Wednesday, May 6th, 2009...6:52 am
Offseason Breakdown: Glut of Guards
One of the unanswered questions-so far-of this offseason is trying to figure out how the Spurs see their 2009 backcourt. Personally, I see George Hill as a point guard and Roger Mason Jr. as a shooting guard. But that’s not how Pop played them down the stretch, and we have reason to wonder how things will take shape this summer.
In his year-end analysis, the dependable Jeff McDonald wrote that Roger Mason Jr. “Will become more valuable as he becomes more comfortable at the point.” About George Hill he wrote, “Will see more time once he learns to be a point guard.” Some of you might be thinking that McDonald mailed those sentences in. But that not the case. He’s got the pulse of a confusing backcourt situation. It’s the sort of confusion that may work itself out naturally as players develop, or it may require some front office intervention.
What We Know
Tony Parker is an ace. He’s entered into the land of elite players this season, and promptly set up camp and unfurled his flag. He’s only 26. He and Tim Duncan anchor the team. His task for the summer should be extending his range out to the three point line. We’ll see.
Unfortunately, we do know something about his summer. He’ll be playing for the French National Team. This is a trend which will continue through 2012, barring injury. In other words, between regular season games, postseason games, and international competition, Tony Parker is 26 going on 28. You can’t fault him for playing for his country, but it does make one worry. Nevertheless, he is near his prime, and in that respect the Spurs point guard situation is locked into stone.
Behind Parker, we have questions. The first is related to his French allegiance. Will Popovich limit Parker’s minutes next season-at least for the first half-in order to rest him. Speaking for myself, I’d like to see Coach Popovich sit the Big 3 out of most back-to-backs. And I’d like to see Tony Parker play closer to 30 minutes a game. Limiting his minutes would serve two important functions: resting his legs and allowing the Spurs time to develop their back up point guards. Popovich ought to make this a coaching prerogative for the 2009-10 season.
Who Is the Reserve Point Guard?
This is the question. With Jacque Vaughn’s contract now expired, the Spurs will have to find a 3rd point. This would typically seem inconsequential, but with their tight cap situation, it’s something worth thinking about. To my mind, the Spurs will either draft a point or find one through training camp. Near the end of the season, Marcus Williams played exclusively at point forward for the Toros. He knows the Spurs playbook, and would be an inexpensive option. Technically, he’s already under contract. At 6′7”, he’d give the Spurs a different look as a deep reserve point forward. I’m cheering for him to make the team, and I think his ability to advance the ball, initiate the offense and defend represent his best chance of sticking.
From a roster standpoint, the Spurs are not harmed by taking this risk because they have Manu Ginobili, Roger Mason Jr. and George Hill on deck. Any of those players can sub at point if the Spurs are in a pinch. And one of either Mason Jr. or Hill really ought to be subbing at point full time. Popovich does a disservice to the team by veering between Roger Mason Jr. and George Hill. He needs to choose one and consistently go to him in the role of backup point. But Pop’s problem is a real one-neither Mason Jr. nor Hill are really point guards. At least not yet.
Mason Jr. is a shooting guard. I’m not going to argue the point, because it should be obvious to everyone who watches Spurs basketball. He’s uncomfortable at point, he doesn’t have the skill set, and it goes against his best attribute, which is the ability to spot up and bomb. George Hill might be a point guard, but I’m not convinced it’s his natural position. It’s gonna take work. Moreover, Hill will receive the majority of his minutes on defensive duty, and this will often include the other team’s best wing. When the Spurs go to bench in this way, Hill routinely plays shooting guard by default because Popovich must give a defensive account for the opposing point guard. In other words, if Hill is on assignment against Jason Terry, Parker or Mason Jr. will have to guard Jason Kidd. Otherwise, the Spurs are simply robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
If Bruce Bowen has in fact played his last game as a Spur, and I think that he has, the Spurs need to place an emphasis on upgrading their defensive personnel. Bruce Bowen was such an outstanding defender that very few players in the world can replicate what he does within the Spurs system (Ron Artest, Shane Battier, Kobe Bryant, Tayshaun Prince, and, perhaps, Dimitris Diamantidis). Assuming that none of those players are with the Spurs next season, the next best option, and the only option readily available, is to replace Bruce Bowen with two or three above average defenders, giving lock down duty to more players than in year’s past. George Hill has already shown that he can be part of project. In this way, I think George Hill is more valuable to the Spurs than Roger Mason Jr. He’s cheaper, he has a higher ceiling, and he can defend. Too bad for the Spurs, that ceiling is still a long way off. Hence, the conundrum.
The Problem
If what I’ve said in the above paragraphs is true, then the Spurs have a problem. They’ll play George Hill at shooting guard for his defense, giving him what is leftover of Manu Ginobili’s minutes. And they’ll be forced to play Roger Mason Jr. at point guard, which is not his natural position. In short, I think the Spurs have too much going on at shooting guard (I haven’t even addressed Michael Finley in this discussion, even though he slides between 2 and 3). They have a makeshift yet workable situation behind Tony Parker at point, but it’s not really ideal in terms of player development or setting a consistent, dependable playoff rotation. Meanwhile, the Spurs have a black hole at small forward where Finley is too old, Udoka is inconsistent, underwhelming and out of contract, and Bowen is a dead man walking. It’s an ugly mess.
