Trade Spurs Trade Ideas

[Shmurs]

I've been wondering if Pop is behind the decision to play Castle as the primary PG which turns Fox into an off ball guard?

President of the club has to mean something, right? They didn’t invent the job to keep him on the payroll. Other teams have presidents that are more than figure heads. It’s a position of authority that underlings have to report to. The poster above is just grumpy about discourse in general, so I don’t know what to tell that guy.

But genuinely…we’re cool with this? Every personnel move has to get run by his desk, right? If that’s not the case, then don’t we have a delinquent president ? Isn’t the job to do…something? What consequential things is everyone ok with him being responsible for? There’s no way he’s putting in full days at the office. So is there some kind of proxy? How does the proxy feel to be operating in the shadows? Is that healthy? Is Mitch the coach because Pop still wants access to the bench? Is THAT healthy?

A guy giving himself a cool new nickname and starting a new job after becoming severely incapacitated shows he still wants to be the cult of personality. But there isn’t any room for that in a professional organization. At the very least, when weird things happen like this guard quagmire or fox’s bad contract or not having center depth or the other handful of oddities…sure maybe it’s just normal basketball things. But him still hanging around means that every one of those things is possibly the result of a damaged elderly person cobbling together a workplace presence.

 

[BacktoBasics]

Ah gotcha, sorry I misunderstood.

Yeah I'm not sure it was a matter of liking Santi the player more than Bane the player as much as it was "let's trade the guy with the near-max deal who will get us a bunch of picks in return". But I see your point.

The one ATL pick might not be enough, you are right... but I'm not sure I'd offer more other than some SRPs.

There’s not much time left to see where that pick is going. If they think ATL is going to look better going forward I think it would be worth moving that pick for Santi if they think ATL is gonna shit the bed of hold off.

 

[scott]

President of the club has to mean something, right? They didn’t invent the job to keep him on the payroll. Other teams have presidents that are more than figure heads. It’s a position of authority that underlings have to report to. The poster above is just grumpy about discourse in general, so I don’t know what to tell that guy.

But genuinely…we’re cool with this? Every personnel move has to get run by his desk, right? If that’s not the case, then don’t we have a delinquent president ? Isn’t the job to do…something? What consequential things is everyone ok with him being responsible for? There’s no way he’s putting in full days at the office. So is there some kind of proxy? How does the proxy feel to be operating in the shadows? Is that healthy? Is Mitch the coach because Pop still wants access to the bench? Is THAT healthy?

A guy giving himself a cool new nickname and starting a new job after becoming severely incapacitated shows he still wants to be the cult of personality. But there isn’t any room for that in a professional organization. At the very least, when weird things happen like this guard quagmire or fox’s bad contract or not having center depth or the other handful of oddities…sure maybe it’s just normal basketball things. But him still hanging around means that every one of those things is possibly the result of a damaged elderly person cobbling together a workplace presence.

President can mean anything the Spurs want it to mean. It could very well just be a way to keep him on the payroll since he has a contract that they may be obligated to pay anyway. Perhaps a ceremonial President role was a compromise between the club and Pop to accept less money... we don't know.

Are we cool with this? Why aren't we? Who is harmed? This very much reads like a "let me invent something to complain about". Unless you have any indication that Pop's role is hurting the team... what is there to be concerned about?

 

[Shmurs]

The ATL pick will have a fractional chance at yielding one of the big ticket dudes. But there will be no certainty until lottery night.

We should trade the pick if there’s a trade to be made without worrying about what the potential draft pick would be. We aren’t very good at drafting and we also can’t fit more young guys into the lineup. If we get Caleb Wilson or whatever, swell. But planning around that is over. IMO.

 

[Shmurs]

President can mean anything the Spurs want it to mean. It could very well just be a way to keep him on the payroll since he has a contract that they may be obligated to pay anyway. Perhaps a ceremonial President role was a compromise between the club and Pop to accept less money... we don't know.

Are we cool with this? Why aren't we? Who is harmed? This very much reads like a "let me invent something to complain about". Unless you have any indication that Pop's role is hurting the team... what is there to be concerned about?

That’s a strange take. The job “President” exists independent of tokenism, so what we have is one of the top offices in the franchise that is only partially filled. The core duties of the role that pop can’t do - who is doing them, and is it a good thing or even neutral thing that they’re performing their duties in the shadows? It’s very unnatural to put someone with his limitations in a position of consequence.

“It means whatever they want”…that’s not a good thing. Organizational dynamics in corporate settings and everywhere else with a hierarchy would indicate that you don’t want the person at the top to be corrupted in any way. Because the trickle down effects are real. Even if a little nebulous.

