PDA

View Full Version : Youčre a GM, and Pop and Jerry West call you...



JasonJohnHorn
10-24-2017, 11:26 PM
Here's the scenario.

It's the day after draft day, and you got a second round pick you think you like, but you're going to wait until training camp before you get to excited. You are thinking about giving him a partially guaranteed 2-year deal.


Then, you get a call from the Spurs. They ask if you are interested is trading the guy (they'll give you cash and a future second pick or two if you press).

The Warriors call up and make a similar inquiry.

Jerry West calls an inquires about the same guy.


What do you do?

kobe4thewinbang
10-25-2017, 12:08 AM
If I were a GM, I would be the type that wants the team to "develop naturally." We've seen players that went undrafted or got picked late or fell in the draft far from mock predictions, and they turn out to be quality role players, stars or even superstars. There's the factor of the unknown, and of course injury possibilities.

But if they called me, unless the offer was for a great current player or enough players that makes up for the loss, I would keep my new draftee or at least play hard ball. Because our team's scouts would've hopefully done their homework and been in communication with me about the pick we chose.

So, yeah. I'd play hard ball, and only take an offer that helps my team immediately and compensates for the loss of the draftee to enough extent. Plus, the Warriors, Clippers and Spurs seem to make decent trade offers and are reputable organizations. I would be pro-relationship building with other teams and other GMs, but only if it helps my team at the end of the day.

Look at Danny Ainge hoarding his youngsters, or even the Lakers holding onto Ingram and whatnot. The Spurs too, of course. And the Nuggets. And Jazz. I think it's proven that a slow burn true rebuild works and you don't need to tank.

I'd probably be a bit suspicious if the Spurs want my guy, as I would respect their "eye for gems" and probably interpret it as them showing their cards too early. I'd probably most take the Clippers offer, mostly because I don't recall many Warriors trades lately or Spurs trades. The Clippers are more trade-centric and asset-heavy, I think.

mngopher35
10-25-2017, 12:18 AM
Seems like the logical thing to do in this scenario is keep him to me. I supposedly kinda like him (or think I do), other offers are weak (maybe 2 2nds), and two greats are actively targeting him?

He's staying put.

jaydubb
10-25-2017, 12:50 AM
If I was a GM, I personally wouldn't take a ton of stock into what other GMs say.. I'd trust my team of scouts, why would I pay them if I'm not going to use their input? They were all interviewed and hired because they were found to have an ability to find talent.. What other GMs say is slightly important but I'd trust my team more imo regardless of the reputation of some of these guys you listed, if not, that's when teams fall into bad trades and "perceived value made up by other GMs".

I'd stick to the draft board. If the player selected in the 2nd round was rated as a late 1st on our board, then I'd keep him.. If he was rated on our board at around the spot where he was selected, I'd trade him for the highest bidder. I wouldn't let GMs from other teams determine the value of a player that was just selected by my team

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-25-2017, 09:52 AM
sign the player to a max contract


kidding, but in reality, the Spurs are masters at developing too. I have watched my Wolves squander talent for 30 years. The Spurs can somehow turn Helen Keller into a productive corner 3 point shooter.

Smart teams are betting at scouting, and the biggest thing, developing. They also know when to cut ties at the right time. Bad teams are bad at all 3, which is why they remain bad. Ie, my Wolves..

IndyRealist
10-25-2017, 10:49 AM
I would look at the Spurs/Warriors draft positions relative to mine. If they passed on him with their own picks it shows they don't really have THAT high of an opinion of him. They could be looking for cheap filler to even out their JV squad.

If he went before their picks, they value him more and were hoping he'd drop. At minimum I'd ask for their 2nd round pick, a future pick, and cash.

But it's a weird question, because these trades happen on draft day, when the Spurs/Warriors don't have to reveal who they are targeting. In the 2nd round it could be anybody.

JasonJohnHorn
10-25-2017, 11:50 AM
sign the player to a max contract


kidding, but in reality, the Spurs are masters at developing too. I have watched my Wolves squander talent for 30 years. The Spurs can somehow turn Helen Keller into a productive corner 3 point shooter.

Smart teams are betting at scouting, and the biggest thing, developing. They also know when to cut ties at the right time. Bad teams are bad at all 3, which is why they remain bad. Ie, my Wolves..

This is a great point. I made this thread as kind of tongue in cheek. You see other GM's that always pick right love the guy you got: you think you did a great job.

However, the truth of the matter is, with very few exceptions (I'm talking about Richard Jefferson), pretty much everybody who has played in SAS has played their best ball in SAS. They have a system that works and a player development staff that is amazing (hence why Brett Brown still has a job in Philly even after posting the worst 4-seasons stretch in NBA history).

Even if you keep a guy they think they could mould into a quality rotation player or star, who is to say that that player would develop anywhere else? Would Leonard be the player he is today if he had been drafted by the Bucks? Or the Kings? Or would he just be Kris Middleton? Who is great, but not an All-Star at this time.

I use Roger Mason as an example. He was fighting for a spot in the league. Was a rotation player on a fringe playoff team in the East, and then posts career highs in SAS and is a rotation player on a title contender. Leaves SAS, and his career as a rotation player is pretty much over.

Other guys have thrived (Bowen, Blair, Splitter) who struggle else where, and some guys who had better personal seasons elsewhere saw their best team success with the Spurs (Barry, Finley, Jackson) and others have seen their careers extended when it seemed like they were about over.


I really feel like how a player pans out in this league is dependant on their situation and not simply their personal drive (though that is an critical factor as well).

Some teams want a guy to go out there and produce and don't have the patience to develop (JJ is a great example in Boston: they dumped him early). Other teams try to put a player into a role and expect them to fill it, and that player may excel at another role but not the one they have in mind.

The great teams will see what a player does best, and where he has the most potential, and mentor him in a way that will help him reach his potential.

Phil Jackson was like this in the early days in Chi-town. As an assistant, he spent a lot of time developing Pippen and Grant (Pippen especially). Pippen's numbers early were underwhelming though promising. This was a climate where rookies came in as full grown men and posted nearly 20/10 seasons regularly in their first or second season (Hakeem, Sampson, Ewing, Coleman, Larry Johnson, Barkley, Thorpe, Nance, Malone ect). Pippen was a lottery pick that didn't even make the All-Rookie team or break double digits. At 23, he was posting a measly 14 points a game when McGrady was averaging over double that as the same age. Some teams would give up on a guy like that, but Jackson took the time to develop him and he became a HOFer.

I feel like some teams have the personal (and patience) to develop guys. Darko, for example, could have been an amazing NBA talent, but Larry Brown is an @$$#013 who treats rookies like garbage (even if he as a great coach). Had Darko been brought in by the Spurs, he would have had a drastically different career. Other teams don't. Consequently, some great players end up being washed up because of their context.

The truly truly great players will always end up leaving their mark, though the immensity of their legacy will still depend on context (Drexler, Richmond and Gervin could have all been considered as great as Kobe were Kobe in a losing situation and these guys paired with Shaq as a rookie). But guys like Pippen... were they in a different environment coming into the league, they could end up getting swept up and forgotten in a world where people expect immediate results and will pass up on guys and move them around when they don't get what they want.

valade16
10-25-2017, 12:40 PM
Here are the Spurs second round picks since 2000:

Cady Lalanne
Jordan McRae
Cory Jefferson
Deshaun Thomas
Marcus Denmon
Adam Hanga
Ryan Richards
DeJuan Blair
Jack McClinton
Nando De Colo
Goran Dragic
James Gist
Marcus Williams
Giorgos Printezis
Damir Markota
Romain Sato
Sergei Karaulov
Luis Scola
Randy Holcomb
Robertas Javtokas
Bryan Bracey


The Spurs liking the prospect is by no means a guarantee they are NBA caliber.

tredigs
10-25-2017, 01:08 PM
Here are the Spurs second round picks since 2000:

Cady Lalanne
Jordan McRae
Cory Jefferson
Deshaun Thomas
Marcus Denmon
Adam Hanga
Ryan Richards
DeJuan Blair
Jack McClinton
Nando De Colo
Goran Dragic
James Gist
Marcus Williams
Giorgos Printezis
Damir Markota
Romain Sato
Sergei Karaulov
Luis Scola
Randy Holcomb
Robertas Javtokas
Bryan Bracey


The Spurs liking the prospect is by no means a guarantee they are NBA caliber.

