How Come Buford and Gregg Popovich Get a Pass for Blowing the Kawhi Leonard Trade?

[IgorK]

Who are the young guys you're excited about? Any of them better than BI? Are any of them significantly better than Ball, even? The one young guy you had who had even remotely looked interesting (Bryn Forbes) you let walk this offseason. The cap space might be nice, but the Spurs FO is 'savvy' with their money (read: they're not spending it on just anyone).

So right now, your future isn't much to be excited about.

They've been discussed thread. I've literally just listed them in the response you cut. That you completely dismiss them and suggest that Bryn is the only one who looks remotely interesting - so much so we let him walk! stellar logic - speaks to both your lack of knowledge about our young group (understandable) and overlooking them (that's on you).

BI keeps being returned to as if he's some glorious player and what tends to happen is each side either plays him up too much or plays him down too much. The fact remains that though BI is a nice young talent, it wasn't enough for us to accept him if it meant taking on a bad contract dump and two players we didn't need as we like the group of 2s and 3s we have in the system. And if you can't see why a Ball on the Spurs would never happen then there's no point in explaining. But he also isn't a great enough asset for us to move who we have at PG. Interestingly, NOP drafted a projected starter in Kira. So we'll see how that turns out.

The last time we had big cap space we got LMA who was a big get that summer. Just about all other times it was far smaller acquisitions because we had less money to spend. Now that we're on the brink of huge cap space, it's hard to criticize when we haven't used it yet. Or did you mean it as a compliment? Hard to tell with the way it was worded, but yes I agree, we're not spending it on just anyone.

We're at a point that people kept saying we should go for - youth with vets coming off the books, worked diligently towards it, all the while the wonderous package we ought to have taken from LAL has yet to have a better season - yes we're excited about where we're headed, thank you.

Time to roll up the windows! The light's just turned green.

You mean this?

As to more recent selections, Dejounte Murray was invited to the green room on draft night but dropped to us at 29. Two other lottery projected talents in Lonnie Walker IV and Keldon Johnson also fell to us. Devin Vassell was rated in to top 10 for a long time (KOC has him as the 6th best prospect) also fell slightly to us. Tre Jones was a projected late first round early second round pick. Like would Magic fans not rather have Lonnie than much maligned Mo? I'm not saying Lonnie is a top-5 talent, simply adding to the case that but for surefire selections like LBJ or KD, where a guy is selected isn't where he ends up, and where he is selected goes a long way in getting the most out of his talents.

If those are the players that get you excited, you're easy to please I guess. Spurs draft well but you still have no future All-Star talent in the group. They're not even great trade chips. This is where BI is far more useful to your org. You're painting this as if people are overblowing BI's value, and most folks are right - BI is simply better than what you have and you don't have anyone near his level of output.

I also think it's odd that you wouldn't consider Pop's ability to show BI how to win. That's literally what Pop does and yet BI somehow wouldn't benefit? Rudy Gay was a perennial empty-stat padder on bad teams yet Spurs took him on and even paid him handsomely. BI has a higher ceiling than Rudy ever did.

I simply don't think you're being objective in your assessment. Painting a rosier picture to excuse the FO's obvious mistake. Buford and Pop are a terrific tandem but they're not fool-proof. This is one of the times where they whiffed badly.

[G R E Y]

Who are the young guys you're excited about? Any of them better than BI? Are any of them significantly better than Ball, even? The one young guy you had who had even remotely looked interesting (Bryn Forbes) you let walk this offseason. The cap space might be nice, but the Spurs FO is 'savvy' with their money (read: they're not spending it on just anyone).

So right now, your future isn't much to be excited about.

They've been discussed thread. I've literally just listed them in the response you cut. That you completely dismiss them and suggest that Bryn is the only one who looks remotely interesting - so much so we let him walk! stellar logic - speaks to both your lack of knowledge about our young group (understandable) and overlooking them (that's on you).

BI keeps being returned to as if he's some glorious player and what tends to happen is each side either plays him up too much or plays him down too much. The fact remains that though BI is a nice young talent, it wasn't enough for us to accept him if it meant taking on a bad contract dump and two players we didn't need as we like the group of 2s and 3s we have in the system. And if you can't see why a Ball on the Spurs would never happen then there's no point in explaining. But he also isn't a great enough asset for us to move who we have at PG. Interestingly, NOP drafted a projected starter in Kira. So we'll see how that turns out.

The last time we had big cap space we got LMA who was a big get that summer. Just about all other times it was far smaller acquisitions because we had less money to spend. Now that we're on the brink of huge cap space, it's hard to criticize when we haven't used it yet. Or did you mean it as a compliment? Hard to tell with the way it was worded, but yes I agree, we're not spending it on just anyone.

We're at a point that people kept saying we should go for - youth with vets coming off the books, worked diligently towards it, all the while the wonderous package we ought to have taken from LAL has yet to have a better season - yes we're excited about where we're headed, thank you.

Time to roll up the windows! The light's just turned green.

You mean this?

As to more recent selections, Dejounte Murray was invited to the green room on draft night but dropped to us at 29. Two other lottery projected talents in Lonnie Walker IV and Keldon Johnson also fell to us. Devin Vassell was rated in to top 10 for a long time (KOC has him as the 6th best prospect) also fell slightly to us. Tre Jones was a projected late first round early second round pick. Like would Magic fans not rather have Lonnie than much maligned Mo? I'm not saying Lonnie is a top-5 talent, simply adding to the case that but for surefire selections like LBJ or KD, where a guy is selected isn't where he ends up, and where he is selected goes a long way in getting the most out of his talents.

If those are the players that get you excited, you're easy to please I guess. Spurs draft well but you still have no future All-Star talent in the group. They're not even great trade chips. This is where BI is far more useful to your org. You're painting this as if people are overblowing BI's value, and most folks are right - BI is simply better than what you have and you don't have anyone near his level of output.

I also think it's odd that you wouldn't consider Pop's ability to show BI how to win. That's literally what Pop does and yet BI somehow wouldn't benefit? Rudy Gay was a perennial empty-stat padder on bad teams yet Spurs took him on and even paid him handsomely. BI has a higher ceiling than Rudy ever did.

I simply don't think you're being objective in your assessment. Painting a rosier picture to excuse the FO's obvious mistake. Buford and Pop are a terrific tandem but they're not fool-proof. This is one of the times where they whiffed badly.

