After a Finals collapse, San Antonio prioritized continuity and size over flashy trades. Discover why the front office bet on internal growth and veteran grit to chase glory.
NEW YORK - If it wasn't for an internal breakdown, the San Antonio Spurs very well could've emerged as kings of the basketball world, but that's an over-speculated topic at this point.
We can play the what-if game and try to invalidate the New York Knicks' 2026 championship victory to hoist up the young Spurs — but that isn't necessary.
Victor Wembanyama and company's time is coming. Multiple key pieces to their future have already spoken at length as to what caused the collapse at The Mecca.
The core is established, and they've identified where things need to be cleaned up.
The goal is now clear.
And San Antonio's brass didn't believe the current roster was far enough away from contention to justify a noisy offseason. No one can blame them.
But was the Spurs' summer game plan enough? Should they have been more aggressive?
Let's take a brief look at everything San Antonio did after falling to New York:
The Spurs signed veteran forward Tobias Harris, added a rookie class headlined by first-round picks Jayden Quaintance and Tarris reed Jr., retained key role players Harrison Barnes and Jordan McLaughlin, and locked up Victor Wembanyama and Julian Champagnie with long-term extensions.
They also enter next season expecting to be in full health.
While productive, the moves landed the franchise at No. 14 on David Aldridge of The Athletic's 2026 NBA offseason rankings.
Justified? Maybe. But it is jarring seeing teams like the Chicago Bulls (No. 13) and the Boston Celtics (No. 12) ranked ahead of the Spurs.
To the Bulls' credit, they did add two exciting building blocks in Caleb Wilson and Norman Powell while hiring a rising young coach in Tiago Splitter.
Did Chicago improve more than San Antonio? Probably. But the Spurs were obviously far better off than the Bulls were heading into the summer, so the comparison isn't one-to-one.
Aldridge loses me with the Celtics, though ...
Sure, Boston's moves were certainly more "aggressive" than San Antonio's, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Finally finding a solution to their Jaylen Brown conundrum — which produced a much-maligned return package — that didn't prevent the Celtics from winning a title just over two years ago isn't more impressive than what the Spurs did.
San Antonio had two primary weaknesses to address post-Finals: gain more experience, and become more physically imposing. It responded by signing Harris and taking draft-night swings on two of the strongest players in college basketball.
The Celtics do deserve credit for stealing Mitchell Robinson away from the Knicks, but their decisions outside of that one move shouldn't result in a higher ranking than the Spurs.
First, Boston whiffed on Giannis Antetokounmpo, reportedly due to a lack of willingness to part with Hugo Gonzalez and Baylor Scheierman. It then pivoted, trading Brown out of sudden necessity while bringing back a past-his-prime Paul George.
Oh ... and the Celtics also signed a 38-year-old Mike Conley ...
The Spurs didn't need to reinvent themselves this offseason. They needed to become tougher, deeper and more experienced around Victor Wembanyama.
They checked every one of those boxes, which makes No. 14 feel lower than it should — especially given who sat ahead of them.
