San Antonio early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon)

[HartfordWhalers]

lol. Okay, in the scenario where Pau opts in, it still means he is worth more than his contract. I wish people posting absurd takes would stop quoting me, you really are just talking to yourself on some of these things.

[Gus Fring]

It isn't expiring. It has a player option for 16.2m next year. I feel like we have discussed this.

I was talking about next year, after which the deal becomes an expiring deal. What I meant was that depending on what goes down this year, next offseason the spurs will be in a good place to make the best decision on his contract. That's why it's a good contract. You get a good player on a good contract, you see how it works for a year and by the end of it, you have alot of options to choose from.

But then you don't find a taker for Pau until after the good free agents are gone and there are teams like Denver with unused space.

Pau has first crack at SAS's cap space next season. If we are talking about a soft rebuild, that doesn't make me comfortable versus being set up to have 20m and see if you can do better than a 37 year old Pau.

I don't see how it doesn't potentially infringe on their flexibility considerably.

Not necessarily. If the Spurs knew they were going to trade Pau after he opted in they'd more than likely have a deal in place by the first day of free agency just like they did with Splitter. It won't be that hard to find one team with capspace after the cap rises again next year who wouldn't want Pau plus an asset literally for free.

[Gus Fring]

The Spurs were able to trade Splitter and Diaw in successive years despite them "having first crack at their cap space". Now, I think the Spurs have overcommitted salary to the point that I don't see them as major players in next year's free agency anymore. But it shouldn't be hard to trade him if they decide to go that route. There's still a ton of cap space around, and the Spurs have plenty of friends around the league who would do them the "favor" of taking a good player on an expiring contract for free.

If he opts in, I think it implies that he's not a good player at that point and on that contract. Otherwise, he'd opt out for a multi year deal. So, how many friends would do San Antonio the "favor" of taking a past good player, now bad, on an expiring contract, without being paid to do so?

If Pau ops in it doesn't automatically mean he was bad. He could like it in San Antonio, or maybe he'd rather just opt in to the 15 mil instead of trying to go out and find a multi year deal as a 37 year old center.

[KqWIN]

I'm a little concerned about their bench. Their starters were really good last year, but their depth and bench is what made them a 67 win team. They lost their backup big rotation and replaced them guys that are OK, but not great. On the perimeter, Manu is going to have to pick up a big burden and I'm not sure that's fair to ask of him at his age. I would have liked to have seen them get a better big of the bench and another playmaker just in case Manu has a down year.

[Chinook]

lol. Okay, in the scenario where Pau opts in, it still means he is worth more than his contract. I wish people posting absurd takes would stop quoting me, you really are just talking to yourself on some of these things.

I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them. Seems rather unfair to paint it as people harassing you with irrational opinions.

[bondom34]

lol. Okay, in the scenario where Pau opts in, it still means he is worth more than his contract. I wish people posting absurd takes would stop quoting me, you really are just talking to yourself on some of these things.

I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them. Seems rather unfair to paint it as people harassing you with irrational opinions.

Odd, seems that's exactly what you did here.

Is not that much cap space considering what other players have gotten this year. 15 mil a year is about average starter money. Pau is worth average starter money, especially considering what guys like Biyombo, Mahimni, and Mozgov got.

It's a good contract as in it's easily tradable. It's an expiring deal worth 15 mil. So lets say a team like the Nuggets have a bunch of unused cap space, the spurs could trade Pau into that space with an asset. It's a good deal for the Nuggets because they get an asset for a contract that won't be on the books at the end of the year. It's a good deal for the spurs because they got rid of a player they didn't want and they open up cap space for potential free agents.

It isn't expiring. It has a player option for 16.2m next year. I feel like we have discussed this.

Pretty sure he means next year if Pau opts in it'll be an expiring. Now it's $16 Million as you pointed out. But I don't think anyone is entertaining trading him this season.

[Chinook]

Odd, seems that's exactly what you did here.

I don't know which part you're referring to. If you mean me quoting him "unprovoked", then that was the point of the line "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them."

If you mean I'm 'painting things as if I'm being harassed with irrational opinions,' then I disagree. Even in our case, the worst thing I've said was that I think you were tired of arguing and resorted to turtling instead of admitting that we both had ground to disagree. That's not saying you were harassing me or that your view was irrational.

[bondom34]

Odd, seems that's exactly what you did here.

I don't know which part you're referring to. If you mean me quoting him "unprovoked", then that was the point of the line "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them."