Nobody's made a claim that PATFO are foolproof or infallible but that this extreme end gets presented shows how badly people want this to be a worse deal than it is and the standard to which they're held.

But yes, DJ, Derrick White, Lonnie Walker IV, Keldon Johnson, Devin Vassell, Tre Jones are a very nice collection of talent, add to them Trey Lyles who we got for almost nothing and turned him into a serviceable player, Jakob who is a defensive cog and Luka who is still a project in progress (we'll see what he turns into) and that is a very nice collection in talent. Hard to argue that it isn't by people who don't watch them play and haven't seen them progress.

I keep saying BI is a nice young player but he along with the collection of pieces offered did not offset taking BI on. Sure we develop talent well, but this previous statement pretty much sums up the balance taken in the decision. BI's level of output has yet to make an impact on winning. Just because BI is a better talent right now than what we have doesn't mean don't or won't have a future All-Star on our team. You simply don't know who will step up for us now and how or who we will acquire. With your dismissing our group without looking into their improvements, isolating Bryn as a standout, and making conclusions about the state of our team even before all the young guys have had a chance to show what they can do together it's no wonder you think we're worse off. But understand that not taking BI on along with all the other pieces is not some make or break non-trade for us. And it's only in isolating the one player and doing so in a frozen moment in time - neither of which are rooted in reality - can this insistence that it is survive. As I keep saying, this will continue to play out both with our young players taking on bigger roles and with our use of cap space. I'm happy to drive by and revisit these discussions then.

[chitownsalesmen]

If the deal the Lakers offered for AD was turned down by the Spurs for Kawhi Leonard, I'd also question the decision. But it's been shown multiple times in here that not only was a worse and useless (to the Spurs) package, it actually included an attempt to dump off a contract of a deadweight player. They also didn't have the No. 4 pick they gave to AD. We should at the very least not make the mistake of assuming the Lakers put the AD package on the table back in 2018.

The Lakers package was not total trash, but neither was the Raptors' package. In the context of value at the time, both were trash (as facilitated by kawhi and his uncle) and the revisionist history to make it seem like BI was going to save the Spurs from mediocrity is what makes me go wow. Even at the time of the AD trade, the Lakers young guys were not viewed as even close to worth giving up AD for. Their best pick available at the time was what netted them Mo Wagner. Oh dear what a missed opportunity to not lap that stud up.

It obviously is part of the argument. And also, what he is now is nothing that makes any Spurs fan regret picking the Raptors package.
Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't add anything to your point. But aside from that, the case has been made many times in this thread that even with hindsight, it was not a terrible deal, or at least not any more terrible than taking the Lakers offer would've been.
You can keep ignoring this point, but the Spurs have a plan based on their 22 years of sustained success, have stuck to it by taking the Raptors' package, and can see it coming to fruition somewhere in 2021/2022. Maybe you've closed your ears to hearing this, but IT IS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN. The Spurs aren't in a Rockets or Suns situation. They are not in any trouble (unless you believe not being a title contender for 2 years after 22 years straight is trouble, which, as I've said before, is extremely stupid and only leads to sustained failure) or lamenting the loss of the Pelicans' franchise player Brandon Ingram like some of you want them to be.

The Raptors benefitting from the deal doesn't take away anything from the Spurs making a calculated choice to stay competitive and not take the Lakers castoffs. The Raptors gained a superstar and a fast track to the NBA title, which can't be negatively spun in anyway. This is why I said in my OP that it's dumb to look at the results of an inevitably lopsided trade and say the team that was setup to lose "blew it". Considering that the only team who has been seen to clearly benefit from the trade are the Raptors, the only "valid point" to this thread is that the Spurs taking a package they neither needed nor wanted from an arrogant rival that overplayed their hand is somehow a huge blunder. Oh look at that, it's not valid at all.

I don't know this to be the case, but I'm imagining the Lakers would have had Ingram in the trade offer, because what would they exactly do with LeBron, Ingram and Leonard all on the team then? The only good point that you brought up was the 4th pick wasn't awarded to the Lakers, and had some Leonard trade been constructed it wouldn't likely have been that high so I'll give you that but that was the 4th pick in a 2 man draft so its not a huge needle pusher IMO.

The rest of what you said is hogwash, you got a late 1st from Toronto and a bad contract in Derozan for an expiring Leonard who went on to win another finals MVP, however you want to slice it the Spurs got hosed. I'm not saying the Lakers deal was the best offer on the table(Idk what the reported offer at the time was) but look at what the Lakers did eventually give up for an expiring AD, look at what GS was able to squeeze out of the last minute KD sign and trade where they really had no leverage as KD was injured and had to pull something off quick and still got Russell, look at what OKC got for Paul George, the list goes on the Spurs got horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade.

Like what part of #2 completely tanking his trade value by sitting out the year AND declaring publicly that he'd only re-sign in LA is comparable to any of the situations you mentioned? Just so ridiculous to keep making these bad comparisons to crap on what the Spurs took vs. what you think they ought to have, some hypothetical mystery great offer everyone keeps talking about but nobody mentions specifics supported with any credibility.

An expiring AD? Who are we kidding that he was ever going to do anything other than re-sign after it was clear to teams that he wanted LAL.

What OKC got for George is a perfect example of what happens when a team has leverage and OKC used it. We were put in a one hand tied behind our back negotiating position and still managed to get what we asked for.

Just absurd comparisons to the point that they highlight how different each set of circumstances were.

And it's disingenuous to not explore further what the effects of the deal are for us. For instance - the late 1st you dismiss turned into lottery projected Keldon Johnson. DD's supposed bad deal is coming off the books in 2021 when we'll have second most in cap space.

Just very poor reasoning laid out here.

AD tanked his value and listed only a handful of teams he wanted to go to, KD had torn his Achilles and was signing with a team outright with cap space giving GS virtually no leverage and in both of those situations which I would argue are very comparable situations to the Leonard situation given the totality of the circumstances none of the teams had a ton of leverage OKC yeah I'll agree was a bit different given PG13 was signed for multiple seasons.

My point stands Spurs got hosed, its ok to take off the homer goggles every once in while just to be honest about the team circumstance.

