Lovetron Joe wrote:imagump1313 wrote:Lovetron Joe wrote:
What would you suggest?
At this point? I would give up White, McDermott and Thad Young tops, just to make salaries work.
People think we are going to trade 3 starters for a guy who is damaged goods, a terrible salary and hasn't played all year?? Think about what you're asking for? People in Philly have to realize that they aren't getting the moon and the stars for that guy.
The Spurs are a 19-31 team. Young as an expiring that does not play, he has little value. White shoots 40% from the field as a shooting guard. McDermott shoots well but is sub average in all other categories. His rebounding, assists and PER are not in the top 150.
It is difficult to imagine the Spurs can get a good player (Sabonis/Simmons etc.) via trading without including at least two of Murray, Vassell or Johnson. Bad teams do not improve via trade without including their better players. Hopefully the younger players will continue to improve.
Why do people keep pointing out our record like we've an under-performing, vet-laden team? We're barely past the half way point of the FIRST rebuild season in over 20 years. Why are we suddenly going to throw away the development we've put into these young players when it's their FIRST FEW MONTHS playing together, and in that time, we're tied for the league lead with 10 games with seven players scoring in double figures, with DJ becoming a near triple double machine, with Keldon now third in the league 3s efficiency form among players who've attempted at least 100, with Vassell growing to be the first player off the bench, fifth on the team in minutes, third on the team in 3s attempted per game, sixth in efficiency there (a work in progress). He's increased and improved every statistical category except for FT% and is defensively sound.
So why would we trade the players we've chosen to go forward with the rebuild (even as the evaluation process is ongoing) for first, let's say Simmons: Morey didn't want our non-star package, and in his response wanted a boat load of picks. For instance, Morey wanted Haliburton and FIVE first round picks. Like... tell us you're really angling for Harden without saying you're really angling for Harden?
Simmons is older than any of our players and trading the boat load of them for BS switches out one issue - no All Star (yet! I hope DJ will be named this season) for a taller, yes impactful on D and passing and rebounding player, but one who has serious issues we've already dealt with.
Simmons: wants to be in LA, wants to be the main star on a team to be built around him, has golden egg family syndrome where he can do no wrong in their eyes, has family members take over his training against team guidelines, and has some serious family troubles tied into all of that. We've already dealt with ALL of that! AND he doesn't help in two areas we need it most - 3s and FTs.
Sabonis is a terrific young player in a position of need for us, but I don't think he's a game changer again because trading all our best young players switches one set of problems for another -- we shore up the PF position and get deficient elsewhere.
Our guard position is pretty much set in two waves - now and the future (Primo, Vassell). We also have the most cap space for this upcoming season and we've already refused to trade Thad for players that would eat into it - to give an indication of priorities.
The Bryn trade for a player on a larger salary but also in his final year (team option) and a pick also points to acquiring picks and increasing cap space.
So the front court will either be addressed further via the draft or FA or potentially S&T or trade, or some combination. But we're looking to complement the players we're evaluating we want to go forward with and it's safe to say that DJ, Keldon and Devin, for instance, have made a strong case for themselves to continue to grow with us and be added to.
We don't need to rush what we've been carefully creating a path for and now are in the beginning of being on. That's not to say that that nobody is untradeable, but it's also clear that we'd have to be blown away with an offer to part with players who are part of our program and culture and making good strides already.
If the argument for the bringing up of our record is that the players we have are proving that we don't have good enough players to compete, well again, I repeat we're in the beginnings of a rebuild, players are improving, and we're positioning ourselves for multiple options to improve. Competing takes steps of building a solid foundation and raising the floor, not capping the ceiling by trading them away for win now players whose primes are known and haven't proven to take their players where teams ultimately want to go.