It’s not a contrived argument. I have a real concern. Why don’t you? Does it just not matter because you aren’t in the boardroom and don’t witness the implications first hand?

 

[scott]

That’s a strange take. The job “President” exists independent of tokenism, so what we have is one of the top offices in the franchise that is only partially filled. The core duties of the role that pop can’t do - who is doing them, and is it a good thing or even neutral thing that they’re performing their duties in the shadows? It’s very unnatural to put someone with his limitations in a position of consequence.

“It means whatever they want”…that’s not a good thing. Organizational dynamics in corporate settings and everywhere else with a hierarchy would indicate that you don’t want the person at the top to be corrupted in any way. Because the trickle down effects are real. Even if a little nebulous.

It’s not a contrived argument. I have a real concern. Why don’t you? Does it just not matter because you aren’t in the boardroom and don’t witness the implications first hand?

The Spurs have a CEO and a GM. There is nothing that the nominal title of "President" does that can't be done by those guys. In my company, we have a CEO and a President. The division of work between those two individuals is very much based on what the strengths of those individuals are, not some textbook definition of a "President's" job duties.

"President" means whatever they want in every non-governmental organization. There is no legal or regulatory requirement for what a President does in a private organization. There are plenty of organizations that have CEOs and Presidents who quite literally do nothing other than collect a paycheck. There are high profile organizations that we're all familiar with who's CEO/President is also the CEO/President of multiple other organizations. They aren't putting in full work weeks in all of those orgs, their work is quite specific to whatever it is that organization has decided that "President" should do. I've known President's who are quite worthless, do nothing, and only have their job because their grandfather started the company... those companies are still mighty successful though.

What implications are there to witness first hand? I'm seriously asking you... can you name any? You have some you might be able to contrive, but you have zero evidence of any actual implications. Pop as President in Title Only doesn't negatively impact the club at all, because the club doesn't necessarily "need" a President. They have other people to do those roles typical done by a President (their CEO and GM, for starters). The Spurs may be perfectly content with President Pop making public appearances every now and then and weighing in occasionally whenever he has an opinion.

Why do you feel the need for "President" do fill a specific role. Quite literally: what does it matter?

 

[Shmurs]

Again - it’s not a made up job. Your company built a corporate framework unique to itself and it can manage that framework any which way.

The spurs exist in the NBA framework, which exists in the pro sports framework. And this is where the president sits as a layer of abstraction between the GM/team and the ownership. It’s a useful job that serves a purpose, which is why the job exists. Ownership is distanced from day to day operations and also has their own role to play. They should not have the GM reporting directly to them because the GM is too immersed in day to day, and it’s too difficult to reconcile the different points of view and arrive at a great outcome.

If we’ve decided that Wright should report directly to the ownership group, then does this empower wright in the correct ways? I would think no, it does not. And that the layer of abstraction is an important piece of long term organizational strategy. My own experience in executive life has made this obvious to me. But hey, spurs culture n’at. I guess this team is good to go however they want to do it.

 

[scott]

Again - it’s not a made up job. Your company built a corporate framework unique to itself and it can manage that framework any which way.

The spurs exist in the NBA framework, which exists in the pro sports framework. And this is where the president sits as a layer of abstraction between the GM/team and the ownership. It’s a useful job that serves a purpose, which is why the job exists. Ownership is distanced from day to day operations and also has their own role to play. They should not have the GM reporting directly to them because the GM is too immersed in day to day, and it’s too difficult to reconcile the different points of view and arrive at a great outcome.

If we’ve decided that Wright should report directly to the ownership group, then does this empower wright in the correct ways? I would think no, it does not. And that the layer of abstraction is an important piece of long term organizational strategy. My own experience in executive life has made this obvious to me. But hey, spurs culture n’at. I guess this team is good to go however they want to do it.

I don't know who Wright reports directly to, but I'd imagine it's not the ownership group... it's probably to the guy who you conveniently left out of your train of thought: The Team's CEO, RC Buford (who is also the guy the President of Basketball Operations likely reports to and has been reporting to).

The Spurs have built a corporate framework unique to itself and it can manage that framework any which way.

The NBA doesn't place requirements on how the Spurs manage themselves, other than it must have one (and only one) Governor, which is currently Peter J. Holt. How Holt sets up his organization is completely up to him. You seem to think that the term "President" carries some magical powers in NBA clubs... and if the President isn't carrying out his/her duty those things just don't get done... why would you think that? The Spurs are a functioning club with the league's 3rd best record. Whether Pop is secretly masterminding things behind the scenes or he's a total vegetable... the team seems to be carrying on fine. But here you are, concerned that maybe we have an empty chair in the front office.

So use a Shmursism... such a strange take.

 

[mo7888]

Again - it’s not a made up job. Your company built a corporate framework unique to itself and it can manage that framework any which way.

The spurs exist in the NBA framework, which exists in the pro sports framework. And this is where the president sits as a layer of abstraction between the GM/team and the ownership. It’s a useful job that serves a purpose, which is why the job exists. Ownership is distanced from day to day operations and also has their own role to play. They should not have the GM reporting directly to them because the GM is too immersed in day to day, and it’s too difficult to reconcile the different points of view and arrive at a great outcome.

If we’ve decided that Wright should report directly to the ownership group, then does this empower wright in the correct ways? I would think no, it does not. And that the layer of abstraction is an important piece of long term organizational strategy. My own experience in executive life has made this obvious to me. But hey, spurs culture n’at. I guess this team is good to go however they want to do it.

I think you're looking for an argument where non exists. The way the Spurs view the position seems to be one of President Emeritus. It's an honorary thing at this point... there's no harm or loss at any level..

 

[Shmurs]

Spurs creating their own framework with RC as CEO is a good point. See, there you go. I began this by asking this as a question and then I got an answer. Eventually. After pulling several teeth.

Pop has struggled with competency for several years. It’s not a contrivance or troll job to be concerned that he is either imposing poor decisions down the chain or interfering with good decisions, now that a stroke has compounded on top of his age and whatever else explains the last 8 years. I think his presence is still possibly a problem. Genuinely. Truly. But there is a CEO, as you said.

 

[scott]

Spurs creating their own framework with RC as CEO is a good point. See, there you go. I began this by asking this as a question and then I got an answer. Eventually. After pulling several teeth.

Pop has struggled with competency for several years. It’s not a contrivance or troll job to be concerned that he is either imposing poor decisions down the chain or interfering with good decisions, now that a stroke has compounded on top of his age and whatever else explains the last 8 years. I think his presence is still possibly a problem. Genuinely. Truly. But there is a CEO, as you said.

Eventually? I said it off the bat, literally in the first sentence of my post

It's also not a secret the Spurs have a CEO or like he's new or something... he's been CEO since 2019 when we hired Brian Wright.

What you view as "pulling several teeth" is just common public knowledge. And... was also included in the first sentence of my response to you in post #2531.

Is there anything you actually like about this team?

 

[CGD]

doesn't make much sense to me, but might just be a 3-team deal discussion for another player

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015945999819157827

We do have all the NOLA SRPs to send back

 

[Guru of Nothing]

I'd love it but don't see why Memphis would do it unless they think Sochan is a diamond in the rough their coaching staff could get way more out of than Mitch.

Holy shit, now it all makes sense! Mitch is intentionally putting the team through some trials and tribulations to boost Sohan's profile. It's a great plan I'll admit, up until the Spurs spurn a good offer, which they should - if Sochan is worth a good offer. Right?

 

[Shmurs]

Eventually? I said it off the bat, literally in the first sentence of my post

It's also not a secret the Spurs have a CEO or like he's new or something... he's been CEO since 2019 when we hired Brian Wright.

What you view as "pulling several teeth" is just common public knowledge. And... was also included in the first sentence of my response to you in post #2531.

Is there anything you actually like about this team?

I wouldn’t expect you to research anyone’s posting patterns but there’s quite a bit of positivity coming from me, if you can believe it.

I don’t have any defense of my reading comprehension misfire. That’s not a great moment in internet history. It would be pretty wild for me to even pretend like I’m on sturdy ground lol.

But yeah I post about things i like. I even will provide counter points when others are leaning into negativity about Vic leaving, Harper being ruined, etc. I post positive things about Fox but negative things about his contract and I think that confuses people for whatever reason. Doesn’t seem super nuanced but maybe it is.

 

[BacktoBasics]

The ATL pick will have a fractional chance at yielding one of the big ticket dudes. But there will be no certainty until lottery night.

We should trade the pick if there’s a trade to be made without worrying about what the potential draft pick would be. We aren’t very good at drafting and we also can’t fit more young guys into the lineup. If we get Caleb Wilson or whatever, swell. But planning around that is over. IMO.

Where would you rank our franchise as far as drafting goes? What do you consider “aren’t very good”.

Most players don’t pan out. I certainly wouldn’t put us in the bottom 3rd of drafting.

 

[BacktoBasics]

I wouldn’t expect you to research anyone’s posting patterns but there’s quite a bit of positivity coming from me, if you can believe it.

I don’t have any defense of my reading comprehension misfire. That’s not a great moment in internet history. It would be pretty wild for me to even pretend like I’m on sturdy ground lol.