If you mean I'm 'painting things as if I'm being harassed with irrational opinions,' then I disagree. Even in our case, the worst thing I've said was that I think you were tired of arguing and resorted to turtling instead of admitting that we both had ground to disagree. That's not saying you were harassing me or that your view was irrational.

You saying it was the first time he was being quoted when it wasn't responding to him, when you quoted him for responding to someone else.

[Chinook]

Odd, seems that's exactly what you did here.

I don't know which part you're referring to. If you mean me quoting him "unprovoked", then that was the point of the line "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them."

If you mean I'm 'painting things as if I'm being harassed with irrational opinions,' then I disagree. Even in our case, the worst thing I've said was that I think you were tired of arguing and resorted to turtling instead of admitting that we both had ground to disagree. That's not saying you were harassing me or that your view was irrational.

You saying it was the first time he was being quoted when it wasn't responding to him, when you quoted him for responding to someone else.

Hence the point of me saying that my post was the first time someone quoted him when they weren't just responding to a chain he initiated. I was pointing out that until I made that post (the one you quoted), everyone else was just talking in general or quoting other people, and the only reason why he was being quoted (in this thread) was because he had been quoting those people to disagree with them. That's his right, as it is for all posters. But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

[Scoot McGroot]

I was talking about next year, after which the deal becomes an expiring deal. What I meant was that depending on what goes down this year, next offseason the spurs will be in a good place to make the best decision on his contract. That's why it's a good contract. You get a good player on a good contract, you see how it works for a year and by the end of it, you have alot of options to choose from.

But then you don't find a taker for Pau until after the good free agents are gone and there are teams like Denver with unused space.

Pau has first crack at SAS's cap space next season. If we are talking about a soft rebuild, that doesn't make me comfortable versus being set up to have 20m and see if you can do better than a 37 year old Pau.

I don't see how it doesn't potentially infringe on their flexibility considerably.

Not necessarily. If the Spurs knew they were going to trade Pau after he opted in they'd more than likely have a deal in place by the first day of free agency just like they did with Splitter. It won't be that hard to find one team with capspace after the cap rises again next year who wouldn't want Pau plus an asset literally for free.

Well, immensely fewer teams will have cap space next summer than the number of teams that had cap space this summer. It will still be around, but not many teams project to have $16m in cap space, let alone are willing to give it up on the 1st day of free agency for Pau Gasol.

[HartfordWhalers]

I don't know which part you're referring to. If you mean me quoting him "unprovoked", then that was the point of the line "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them."

If you mean I'm 'painting things as if I'm being harassed with irrational opinions,' then I disagree. Even in our case, the worst thing I've said was that I think you were tired of arguing and resorted to turtling instead of admitting that we both had ground to disagree. That's not saying you were harassing me or that your view was irrational.

You saying it was the first time he was being quoted when it wasn't responding to him, when you quoted him for responding to someone else.

Hence the point of me saying that my post was the first time someone quoted him when they weren't just responding to a chain he initiated. I was pointing out that until I made that post (the one you quoted), everyone else was just talking in general or quoting other people, and the only reason why he was being quoted (in this thread) was because he had been quoting those people to disagree with them. That's his right, as it is for all posters. But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

Wait, you quoted me saying in your new quote of me that "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time" and by that you meant a different post was the first time, and that was just a gratuitous second one?

No wonder I dislike your posts so much, they are logically attacking themselves with a violence normally saved for times of war.

[Chinook]

But then you don't find a taker for Pau until after the good free agents are gone and there are teams like Denver with unused space.

Pau has first crack at SAS's cap space next season. If we are talking about a soft rebuild, that doesn't make me comfortable versus being set up to have 20m and see if you can do better than a 37 year old Pau.

I don't see how it doesn't potentially infringe on their flexibility considerably.

Not necessarily. If the Spurs knew they were going to trade Pau after he opted in they'd more than likely have a deal in place by the first day of free agency just like they did with Splitter. It won't be that hard to find one team with capspace after the cap rises again next year who wouldn't want Pau plus an asset literally for free.

Well, immensely fewer teams will have cap space next summer than the number of teams that had cap space this summer. It will still be around, but not many teams project to have $16m in cap space, let alone are willing to give it up on the 1st day of free agency for Pau Gasol.

So question: Are we considering the Diaw trade as being one where the Spurs paid to move him? I do, because I consider the second to be currency for Diaw and Hanlan to be the minimum to meet the rules (even though I would have given up a second for Hanlan's rights anyway).

If we are saying that the Spurs might have to give up a second with Gasol for a prospect who was going to not make the team anyway, I'm willing to admit that might happen.

