and coaches) having a strained (often unpleasant) relationship with the front office, for what that's worth (Krause harming his relationship with Jordan by trying to protect long-term interests ... rightly I would suggest).

You seemed though to be asserting that stars could easily force trades without FA leverage ... and yeah ... I absolutely could be missing stuff but I haven't perceived that they can.


This wasn't about VW or them for instance being full tank/try stuff out mode versus using a competent point guard that is a point guard. I hadn't opined on the specifics.
fwiw ...The video someone linked was "they need to be buyers" and a -8.21 SRS team "needing" to prioritize immediate terms (or the implication that they to pursue an expensive "right now" guy like Trae Young) ... that seems crazy to me. Of course if they continue sucking and don't show signs of progression then that's bad but for right now they have plenty of time.

Or even about the Nets and arguably mortgaging their future for now.
Fwiw ...That was a calculated risk with some baggage (e.g. DeAndre). And whilst '19 Nets were a nice story they were negative points dif when each of the higher minute somewhat young guys were on the court. And the guys playing were cheap at the time but paying Harris, Russell, Dinwiddie, Allen (LeVert?) [if that's the core] was that going to produce title equity ... It was a flawed construction but I can see the merits of the risk. And from Durant they're not without picks (again haven't checked the value, protections).


The "too now" orientation is an error that we actually see around young stars. Cavs use their one LeBron lottery pick on Luke Jackson (with talented younger players plausible and on the board) because he's "ready" (read: "old"). New Orleans give up their 2015 1st for Asik and Casspi. The "too patient" error ... it's possible ... has anyone really done it? Nobody's popping to mind.

[MartinToVaught]

Read on Twitter

These players act like they're not already getting paid an insane amount of money while sitting out more games than ever.

Setting aside how lame this is, even if the NBA does start paying them extra, it won't change the fudamental reality that this is an exhibition game that counts for nothing and isn't worth risking an injury for. The players might try harder for a year or two, but they'll inevitably regress back to their usual level of play because the root causes haven't changed.

I still say it's time to retire All-Star Weekend, just let the players have the week off, and come up with something else to fill the time. The whole event has been running on fumes for years. Silver will push huge changes that nobody asked for in the regular season and playoffs, but won't give All-Star Weekend the radical revamp that it needs.

[penbeast0]

... The "too patient" error ... it's possible ... has anyone really done it? Nobody's popping to mind.

Maybe a team like Boston when Ainge was GM or OKC now if they don't make a strong consolidation move. Building a war chest of draft assets then not maximizing them because you never got the perfect deal to do so.

[MartinToVaught]

If Kawhi didn't become available at the exact moment that he did, Toronto would have been the poster child for "too patient." Both before, when they stuck with the Lowry/DeRozan core forever when it was obvious they weren't good enough to contend, and after, when Masai turned into Ainge 2.0 and started overvaluing all his players.

[penbeast0]

I’m not saying they should rush, but waiting 6-7 years is goofy.

If you think Wemby will be ready as an All-NBA type guy next season, then make moves with that in mind.

Bulls first won a championship 7 years after Jordan was drafted. Warriors first won a championship 6 years after Curry was drafted. It really will probably take ~6 years for the Spurs to build a championship team that can seriously compete for several years.

Big things for me:

1. In the modern NBA, relying on building a core for 6-7 years before being a serious contender is a lot trickier than it was in the past. Now, maybe Wemby will be game for this an exception to the rule, but teams nowadays cannot expect a superstar to just wait around for a half decade plus before going all in. Players can and do force their way out of a franchise they see as going nowhere.

2. In the case of Curry we're honestly talking about wasted time on the front end. The first two years were wasted because of Monta Ellis' presence, the 3rd year was wasted because of Curry having injury issues, and the 4th & 5th years were wasted with a bad coach. There's absolutely no reason to think that you had to wait until Curry's 6th year to expect to be a contender.

Now, I'm with you that the Spurs shouldn't rush things. I think they should be patient, see what really seems to work with Wemby, and give up assets to improve only when they see a specific need already informed by what Wemby needs.

But nor would I advocate for an approach that welcomes tanking. This season is now already a tank so hopefully the Spurs will get something good from the draft to help next year, but the Spurs should be looking to be the best team they can next year with the talent they have.

And that might seem like a "Well duh" thing, but to be honest the way the Spurs began the year seemed like something that encourages bad habits. Trying an outside of the box thing is not something I want to knock Pop for, but making sure you using the most professional facilitator you have alongside your franchise big man just seems like the obvious thing to do, and that's not what Pop was doing early on. Seemed like instead he was hoping to identify a second franchise player to go along with Wemby, and while that would be an awesome thing to realize you already had, I think the priority should have been fit with Wemby from day one.