[G R E Y]

I don't know this to be the case, but I'm imagining the Lakers would have had Ingram in the trade offer, because what would they exactly do with LeBron, Ingram and Leonard all on the team then? The only good point that you brought up was the 4th pick wasn't awarded to the Lakers, and had some Leonard trade been constructed it wouldn't likely have been that high so I'll give you that but that was the 4th pick in a 2 man draft so its not a huge needle pusher IMO.

The rest of what you said is hogwash, you got a late 1st from Toronto and a bad contract in Derozan for an expiring Leonard who went on to win another finals MVP, however you want to slice it the Spurs got hosed. I'm not saying the Lakers deal was the best offer on the table(Idk what the reported offer at the time was) but look at what the Lakers did eventually give up for an expiring AD, look at what GS was able to squeeze out of the last minute KD sign and trade where they really had no leverage as KD was injured and had to pull something off quick and still got Russell, look at what OKC got for Paul George, the list goes on the Spurs got horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade.

Like what part of #2 completely tanking his trade value by sitting out the year AND declaring publicly that he'd only re-sign in LA is comparable to any of the situations you mentioned? Just so ridiculous to keep making these bad comparisons to crap on what the Spurs took vs. what you think they ought to have, some hypothetical mystery great offer everyone keeps talking about but nobody mentions specifics supported with any credibility.

An expiring AD? Who are we kidding that he was ever going to do anything other than re-sign after it was clear to teams that he wanted LAL.

What OKC got for George is a perfect example of what happens when a team has leverage and OKC used it. We were put in a one hand tied behind our back negotiating position and still managed to get what we asked for.

Just absurd comparisons to the point that they highlight how different each set of circumstances were.

And it's disingenuous to not explore further what the effects of the deal are for us. For instance - the late 1st you dismiss turned into lottery projected Keldon Johnson. DD's supposed bad deal is coming off the books in 2021 when we'll have second most in cap space.

Just very poor reasoning laid out here.

AD tanked his value and listed only a handful of teams he wanted to go to, KD had torn his Achilles and was signing with a team outright with cap space giving GS virtually no leverage and in both of those situations which I would argue are very comparable situations to the Leonard situation given the totality of the circumstances none of the teams had a ton of leverage OKC yeah I'll agree was a bit different given PG13 was signed for multiple seasons.

My point stands Spurs got hosed, its ok to take off the homer goggles every once in while just to be honest about the team circumstance.

AD was clearly only ever going to re-sign with LA because that's where positioned to go. So that nugget you wrote earlier about AD potentially leaving is a red herring. And NOP got a bigger package for him precisely because LAL struck out on #2 with a poorer offer. GH left as FA and Boston just got a giant trade exception. Teams do deals with one another that are mutually beneficial. GSW and Nets did a double sign and trade Durant for Russell, the latter who was a RFA became redundant when Nets also had Irving coming aboard - it made sense for both teams. As to the OKC situation, it has far less to do with the years on PG's contract and far more to do with the fact that #2 told Clippers to get PG13 and to them the deal was both of those players for that huge package going out or neither - that's huge leverage that OKC took full advantage of.

As to our situation, the trade we made was mutually beneficial: TO was the only team to give the three things we sought in the trade without any baggage attached. Your point is on a weak foundation of bad comparison deals when the details are examined. Nobody's saying that we got equal value for #2 - it's rare that a team gets full value back, if ever for the best player in the deal outgoing. That's not the point. The point is that the LAL package is not some great coup that would have made us 'not hosed'. Suggesting otherwise is where homerism resides.

As to our team circumstance - a great group of young players and tons of upcoming cap space. It's the difference between doing what's popular versus what is best for the long-term interests of the franchise. Things will continue to play out regardless of people's opinions either way. As much as some may want to keep pretending like it's 2018 and keep viewing it as how the deal looked then, it's only in the progression of unfolding events that we see the subsequent results. To that end, we're in a far better place for now and going forward. Don't agree? Fine. Let's see how things continue to turn out.

[chitownsalesmen]

Like what part of #2 completely tanking his trade value by sitting out the year AND declaring publicly that he'd only re-sign in LA is comparable to any of the situations you mentioned? Just so ridiculous to keep making these bad comparisons to crap on what the Spurs took vs. what you think they ought to have, some hypothetical mystery great offer everyone keeps talking about but nobody mentions specifics supported with any credibility.

An expiring AD? Who are we kidding that he was ever going to do anything other than re-sign after it was clear to teams that he wanted LAL.

What OKC got for George is a perfect example of what happens when a team has leverage and OKC used it. We were put in a one hand tied behind our back negotiating position and still managed to get what we asked for.

Just absurd comparisons to the point that they highlight how different each set of circumstances were.

And it's disingenuous to not explore further what the effects of the deal are for us. For instance - the late 1st you dismiss turned into lottery projected Keldon Johnson. DD's supposed bad deal is coming off the books in 2021 when we'll have second most in cap space.

Just very poor reasoning laid out here.

AD tanked his value and listed only a handful of teams he wanted to go to, KD had torn his Achilles and was signing with a team outright with cap space giving GS virtually no leverage and in both of those situations which I would argue are very comparable situations to the Leonard situation given the totality of the circumstances none of the teams had a ton of leverage OKC yeah I'll agree was a bit different given PG13 was signed for multiple seasons.

My point stands Spurs got hosed, its ok to take off the homer goggles every once in while just to be honest about the team circumstance.

AD was clearly only ever going to re-sign with LA because that's where positioned to go. So that nugget you wrote earlier about AD potentially leaving is a red herring. And NOP got a bigger package for him precisely because LAL struck out on #2 with a poorer offer. GH left as FA and Boston just got a giant trade exception. Teams do deals with one another that are mutually beneficial. GSW and Nets did a double sign and trade Durant for Russell, the latter who was a RFA became redundant when Nets also had Irving coming aboard - it made sense for both teams. As to the OKC situation, it has far less to do with the years on PG's contract and far more to do with the fact that #2 told Clippers to get PG13 and to them the deal was both of those players for that huge package going out or neither - that's huge leverage that OKC took full advantage of.

As to our situation, the trade we made was mutually beneficial: TO was the only team to give the three things we sought in the trade without any baggage attached. Your point is on a weak foundation of bad comparison deals when the details are examined. Nobody's saying that we got equal value for #2 - it's rare that a team gets full value back, if ever for the best player in the deal outgoing. That's not the point. The point is that the LAL package is not some great coup that would have made us 'not hosed'. Suggesting otherwise is where homerism resides.