But yeah I post about things i like. I even will provide counter points when others are leaning into negativity about Vic leaving, Harper being ruined, etc. I post positive things about Fox but negative things about his contract and I think that confuses people for whatever reason. Doesn’t seem super nuanced but maybe it is.

You said Fox has a diminishing skill set. How is that being positive?

FWIW I think your concerns around the size of his contract is relevant but GMs are well aware that he’s playing a different role than he used to play.

 

[RC_Drunkford]

I wouldn't trade a FRP for Aldama unless he agrees to opt out of his 27-28 option and extends for a reasonable price next summer.
If he hits FA in 2028 we won't be able to extend him and I'm not sure 2.5 seasons of Aldama are worth a FRP, especially if it's one of the Hawks picks.

that's 3 playoff runs for 1 first round pick. Makes complete sense. What doesn't make sense is trading future picks when we're in salary hell, but as far as trading one pick for 2 or 3 playoff runs: that's perfectly fine.

By the way Aldama doesn't have an option. It's a team option for the 27-28 season, so the Spurs could easily waive it and renegotiate.

 

[scott]

For a different name... what about Georges Niang, assuming that he can actually come back at 100% this season (I don't know about his injury, and if Utah is holding him out longer than necessary for "reasons").

He's historically been listed as a PF, but he's on the small side (6'6") and isn't a great rebounder (similar career rebound % as Barnes). But he can shoot (career .400 3P%). He'd be basically the same idea of what Barnes is supposed to give us.

Assuming he were healthy and he cost you basically nothing (maybe just Sochan), would anyone be interested in that? He's expiring and would absolutely just be a rental.

Just trying to think of some new ideas beyond just another John Collins idea.

 

[gospursgo91]

For a different name... what about Georges Niang, assuming that he can actually come back at 100% this season (I don't know about his injury, and if Utah is holding him out longer than necessary for "reasons").

He's historically been listed as a PF, but he's on the small side (6'6") and isn't a great rebounder (similar career rebound % as Barnes). But he can shoot (career .400 3P%). He'd be basically the same idea of what Barnes is supposed to give us.

Assuming he were healthy and he cost you basically nothing (maybe just Sochan), would anyone be interested in that? He's expiring and would absolutely just be a rental.

Just trying to think of some new ideas beyond just another John Collins idea.

he always looks out of shape. I rather not

 

[RC_Drunkford]

For a different name... what about Georges Niang, assuming that he can actually come back at 100% this season (I don't know about his injury, and if Utah is holding him out longer than necessary for "reasons").

He's historically been listed as a PF, but he's on the small side (6'6") and isn't a great rebounder (similar career rebound % as Barnes). But he can shoot (career .400 3P%). He'd be basically the same idea of what Barnes is supposed to give us.

Assuming he were healthy and he cost you basically nothing (maybe just Sochan), would anyone be interested in that? He's expiring and would absolutely just be a rental.

Just trying to think of some new ideas beyond just another John Collins idea.

I'll just leave this here. Could've gotten him basically for free in the offseason...

 

[inagra]

The Grizzlies might have bigger problems than roster management…

 

[Exstatic]

I've been wondering if Pop is behind the decision to play Castle as the primary PG which turns Fox into an off ball guard?

Jesus…

 

[Shmurs]

You said Fox has a diminishing skill set. How is that being positive?

FWIW I think your concerns around the size of his contract is relevant but GMs are well aware that he’s playing a different role than he used to play

Diminishing physical abilities. What is a diminishing skillset? Why would he lose his skill?

This is my first take on Fox, from a recent post in another thread:

“It’s hard not to love watching Fox play, and he’s been terrific overall.”

I then followed it up with a concern about his performance relative to a max contract. Are you…not concerned about that?

Or is your point that if you say nice things they don’t count if you’re also a big meanie about other things? Seems like that’s the argument.

 

[BacktoBasics]

Diminishing physical abilities. What is a diminishing skillset? Why would he lose his skill?

This is my first take on Fox, from a recent post in another thread:

“It’s hard not to love watching Fox play, and he’s been terrific overall.”

I then followed it up with a concern about his performance relative to a max contract. Are you…not concerned about that?

Or is your point that if you say nice things they don’t count if you’re also a big meanie about other things? Seems like that’s the argument.

Okay semantics.

No, I’m not concerned. I think he performs differently when he’s the primary ball handler.

Whether this lineup pans out is yet to be seen. So far it’s produced a top 5 team but I do see that recently some of the problems are showing.

I don’t believe that is a result of Fox’s contract or his “physical abilities”.

 

[FiestaSpurs]

I hope this isn't true.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2016304371508662542