To hell with it, Pascal to Spurs, Dallas helps

[wemby]

Spurs aren't trading 3 unprotected picks all of them with one or more swaps for 31 year old Siakam.

[tcheco]

Spurs aren't trading 3 unprotected picks all of them with one or more swaps for 31 year old Siakam.

I mean, we traded 3 picks for Fox whom is younger but much worse, having to pay him a even worse contract than Siakam's.

I don't think it will happen, but it's not absurd

[tcheco]

I think Pascal is a good compliment to Wemby. And if Wemby keeps this level of play up, SAS is going to look to upgrade at the four to try and win a title this year. Or at least they really should.

For Dallas - the OP adds two million dollars it looks like? I think in order for Dallas to do it, I’d want Hardy swapped out for Powell to make it legal - and then SAS can decide to take Naji (but add a couple seconds or Indy adds them) or make it Martin as suggested ITT?

Maybe Huff is considered those seconds though?

Dallas can shuffle the 2 ways and then sign a rest of season contract later on so not worried about getting so close to the second apron.

I think that Naji can be swaped for anyone needed that is not called Klay and it still works, Hardy too. Huff is sent to cover the depth lost at C for Dallas, for his contract and his contribution as a 5 to 10 min guy, he can be seen as a 2nd rounder of value.

[jayjaysee]

I think Pascal is a good compliment to Wemby. And if Wemby keeps this level of play up, SAS is going to look to upgrade at the four to try and win a title this year. Or at least they really should.

For Dallas - the OP adds two million dollars it looks like? I think in order for Dallas to do it, I’d want Hardy swapped out for Powell to make it legal - and then SAS can decide to take Naji (but add a couple seconds or Indy adds them) or make it Martin as suggested ITT?

Maybe Huff is considered those seconds though?

Dallas can shuffle the 2 ways and then sign a rest of season contract later on so not worried about getting so close to the second apron.

I think that Naji can be swaped for anyone needed that is not called Klay and it still works, Hardy too. Huff is sent to cover the depth lost at C for Dallas, for his contract and his contribution as a 5 to 10 min guy, he can be seen as a 2nd rounder of value.

Yeah, I like the Huff addition for Dallas. A body is a body.. Would be looking to do a follow up trade, but the idea does make sense.

I think SAS should try to get Indy to do it with Sochan in place of one of the firsts? Maybe needs to be Sochan and a stack of seconds?

I do think Pascal is worth the OP, but just trying to make a deal that SA would feel better about.

[wemby]

Spurs aren't trading 3 unprotected picks all of them with one or more swaps for 31 year old Siakam.

I mean, we traded 3 picks for Fox whom is younger but much worse, having to pay him a even worse contract than Siakam's.

I don't think it will happen, but it's not absurd

Fox isn't much worse than Siakam, people have recency bias and have forgotten that Fox played at an all star level for like 4/5 years before the trade, he didn't always make it because of the brutal competition in the west, but in no way is Fox "much worse" than Siakam. Also, the picks the Spurs traded weren't this caliber of pick, they traded their own 27 pick which is worse than 26 since it doesn't have a swap attached, and the Bulls pick was protected which probably wouldn't have conveyed if Bulls hadn't regained control of it.
Also this argument has 2 fatal flaws:
1) disregards context. Spurs were desperate to land a PG and had a very slim shot at landing Harper (basically only #2 would have meant landing him, since #1 was Flagg and #3 or worse meant he was gone). It's easy to forget this in hindsight, but the price was right at the time of the trade, he just needs to get back healthy and play like his former self and he'll be worth it
2) If you think the Fox trade was bad, using it to justify another bad trade is just silly.
All in all, I don't think it is neither beneficial for the Spurs nor realistic.

[tcheco]

Spurs aren't trading 3 unprotected picks all of them with one or more swaps for 31 year old Siakam.

I mean, we traded 3 picks for Fox whom is younger but much worse, having to pay him a even worse contract than Siakam's.

I don't think it will happen, but it's not absurd

Fox isn't much worse than Siakam, people have recency bias and have forgotten that Fox played at an all star level for like 4/5 years before the trade, he didn't always make it because of the brutal competition in the west, but in no way is Fox "much worse" than Siakam. Also, the picks the Spurs traded weren't this caliber of pick, they traded their own 27 pick which is worse than 26 since it doesn't have a swap attached, and the Bulls pick was protected which probably wouldn't have conveyed if Bulls hadn't regained control of it.
Also this argument has 2 fatal flaws:
1) disregards context. Spurs were desperate to land a PG and had a very slim shot at landing Harper (basically only #2 would have meant landing him, since #1 was Flagg and #3 or worse meant he was gone). It's easy to forget this in hindsight, but the price was right at the time of the trade, he just needs to get back healthy and play like his former self and he'll be worth it
2) If you think the Fox trade was bad, using it to justify another bad trade is just silly.
All in all, I don't think it is neither beneficial for the Spurs nor realistic.

We can disagree, all good. The value of the picks differ, but we can discuss chaging the protections or the picks sent to Pacers, no issue.

Fox has less value than Siakam, I don't think that is questionable, and the fit of Fox with the Spurs is worse than the fit of Siakam with the Spurs, easily. Spurs panicked in a rookie season of Wemby trying to the to the playoffs and overpaid for the only available PG, and that's ok, Wemby blood cloth and Fox injury awarded them Harper.

I'm not justifying that since Spurs already made a bad trade they should do another, I'm simply saying that the value paid is close to another trade Spurs made, but the fit and the player is better. Sure Siakam is 31, but I also don't see Fox staying with the Spurs for more than 3 years, and we will have to probably pay some team to take him then. We can have a discussion about what would you change on the trade rather than just shutting it down.

Simply saying "Spurs wont trade 3 picks for a better player than the one we already traded 3 picks for" is way sillier.

[Chinook]

The Spurs have no business trading for a star they can't afford to keep. There's an argument to be made for trading for a role-playing PF like Herb Jones if Sochan doesn't show improvement in his shooting. There's not an argument for ruining their cap when they already have plenty of star power.

[tcheco]

The Spurs have no business trading for a star they can't afford to keep. There's an argument to be made for trading for a role-playing PF like Herb Jones if Sochan doesn't show improvement in his shooting. There's not an argument for ruining their cap when they already have plenty of star power.

I think Spurs can easily accomodate Pascal, considering he expires in 3 years and will have a much cheaper contract after that. Vassel contract is sent out, Barnes frees up this year same as Olynyk.

[One_and_Done]

Neither the Pacers nor Spurs do it. Pacers want to bounce back next year, and Spurs aren't overpaying for Siakam. Way too much value is being sent out here.

[jayjaysee]

I think Spurs can easily accomodate Pascal, considering he expires in 3 years and will have a much cheaper contract after that. Vassel contract is sent out, Barnes frees up this year same as Olynyk.

Yeah, this contract is much better than Fox’s and expires the correct offseason.

The team is easily affordable through the next two years. And the huge talent upgrade is worth the one year cap issues imo.

The 2027-2028 season they would have three big max contracts for one year, but would still have Castle, Harper, and Bryant on their rookie contracts.

[Chinook]

The Spurs have no business trading for a star they can't afford to keep. There's an argument to be made for trading for a role-playing PF like Herb Jones if Sochan doesn't show improvement in his shooting. There's not an argument for ruining their cap when they already have plenty of star power.

I think Spurs can easily accomodate Pascal, considering he expires in 3 years and will have a much cheaper contract after that. Vassel contract is sent out, Barnes frees up this year same as Olynyk.

They can afford Siakam in a vacuum. But they can't afford two max contracts, three top rookie contracts and five other good players getting paid decently.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Alright I was coming to the board to post an outrageous Siakam to the Spurs trade and of course someone has already done it.

[Daddy 801]

Spurs with Pascal would be bananas.