As to our team circumstance - a great group of young players and tons of upcoming cap space. It's the difference between doing what's popular versus what is best for the long-term interests of the franchise. Things will continue to play out regardless of people's opinions either way. As much as some may want to keep pretending like it's 2018 and keep viewing it as how the deal looked then, it's only in the progression of unfolding events that we see the subsequent results. To that end, we're in a far better place for now and going forward. Don't agree? Fine. Let's see how things continue to turn out.

The fact remains, the Spurs got significantly less for Leonard then the Pelicans did for AD who was in a similar contract/limited teams he was willing to sign with, and coming off an injury plagued season, they got less then what GS got for KD who was an UNRESTRICTED FA who just tore his achilles cut it and slice it however you want, all your doing is carrying water for your FO getting hosed.

[AlexanderRight]

Why on earth would the Spurs and Pop hand the Lakers (one of their most heated rivals) a dynasty on a silver platter? Ingram averaged 1 point more than Deronzan last season with 10% less FG percentage. Pelicans even with that package weren’t winning enough games or making any kind of noise until Zion stepped on the court. Pop dealing with Toronto giving Canada their first basketball championship and blocking the Lakers from getting an unprecedented trio (Lebron, Khawi, and AD) was much better for the rest of the sport and the league.

[G R E Y]

AD tanked his value and listed only a handful of teams he wanted to go to, KD had torn his Achilles and was signing with a team outright with cap space giving GS virtually no leverage and in both of those situations which I would argue are very comparable situations to the Leonard situation given the totality of the circumstances none of the teams had a ton of leverage OKC yeah I'll agree was a bit different given PG13 was signed for multiple seasons.

My point stands Spurs got hosed, its ok to take off the homer goggles every once in while just to be honest about the team circumstance.

AD was clearly only ever going to re-sign with LA because that's where positioned to go. So that nugget you wrote earlier about AD potentially leaving is a red herring. And NOP got a bigger package for him precisely because LAL struck out on #2 with a poorer offer. GH left as FA and Boston just got a giant trade exception. Teams do deals with one another that are mutually beneficial. GSW and Nets did a double sign and trade Durant for Russell, the latter who was a RFA became redundant when Nets also had Irving coming aboard - it made sense for both teams. As to the OKC situation, it has far less to do with the years on PG's contract and far more to do with the fact that #2 told Clippers to get PG13 and to them the deal was both of those players for that huge package going out or neither - that's huge leverage that OKC took full advantage of.

As to our situation, the trade we made was mutually beneficial: TO was the only team to give the three things we sought in the trade without any baggage attached. Your point is on a weak foundation of bad comparison deals when the details are examined. Nobody's saying that we got equal value for #2 - it's rare that a team gets full value back, if ever for the best player in the deal outgoing. That's not the point. The point is that the LAL package is not some great coup that would have made us 'not hosed'. Suggesting otherwise is where homerism resides.

As to our team circumstance - a great group of young players and tons of upcoming cap space. It's the difference between doing what's popular versus what is best for the long-term interests of the franchise. Things will continue to play out regardless of people's opinions either way. As much as some may want to keep pretending like it's 2018 and keep viewing it as how the deal looked then, it's only in the progression of unfolding events that we see the subsequent results. To that end, we're in a far better place for now and going forward. Don't agree? Fine. Let's see how things continue to turn out.

The fact remains, the Spurs got significantly less for Leonard then the Pelicans did for AD who was in a similar contract/limited teams he was willing to sign with, and coming off an injury plagued season, they got less then what GS got for KD who was an UNRESTRICTED FA who just tore his achilles cut it and slice it however you want, all your doing is carrying water for your FO getting hosed.

Fact: Something that actually exists; reality; truth

That you believe that AD was in a similar situation in terms of 'coming off an injury plagued season' has no bearing on the fact that a player who missed an entire season is nowhere near comparable to a player that the NBA stepped in to prevent NOP from sitting because he was healthy to play. Jesus. And it's also a fact that NOP got more for AD because LAL struck out on #2 with a worse offer - they couldn't afford to lose out on AD after losing out on #2 and PG before him.

GSW got Russell on a sign and trade - the player would have had to AGREE to the deal. Were we in a situation where ANY potential trading partner had a player was a RFA even available for a S&T situation that we didn't hear about?

What specific deal was on the table that was an example of PATFO not 'getting hosed'?

You also ignored the long-term impacts, some of which started at the draft, some of which we'll see this season, some of which we will see in 2021? It's fine that other teams can make deals with their future in mind, but we're somehow supposed to be locked in 2018 mode and can't have the benefit of a deal unfolding.

You're really straining credulity in making poor comparisons and ignoring unfolding consequences to shoehorn a conclusion that has less merit the more you double down on it.

Like I said, let's see how things play out.

[chitownsalesmen]

AD was clearly only ever going to re-sign with LA because that's where positioned to go. So that nugget you wrote earlier about AD potentially leaving is a red herring. And NOP got a bigger package for him precisely because LAL struck out on #2 with a poorer offer. GH left as FA and Boston just got a giant trade exception. Teams do deals with one another that are mutually beneficial. GSW and Nets did a double sign and trade Durant for Russell, the latter who was a RFA became redundant when Nets also had Irving coming aboard - it made sense for both teams. As to the OKC situation, it has far less to do with the years on PG's contract and far more to do with the fact that #2 told Clippers to get PG13 and to them the deal was both of those players for that huge package going out or neither - that's huge leverage that OKC took full advantage of.

As to our situation, the trade we made was mutually beneficial: TO was the only team to give the three things we sought in the trade without any baggage attached. Your point is on a weak foundation of bad comparison deals when the details are examined. Nobody's saying that we got equal value for #2 - it's rare that a team gets full value back, if ever for the best player in the deal outgoing. That's not the point. The point is that the LAL package is not some great coup that would have made us 'not hosed'. Suggesting otherwise is where homerism resides.

As to our team circumstance - a great group of young players and tons of upcoming cap space. It's the difference between doing what's popular versus what is best for the long-term interests of the franchise. Things will continue to play out regardless of people's opinions either way. As much as some may want to keep pretending like it's 2018 and keep viewing it as how the deal looked then, it's only in the progression of unfolding events that we see the subsequent results. To that end, we're in a far better place for now and going forward. Don't agree? Fine. Let's see how things continue to turn out.

