Spurs mailbag: Five questions on a Friday
What happened with Chip Engelland? How does the ownership change affect the Spurs? Will the team be more open with fans during the rebuild? How much more does Pop have left in the tank?
A big “thank you” to everyone who submitted questions for our first run at the Corporate Knowledge mailbag, both on the publication and on Twitter. I enjoyed answering these, so please let me know if you’d like to see a regular installment as the season approaches and eventually tips off.
Q: Do we understand any more about what drove Chip (Engelland) to leave? The Spurs being so private is great and I get it as a business model (loose lips sink ships), but it definitely leaves fans scratching their heads sometimes.
I wish I could give you more, but beyond a couple of vague text conversations, I’ve got next to nothing on the Engelland front. It’s probably no surprise — as it really fits the Spurs’ general vibe — but Chip is a very private person. We will likely learn a bit more over time, particularly as the season closes in, but as of now we’re left just trying to make a barely educated guess. Though for whatever it’s worth, I’m not sure will ever know the full scope of what happened in negotiations. Disclosing details like that just isn’t how these parties operate.
ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski reported in July the Oklahoma City Thunder had hired Chip as an assistant after the Spurs and Engelland could not agree on a new contract. While money is always a factor in any contract negotiation, I find it difficult to believe it was the only one here. It’s commonplace in the NBA for cost-cutting to occur along the bench at the beginning of a rebuild when the roster is in a state of flux, but with Pop still running the show and Brett Brown being re-hired as an assistant, that doesn’t seem like a direction in which the team was heading. Then again, Chip has long been one of the highest-paid assistants in the league, so absent that additional context it would make at least a bit of sense if money was part of the issue.
Again, I don’t know the answer here, but these types of things happen whenever a team fully commits to a rebuild by trading its star for draft picks. It typically isn’t just player personnel that goes through turnover.
Let’s take a look at things from the 61-year-old Engelland’s perspective. If San Antonio’s offseason has made one thing clear it’s that the roster situation is fluid and will be for some time. It’s highly unlikely you’ll see guys like Doug McDermott and Josh Richardson in Spurs jerseys for too much longer, and you can bet teams will continue to come calling for Jakob Poeltl.
And as crazy as it might seem at this juncture, there’s no guarantee Keldon Johnson, Devin Vassell, Zach Collins, etc… will be on the roster in the long run either. As San Antonio amasses talent in the draft — so long as they draft well — young players may come in and push the incumbents for roles. And if you’re asking the Spurs, this is a situation they’re probably hoping for as they look ahead to what will likely be a string of top-5 or top-10 selections. The more in-house competition, the better. But it would also likely mean more trades down the road.
Considering this state of flux, it would be fair of Chip (and the Spurs, from a financial perspective) to question his role at the moment. Is he here to coach a group of players that may or may not be around in the coming years, or even in the coming months? And with an Oklahoma City team that’s preparing to load up behind Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Josh Giddey, Chet Holmgren, and whoever they draft next summer, the idea of coaching a young core that desperately needs to improve its shooting has to be attractive. The Thunder also hired longtime Sixers executive Vince Rozman away from Philadelphia, so they’re clearly ready to move past their own “tank” stage (though the Holmgren injury has cast a pall on the upcoming season). And not for nothing, those hires could not have been cheap.
The opportunity in Oklahoma City is a very good one — arguably better than the one he’s leaving behind. And if it comes with a pay raise to boot, there’s plenty of reason to take advantage.
Q: Also, in light of him leaving, who takes over this role now? Is it one that we, the fans, overvalue because Chip had been routinely gushed about by ESPN and other media folks? How big of a deal is it and where do we go from here?
There’s a certain level of celebrity that comes with being considered an elite shooting coach in the NBA, and Engelland earned those stripes. His initial claim to fame was being the guy who helped Steve Kerr shape his shot, and over the years in San Antonio he helped mold the strokes of many players, from Tony Parker, to Kawhi Leonard, to Keldon Johnson.
But beyond that, he’s simply been a steady, calming influence for the Spurs during his 17 years on Pop’s bench. The consistency, the familiarity, the dependability — it will all be missed, and he’s not someone you can replace overnight. Change is inevitable, however, and who knows what Engelland is looking for at this point of his career? I’m sure San Antonio would’ve loved to keep him around, but sometimes them’s the breaks in this business.
As for your questions, we as a sports-consuming society tend to overvalue coaching in general. It absolutely matters, but it will never be as important as the talent on the court. There were great shooting coaches out there prior to Chip, there are great shooting coaches currently in the NBA not named Engelland (many would argue Pelicans assistant Fred Vinson is the current title-holder of “best in the league”), and there will be many more to come in the future. Whoever that is for San Antonio remains to be seen, but with the relationships the Spurs have both in this country and abroad, you can bet their network is far-reaching.
And the next person to fill that role has some work ahead of them. Despite Engelland’s excellence, San Antonio hasn’t exactly been lighting the world on fire in recent years. Outside of Johnson’s spike in 3-point percentage, there hasn’t been much improvement in the shooting department among the team’s young players — on paper at least.
Dejounte Murray developed into a very consistent mid-range shooter, but his 3-point shot never quite followed suit; Derrick White and Lonnie Walker IV each saw significant dips in percentages during their last two seasons in San Antonio; Vassell saw slight improvement from his first season to his second, but he has yet to prove he can do it consistently; and Poeltl hasn’t been able to overcome his free-throw shooting woes since arriving in the Leonard trade.
