Without a doubt. Lowry shut up a lot haters these last 3 weeks.
Depending on how the games are called, i can see him stifling Steph a bit.
The 2nd Season - 2019 Playoff Thread
- Thread starter ElUno20
- Start date
Depending on how the games are called, i can see him stifling Steph a bit.
Seems like Kerr may have already found the "smart bball person" best suited to answer this exact question...
In terms of personnel, I'd assume it'll take a village — likely some combo of Andre, Klay, Draymond, Looney, and McKinnie, plus KD (whose length has typically been a problem for Kawhi) if and when he returns.
Last edited:
Yeah, I want to be clear that I don't think that Danny made the wrong decision at the time. Kawhi's health was a very real concern, and Jaylen was probably too high a price to pay, given that concern. From Toronto's perspective it was a lot like the Blake Griffin situation: they had a contract they didn't really want, and that was probably an overpay over its lifetime, but that another team saw as an asset. Boston was mostly unlucky in that the chips they had in Brown and Tatum were too good given Kawhi's status, and that the chips they had that were in the right price range (picks) didn't match Pop's timeline/vet preference.
I do think that the way this season went for Toronto will affect how Danny approaches AD--there are no health concerns there, just contract ones, so he will go for it, regardless of AD's contract situation (where go for it = a Tatum+ package).
It’s hyperbole, but it was low-key a pretty shitty trade by the Spurs, especially when you take into consideration that:
- they draft and develop really well
- they have an intriguing young core
Getting DeRozan as the centerpiece of the trade rather than picks looked meh at the time, and doesn’t look tons better now.
It was a serious question - I couldn't tell if his hyperbole was slanted toward comedy or analysis. Obviously the trade doesn't look great in hindsight, but Kawhi's stock couldn't have been any lower when he was dealt, and the Spurs a) absolutely had to deal him, and b) had no way of raising that stock any higher. I'm also inclined to believe that Pop wasn't, and isn't, going to stick around for a full melt-it-down rebuild. So what else could the Spurs have done?
Not much, the problem is (c) — you don’t want your organization and coach/GM to have mismatched timelines/incentives. That’s how you get Billy King’d. The Spurs didn’t get screwed that badly, but Pop’s timeline absolutely hurt them here.
How much of the Spurs draft/development pipeline is down to Pop himself, though? Because if his skills are absolutely integral to that development process - and I don't know of any reason to really believe they aren't - then taking a chance on DeRozan seems to make at least as much sense as rolling the dice on youth *and* trusting that your pipeline won't break down after Pop retires (sooner rather than later).
I'm all-in on Davis as well but let's not kid ourselves about his durability. In 5 of AD's 7 season he's missed 14 or more games due to injury. He may not have any major injuries going on but he seems to be one or two chromosomes away from having been born as a piece of glass.
Personally, I think it got personal. Spurs were asking about 100X more assets from LAL and BOS and PHI than they got from TOR. Sure it's all rumours, but multiple reports had SAS asking for Ingram, Brown, or Simmons plus picks plus swaps and in the end all they got was DeRozen, Poetl, and some salary relief.
SAS surely could have had at least one of the SAC/MEM picks; I'm pretty sure they could have had Ingram and Kuzma; and they certainly could have had the same package the Clippers got for Harris.
The craziest thing about the entire trade to me is that the Spurs have a great analytics department and as Bowiac and others have pointed out on multiple occasions, DeRozen's game is not liked by analytics.
Plus they already have a great mid-range guy in Aldridge.
Unless there is a weird financial reason going on in SAS - they think their fans won't tolerate missing the playoffs - the only logical reason for SAS taking DeRozen is that Pop was sending KL as far away - both geographically and culturally - from LA as possible.
So yes, it was a terrible trade. Top 10? I don't know but certainly worst trade of the year as far as I can remember.
Aldridge’s presence really complicated things. Spurs should have traded Kawhi for best young package of players/picks and done the same for LMA. If you miss the playoffs, the Zion draft is as good as any to do so. Now they’re stuck with either paying for DD’s decline years or basically giving away Kawhi for nothing.
The Celtics/Nets trade near the top, Harden to Houston, Clipps wanting to dump 1 fn year of Baron Davis and including the Kyrie pick, there have been some really bad ones. Still, i think the KL trade is knocking on the top 10 door. Especially if the Raps pull off the miracle.
How far back are we talking here? Are we counting, say, Red getting Russell for
I mean, it’s El Uno. I’d take it as hyperbole slanted towards hot-takery. ;-P
As you point out, if you’re gonna make a fair list you have to factor in leverage (or lack thereof). Kawhi had one year left on his contract, was demanding a trade, and had just sat out an entire year with a mysterious/chronic ailment. Still think the Spurs did poorly (and said so at the time) but “bottom 10 trade ever” is silly. With DeRozan and Poeltl playing big roles, the Spurs grabbed the 7 seed in a brutal Western Conference — their 22nd straight playoff appearance — took their first round series to 7 games, and were possibly a couple of possessions from meeting the Warriors in the WCF.
That said, If I were their GM I’d have loved to add at least one young blue-chipper to put with DeJounte Murray and Derrick White (who I think have potential to be a fantastic backcourt tandem over the next decade) instead of an overpaid replacement level 29 y.o. small forward.
