Scottie Barnes is a SPUR. [needs 3rd team]

[SkyHook]

How about a 3 teamer for Wagner from Orlando - who is the PERFECT running mate with Wemby.

To Orlando: Barnes and Castle (need to be Harper?)

To Raptors: Vassell and Spurs picks

To Spurs: Wagner

Spread around some filler.

Magic have a roster to support Barnes and his skill set plus get a legit PG prospect - finally.

I like Mo Wagner, but he doesn't have nearly this kind of value.

[One_and_Done]

Magic aren’t trading Wagner for Castle and picks. That is just silly.

Magic have assets to send out in a deal that gives them Castle + Barnes (like Suggs+).

Wager > Barnes

Like I said, a deal for Wagner seems unlikely. I don't see how the Suggs deal you propose happens; if he's healthy, the Magic will keep him. If he's not, he has minimal value. Also how does that deal even work? The Spurs and Raps can't both get Suggs.

Come on, that is simple…

To Magic: Castle/Barnes/Vassell

To Raps: Suggs/Black or Jett (choose 1)/Hawks 1st (via Spurs)

To Spurs: Wagner/Agbaji

Spurs turn Castle+ into perfect running mate Wagner. Wagner can play SF or PF depending on how Spurs want to set their lineup.

Raps get Suggs+ for Barnes. Suggs D would fit perfect in that lineup while opening PF slot (needed per OP).

Magic downgrade from Wagner to Barnes but have the lineup around Barnes to support his skillset. Magic also get Castle as legit PG prospect to set lineup.

Again, why are the Raptors in this deal. Why are the Magic moving Suggs, who is being valued as a healthy/good player in this scenario. If the Spurs only need to move this much to get Wagner, and feel confident his shot will come back, then they just do it directly with the Magic.

[jayjaysee]

I don’t really disagree that SAS would go look for a better fitting forward to pair with Wemby. They don’t have a ton of assets, but they have high variance assets to go get the forward they should go get..

But if they did want Barnes and trusted he’d look/perform better next to Wemby (I expect he would look better in a less featured role, even though he’s paid to be featured..)

I think their offer is Castle, Sochan, salary.

Don’t want to call Sochan a poor man’s Barnes, because it’s a stretch.. But it is true enough that you don’t want to pair Sochan and Barnes..

[Wolveswin]

Like I said, a deal for Wagner seems unlikely. I don't see how the Suggs deal you propose happens; if he's healthy, the Magic will keep him. If he's not, he has minimal value. Also how does that deal even work? The Spurs and Raps can't both get Suggs.

Come on, that is simple…

To Magic: Castle/Barnes/Vassell

To Raps: Suggs/Black or Jett (choose 1)/Hawks 1st (via Spurs)

To Spurs: Wagner/Agbaji

Spurs turn Castle+ into perfect running mate Wagner. Wagner can play SF or PF depending on how Spurs want to set their lineup.

Raps get Suggs+ for Barnes. Suggs D would fit perfect in that lineup while opening PF slot (needed per OP).

Magic downgrade from Wagner to Barnes but have the lineup around Barnes to support his skillset. Magic also get Castle as legit PG prospect to set lineup.

Again, why are the Raptors in this deal. Why are the Magic moving Suggs, who is being valued as a healthy/good player in this scenario. If the Spurs only need to move this much to get Wagner, and feel confident his shot will come back, then they just do it directly with the Magic.

You have been told why Raptors are in this deal. It is beyond obvious too. If Spurs call Magic and offer Vassell/Castle/1st for Wagner they are laughed off phone. Magic are a win now team and aren’t taking a step back in weak east because Spurs want an ideal Wagner next to Wemby. That isn’t Magic motivation that is Spurs motivation. Barnes backfills Wagner in a Magic lineup that can support him better than Spurs. And for Magic step back from Wagner to Barnes, they get Castle but Magic need to add Suggs/Vassell swap to make it work value wise.

