How is trading away the second or third most important player on. 62 win team a low cost?
Whether people here want to admit it or not, Fox days as a Spurs are numbered. He will sooner or later get moved to make room for Harper. The more we wait to make a move, the less we're gonna get for him. I hate to bring this up right in the middle of a championship push, but it is the truth, and I doubt my word has any relevance within the Spurs players and organization.
What does any of that has to do with trading for Durant? I am having trouble following your logic.
The Spurs should trade Fox for Durant because Harper should start? Just to show my stance, Fox has played well this year and gelled well with the team, while he is no where close to a max level player, he was a key part of the Spurs over-achieving and getting 62 wins.
Durant on the other hand, played about as well, but with significant locker room issues. He makes a little less than Fox but did not live up to his contract either, while at the same time was a key reason why the Rockets underachieved this season.
First, Harper didn't express he must start, there have been no indications him not starting is stymied his growth. He may be unhappy in the background, but I am not sure if there are any indications whatsoever, of this. So I am unsure of why we have a solve a problem that doesn't exist, especially when it has a high likelihood of creating another bigger problem.
Second, Harper is still inconsistent. Yes had brilliant games, but he also had stinkers. How he should be handed the keys to a team with title aspirations is beyond me.
Third, you say, Durant would be the one in place of Fox, not Harper. Well, Durant had very comparable per 36/per 100 stats as fox this year, with Durant having significantly more scoring, and Fox more assists. The rest is pretty much a wash. Durant is a way better shooter and creator, which means that he would take the ball away from Harper anyways. Of course, there are those risks about being a locker room cancer, of which you are for some reason, sure would not be an issue with the Spurs, of which I just cannot understand why, which leads to,
Fourth, let's look at how the teams Durant left and joined did before and after he left/joined.
| Team From | Team To |
From 2015-16 OKC
To 2016-17 GSW | 55-27, WCF appearance to
47-35, 1st round
Clearly got worse | 73-9, Finals lost to
67-15, Champs.
I'd argue the Warriors would have won regardless. |
From 2019-20 GSW (Durant injured)
To 2020-21 BRK | 15-50, Missed playoffs to
39-33, Missed playoffs.
N/A as Durant was injured the entire 19-20 | 35-37, lost in 1st round to
48-24, lost in 2nd round.
Got better, but getting Kyrie healthish, a bit of Harden had a hand in this. Overall not really that big of a change. |
From 2022-23 BRK (mid season trade)
To 2023-24 PHO | 45-37, 1st round to
32-50, missed playioffs.
Got worse, but then the Nets got a whole sale change. That said, 13 decrease isn't that big of a deal | 45-37, 2nd round.
49-33, 1st round.
I'd argue they got worse. |
From 2024-25 PHO
To 2025-26 HOU | 36-46, missed playoffs to
45-37, 1st round.
Got better. | 52-30, 1st round
52-30, not yet determined, but likely 1st round.
Break even on paper, but I'd say got worse. |
Compare this to De'Aaron Fox. We know the Spurs improved drastically from last year, and clearly it wasn't just De'Aaron Fox, Wemby got better and healthier was the clear #1 reason. Castle improving, Vassell and Keldon getting clearly defined roles, getting Kornet, having actual coaching are all obvious reasons, but having Fox on the team is undoubtedly one of the major reasons for a 30 game improvement, and going from missing the playoffs to being the 2nd best team in the league.
Sacramento? They went from 40-42 to 22-60.
I admit there are all kinds of noise and other factors comparing year to year record changes, but I would say the numbers are relatively consistent for Durant. Even in his MVP days his impact to winning isn't all that significant, and since BRK his impact is just non-existant.
Finally, you say Durant wanted to be here? Fox did as well, and according to some reports, defied the wishes of his wife to do so.
At this point, I would rather have Dillon Brooks than Durant, and I am sure most would say we would lose in that trade. So why would we worse trade to solve a non-existent problem? By the time Fox's contract becomes a problem, we can then revisit the issue, if it was an issue to begin with.
All this talk about Fox's contract being terrible is just overblown. How is worse than, say, Devin Booker's? or Giannis? Embiid, Unibrow, Paul George, Kawhi, LaVine, Trae Young, even Markkannen. All tradable contracts even those many are significantly worse than that of Fox's. I just do not understand the urgency of getting rid of Fox, at all. Let alone for Durant.
