Sac/Spurs

[SNPA]

Barnes into space and the 35.

Sac is up against the tax. They need to clear space, and get younger and more athletic. Pop had nothing but extremely high praise for Barnes on team USA. He loved his professionalism.

Spurs get a vet to teach the kids.
Sac gets cap and a second.

Spurs aren’t drafting four rookies.

[Chinook]

The Kings don't have 35 to trade, and I know you aren't committing the Spurs to be a cap space team with the renouncing that entails AND expecting them to pay an asset for the privilege.

[SNPA]

The Kings don't have 35 to trade, and I know you aren't committing the Spurs to be a cap space team with the renouncing that entails AND expecting them to pay an asset for the privilege.

Spurs have space, right?

They are either going to try to go all in on win now or they are going to draft this year and next and then go full out. If it’s the latter, Barnes makes sense.

[theBigLip]

Barnes is good but slightly overpaid. Expecting the Spurs to help you clean up your cap issues and paying you any assets is not realistic.

[OxAndFox]

This might be a backup plan for the Spurs if it were for a future 2nd.
The draft is in less than a week so I doubt the picks would be involved and it would be after the Spurs go after a couple of FAs they want.
Barnes would help them a lot, but he isn't the prize of their off season if they want to compete.

[SNPA]

“Pop trusts him,” Kerr told The Athletic's Joe Vardon. “Pop talks about it all the time with our staff. He knows he can count on him to make the right play and to execute under pressure.”

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nba/why-gregg-popovich-team-usa-trust-kings-harrison-barnes-so-much/1314371/?amp=1

I conceived it as a culture move. Pop setting a tone and giving an example of the professionalism expected in the Spurs org on and off the court to his young team.

SA giving up one of their seconds and cap space for a proven rotational vet seems reasonable to me.

[OxAndFox]

“Pop trusts him,” Kerr told The Athletic's Joe Vardon. “Pop talks about it all the time with our staff. He knows he can count on him to make the right play and to execute under pressure.”

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nba/why-gregg-popovich-team-usa-trust-kings-harrison-barnes-so-much/1314371/?amp=1

I conceived it as a culture move. Pop setting a tone and giving an example of the professionalism expected in the Spurs org on and off the court to his young team.

SA giving up one of their seconds and cap space for a proven rotational vet seems reasonable to me.

I think overall its not a bad idea, it's just the timing.
It would need to happen in the next 6 days. And if it does there goes all of the Spurs' cap space. I'm not over who they're targeting etc, but weigh that up to Barnes for #35 and think is it worth it?

[Chinook]

The Kings don't have 35 to trade, and I know you aren't committing the Spurs to be a cap space team with the renouncing that entails AND expecting them to pay an asset for the privilege.

Spurs have space, right?

No. They have to DECIDE to be a cap-space team or be over the cap. They're currently slated to enter the summer over the cap. They'll have to renounce holds, waive salary and/or forgo the MLE to have cap space. It's worth it for some players. It probably isn't but might be for Harrison Barnes for an asset. It's not worth it so they can pay a decent asset for Barnes.

Barnes and 13 for 35 and CHA25 is closer. If that's not good enough, Detroit and Orlando also exist. The Spurs should be aiming higher or getting appropriately compensated for helping a team avoid the tax.

[The Beam King]

The Kings don't have 35 to trade, and I know you aren't committing the Spurs to be a cap space team with the renouncing that entails AND expecting them to pay an asset for the privilege.

Spurs have space, right?

No. They have to DECIDE to be a cap-space team or be over the cap. They're currently slated to enter the summer over the cap. They'll have to renounce holds, waive salary and/or forgo the MLE to have cap space. It's worth it for some players. It probably isn't but might be for Harrison Barnes for an asset. It's not worth it so they can pay a decent asset for Barnes.

Barnes and 13 for 35 and CHA25 is closer. If that's not good enough, Detroit and Orlando also exist. The Spurs should be aiming higher or getting appropriately compensated for helping a team avoid the tax.

