A Steph Curry trade would cost the Spurs more than De'Aaron Fox

Steph Curry is the new pie-in-the-sky target for would-be dealmakers for the Spurs this offseason. How to save the final years of the NBA's all-time greatest shooter from irrelevance has become a group project. Of course, as Sam Quinn points out, Curry would need to be an active participant in his own rescue.

Golden State wouldn't trade the best player in their franchise's history—the man who brought them four championships—unless he asked them to. Enter San Antonio...

"If he said 'I want to go to the Spurs,' I'd have no problem taking on De'Aaron Fox." - Sam Quinn via Third Apron Podcast

Now, true to Sam's credit, he didn't say these discussions were happening, and he didn't predict they would. He offered a(nother) hypothetical scenario that would allow Golden State to pivot toward the future. It's just not the first time we've heard these "Fox for Curry" ideas. I'm just not on board.

The Spurs don't need a Steph Curry Hail Mary

Quinn said it himself, Curry may be looked at as a top-10 guy now, but we can't guarantee that will be the case in six months. We can't even claim confidence that he'll be on the floor. The game-changing marksman has runner's knee, and that's not something that goes away. He'll be dealing with it for the rest of his career.

San Antonio just made it to the NBA Finals on the strength of their depth. Had they lost in the first round, it'd be one thing, but this isn't a team that needs saving. They'd have to tack on another player to make the money work, cutting into a strength for an aging star nearing 39 whose championship window is significantly shorter than the rest of the roster's.

There's always the chance Curry is willing to re-sign at a much lower number. But do the Silver and Black really want to put that much stock in a player who would turn 40 next season? That doesn't seem like smart business, and the Spurs have been all about making forward-thinking decisions.

Let's say the pieces in question to be moved are Fox and Keldon Johnson. KJ seems to be on his way out anyway, so that seems like less of an issue. It still puts SA in a position to either hope Steph re-signs or be without a backup point guard going forward, since Stephon Castle and Dylan Harper will be starting by then.

Flexibility is the Spurs' greatest asset

I'd much rather see the Spurs trade Keldon Johnson somewhere else to gather assets in preparation to replace Fox once he does leave. There's no indication San Antonio will move him after the coming year, so we could be looking at several years with a deep guard rotation filled with talent.

That won't make the Harper fanatics happy, but keeping talent on the team for as long as possible is a good thing. Trading Fox to acquire Steph will speed up the Spurs' clock, because suddenly, every major decision becomes about maximizing the next year or two instead of preserving the next five.

Most people are just looking at this like it's just a simple player exchange between Fox and Curry. However, it's more about flexibility vs. commitment. Currently, the Spurs can keep Swipa for three years, trade him next summer, or trade him in two years.

They can keep all of their picks, or they could trade some. Another star could become available, and patience might make that option possible. Harper and Castle also get to develop with a strong safety net.

Every one of those options is still alive, but a Curry trade kills most of them.

Again, Quinn didn't necessarily do anything wrong with his hypothetical. It's reasonable from the Golden State's perspective. But it takes two to tango, and a deal like this doesn't make much sense from San Antonio's side.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow