The Spurs' brutal January schedule could make or break their season

01/02/2025 07:44 PM

The Spurs will face the Nuggets, Lakers, Grizzlies and Pacers twice in January and will also play the Heat, Bucks, Bulls and Clippers this month.

The Spurs are facing a brutal schedule in January, with only two matchups coming against teams with losing records. How many of their 13 games do you think they will win?

Marilyn Dubinski: If they can keep hovering within a game or two of .500 for the month of January, it will be a success, and honestly, the amount of time they're on the road is more concerning than the strength of schedule to me. As they learned last week, they can't make late mistakes on the road and expect to win, but they have also shown they can keep up with good teams. I can see them winning the Bulls game and the two against the Pacers in Paris, then they just need to win two more to come out the other end still within a game of .500. At Miami is winnable, and maybe it's recency bias but home vs. the Clippers is winnable. They also have three other miniseries besides the Pacers: home-away vs. Nuggets (who are vulnerable), away-away vs. Lakers, home-home vs. Memphis. More often than not, teams split those series, so I don't expect all three to be a full sweep by the opponent (maybe just the Lakers).

Jacob Douglas: I'm expecting a close to .500 record this month for the Spurs. They'll steal a game against a favorite like Milwaukee or Denver. They previously lost to Chicago but that is a winnable game. They have a good matchup with Miami and playing in France against the Pacers should give them a boost as the hometown kid puts on a show. Six or seven wins is my prediction.

Jesus Gomez: They could lose all 13 and it wouldn't be shocking, which is crazy. Hopefully they'll be able to feast on the East teams. The game in Chicago, the two against Indiana, and the one against Miami feel winnable. I looked to see if any of the matchups against the Western teams and the Bucks had a rest advantage, but no opponent will be on the second game of a back-to-back. I'll say that if they can win six, they will have done a good job.

Bill Huan: All 13, Jesus?? And I thought that I was the Debbie Downer of this crew. In all seriousness, I don't think the Spurs will have a great record, either; something around 4-5 wins sounds about right. I'd be ecstatic and shocked if they go .500 or better, even with Wemby playing like a borderline top 5 player in the league. A factor that's being under-discussed is that most of the teams they'll be playing are more desperate for wins. That's not to say the Spurs don't want to rack up Ws, but they're still more willing to experiment and rest guys if necessary than most teams they'll be playing during this brutal stretch.

The Spurs record after January will determine whether they are buyers or sellers at the trade deadline. True or false?

Dubinski: True to an extent. I think they will have open ears regardless, so January is more likely to decide what type of trade they pursue, be it just salary/contract dumps for draft capital or truly pursuing upgrades. Rumor already has it that they aren't interested in trading Devin Vassell or Keldon Johnson "this season", so it doesn't sound like they plan to make any changes to the main core, not to mention the marriage with Chris Paul has worked out well. That leaves Harrison Barnes and Zach Collins as their main bargaining chips. If they are looking for a major upgrade, it should be at backup center, and I'll keep pounding the Jonas Valanciunas drum either until it happens or he's traded elsewhere.

Douglas: False. Will this stretch prove how ready they are right now? Maybe. But I think there is a longer-term plan here than just this season. If they can get a veteran on an expiring who can help them squeak into the play-in like Valanciunas or Jordan Clarkson on a cheap deal, so be it. If those opportunities aren't there, I just don't see them pushing all their chips in at the deadline. Likewise, I can't see them blowing up the roster to gain draft capital for contributing veterans like Paul and Barnes. I think we'll see a marginal move at the deadline no matter what happens this month.

Gomez: True, kind of. If they win more games than anticipated and are firmly in the playoff race, it can lead them to be more aggressive looking for upgrades, especially at backup center. But if they lose a lot, I doubt they will be aggressive sellers. Chris Paul seems happy in San Antonio. Keldon Johnson's contract is too good to just move him unless there's a better market for him than it seems realistic to anticipate. Maybe they send Harrison Barnes out for a second rounder? It doesn't feel likely to me. I expect bigger moves in the offseason if the Spurs underwhelm the rest of the way.

(Also, for the record, I don't think they'll lose all 13, Bill! I'm just saying that if you look at each matchup in isolation, they could realistically lose to any opponent. Just needed to clarify that. I'm a bit of a doomer, but I'm not that far gone.)

Huan: Realistically? False. The only scenario in which I'd change my mind would be if the Spurs somehow defy all expectations and win most of their games in January, putting them in firm playoff position. At that point, it might be worth adding a depth piece — as long as it doesn't mortgage a critical part of the future.

However, if things play out as we expect and the Spurs are still on the bubble, or even slightly worse, they shouldn't make any drastic moves. San Antonio's too good to tank and the vets seem pretty happy to stay with the team, so I doubt any big moves are in play.

If things go wrong and the Spurs are closer to the bottom of the standings by February, should they consider tanking?

Dubinski: No. They have clearly established themselves in an entirely different tier than the bottom of the league and probably couldn't tank their way all the way down by then. (Not to mention, I'm willing to bet Wemby wouldn't let it happen as long as he's on the court. One season of losing was enough for him.) With all their assets and draft capital, including what's looking to be at least two picks in the late lottery or teens this summer, they could probably find a way to trade up in the draft without tanking if there is someone they really want that may be just out of reach.

Douglas: No, I don't think they should tank. Honestly, this team is too good for that and yhe playoff experience Wembanyama, Sochan, Castle and Vassell could get is far more valuable than playing for the lottery at this point. However, this draft is so good. Getting a pick in the top 10 could get you a potential 3rd or 4th option. I can't lie and say I haven't been watching prospects like Kasparas Jakučionis, Dylan Harper, and Tre Johnson with hopes they might be available to the Spurs on draft night.

Gomez: It's too late for that. The Spurs might be near the bottom of the standings in the West if they have a bad month, but the East has three horrific teams and the West has two. Add the Nets, which are likely going to try to tank, to that list and there are too many bad teams to try to out-tank. Maybe we see the franchise be a little more cautious with injuries and some fringe players getting more opportunities if things don't go well in January, but outright tanking is in the past.

Huan: No! This season has and should continue to be about seeing what we have and preparing for the future, and tanking could undermine that. As others have stated, the roster is also too talented to fall that far in the standings, and this year's draft is pretty bare outside of the top 5. There's no way the Spurs will be able to lose enough to get in a good position to get one of those picks, so tanking should be off the table.