Now enter Jeremy Sochan and Blake Wesley, two players who came into the draft with poor shooting numbers in college. If either is going to reach his potential, those percentages are going to have to come up considerably. There’s much to be done, but now there’s time to do it. The Spurs just need to find the right man or woman (or men or women) for the job.
Q: What is the involvement, if any, of the newer ownership groups, including the private-equity firm and Michael Dell?
I wrote a little more in-depth about this subject earlier this summer, but the short of it is Peter J. Holt was elevated to managing partner at the same time Michael Dell and Sixth Street Partners acquired a combined 30-percent stake in the team, and several months before Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia purchased additional minority shares in January of this year. Put simply, this gives Holt outright control of the franchise.
But that doesn’t minimize the importance of the new ownership group. As partners and members of the board, Dell and Gebbia have bought in to help execute the franchise’s growth strategy in south-central Texas and across the border into Mexico. So while they do not have ultimate decision-making power, they will certainly have input in the Spurs’ direction moving forward in San Antonio.
Sixth Street is a bit of a different story. By NBA rule, private-equity firms do not get a seat on the board, so they are essentially silent partners. Their value lies in the financial flexibility they can provide teams. From managing debt and services, to offering bridges and connections to partnerships through other investments they may have, to being available for cash calls if and when they’re needed, private equity is here to invest in the cash cow that is professional sports, and they’ve got the money to help facilitate growth.
The restructuring provides a more streamlined ownership hierarchy after 13 shareholders sold their shares in the consolidation. Fewer voices in the room means fewer agendas and opinions on direction, as well as more stability. And from a basketball perspective, the newest owners are not in town to meddle. Holt and Co. have always allowed the front office and coaching staff to do their jobs, and that will not change moving forward.
Q: Sam Presti made headlines earlier this year when he opened himself up for media availability at the end of the Thunder season, taking every press question until none were left. Historically, the Spurs have been tight-lipped, and rightly so, as winning games answers many questions. But as fans decide whether to spend hard-earned money to attend games, should Brian Wright be willing to have longer media availability or make himself available to San Antonio media via other outlets (i.e. Hawks GM Travis Schlenk and his weekly radio interview)?
In a lot of ways, if the Spurs could operate in a vacuum, they’d do it. But that’s not how this works. You said it: Winning sells tickets; winning sells merchandise; winning puts the spotlight on players; winning is a cure-all. But San Antonio does not have that element to fall back on right now.
The last couple of years have been very strange given the restrictions on media and locker-room access due to the pandemic, so in a lot of ways the coverage of players has suffered and executives have played a more prominent role in storytelling across the league. Frankly, that’s not ideal. I know the transactional stuff sells, as does the drama, but the players are the lifeblood of the league.
To the Spurs’ credit, they actually granted some extra availability to players last season, even for one-on-one conversations. For instance, there was a week last spring that saw Poeltl sit down for several different pieces with local and national reporters, giving him and his excellent defense a bit more exposure. It’s just one example, and it may seem small relative to what goes on around the rest of the league. But given the team’s historical tendency to grant players privacy, this was a bit of a change. And with just one nationally televised game on ESPN this season (plus three on NBA TV, if you choose to count those), there will likely be a continued increase in effort to get the guys out there more often.
As for Brian Wright, a more open dialogue with the fan base throughout all of this change is going to be important, though I’m not going to go as far as to say he should or will do a weekly radio interview. Staying quiet about their planning and strategizing is just part of San Antonio’s approach, and while it understandably frustrates fans at times, it helps the Spurs accomplish their goals and preserve relationships in the long run, both with players and with other teams. Nobody likes the loud-mouth.
Over the summer, Wright held long media availabilities after the draft, before summer league and following the Murray trade — hanging around until every question was asked. Perhaps he’ll make himself a bit more available around the trade deadline (especially if the team makes moves) and following the culmination of the upcoming season, but I wouldn’t expect some massive change. The Spurs are adapting with the times, and they know the importance of exposure and a certain level of transparency with their fans, especially considering their current situation as a basketball product. But don’t expect them to be a wide-open book anytime soon.
Q: Pop has said he'll keep coaching while he feels a competitive drive. How close do the Spurs need to get to the play-in to keep his drive alive?
Well, Pop knows the deal at this point, and it does not include the Play-In Tournament (one would think, at least). But it does not seem as though his competitive drive is tied directly to his team’s chances of winning a title anymore. That isn’t to say he doesn’t want to win, but he’s said repeatedly how much he’s enjoyed coaching the young guys, and there’s plenty of competition in development and improvement.
I gave up trying to predict when Pop would retire years ago, but it’s obviously coming sooner rather than later. At 73 years old, he can’t keep doing this forever. But he’s often referred to himself and others in the coaching fraternity as “sick puppies,” jokingly of course. He eats, sleeps and breathes this stuff, so as long as he’s got the passion to do what his job currently entails — teaching a young roster as the franchise prepares for the future — he’s going to keep showing up. And the Spurs will take it. It’s important to provide guidance and stability to young players as they enter the league, and it’s difficult to imagine a better person for the job.
However, you’ve got to believe this likely dive into the cellar of the standings is going to test his resolve, as well as his resistance to taking a more permanent vacation to wine country.
Future mailbag question - Do you know if any thought has been given to Richardson at PG (assuming he's not traded)? PG isn't his customary position, but he has a really intriguing combination of scoring ability, defense, and playmaking, and all starting PG options at this point have some question marks. Plus he took to the system really quickly when he came over last year and appears to be a good leader. A Richardson/Vassell/Johnson/Sochan/Poeltl starting 5 might sneak up on some teams. And Tre and Primo would still get extended run with the second unit.