[Wolveswin]

How about a 3 teamer for Wagner from Orlando - who is the PERFECT running mate with Wemby.

To Orlando: Barnes and Castle (need to be Harper?)

To Raptors: Vassell and Spurs picks

To Spurs: Wagner

Spread around some filler.

Magic have a roster to support Barnes and his skill set plus get a legit PG prospect - finally.

I like Mo Wagner, but he doesn't have nearly this kind of value.

lol good one.

[One_and_Done]

Come on, that is simple…

To Magic: Castle/Barnes/Vassell

To Raps: Suggs/Black or Jett (choose 1)/Hawks 1st (via Spurs)

To Spurs: Wagner/Agbaji

Spurs turn Castle+ into perfect running mate Wagner. Wagner can play SF or PF depending on how Spurs want to set their lineup.

Raps get Suggs+ for Barnes. Suggs D would fit perfect in that lineup while opening PF slot (needed per OP).

Magic downgrade from Wagner to Barnes but have the lineup around Barnes to support his skillset. Magic also get Castle as legit PG prospect to set lineup.

Again, why are the Raptors in this deal. Why are the Magic moving Suggs, who is being valued as a healthy/good player in this scenario. If the Spurs only need to move this much to get Wagner, and feel confident his shot will come back, then they just do it directly with the Magic.

You have been told why Raptors are in this deal. It is beyond obvious too. If Spurs call Magic and offer Vassell/Castle/1st for Wagner they are laughed off phone. Magic are a win now team and aren’t taking a step back in weak east because Spurs want an ideal Wagner next to Wemby. That isn’t Magic motivation that is Spurs motivation. Barnes backfills Wagner in a Magic lineup that can support him better than Spurs. And for Magic step back from Wagner to Barnes, they get Castle but Magic need to add Suggs/Vassell swap to make it work value wise.

The Magic are moving Suggs for a worse player.

[Wolveswin]

Again, why are the Raptors in this deal. Why are the Magic moving Suggs, who is being valued as a healthy/good player in this scenario. If the Spurs only need to move this much to get Wagner, and feel confident his shot will come back, then they just do it directly with the Magic.

You have been told why Raptors are in this deal. It is beyond obvious too. If Spurs call Magic and offer Vassell/Castle/1st for Wagner they are laughed off phone. Magic are a win now team and aren’t taking a step back in weak east because Spurs want an ideal Wagner next to Wemby. That isn’t Magic motivation that is Spurs motivation. Barnes backfills Wagner in a Magic lineup that can support him better than Spurs. And for Magic step back from Wagner to Barnes, they get Castle but Magic need to add Suggs/Vassell swap to make it work value wise.

The Magic are moving Suggs for a worse player.

Huh? Let me help you out some more…

Wagner>Barnes
Barnes/Castle>Wagner
Barnes/Castle=Wagner/Suggs

Vassell for Black or Jett just salary and roster needs.

Magic take a step back from Wagner to Barnes (marginal) and get a true PG prospect. Lineup is solid.

[jredsaz]

Since Bryant projects to potentially have a starting role on a contender, and Barnes doesn't, I'm not sure why I'd be moving the former and his cheap contract for the latter on a max.

Because Barnes is the significantly better player. But like I said, I wouldn’t make the trade at this point with the Spurs current roster. The whole projection thing isn’t a great argument either for a 23 year old who consistently shoots 75%+ from the line.

Today was a typical Barnes performance: 7 points on 3-13 shooting (0-2 from 3 of course), and his team lost. This is his 5th year in the league. The guy just isn't that good, and he's on a max contract. I wouldn't want him on my team for free if I was trying to contend. Why should the Spurs trade either Castle or Bryant for him as well? Those guys could turn out better than him, and they're on cheap contracts for years into the future.

Not only could either of them turn out better than him, but I feel pretty confident at least one of them will. The Raptors can keep Barnes, or try to move him to another perpetual play-in team.