You don't keep tanking for 6-7 years but building rather than going all in for the first 5 years, trying to get good young positive culture talent around your star as you build your way up to a playoff team, then only in the 6th or 7th years of that, you might try to get the "missing piece" if you haven't got enough there and make a big free agent high risk/high reward move for a Harden/Kyrie/Simmons type, that makes a lot of sense to me.

It's different from continuing to trade your solid vets for draft futures and playing guys out of position or giving guys developmental minutes when they aren't really good enough to play yet. You can get away with that for a year or two but you have to start building so that when Wemby can go FA, he has a reasonable belief that you are on the right track.

[Special_Puppy]

Bulls first won a championship 7 years after Jordan was drafted. Warriors first won a championship 6 years after Curry was drafted. It really will probably take ~6 years for the Spurs to build a championship team that can seriously compete for several years.

Big things for me:

1. In the modern NBA, relying on building a core for 6-7 years before being a serious contender is a lot trickier than it was in the past. Now, maybe Wemby will be game for this an exception to the rule, but teams nowadays cannot expect a superstar to just wait around for a half decade plus before going all in. Players can and do force their way out of a franchise they see as going nowhere.

2. In the case of Curry we're honestly talking about wasted time on the front end. The first two years were wasted because of Monta Ellis' presence, the 3rd year was wasted because of Curry having injury issues, and the 4th & 5th years were wasted with a bad coach. There's absolutely no reason to think that you had to wait until Curry's 6th year to expect to be a contender.

Now, I'm with you that the Spurs shouldn't rush things. I think they should be patient, see what really seems to work with Wemby, and give up assets to improve only when they see a specific need already informed by what Wemby needs.

But nor would I advocate for an approach that welcomes tanking. This season is now already a tank so hopefully the Spurs will get something good from the draft to help next year, but the Spurs should be looking to be the best team they can next year with the talent they have.

And that might seem like a "Well duh" thing, but to be honest the way the Spurs began the year seemed like something that encourages bad habits. Trying an outside of the box thing is not something I want to knock Pop for, but making sure you using the most professional facilitator you have alongside your franchise big man just seems like the obvious thing to do, and that's not what Pop was doing early on. Seemed like instead he was hoping to identify a second franchise player to go along with Wemby, and while that would be an awesome thing to realize you already had, I think the priority should have been fit with Wemby from day one.

You don't keep tanking for 6-7 years but building rather than going all in for the first 5 years, trying to get good young positive culture talent around your star as you build your way up to a playoff team, then only in the 6th or 7th years of that, you might try to get the "missing piece" if you haven't got enough there and make a big free agent high risk/high reward move for a Harden/Kyrie/Simmons type, that makes a lot of sense to me.

It's different from continuing to trade your solid vets for draft futures and playing guys out of position or giving guys developmental minutes when they aren't really good enough to play yet. You can get away with that for a year or two but you have to start building so that when Wemby can go FA, he has a reasonable belief that you are on the right track.

You trade old expensive medicore veterans for picks and promising young prospects. You draft and develop players for ~6 years. Then by year 6 Wemby is hopefully a top 3 player in the league, you have a championship caliber supporting cast that you cultivated organically, and you still have a ton of assets that you can use to take advantage of opportunities

[AEnigma]

The "too now" orientation is an error that we actually see around young stars. Cavs use their one LeBron lottery pick on Luke Jackson (with talented younger players plausible and on the board) because he's "ready" (read: "old"). New Orleans give up their 2015 1st for Asik and Casspi. The "too patient" error ... it's possible ... has anyone really done it? Nobody's popping to mind.

Ironically I think the Cavaliers are an example of a team that should have been much more aggressive than they were. I see them as arguably the worst waster of superstar talent in league history, alongside the Garnett Timberwolves (who suffered for contract reasons you would never see today). Luke Jackson was taken one spot behind Iguodala, and three spots behind Deng. Shannon Brown two years later was taken one spot behind Lowry. Hindsight analysis, sure, and maybe the Cavaliers sincerely preferred the players they took, but not tough to imagine a shrewder front office pushing to move up spots.

Which is not to say the Cavalier never tried to be aggressive. Trading future firsts for Sasha Pavlovic and Jiri Welsch could be called aggressive… or just stupid, especially in the case of Welsch, who was traded for a second merely four months later. San Antonio needs to avoid wasting assets like that, but future firsts (for a team expected to be decent) can and should be parlayed into better players. The Spurs are not winning anything if over the next seven years Tyus Jones looks like one of Wembanyama’s best teammates, with maybe an “aggressive” trade for Josh Giddey or John Collins mixed in there. The team should be looking at all-star talents, or at least talents they assess as having a reasonable to likely path to becoming an all-star. Because when you have a truly transformational player, you can no longer rely on grabbing high picks via a sub-.500 record. The Spurs are better off than the Cavaliers were by virtue of having all their picks for the next couple of years, but those picks mean nothing if they do not convey into a supporting star.