What's new

Would trading for Teague be skipping steps?

Skipping steps?

  • No, this is exactly what we need.

    Votes: 11 34.4%
  • Yes, Gotta keep the cake baking.

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Yes, if we gave to much up.

    Votes: 15 46.9%
  • No, we need to use these assets.

    Votes: 5 15.6%

  • Total voters
    32
Not really. We are on the Popovich coaching tree now, which places high importance on the Ginobli role coming off the bench. He's not the kind of personality that would balk at that. He would destroy opposing second units, and he would still finish games like usual.



If you trade for Teague he starts in place of Neto and produces in Hood's place from a more advantageous position.

You start Johnson, and because Teague can shoot and pass and is quicker than either Hayward or Hood it opens up the entire floor for everyone.

Teague's foot speed allows him to penetrate and finish or kick out. He is going to find Hayward and our bigs for easy buckets and open shots all the time, and it will make our pace faster. That's the difference between starting a capable PG instead of two ball-handling wings.

Nah bruh. Not at all. You never start Chris Johnson over Rodney Hood.
 
Chris Johnson lacks the 3 point ability to be an effective starter in the vain of what the Spurs would do.

Also, the Spurs and Jazz are different teams.
 
oh, hahaha, I stopped reading after the first proposed trade (from the link just above). I just saw the second proposed deal... also totally improbable. Arm waving.
 
*shrug, maybe you're right, but they are still in danger of losing Bazemore for nothing. Some combo of Booker and Jazz picks might be the best they get offered.
 
He writes for CBS, so I thin he is above "amateur" status.

What did you think of the proposed trades in the article?

(I'm not really interested in the shift in conversation you've taken, since I don't care if we agree on the definition of amateur or the quality of CBS Sports' online content.)
 
I have no idea. I'm still catching up to the new calculus that came along with this cap explosion. Anyway, the point is that they're not trading him.

Whatever you think is too much... add $5M to it... he will get overpaid. The FA pool is small, especially at that position, and almost every team has $$$$.

This is the reason I would retain Burks. He plays a position of need and if he can get healthy his value goes up... then all these teams that miss out on FA targets and see the dollars out there and Burks looks like a steal.
 
Matt Moore is decent... the trades were not great. they weren't Bill Simmons bad though.
 
Back
Top