D Grade - 8 votes (12.9%)
Of everyone polled, eight of you gave this trade a D. "This trade is a disaster," said @CamFlowers_.
"I graded this a D only because yes, there’s a slim chance this trade is a huge success. If SA gets the #1 pick after tanking next year or despite stealing Murray or Atlanta continues to be dysfunctional and falls apart, it could look great. But in my opinion, the Spurs just traded Murray for three picks in the 20s."
"Pop’s philosophy doesn’t include tanking," said @austinbritt. "The only way this move makes any sense to me is if the Spurs go fully into the tank and lose at least 62 games next season. I just don’t see it happening. It amounts to a quasi-rebuild but looks more like a rebuilding a future 7-8 seed team."
"The odds that any of these picks are going to substantially change the Spurs' chance of winning is low," added Lauren R. "It'll be a decade before this ship turns around, if ever. We could’ve just traded away the last chance at being a good team."
C Grade - 14 votes (tied with A Grade at 22.5%)
Nearly a quarter of those surveyed chose the middle ground answer of a C grade. "The timing doesn't make sense because unless they blew it on all of the recent draft picks, this team could probably still make the play in without Dejounte -- and that's the problem," said @dakmitch. "Personally, I'd happily max a player that averages 20 points, is an elite defender, and is only 25 years old. If Josh Primo, Devin Vassell, and Keldon Johnson are in line to take a leap, a tank feels unnecessary."
Air Alamo writer Jonah Kubicek was in agreement about the full tank. "Three picks is not a bad return by any means, but the protections are less than ideal. Plus, I don't want to tank any more. I'm from Detroit, I get enough of that up here."
Up next, I'll look at how most of you don't see this trade as a bad one after all.