I mean that is not at all a typical game for Barnes and making those kinds of arguments isn’t productive. It pretty much undermines everything else you say on the topic.

[Texas Chuck]

Because Barnes is the significantly better player. But like I said, I wouldn’t make the trade at this point with the Spurs current roster. The whole projection thing isn’t a great argument either for a 23 year old who consistently shoots 75%+ from the line.

Today was a typical Barnes performance: 7 points on 3-13 shooting (0-2 from 3 of course), and his team lost. This is his 5th year in the league. The guy just isn't that good, and he's on a max contract. I wouldn't want him on my team for free if I was trying to contend. Why should the Spurs trade either Castle or Bryant for him as well? Those guys could turn out better than him, and they're on cheap contracts for years into the future.

Not only could either of them turn out better than him, but I feel pretty confident at least one of them will. The Raptors can keep Barnes, or try to move him to another perpetual play-in team.

I mean that is not at all a typical game for Barnes and making those kinds of arguments isn’t productive. It pretty much undermines everything else you say on the topic.

The problem arises when you start with the position that any player fictionally destined for the Spurs sucks. But looking through the game log of last season, he did play 2 games where he scored 7 or fewer points, so if we ignore the other 63 we could call this typical.

Reverse engineering forces terrible arguments which is why we shouldn't start with our team amazing, every other player sucky. Then we have to repeatedly post nonsense to justify it.

Sadly this poster is not alone in starting with the name on the front of the jersey.

[hugepatsfan]

I think all the warts and difficulty of where Barnes fits on most teams are valid. I do think SA is a good spot though. You need a stretch 5 to make up for Barnes' lack of shooting - check with Wemby. Barnes isn't good enough to be a full on point forward like Lebron or anything but he is closer to that than a traditional wing/PF... so he needs a PG that can kind of the main ball handler but also kind of be an off guard too - an on-ball/off-ball type. I think Fox can do that.

My guess though is that SA would just rather hold onto their pieces and wait for a less "rough around the edges" big piece to come available though.

[penbeast0]

There isn't a JJJ type, there's JJJ, and he's not terribly keen on playing the 5.

By JJJ type, I assume they mean an athletically quick, shot blocking big who is also a significant 3 point threat. I would include guys like Alex Sarr as a JJJ type for example even if he's not as good as JJJ yet.

[One_and_Done]

There isn't a JJJ type, there's JJJ, and he's not terribly keen on playing the 5.

By JJJ type, I assume they mean an athletically quick, shot blocking big who is also a significant 3 point threat. I would include guys like Alex Sarr as a JJJ type for example even if he's not as good as JJJ yet.

JJJ has to prove he's a winning player before we even think about comparing him to a guy in JJJs league.

[Texas Chuck]

JJJ has to prove he's a winning player before we even think about comparing him to a guy in JJJs league.

IDK I think we can compare JJJ to other players in the NBA. In fact we compare players all the time. For instance some posters compare Spurs favorably to players in other jerseys. And this jersey is so good at making you play better even guys just drafted are already more valuable than MVP's in their prime.

[One_and_Done]

JJJ has to prove he's a winning player before we even think about comparing him to a guy in JJJs league.

IDK I think we can compare JJJ to other players in the NBA. In fact we compare players all the time. For instance some posters compare Spurs favorably to players in other jerseys. And this jersey is so good at making you play better even guys just drafted are already more valuable than MVP's in their prime.

Plenty of posters agree with my assessment of this trade as being horrible for the Spurs. If your assumption is that anyone who hates it for the Spurs is a Spurs fan blinded by fandom then that's on you. I just don't think much of Scottie Barnes. I'm not a fan of broken players in general actually (Barnes, Sabonis, Demar, etc).

[Texas Chuck]

JJJ has to prove he's a winning player before we even think about comparing him to a guy in JJJs league.

IDK I think we can compare JJJ to other players in the NBA. In fact we compare players all the time. For instance some posters compare Spurs favorably to players in other jerseys. And this jersey is so good at making you play better even guys just drafted are already more valuable than MVP's in their prime.

Plenty of posters agree with my assessment of this trade as being horrible for the Spurs. If your assumption is that anyone who hates it for the Spurs is a Spurs fan blinded by fandom then that's on you. I just don't think much of Scottie Barnes. I'm not a fan of broken players in general actually (Barnes, Sabonis, Demar, etc).

Thats not my assumption at all nor have I said anything remotely close to that.

Plenty of reasons to prefer not to invest resources/cap in Barnes. But when posters repeatedly trash players on all the teams but one in silly ways like saying 7 points is a typical game, then I'm going to point it out to put their posts into context. Leave off the hyperbole and there are still reasons for the Spurs not to pursue him. But it gets lost in the repeated goofy stuff.

[tcheco]

IDK I think we can compare JJJ to other players in the NBA. In fact we compare players all the time. For instance some posters compare Spurs favorably to players in other jerseys. And this jersey is so good at making you play better even guys just drafted are already more valuable than MVP's in their prime.

Plenty of posters agree with my assessment of this trade as being horrible for the Spurs. If your assumption is that anyone who hates it for the Spurs is a Spurs fan blinded by fandom then that's on you. I just don't think much of Scottie Barnes. I'm not a fan of broken players in general actually (Barnes, Sabonis, Demar, etc).

Thats not my assumption at all nor have I said anything remotely close to that.

Plenty of reasons to prefer not to invest resources/cap in Barnes. But when posters repeatedly trash players on all the teams but one in silly ways like saying 7 points is a typical game, then I'm going to point it out to put their posts into context. Leave off the hyperbole and there are still reasons for the Spurs not to pursue him. But it gets lost in the repeated goofy stuff.

Hard to argue with people that only read what they want to read.

I'm one agreeing that Spurs shouldnt do this, but is a simple fit thing for me. If Spurs didn't assemble a 3 guard rotation of below average 3pt shooters, the fit would be quite good. Honestly, most hiperbole in this forum is terrible to make conversation and discuss like grown ups, maybe its the effect of SAS being on tv so much. Most players have flaws, doesnt mean they are worthless, just need to be put in proper position to thrive. If you are lazy and mostly uninteligent, sure, any player that has flaws and is in a bad position is broken and will never be useful. Lazy

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I just think teams trying to be contenders should veer away from broken players that screw up your offensive/defensive scheme. It's about that, more than the terrible value proposition for the Spurs.

And guess what, if Castle doesn't develop a 3pt shot he will become one of those broken players too. The difference is Castle has 1 season under his belt and there are reasons to think improvement is still possible. After 4 years with no obvious improvement in his offensive game, particularly his 3pt shooting, it's no longer sensible to expect Barnes to make it.

I view players like that as a good fit on a perpetual play-in team like the Bulls.

[tcheco]

Yeh, I just think teams trying to be contenders should veer away from broken players that screw up your offensive/defensive scheme. It's about that, more than the terrible value proposition for the Spurs.

And guess what, if Castle doesn't develop a 3pt shot he will become one of those broken players too. The difference is Castle has 1 season under his belt and there are reasons to think improvement is still possible. After 4 years with no obvious improvement in his offensive game, particularly his 3pt shooting, it's no longer sensible to expect Barnes to make it.

I view players like that as a good fit on a perpetual play-in team like the Bulls.

Most teams are trying to be contenders, no? or trying to tank

Spurs added a broken player in fox and maxed him out already, you are right, we shouldn't trade for another one. Hopefully one of Harper and Castle are not broken forever like Vassel and Keldon. Thank god we have Wemby at least, but not sure he will stay long with such questionable moves made these last years.

