So, I'm going to give one more attempt at having a conversation with you rather than just receiving a hostile argument. Ignoring all the stuff about the forum, just addressing the stuff about the team itself.
"Fair value" is a completely subjective term. I've addressed this in other threads. A player is worth: A) what other teams are willing to give, or B) what that player will contribute to the team's future goals. Sounds like you're primarily concerned about the second, and again, that's subjective based on one's perception of Ant's future prospects vis-a-vis Scoot/Sharpe. Personally, I don't see him as part of the future, so I really only see his value as being defined by what other teams are willing to give. And personally, I really don't see
that value changing over the course of this coming season--but of course that's just opinion and guesswork.
I will agree with you that Ant is not the reason the team sucked as a whole defensively. However, he individually certainly sucked defensively, and it's hard to project him improving much defensively, as you agree below.
As for offense, I agree again with you that he did not really impact Scoot/Sharpe's offensive effectiveness--neither hurting nor helping. And really, this is the problem, given that when he starts, he is the primary ball-handler, but his game is really not one that sets the table for his teammates. He is more an is0-player offensively, generally being more interested in calling his own number on offense than others'. Which, I think, is why most project Ant's best role on a team as a 6th-man lethal scorer rather than as a backcourt starter. And honestly, I would
love to believe that he would willingly accept that role when/if Scoot surpasses him as starting PG (yes, I believe that Ant will
and should start at PG to begin this season), but I don't see him being happy in that role, nor do I believe that the front-office would be satisfied having someone in that role long-term while making starter money. Could he be the next Ginobili, moving into a reserve role in his prime for the good of the team (let's note that he was 29 when that happened)? Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Nobody thinks that Scoot/Sharpe are yet good defenders, and nobody has claimed that. The general consensus is that Scoot has the body type, athleticism, and mentality to develop into someone who will be effective on that end, and that Sharpe has the height/length to be significantly less of a liability in that regard at the SG spot than Ant is. Yes, it's
possible to mask a terrible defender, but it's certainly
preferable not to have to. And despite your previous excoriation of defensive metrics, league history has plenty of examples of players who were ineffective defensively at age 19 who grew into effective defenders by the time they reached their prime. It's not unreasonable to believe that Scoot/Sharpe can do the same.
This is obviously speculative, as is admittedly everybody's presumption of improvement from Scoot/Sharpe. But again, it's much more reasonable, likely, and historically supportable to expect significant improvement from guys who have yet to play an NBA game past age 20.5 than it is from a guy who's been in the league 6 years already. Is there some room for improvement for Ant? Sure. But it's hard to dispute that he's much more likely to be near his peak level of performance.
So--and
please correct/clarify if I'm wrong here--it sounds like you're acknowledging that Ant's primary value to the team is not as a building block for the future, but as a piece to
- aid in the development in the guys Cronin has specifically identified as the future of the franchise, and
- be dealt for assets that will actually be part of the team's future.
If that is in fact your position, then I think we are all in agreement here.