The fact remains, the Spurs got significantly less for Leonard then the Pelicans did for AD who was in a similar contract/limited teams he was willing to sign with, and coming off an injury plagued season, they got less then what GS got for KD who was an UNRESTRICTED FA who just tore his achilles cut it and slice it however you want, all your doing is carrying water for your FO getting hosed.

Fact: Something that actually exists; reality; truth

That you believe that AD was in a similar situation in terms of 'coming off an injury plagued season' has no bearing on the fact that a player who missed an entire season is nowhere near comparable to a player that the NBA stepped in to prevent NOP from sitting because he was healthy to play. Jesus. And it's also a fact that NOP got more for AD because LAL struck out on #2 with a worse offer - they couldn't afford to lose out on AD after losing out on #2 and PG before him.

GSW got Russell on a sign and trade - the player would have had to AGREE to the deal. Were we in a situation where ANY potential trading partner had a player was a RFA even available for a S&T situation that we didn't hear about?

What specific deal was on the table that was an example of PATFO not 'getting hosed'?

You also ignored the long-term impacts, some of which started at the draft, some of which we'll see this season, some of which we will see in 2021? It's fine that other teams can make deals with their future in mind, but we're somehow supposed to be locked in 2018 mode and can't have the benefit of a deal unfolding.

You're really straining credulity in making poor comparisons and ignoring unfolding consequences to shoehorn a conclusion that has less merit the more you double down on it.

Like I said, let's see how things play out.

Did AD not have injuries in 2018-2019 as well as miss time in other seasons prior to that? Personally I think Leonards injury was pretty much a bluff for what its worth KD was literally a FA, was rumored for seasons to be leaving in 2019 come hell or high water, and oh yeah he tore his Achilles tendon.

so when considering all the aspects of the relative deals for players of relative close value, in relatively similar situations to what Leonard was in 2018, its hard to argue the fruits of the Leonard trade are looking all that good two years later, a late 1st and paying Derozan 25-27M for 3 seasons is a bitter pill to swallow when you traded a two time FMVP for that crap.

It honestly debatable if they would have been better off just letting Leonard walk.

I get it you want everyone to see it from the SAS rose tinted glasses angle but no one applying an ounce of scrutiny is buying what your selling.

[G R E Y]

The fact remains, the Spurs got significantly less for Leonard then the Pelicans did for AD who was in a similar contract/limited teams he was willing to sign with, and coming off an injury plagued season, they got less then what GS got for KD who was an UNRESTRICTED FA who just tore his achilles cut it and slice it however you want, all your doing is carrying water for your FO getting hosed.

Fact: Something that actually exists; reality; truth

That you believe that AD was in a similar situation in terms of 'coming off an injury plagued season' has no bearing on the fact that a player who missed an entire season is nowhere near comparable to a player that the NBA stepped in to prevent NOP from sitting because he was healthy to play. Jesus. And it's also a fact that NOP got more for AD because LAL struck out on #2 with a worse offer - they couldn't afford to lose out on AD after losing out on #2 and PG before him.

GSW got Russell on a sign and trade - the player would have had to AGREE to the deal. Were we in a situation where ANY potential trading partner had a player was a RFA even available for a S&T situation that we didn't hear about?

What specific deal was on the table that was an example of PATFO not 'getting hosed'?

You also ignored the long-term impacts, some of which started at the draft, some of which we'll see this season, some of which we will see in 2021? It's fine that other teams can make deals with their future in mind, but we're somehow supposed to be locked in 2018 mode and can't have the benefit of a deal unfolding.

You're really straining credulity in making poor comparisons and ignoring unfolding consequences to shoehorn a conclusion that has less merit the more you double down on it.

Like I said, let's see how things play out.

Did AD not have injuries in 2018-2019 as well as miss time in other seasons prior to that? Personally I think Leonards injury was pretty much a bluff for what its worth KD was literally a FA, was rumored for seasons to be leaving in 2019 come hell or high water, and oh yeah he tore his Achilles tendon.

so when considering all the aspects of the relative deals for players of relative close value, in relatively similar situations to what Leonard was in 2018, its hard to argue the fruits of the Leonard trade are looking all that good two years later, a late 1st and paying Derozan 25-27M for 3 seasons is a bitter pill to swallow when you traded a two time FMVP for that crap.

It honestly debatable if they would have been better off just letting Leonard walk.

I get it you want everyone to see it from the SAS rose tinted glasses angle but no one applying an ounce of scrutiny is buying what your selling.

I see you edited your response after I answered to it so I'll just address this one as it's fuller.

'Have injuries' and 'miss time in other seasons' is far from synonymous with a chronic condition that #2 had long been diagnosed with that he's been load managing for three seasons. You must realize how specious that comparison is even as you write it. DD is coming off the books right when we need it to, 2021 - like what part of that is so hard to fathom, this in an era when the Wiggins, Batums, and Haywards among others of the NBA world (including Deng ) are out there.

I've already explained the mutual benefit of the double S&T between GSW and Nets, and gave an additional example of GH S&T being mutually beneficial, and asked about a specific comparable deal in any offers the Spurs had. Silence.

Still waiting to hear about that awesome offer that was out there that we ought to have taken from which we would have totally not been 'hosed'.

Yeah, totally great idea, let #2 walk so that we'd be without Jakob and Keldon. Digging deeper here. You're also doubling down on the irony about anyone applying an ounce of scrutiny buying the sell while you ignore the details of the counter points presented.

And the fruits of the trade are nowhere near done being fulfilled is part of the point.

Let's see how things play out.

[chitownsalesmen]

Fact: Something that actually exists; reality; truth

That you believe that AD was in a similar situation in terms of 'coming off an injury plagued season' has no bearing on the fact that a player who missed an entire season is nowhere near comparable to a player that the NBA stepped in to prevent NOP from sitting because he was healthy to play. Jesus. And it's also a fact that NOP got more for AD because LAL struck out on #2 with a worse offer - they couldn't afford to lose out on AD after losing out on #2 and PG before him.