But I don't think Gasol on his contract is likely to be negative value if he opts in. Just because he could be overpaid doesn't mean that he'll be overpaid to the extent that no one would want him. Again, a team like Brooklyn could use him for free but would probably not be able to sign him outright unless they overpaid for him even more than his option.

[bondom34]

I don't know which part you're referring to. If you mean me quoting him "unprovoked", then that was the point of the line "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time someone's quoted you in this thread when it wasn't responding to you quoting them."

If you mean I'm 'painting things as if I'm being harassed with irrational opinions,' then I disagree. Even in our case, the worst thing I've said was that I think you were tired of arguing and resorted to turtling instead of admitting that we both had ground to disagree. That's not saying you were harassing me or that your view was irrational.

You saying it was the first time he was being quoted when it wasn't responding to him, when you quoted him for responding to someone else.

Hence the point of me saying that my post was the first time someone quoted him when they weren't just responding to a chain he initiated. I was pointing out that until I made that post (the one you quoted), everyone else was just talking in general or quoting other people, and the only reason why he was being quoted (in this thread) was because he had been quoting those people to disagree with them. That's his right, as it is for all posters. But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

So don't talk unless we agree, check.

[Chinook]

Wait, you quoted me saying in your new quote of me that "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time" and by that you meant a different post was the first time, and that was just a gratuitous second one?

Why are people so confused by what the word "this" means?

Like THIS post is the one in which will be posted after I hit "submit". It's not your post. That was your post, and this is mine.

No wonder I dislike your posts so much, they are logically attacking themselves with a violence normally saved for times of war.

I'm sorry you have a beef with me. I am not trying to stoke that. But if you can't read them without bile bubbling in the back of your mouth, that's your business. You seem to have an issue with giving people the benefit of the doubt after you write them of (which is not debating in good faith), and that's leading you to making poor assumptions in your interpretation. Again, that's your deal.

[caliban]

Whoa, this thread is making me sweat. Great back and forth and I don't think I have much to ad on either side in the 'how much worse off Spurs is with P. Gasol than T. Duncan this upcoming season' debate. I'd play it conservative and say they are worse but not by much

Moving away from the result end of the Spurs off-season measuring I do wonder how much better the Spurs could have done in filling in for sunset Tim. While I'm personal not a Pau guy at all, it is hard for me to come up with an alternative Center scenario that better fills the Duncan void than what Gasol and Dedmon for a combined 18,4M does. Whiteside and Horford wasn't available which makes a higher per minute impact unattainable and unrealistic. Then your down to the Howard, Noah & Mahinmi deals and non of them is to me more preferable than what they ended up with, if not for the defense, definitely for the offense side. To me the Spurs engine depends a great deal on Big man passing and dribble hand-offs and they do get this with Gasol. I think the player and system fit evaluation as per usual from the Spurs is impeccable even tho I'm having a hard time watching Pau play these days. boy does he look tired.

In the end this got to be an A-/B+ grade to me with the knock being that 2nd year on Pau's contract in case he drops off significantly which at his age is a real possibility. It should be noted tho that the 2nd year is slightly less harmful because of the meager Big man market next summer.

Now, it's a little different in the NBA, because not every team is a contender. But for a team that's a contender like SA, I would have put Gasol's money towards someone who can help me in the "meta-breaking" matchup. Because you can win 60 games, but the 4 that matter for SAS are the ones they play against GSW.

Were there better realistic options? I don't know. But I wouldn't have spent the money on Gasol.

I really think it's necessary to at least come up with a semi possible scenario you think would make them stronger against GSW this upcoming season if you think that is the proper stick to measure their off-season against. Otherwise in your card analogy everyone with high hopes just gets a bad grade because they most likely can't beat a team with 3 top 5-10 player created because of an unprecedented cap increase. To me this is way too result oriented. Sometimes the circumstances just is against you but then the great organisations puts themselves in the best possible position they can be in today to win tomorrow. I think Spurs did that.

No, but if James Harden is a steals leader, and Whiteside a blocks leader, and Miami's defense is actually better when Whiteside is on the bench, they're probably not a great indicator.

And again, you're stating all box score defensive stats. Which again, are largely useless.

And finally, as I said, rim protection is great, but he's a bad defender.

Sorry, just had to be the 3rd annoyance to point out that while I think your overall point is 100% correct, Hassan most likely isn't a good example anymore. I did notice the if and guess you could have just stated a hypothetical scenario in which case you don't have to read any further.

