CIN-C-STAR wrote:Unpopular/unfun opinion: The Spurs shouldn't and probably won't make an in-season trade.
All the players available now are available for a reason, whether it be age, contract, injury history, performance or some combination on the four.
They should keep their assets to go big-game hunting which is way more likely in an offseason. The kind of move they need to make should either make them a legit contender -- and they are too far away from that right now for that to be realistic imo -- or have real long-term upside.
I just don't think giving up assets for a Valanciunus or even a Jimmy Butler makes sense considering you are looking at giving up a FRP and the matching salary which likely includes young guys AND, perhaps most importantly, the likelihood of moving 7-10 spots back in a good draft just for what is likely a first-round exit.
If we could get someone like that it would definitely make the team more fun to watch so I get the appeal, and if it only cost draft capital maybe I'd agree, but I'd rather just sign a backup center in the offseason or something and keep the war chest intact (plus add to it with a good draft pick).
I wonder whether Wemby's clearly improving trajectory has us looking around to expedite filling holes. Sort of like how Wemby described it once - you still run up the stairs, don't skip any steps, but you choose how quickly to go up them, words to that effect. It's an interesting idea. Like neither Barnes nor CP3 were costly, and neither is a long term solution at his respective position, but both have been huge assets in lifting and solidifying our floor.
If we get a backup C like Val or such a prototype that is a clear upgrade and isn't too costly (what, after all, are assets for if not in part to consolidate for improvements) why not pounce if guys are talking about playoffs as a goal?
As it turns out, if a reported first round pick and a good player seems to be the Val asking price then it's too steep. If there's wiggle room, I'd go for it.