GSW got Russell on a sign and trade - the player would have had to AGREE to the deal. Were we in a situation where ANY potential trading partner had a player was a RFA even available for a S&T situation that we didn't hear about?

What specific deal was on the table that was an example of PATFO not 'getting hosed'?

You also ignored the long-term impacts, some of which started at the draft, some of which we'll see this season, some of which we will see in 2021? It's fine that other teams can make deals with their future in mind, but we're somehow supposed to be locked in 2018 mode and can't have the benefit of a deal unfolding.

You're really straining credulity in making poor comparisons and ignoring unfolding consequences to shoehorn a conclusion that has less merit the more you double down on it.

Like I said, let's see how things play out.

Did AD not have injuries in 2018-2019 as well as miss time in other seasons prior to that? Personally I think Leonards injury was pretty much a bluff for what its worth KD was literally a FA, was rumored for seasons to be leaving in 2019 come hell or high water, and oh yeah he tore his Achilles tendon.

so when considering all the aspects of the relative deals for players of relative close value, in relatively similar situations to what Leonard was in 2018, its hard to argue the fruits of the Leonard trade are looking all that good two years later, a late 1st and paying Derozan 25-27M for 3 seasons is a bitter pill to swallow when you traded a two time FMVP for that crap.

It honestly debatable if they would have been better off just letting Leonard walk.

I get it you want everyone to see it from the SAS rose tinted glasses angle but no one applying an ounce of scrutiny is buying what your selling.

I see you edited your response after I answered to it so I'll just address this one as it's fuller.

'Have injuries' and 'miss time in other seasons' is far from synonymous with a chronic condition that #2 had long been diagnosed with that he's been load managing for three seasons. You must realize how specious that comparison is even as you write it. DD is coming off the books right when we need it to, 2021 - like what part of that is so hard to fathom, this in an era when the Wiggins, Batums, and Haywards among others of the NBA world (including Deng ) are out there.

I've already explained the mutual benefit of the double S&T between GSW and Nets, and gave an additional example of GH S&T being mutually beneficial, and asked about a specific comparable deal in any offers the Spurs had. Silence.

Still waiting to hear about that awesome offer that was out there that we ought to have taken from which we would have totally not been 'hosed'.

Yeah, totally great idea, let #2 walk so that we'd be without Jakob and Keldon. Digging deeper here. You're also doubling down on the irony about anyone applying an ounce of scrutiny buying the sell while you ignore the details of the counter points presented.

And the fruits of the trade are nowhere near done being fulfilled is part of the point.

Let's see how things play out.

It's been two years, I've seen how things are playing out and its not looking good for SAS.

[Vae Victus]

Honest question at this point to spurs fans. If the deal was Deng + #2 (Tatum) for Kawhi, offered up right up on draft day. Knowing what we know now would you guys do the deal? Knowing what we did on draft day would you still do the deal?

I’m kinda fuzzy on the timeline on when the Kawhi pursuit happened. Was it before or after draft day.

[G R E Y]

Did AD not have injuries in 2018-2019 as well as miss time in other seasons prior to that? Personally I think Leonards injury was pretty much a bluff for what its worth KD was literally a FA, was rumored for seasons to be leaving in 2019 come hell or high water, and oh yeah he tore his Achilles tendon.

so when considering all the aspects of the relative deals for players of relative close value, in relatively similar situations to what Leonard was in 2018, its hard to argue the fruits of the Leonard trade are looking all that good two years later, a late 1st and paying Derozan 25-27M for 3 seasons is a bitter pill to swallow when you traded a two time FMVP for that crap.

It honestly debatable if they would have been better off just letting Leonard walk.

I get it you want everyone to see it from the SAS rose tinted glasses angle but no one applying an ounce of scrutiny is buying what your selling.

I see you edited your response after I answered to it so I'll just address this one as it's fuller.

'Have injuries' and 'miss time in other seasons' is far from synonymous with a chronic condition that #2 had long been diagnosed with that he's been load managing for three seasons. You must realize how specious that comparison is even as you write it. DD is coming off the books right when we need it to, 2021 - like what part of that is so hard to fathom, this in an era when the Wiggins, Batums, and Haywards among others of the NBA world (including Deng ) are out there.

I've already explained the mutual benefit of the double S&T between GSW and Nets, and gave an additional example of GH S&T being mutually beneficial, and asked about a specific comparable deal in any offers the Spurs had. Silence.

Still waiting to hear about that awesome offer that was out there that we ought to have taken from which we would have totally not been 'hosed'.

Yeah, totally great idea, let #2 walk so that we'd be without Jakob and Keldon. Digging deeper here. You're also doubling down on the irony about anyone applying an ounce of scrutiny buying the sell while you ignore the details of the counter points presented.

And the fruits of the trade are nowhere near done being fulfilled is part of the point.

Let's see how things play out.

It's been two years, I've seen how things are playing out and its not looking good for SAS.

We've yet to hear what other concrete offer was out there that we ought to have taken from which we would have not been 'hosed'.

But swell that your crystal ball can foresee our fate. This when the young guys are on the brink of getting bigger roles, and the vets coming off the books when we'll have the second highest cap space. Thanks for your insight.

[G R E Y]

Honest question at this point to spurs fans. If the deal was Deng + #2 (Tatum) for Kawhi, offered up right up on draft day. Knowing what we know now would you guys do the deal? Knowing what we did on draft day would you still do the deal?

I’m kinda fuzzy on the timeline on when the Kawhi pursuit happened. Was it before or after draft day.

The 2018 draft was on June 21 and the #2 trade happened on July 18. Robertson declared him 'almost 100%' or some such shortly before the draft to signal to the LA teams that he was to be on his way. TO stepped in to change the route.

I don't know how Deng from LA and Tatum (drafted #3 in 2017, so you mean getting him in his second season?) would have been possible, but I'd trade for Tatum in a New York second. He's a player that is worth taking on Deng's albatross contract.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence so I can't answer that.

[chitownsalesmen]

I see you edited your response after I answered to it so I'll just address this one as it's fuller.

'Have injuries' and 'miss time in other seasons' is far from synonymous with a chronic condition that #2 had long been diagnosed with that he's been load managing for three seasons. You must realize how specious that comparison is even as you write it. DD is coming off the books right when we need it to, 2021 - like what part of that is so hard to fathom, this in an era when the Wiggins, Batums, and Haywards among others of the NBA world (including Deng ) are out there.

I've already explained the mutual benefit of the double S&T between GSW and Nets, and gave an additional example of GH S&T being mutually beneficial, and asked about a specific comparable deal in any offers the Spurs had. Silence.

Still waiting to hear about that awesome offer that was out there that we ought to have taken from which we would have totally not been 'hosed'.

Yeah, totally great idea, let #2 walk so that we'd be without Jakob and Keldon. Digging deeper here. You're also doubling down on the irony about anyone applying an ounce of scrutiny buying the sell while you ignore the details of the counter points presented.

And the fruits of the trade are nowhere near done being fulfilled is part of the point.

Let's see how things play out.

It's been two years, I've seen how things are playing out and its not looking good for SAS.

We've yet to hear what other concrete offer was out there that we ought to have taken from which we would have not been 'hosed'.

But swell that your crystal ball can foresee our fate. This when the young guys are on the brink of getting bigger roles, and the vets coming off the books when we'll have the second highest cap space. Thanks for your insight.

One of the first things I said was I'm not sure what offers where on the table, I only know the deal that was struck was pretty poor for SAS. It doesn't take a crystal ball to come to the conclusion I've come to, its more akin to playing monday morning QB and pointing out obvious mistakes made prior.

Again, I understand your contention but I'm not convinced the deal that was struck was better then letting Leonard walk and using the capspace to acquire assets instead of sitting on a middling volume scorer who didn't lead the Spurs to any serious contention in the last 2 seasons nor do I see the fruits of this trade leading to any real level on contending at any point in the future.

Sorry I don't see things your way, the problem is we simply disagree and thats fine.

[Vae Victus]

Honest question at this point to spurs fans. If the deal was Deng + #2 (Tatum) for Kawhi, offered up right up on draft day. Knowing what we know now would you guys do the deal? Knowing what we did on draft day would you still do the deal?

I’m kinda fuzzy on the timeline on when the Kawhi pursuit happened. Was it before or after draft day.

The 2018 draft was on June 21 and the #2 trade happened on July 18. Robertson declared him 'almost 100%' or some such shortly before the draft to signal to the LA teams that he was to be on his way. TO stepped in to change the route.

I don't know how Deng from LA and Tatum (drafted #3 in 2017, so you mean getting him in his second season?) would have been possible, but I'd trade for Tatum in a New York second. He's a player that is worth taking on Deng's albatross contract.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence so I can't answer that.

Trade for #2 on draft day (to grab Tatum) along with Deng is the scenario I’m positing. I’m assuming PHI still does it’s pants on head (Please Use More Appropriate Word) trade up to get Fultz. Thus letting Tatum drop to #2 to be grabbed.

Obviously knowing what we know now about Tatums development, as you said you’d grab Tatum even with Deng’s corpse attached.

But would you have made the Deng + #2 trade on draft day, only knowing that Kawhi is doing his utmost to force his way out and not knowing the future on how the draft picks pan out?

[G R E Y]

Honest question at this point to spurs fans. If the deal was Deng + #2 (Tatum) for Kawhi, offered up right up on draft day. Knowing what we know now would you guys do the deal? Knowing what we did on draft day would you still do the deal?

I’m kinda fuzzy on the timeline on when the Kawhi pursuit happened. Was it before or after draft day.

The 2018 draft was on June 21 and the #2 trade happened on July 18. Robertson declared him 'almost 100%' or some such shortly before the draft to signal to the LA teams that he was to be on his way. TO stepped in to change the route.

I don't know how Deng from LA and Tatum (drafted #3 in 2017, so you mean getting him in his second season?) would have been possible, but I'd trade for Tatum in a New York second. He's a player that is worth taking on Deng's albatross contract.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence so I can't answer that.

Trade for #2 on draft day (to grab Tatum) along with Deng is the scenario I’m positing. I’m assuming PHI still does it’s pants on head (Please Use More Appropriate Word) trade up to get Fultz. Thus letting Tatum drop to #2 to be grabbed.

Obviously knowing what we know now about Tatums development, as you said you’d grab Tatum even with Deng’s corpse attached.

But would you have made the Deng + #2 trade on draft day, only knowing that Kawhi is doing his utmost to force his way out and not knowing the future on how the draft picks pan out?

Tatum was drafted the year prior in 2017. If you mean trading #2 in 2017, well we had no idea about any issues until August of 2017 when he started ignoring phone calls from Spurs staff while he was on a promo tour in China. So it's just not a scenario which realistically fits any info we had at the time.

But Tatum was an incredible prospect and I was shocked Philly made that trade. I thought Tatum had the prototypical near perfect build and came from a great program but as enticing a prospect as he looked, he's developed even faster than I thought he would. It's just the timelines don't fit. Had all these things happened a year prior and we had that deal on the table? Yeah I think I'd do it, but to be honest it's hard not to be influenced by what Tatum has turned into. But with #2 having that extra year on his contract, I think PATFO would and could have asked for more. That's based on nothing but the logic that the longer you can retain a player the more you ask for. But alas things didn't align in this timeline and so here we are...

[Baski]

I don't know this to be the case, but I'm imagining the Lakers would have had Ingram in the trade offer, because what would they exactly do with LeBron, Ingram and Leonard all on the team then? The only good point that you brought up was the 4th pick wasn't awarded to the Lakers, and had some Leonard trade been constructed it wouldn't likely have been that high so I'll give you that but that was the 4th pick in a 2 man draft so its not a huge needle pusher IMO.

The rest of what you said is hogwash, you got a late 1st from Toronto and a bad contract in Derozan for an expiring Leonard who went on to win another finals MVP, however you want to slice it the Spurs got hosed. I'm not saying the Lakers deal was the best offer on the table(Idk what the reported offer at the time was) but look at what the Lakers did eventually give up for an expiring AD, look at what GS was able to squeeze out of the last minute KD sign and trade where they really had no leverage as KD was injured and had to pull something off quick and still got Russell, look at what OKC got for Paul George, the list goes on the Spurs got horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade.

Right. Can't respond so it's hogwash.
Again, there's no negative way to spin the Raptors winning the NBA title after getting Kawhi Leonard. It still doesn't take away from the Spurs making a prudent trade in a situation where they were setup to fail. If the Spurs getting "hosed" or not according to you depends on a game 7 last second shot bouncing on the rim a billion times and faling in, you're looking at it the wrong way.
FTR it would be just as stupid to say the Raptors "got hosed" if Leonard's knee imploded on the 10th day of the RS or if he just sucked for the 2019 season.