Hawk's points are sound/true, but this is the zinger. Bear in mind that out of their 21 2nd round draft picks, all but 3 were complete busts, and the only two solid players they had (Dragic and Scola), they proceeded to trade on draft night for would-be nobodies.

Still, Manu/TP back in the day and Kawhi at 15 has been developed as well as any player we have seen (granted 2 of the 3 were 1st rounders, but not lotto picks).

valade16
10-25-2017, 01:29 PM
Hawk's points are sound/true, but this is the zinger. Bear in mind that out of their 21 2nd round draft picks, all but 3 were complete busts, and the only two solid players they had (Dragic and Scola), they proceeded to trade on draft night for would-be nobodies.

Still, Manu/TP back in the day and Kawhi at 15 has been developed as well as any player we have seen (granted 2 of the 3 were 1st rounders, but not lotto picks).

I will say they have done a good job of developing their late 1st round picks into contributors such as Murray, Kyle Anderson, Cory Joseph, Tiago Splitter, and Beno Udrih.

Obviously them hitting on Parker/Manu and then Kawhi has sustained their winning. But in terms of 2nd round picks, they really haven't signed and developed anyone notable outside Manu, and I don't know how much they developed him as he was already a seasoned professional by the time he came to SA.

mngopher35
10-25-2017, 01:57 PM
I still don't get why if you like your 2nd rounder you would trade him for 2 2nds and cash. The Spurs/west calling are such a small part of this to me lol. It's not like I would keep him off limits in a trade but given how 2nds are used/valued I think a player I like is worth more.

mrblisterdundee
10-25-2017, 02:32 PM
I would press even more for a first-round pick if they're so interested.

JasonJohnHorn
10-25-2017, 05:50 PM
I will say they have done a good job of developing their late 1st round picks into contributors such as Murray, Kyle Anderson, Cory Joseph, Tiago Splitter, and Beno Udrih.

Obviously them hitting on Parker/Manu and then Kawhi has sustained their winning. But in terms of 2nd round picks, they really haven't signed and developed anyone notable outside Manu, and I don't know how much they developed him as he was already a seasoned professional by the time he came to SA.

Well... keeping in mind that their 'first round' picks, if selected in the 90's or 80's would be second round picks (they are usually picking between 25-30, which was the second round back then), even their first round picks are pretty impressive.

I'm old school... so I really view and pick past twenty as being 'second round', though it's technically not. Anything past 20 is a LONG shot (and that's where the Spurs are always picking)... and any picks generally between 1-20 you have a Black-jacks' probability of getting a rotation player, and craps table chance of getting an All-Star.

I mean... if you look at the team... the Spurs have done better with late firsts than most teams have done with a multitude of lottery picks. That's amazing. They got lucky in the lotto twice with D-Rob and Duncan, but their late firsts have filled out their roster and have made them a contender. The 76ers, Bucks, Nets, Clippers.... some of these teams have had decades worth of lottery picks without so much success.

valade16
10-25-2017, 06:57 PM
Well... keeping in mind that their 'first round' picks, if selected in the 90's or 80's would be second round picks (they are usually picking between 25-30, which was the second round back then), even their first round picks are pretty impressive.

I'm old school... so I really view and pick past twenty as being 'second round', though it's technically not. Anything past 20 is a LONG shot (and that's where the Spurs are always picking)... and any picks generally between 1-20 you have a Black-jacks' probability of getting a rotation player, and craps table chance of getting an All-Star.

I mean... if you look at the team... the Spurs have done better with late firsts than most teams have done with a multitude of lottery picks. That's amazing. They got lucky in the lotto twice with D-Rob and Duncan, but their late firsts have filled out their roster and have made them a contender. The 76ers, Bucks, Nets, Clippers.... some of these teams have had decades worth of lottery picks without so much success.

But the only All-Stars the Spurs have drafted that late are Parker and Ginobili. They've done a good job of getting rotation players that late, but they haven't hit on an all-star that late in a long time.