I do think Castle will be a good defensive player with a questionable jumper, but at least his finishing at the rim has to improve, but as a rookie he does get a pass for that.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I just think teams trying to be contenders should veer away from broken players that screw up your offensive/defensive scheme. It's about that, more than the terrible value proposition for the Spurs.

And guess what, if Castle doesn't develop a 3pt shot he will become one of those broken players too. The difference is Castle has 1 season under his belt and there are reasons to think improvement is still possible. After 4 years with no obvious improvement in his offensive game, particularly his 3pt shooting, it's no longer sensible to expect Barnes to make it.

I view players like that as a good fit on a perpetual play-in team like the Bulls.

Most teams are trying to be contenders, no? or trying to tank

Spurs added a broken player in fox and maxed him out already, you are right, we shouldn't trade for another one. Hopefully one of Harper and Castle are not broken forever like Vassel and Keldon. Thank god we have Wemby at least, but not sure he will stay long with such questionable moves made these last years.

I do think Castle will be a good defensive player with a questionable jumper, but at least his finishing at the rim has to improve, but as a rookie he does get a pass for that.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what a broken players is. It does not mean 'this guy isn't perfect'. No player is perfect. It means that the player has serious issues in his game that inhibits his ability to properly perform his supposed role on the team, to the point that he warps the optimal function of your team. As a result, the team has a ceiling on how much they can succeed. These guys are typically found posting low calories numbers for play-in/treadmill teams, e.g. Demar, Giddey, Barnes, etc.

Fox is not a broken players. His skillset works just fine for his role. He is a high PnR point guard and speedster. His 3pt shooting could be better, but it's been fine for the role he is in. Over the last 3 years Fox has shot 34% from 3s on 6.4 attempts per game, with alot of those shots being high difficulty attempts. Again, that's fine. The only issue is he's now a bit duplicative of Harper (and to a lesser extent Castle), which the Spurs had no way of knowing when they traded for him and promised to max him.

The likely outcome is that Fox or Castle will be moved a few years down the track, once Harper has matured.

I don't get how Vassell or Keldon are broken either, unless you mean 'they're not as talented as I'd like'. The skillset each of them has is fine for their ideal role. In Keldon's case that's energy guy off the bench, and for Vassell it's as a potential 3&D wing, which he mostly has. He could stand to be healthier, and a little better on D, but nothing about his skillset is broken. He just needs to stay healthy, and be more consistent, and he has a role on a good team.

Barnes's shot is broken, and he needs the ball on offense despite being a bad offensive player. That warps your team in a bad way, and there's really no reason to think it's likely to get fixed at this stage.

[MessiahUjiri]

IDK I think we can compare JJJ to other players in the NBA. In fact we compare players all the time. For instance some posters compare Spurs favorably to players in other jerseys. And this jersey is so good at making you play better even guys just drafted are already more valuable than MVP's in their prime.

Plenty of posters agree with my assessment of this trade as being horrible for the Spurs. If your assumption is that anyone who hates it for the Spurs is a Spurs fan blinded by fandom then that's on you. I just don't think much of Scottie Barnes. I'm not a fan of broken players in general actually (Barnes, Sabonis, Demar, etc).

Thats not my assumption at all nor have I said anything remotely close to that.

Plenty of reasons to prefer not to invest resources/cap in Barnes. But when posters repeatedly trash players on all the teams but one in silly ways like saying 7 points is a typical game, then I'm going to point it out to put their posts into context. Leave off the hyperbole and there are still reasons for the Spurs not to pursue him. But it gets lost in the repeated goofy stuff.

This One-and-Done poster keeps saying outlandish things like Barnes wouldn’t even fetch Carter Bryant, Barnes is a “broken” player, he only scored 7 points in a preseason game etc.

I have no idea why he’s acting insecure as if he’s holding a grudge against Barnes, but hes clearly trying to filibuster and spam the thread with nonsense hyperbole.