You're just going based off of hindsight with the other trades and I find it strange you can't see the problem with that. The Spurs got "horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade" because Leonard heavily tanked his value by milking his injury, forging medical diagnoses that were different from the one the Spurs gave and the whole league now acknowledges and telling every non-Laker team to basically give up on trading for him. Maybe you're not aware but these things matter in a trade. Surely you can see how the other trades you've listed had different circumstances that made it much easier to get a better return. If not let me help you out:
AD: you've acknowledged the 4th pick made a difference, but as I've said numerous times already, the Lakers FO arrogantly overplayed their hand by adding Deng's contract while not meeting the Spurs demands. It's worth noting that failing the George and Leonard trades was a major motivating factor in getting them to cut the crap and put real deals on the table. AD was literally their last chance to get a star next to Lebron.
KD: This was a guaranteed 4 years of KD with a chance he gets back to close to his old self. No need to elaborate on why that nets more value than one year of a pouty potentially injured star that likely wouldn't resign
PG: 3 years of a healthy PG, with OKC having all the leverage because Kawhi absolutely would not sign with the Clippers otherwise.
If the list goes on and on you better expand your list cos this ain't it chief.


If you're open to the fact that the Lakers package indeed wasn't the best package then what are you even arguing here? You can't "not know" what the best package was and still maintain that what the Spurs took was terrible. Leonard set them up to fail and they "failed" as best they could. Criticizing the deal on that basis makes no sense.

[chitownsalesmen]

I don't know this to be the case, but I'm imagining the Lakers would have had Ingram in the trade offer, because what would they exactly do with LeBron, Ingram and Leonard all on the team then? The only good point that you brought up was the 4th pick wasn't awarded to the Lakers, and had some Leonard trade been constructed it wouldn't likely have been that high so I'll give you that but that was the 4th pick in a 2 man draft so its not a huge needle pusher IMO.

The rest of what you said is hogwash, you got a late 1st from Toronto and a bad contract in Derozan for an expiring Leonard who went on to win another finals MVP, however you want to slice it the Spurs got hosed. I'm not saying the Lakers deal was the best offer on the table(Idk what the reported offer at the time was) but look at what the Lakers did eventually give up for an expiring AD, look at what GS was able to squeeze out of the last minute KD sign and trade where they really had no leverage as KD was injured and had to pull something off quick and still got Russell, look at what OKC got for Paul George, the list goes on the Spurs got horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade.

Right. Can't respond so it's hogwash.
Again, there's no negative way to spin the Raptors winning the NBA title after getting Kawhi Leonard. It still doesn't take away from the Spurs making a prudent trade in a situation where they were setup to fail. If the Spurs getting "hosed" or not according to you depends on a game 7 last second shot bouncing on the rim a billion times and faling in, you're looking at it the wrong way.
FTR it would be just as stupid to say the Raptors "got hosed" if Leonard's knee imploded on the 10th day of the RS or if he just sucked for the 2019 season.

You're just going based off of hindsight with the other trades and I find it strange you can't see the problem with that. The Spurs got "horrible return for Leonard compared to other similar players who where traded within a year of the Leonard trade" because Leonard heavily tanked his value by milking his injury, forging medical diagnoses that were different from the one the Spurs gave and the whole league now acknowledges and telling every non-Laker team to basically give up on trading for him. Maybe you're not aware but these things matter in a trade. Surely you can see how the other trades you've listed had different circumstances that made it much easier to get a better return. If not let me help you out:
AD: you've acknowledged the 4th pick made a difference, but as I've said numerous times already, the Lakers FO arrogantly overplayed their hand by adding Deng's contract while not meeting the Spurs demands. It's worth noting that failing the George and Leonard trades was a major motivating factor in getting them to cut the crap and put real deals on the table. AD was literally their last chance to get a star next to Lebron.
KD: This was a guaranteed 4 years of KD with a chance he gets back to close to his old self. No need to elaborate on why that nets more value than one year of a pouty potentially injured star that likely wouldn't resign
PG: 3 years of a healthy PG, with OKC having all the leverage because Kawhi absolutely would not sign with the Clippers otherwise.
If the list goes on and on you better expand your list cos this ain't it chief.


If you're open to the fact that the Lakers package indeed wasn't the best package then what are you even arguing here? You can't "not know" what the best package was and still maintain that what the Spurs took was terrible. Leonard set them up to fail and they "failed" as best they could. Criticizing the deal on that basis makes no sense.

The only thing I'm arguing is the Spurs got rekt in the Leonard trade, Spurs fans keep acting like AD didn't tank his trade value aswell and NO was still able to recoup far more value then what the Spurs got, Spurs fans are refusing to acknowledge that GS got more for KD in a sign and trade where he could have just signed with BK outright for capspace, and was coming fresh off of an achilles tendon tear and still GS recouped better value when having almost no leverage what so ever in those negotiations.

All I'm saying is this thread has a valid point and I'm not getting any push back on any of my points from non-Spurs fans so I'm inclined to take that as a sign that again their is a valid point to this thread and I think the Spurs got a bad return on Leonard and until I see a legit argument refuting my stance I'm going to hold that opinion.

I'm not trying to troll spurs fan or anything I think it's a legit topic of conversation and I think its fair to say the spurs got fleeced by Ujiri and if I was a Spurs fan instead of refuting the reality of the situation I would be frustrated at the Spurs front office not a guy on RealGM criticizing the the bad trade that the Spurs FO made.

[DirtyDez]

1. Holy F’ing hell this page takes long to scroll thru
2. Is it confirmed the Lakers we’re offering the same amount of picks to San Antonio?

[danfantastk32]

Why on earth would the Spurs and Pop hand the Lakers (one of their most heated rivals) a dynasty on a silver platter?

Since when are we 'heated rivals'? I think you guys beat us in the playoffs in 2003.....other than that?? I'll go out on a limb (pardon the pun) and say Pop had major penis-envy when it came to Phil.....but otherwise, there's nothing even close to a rivalry, is there?? I kinda like the Spurs. Totally miss Duncan. True legend.