As I've previously written

The choice of RAPM and "rim protection index" in the case of Hassan was to imo best display that Hassan, as the season went along, bettered up on his most glaring weakness. This weakness was also often rightfully raised by his detractors, namely that Hassan's chase for individual blocks was a detriment to the teams defense. While he still does this too much and still could help the defense more than he's done so far, we now can conclude that the defense last season at least was better while he was doing it...

[Chinook]

You saying it was the first time he was being quoted when it wasn't responding to him, when you quoted him for responding to someone else.

Hence the point of me saying that my post was the first time someone quoted him when they weren't just responding to a chain he initiated. I was pointing out that until I made that post (the one you quoted), everyone else was just talking in general or quoting other people, and the only reason why he was being quoted (in this thread) was because he had been quoting those people to disagree with them. That's his right, as it is for all posters. But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

So don't talk unless we agree, check.

But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

And you got that I don't want to be talked do unless I'm agreed with? Seriously? I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to paint people as talking to you against your will if you start the conversation with them.

What's HW's beef in this thread anyway? That people are being "irrational" in their disagreements? No one's insulting him or spamming him. No one is telling him he doesn't have a right to think what he thinks. People need to take a step back and look at this again if they feel like that there's been anything other than debate going on here. We haven't come to a neat consensus, but that doesn't have to be a big deal.

[bondom34]

No, but if James Harden is a steals leader, and Whiteside a blocks leader, and Miami's defense is actually better when Whiteside is on the bench, they're probably not a great indicator.

And again, you're stating all box score defensive stats. Which again, are largely useless.

And finally, as I said, rim protection is great, but he's a bad defender.

Sorry, just had to be the 3rd annoyance to point out that while I think your overall point is 100% correct, Hassan most likely isn't a good example anymore. I did notice the if and guess you could have just stated a hypothetical scenario in which case you don't have to read any further.

As I've previously written

The choice of RAPM and "rim protection index" in the case of Hassan was to imo best display that Hassan, as the season went along, bettered up on his most glaring weakness. This weakness was also often rightfully raised by his detractors, namely that Hassan's chase for individual blocks was a detriment to the teams defense. While he still does this too much and still could help the defense more than he's done so far, we now can conclude that the defense last season at least was better while he was doing it...

Sorry about this (I was just using the example though I'd actually read this earlier, it sort of reinforced the point as I think it was true midseason some time). Whiteside is legit a good defender, but his block numbers do seem to somewhat overstate his impact. Similar to Drummond.

[HartfordWhalers]

Wait, you quoted me saying in your new quote of me that "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time" and by that you meant a different post was the first time, and that was just a gratuitous second one?

Why are people so confused by what the word "this" means?

Like THIS post is the one in which will be posted after I hit "submit". It's not your post. That was your post, and this is mine.

The confusion is you seemed to have missed your own post right before that "this' post, as bondom pointed out:

Odd, seems that's exactly what you did here.

So, why are people so confused by what you mean? Because it flies in the face of logic.

[bondom34]

Hence the point of me saying that my post was the first time someone quoted him when they weren't just responding to a chain he initiated. I was pointing out that until I made that post (the one you quoted), everyone else was just talking in general or quoting other people, and the only reason why he was being quoted (in this thread) was because he had been quoting those people to disagree with them. That's his right, as it is for all posters. But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

So don't talk unless we agree, check.

But I'm not going to lament people talking to me if I started talking to them in the first place.

And you got that I don't want to be talked do unless I'm agreed with? Seriously? I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to paint people as talking to you against your will if you start the conversation with them.

What's HW's beef in this thread anyway? That people are being "irrational" in their disagreements? No one's insulting him or spamming him. No one is telling him he doesn't have a right to think what he thinks. People need to take a step back and look at this again if they feel like that there's been anything other than debate going on here. We haven't come to a neat consensus, but that doesn't have to be a big deal.

I don't think he has a beef. You seem to disagree with a ton of really basic logic which has been presented by literally every other person itt. A blind belief in something doesn't make it true.

[Chinook]

Wait, you quoted me saying in your new quote of me that "I'm pretty sure this post is the first time" and by that you meant a different post was the first time, and that was just a gratuitous second one?

Why are people so confused by what the word "this" means?

Like THIS post is the one in which will be posted after I hit "submit". It's not your post. That was your post, and this is mine.

The confusion is you seemed to have missed your own post right before that "this' post, as bondom pointed out:

Odd, seems that's exactly what you did here.

So, why are people so confused by what you mean? Because it flies in the face of logic.

Oh, yeah. I did forget that post. And I do admit that it isn't accurate for me to say that my post was the first one. I don't think that was harassing though, but if you meant that when you were wishing people didn't quote you, then I do apologize.