As far as nominations for worst trade, McHale and Parish for Joe Barry Carroll has to be right up there...
On the other hand it might be pretty funny if Klutch strikes out in the Davis Sweepstakes and free agency and the Spurs end up turning DeRozan’s expiring deal into Ingram+.
Between Draymond and Klay, they have a couple of pretty good options for defending Kawhi. He's obviously going to be a handful no matter what though.
Rick Robey for Dennis Johnson probably wasn't the worst, but it has to be high on the list.
I agree. And really don't get why an NBA franchise would allow the personal to get in the way of their professional interest. It's the same with the Pelicans and Anthony Davis -- it's gotta kill Griffin that he's got a president who apparently openly wants to exclude a potential bidder from the sweepstakes. Just so minor league.
Don’t forget that the Parish-McHale trade was built on another trade. The Celtics signed ML Carr and were required to give compensation to the Pistons. Auerbach negotiated that the compensation would be two first round picks going FROM DETROIT TO BOSTON - which turned into the #1 and #13 picks he traded to the Warriors - for Bob McAdoo, who Red did not want to keep.
ED: the Pistons trade was after the 1979 season, so right before Bird’s rookie year.
ED: the Pistons trade was after the 1979 season, so right before Bird’s rookie year.
The Pippen deal is as good as it gets but another that hasn’t been mentioned is the Nets trading an unprotected 1st rounder to Portland for the severely overrated Gerald Wallace. I believe that guy Lillard is still witn the Blazers.
In the early days of Free Agency, if a team wanted to sign a player from another team, they had to trade picks as compensation, which sounds ludicrous today but it was a different time and most franchises didn't understand the value of draft picks.
In 1976 the Jazz signed Gail Goodrich from the Lakers, and agreed to send THREE first round picks to the Lakers, in 77, 78 and 79. Goodrich blew out his Achilles his first season in New Orleans, and played two more seasons after, playing okay (14 ppg over three years) but never great before retiring. In 1977, the first round pick ended up sixth in the draft and the Lakers took Kenny Carr. In 1978, they traded the 8th overall pick to Boston as part of a deal to get Charlie Scott. In 1979, that pick ended up being the #1 overall pick and the Lakers took...Magic Johnson. So New Orleans traded the pick that would become Magic Johnson, for three ho-hum Gail Goodrich years.
In 1976 the Jazz signed Gail Goodrich from the Lakers, and agreed to send THREE first round picks to the Lakers, in 77, 78 and 79. Goodrich blew out his Achilles his first season in New Orleans, and played two more seasons after, playing okay (14 ppg over three years) but never great before retiring. In 1977, the first round pick ended up sixth in the draft and the Lakers took Kenny Carr. In 1978, they traded the 8th overall pick to Boston as part of a deal to get Charlie Scott. In 1979, that pick ended up being the #1 overall pick and the Lakers took...Magic Johnson. So New Orleans traded the pick that would become Magic Johnson, for three ho-hum Gail Goodrich years.
raptors having a better regular season record, plus whatever bonus the Ws get for postseason history being I guess canceled out by no Durant= a still broken formula
That was an underplayed karmic subplot to New Orleans boning the Lakeshow in the Anthony Davis deal 42 years later.
We may think that getting back draft picks and young assets was the right way to go, but teams have different agendas. Draft picks and filler would have sent them into tank mode. Sometimes that's simply not where teams want to be.
DeRozan sucks in most advanced analytics, but he's a known NBA player and put up points. They got into the playoffs and will reevaluate their roster this offseason as usual. They didn't want to tank. It's that simple.
I mean, that’s obvious. But this is a franchise who set up their dynasty by tanking. I think they made a mistake but easy for me to say.
I agree completely. If any team has earned the goodwill of the fans, it's those guys. A futures trade was the way to go. But some teams act differently. Hell, HRB defends Chris Wallace for making his teams nice profits while guaranteeing a zero percent chance of making the finals like ever. C'est la vie. We don't all have the same goals.
They should have won the 2017 ECF and would have if they hadn't pissed down their legs in Game 7. They were the better team and Cleveland was only given the 47% because of LeBron.
If Toronto wins, are they the first NBEh Champions?
In 2017 the Celtics lost 4-1 to CLE and were outscored by 100 points in the series
We lost the 4 games by 13, 44. 13 and 33 while squeaking out a G3 win. How is “should have won the 2017 EFC” rationalized in any manner here?
That's extremely and abundantly clear, considering a Game 7 was referenced.(no Game 7 in 2017, for obvious reasons)
I’ve preached this forever. To play the game, any game or competition, at the highest level you have to truly believe with every fiber in your body that you are the best at doing what you do. Doesn’t matter if you’re LeBron, Draymond, IT, or TJ McConnell......if you have any inkling of doubt you aren’t the best you would never have gotten as far as you did.
Have to say I can't get too upset at the Raps getting to the finals. It has had a postive effect on Basketball in Canada. Movie theaters will be showing the games for free, already more kids signing up for basketball next year, TSN has stopped being Leafs central. It is great to see hoops lead off the sports each night in Canada.
I was in Toronto the night the won the series against Milwaukee. The only thing I've seen that was similar was being in Rome in 2006 when Italy won the World Cup. It was crazy.