You think a lotto pick is worth a salary dump of a useful player?

[Chinook]

Spurs have space, right?

No. They have to DECIDE to be a cap-space team or be over the cap. They're currently slated to enter the summer over the cap. They'll have to renounce holds, waive salary and/or forgo the MLE to have cap space. It's worth it for some players. It probably isn't but might be for Harrison Barnes for an asset. It's not worth it so they can pay a decent asset for Barnes.

Barnes and 13 for 35 and CHA25 is closer. If that's not good enough, Detroit and Orlando also exist. The Spurs should be aiming higher or getting appropriately compensated for helping a team avoid the tax.

You think a lotto pick is worth a salary dump of a useful player?

I would prefer if the Kings had a pick around 20 instead, honestly. NOP is apparently willing to sell 21 for a raft of seconds. Maybe SAC can go halfsies on that and keep 13.

[Texas Chuck]

I agree with Ox that its unlikely the Spurs choose to use space on Barnes without seeing what else might be available.

Disagree its at all reasonable to counter by asking for 13 to take him. And no a couple 2nds don't remotely close that gap. Not really sure the point of unreasonable counters just because you don't like the original offer. You can simply say that doesn't interest me....

[The Beam King]

No. They have to DECIDE to be a cap-space team or be over the cap. They're currently slated to enter the summer over the cap. They'll have to renounce holds, waive salary and/or forgo the MLE to have cap space. It's worth it for some players. It probably isn't but might be for Harrison Barnes for an asset. It's not worth it so they can pay a decent asset for Barnes.

Barnes and 13 for 35 and CHA25 is closer. If that's not good enough, Detroit and Orlando also exist. The Spurs should be aiming higher or getting appropriately compensated for helping a team avoid the tax.

You think a lotto pick is worth a salary dump of a useful player?

I would prefer if the Kings had a pick around 20 instead, honestly. NOP is apparently willing to sell 21 for a raft of seconds. Maybe SAC can go halfsies on that and keep 13.

I think your value is off. I'd rather just keep Barnes who is still a solid player today than give up assets to move him. He's ideally a 6th man at this point in his career. We don't need to be attaching a 1st round pick to that to move on.

[Chinook]

You think a lotto pick is worth a salary dump of a useful player?

I would prefer if the Kings had a pick around 20 instead, honestly. NOP is apparently willing to sell 21 for a raft of seconds. Maybe SAC can go halfsies on that and keep 13.

I think your value is off. I'd rather just keep Barnes who is still a solid player today than give up assets to move him. He's ideally a 6th man at this point in his career. We don't need to be attaching a 1st round pick to that to move on.

You're doing a bad job selling him. Why should the Spurs pay for him and renounce their holds and forgo the MLE for a guy who shouldn't be starting?

[The Beam King]

I would prefer if the Kings had a pick around 20 instead, honestly. NOP is apparently willing to sell 21 for a raft of seconds. Maybe SAC can go halfsies on that and keep 13.

I think your value is off. I'd rather just keep Barnes who is still a solid player today than give up assets to move him. He's ideally a 6th man at this point in his career. We don't need to be attaching a 1st round pick to that to move on.

You're doing a bad job selling him. Why should the Spurs pay for him and renounce their holds and forgo the MLE for a guy who shouldn't be starting?

I'm not trying to sell him. He is what he is. A fringe starter/early bench player. He's damn reliable. Solid 3 and D. He's aging but he is a great lockertoom presence and an additional coach on the floor. He may not win you games but he will help you from losing games.

[Texas Chuck]

I think your value is off. I'd rather just keep Barnes who is still a solid player today than give up assets to move him. He's ideally a 6th man at this point in his career. We don't need to be attaching a 1st round pick to that to move on.

You're doing a bad job selling him. Why should the Spurs pay for him and renounce their holds and forgo the MLE for a guy who shouldn't be starting?

I'm not trying to sell him. He is what he is. A fringe starter/early bench player. He's damn reliable. Solid 3 and D. He's aging but he is a great lockertoom presence and an additional coach on the floor. He may not win you games but he will help you from losing games.

This is what way too many posters don't get. There is nothing served here on a message board by pimping out players, inflating their values. A honest appraisal of Barnes is what is appropriate. We aren't trying to sell used cars, we should all be under no illusion that anything we post here impacts the real world.

One side tries to tell the truth about who Barnes is today--and gets lectured. The other side demands a premium return for taking him on. Which is more conducive to quality discussion do we think?

[Chinook]

I think your value is off. I'd rather just keep Barnes who is still a solid player today than give up assets to move him. He's ideally a 6th man at this point in his career. We don't need to be attaching a 1st round pick to that to move on.

You're doing a bad job selling him. Why should the Spurs pay for him and renounce their holds and forgo the MLE for a guy who shouldn't be starting?

I'm not trying to sell him. He is what he is. A fringe starter/early bench player. He's damn reliable. Solid 3 and D. He's aging but he is a great lockertoom presence and an additional coach on the floor. He may not win you games but he will help you from losing games.

You are trying to sell him. There's more than one definition and use of the word. You're trying to persuade people on the idea of his trade value and doing it poorly. The Spurs shouldn't be doing this trade for a guy who shouldn't start. They should be compensated for taking him on. If the Kings had a worse pick, I'd be all for that being used instead. They have work with what they have. That can easily mean a trade doesn't work.

[Chinook]

You're doing a bad job selling him. Why should the Spurs pay for him and renounce their holds and forgo the MLE for a guy who shouldn't be starting?

I'm not trying to sell him. He is what he is. A fringe starter/early bench player. He's damn reliable. Solid 3 and D. He's aging but he is a great lockertoom presence and an additional coach on the floor. He may not win you games but he will help you from losing games.

This is what way too many posters don't get. There is nothing served here on a message board by pimping out players, inflating their values. A honest appraisal of Barnes is what is appropriate. We aren't trying to sell used cars, we should all be under no illusion that anything we post here impacts the real world.

One side tries to tell the truth about who Barnes is today--and gets lectured. The other side demands a premium return for taking him on. Which is more conducive to quality discussion do we think?

Chuck, you of all people push the idea of "objective" value for players while I rail against it. So this comment/lecture doesn't make sense. Barnes is not a used car and shouldn't be commodified that way so many posters try to. However, the Spurs' cap space and salary flexibility can be quantified and proper payment requested. Of course we can disagree on what fair compensation is, but workable compensation depends on what the sides have to trade, not what's fair in a vacuum.

I'd want the Spurs to be able to move from 35 to the late first to justify the trade. I don't think that's irrational. That the Kings don't have a late first to trade means a) They need to help the Spurs get one b) They can trade what they have and request additional compensation or c) The trade doesn't work. Each of those options is fine by me.

[LightTheBeam]

I'm against dumping usable salary to avoid the tax. Vivek needs to pay if he wants a winner. You can salary dump Sasha if you want to save a few bucks, Barnes contract will be crucial to this team upgrading.

[wemby]

Harrison Barnes has 2 years and 37 million on the books, you're asking someone to absorb him into cap space PLUS giving you a high 2nd rounder for him, and this probably costs the Spurs free agency options as well, this year and next.

Had you said Harrison Barnes for Zach Collins (almost identical contract) and the pick, I think it could be worth considering because it didn't hinder the Spurs from a cap perspective so you're paying to improve your roster, but as it is it has costly side effects that go beyond the pick.

All in all, if the Spurs are not trying to win now, they can get a character vet without eating salary and sending picks. And if they are trying to win now, they will have better options.

[jbk1234]

The Spurs already have Zach Collins, $16.7M, and Keldon Johnson, $19M. The really can't add any more middling to bad players on sizeable contracts.