Where am I going with all this? If the Spurs need to add a sweetener to their expiring contracts in order to facilitate a trade, especially a trade for an All-Star wing, they should choose either Roger Mason Jr. or George Hill as that sweetener. They’re both good players, but will be fighting one another for minutes while the Spurs languish on the wing. This is not to say the Spurs have to trade either player, just that they could be expendable in exchange for a greater good. It’s one of those situations that calls one to kill a good thing so that the better thing can live. Put differently, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, George Hill and Roger Mason Jr. is something of an overkill when you have such a desperate roster need elsewhere.
I’ll pick up with Part Two of this breakdown tomorrow morning.
33 Comments
May 6th, 2009 at 7:17 am
If the Big 3 sat for back-to-backs, I think they would lose about 75% of those games. Did you mean rest one of those guys on every back-to-back?
May 6th, 2009 at 7:23 am
I suppose Pop would keep both Mason and Ginobili on the floor at the same time for offense, but couldn’t the Spurs use Ginobili like the Bulls used Kirk Hinrich? Just a defensive oriented 1 guard?
May 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I think Pop is mishandling the Mason and Hill situation. I think Hill is impressionable enough to become a good point, while also serving as a defender. Mason is a shooting guard, through and through.
Also, you mention the small forward problem a little bit, and I know I’m probably jumping the gun on your post about the small forward—- but what about Linas Kleiza? The Nuggets aren’t playing him a whole lot now that JR Smith is their designated scorer off the bench, so why not? He’s a scoring machine, and could definitely help get scoring behind the Big 3.
Love the analysis. Best Spurs stuff around.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Great post, and I think as Spurs fans we all agree that Pop hasn’t exactly handled this situation the best. I think Hill could have been a serviceable backup point guard had Pop played him all season long.
But to me, I think the Spurs biggest problem is the lack of ball handlers on their team. If you look around the league, there aren’t too many great point guards and there aren’t too many better back ups. The reason other teams have success is because other players can step in and handle the ball, not necessarily because they have a great PG and backup. And not only handle the ball, but create their own shot. A lineup of Mason, Hill, and Bowen or Finley causes problems and we wonder about ball handling. But substitute Ginobili for Bowen or Finley and we’re fine. Ginobili handles the ball and creates open shots for everyone else. The Spurs just have a roster full of catch and shoot players. And when you don’t have anyone who can get the ball to the guys who need to shoot, that’s a problem.
So is the problem that we need to get a better back up point guard, or do we need to get some better athletes and guys who can create their own shot? Wouldn’t adding a VC or Richard Jefferson take care of a lot of the problem? Now you have Parker, Ginobili, and VC or RJ who can create their own shot and create for everyone else. Hill can help facilitate if needed, but has less pressure. I know it’s not as simple as making a trade, but having a few more guys who can create their own shot and not just be stand still shooters would be great.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I think Greg has a point (pun intended). Our problem at the backup point was compounded this year by Manu’s absence. Assuming he can come back full strength, then I think Pop’s rotation would be to play Tony to start, substitute Manu in at the 6 minute mark at the SG position, then pull Tony at 9 minutes and move Manu to point until about 9 minutes of the second quarter, at which point Tony goes back in and Manu sits until about 3 - 4 minutes left in the half. Then basically repeat this in the second half. Either Roger or George could be substituted in for Tony and Manu. The “point” would be to always have either Tony or Manu playing point. This could also serve to ease Hill more comfortably into the point position, or for that matter, to see if in fact that is a position he can play. As for Roger, I think any discerning fan at this point knows that he just does not have point guard in him. Some of the above is affected by what happens at the small forward position, but since that will be addressed in a later post, I’ll not give thoughts on that yet.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The b2b issue is best solved by resting TD in a chosen game and Manu in the other. TP can still play both but should have limited minutes in one or both. This would also allow for player development for the guy that takes the place of TD/Manu.
I agree with Greg’s point about lack of ball handlers. I’d prefer a backup PG like we see in our conference’s current final four: Lowry, Brown, & Carter. Maybe Hill can develop into that guy. Whether he does or not, we need more ball handlers outside of Manu. We know Manu will miss 5-10 games plus play 25-30 minutes per game for the regular season. We have to have other options, at least two at a time on the floor. TP, Manu and Hill are fine but we need one more not named Mason.
My hope is with both Hill & Mason being in their second season in our system, the offense will come more naturally plus they can have a training camp with Manu. I also hope that while Hill works on his overall game, Mason works on both ball handling and finishing at the rim. I’m not expecting him to become Manu but in our offense he has to be able to finish or at least get fouled, whether he handles the ball or not. That he may get better gives us a fifth option to run the offense but not be the main playmaker.
All that said, forcing more misses and allowing fewer points places less pressure on the offensive end and creates more fast break opportunities.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I think when talking specifically about the PG position, you have to take into account that this team (and the league now, for that matter) is all about the drive-and-kickout. A valuable point guard is not necessarily somebody who can handle the ball or create his own shot… it’s somebody who can drive the lane and force the defense to collapse. Mason can definitely create his own shot, but I think Hill has much more potential at the position because he can drive the lane like Parker and Manu can. When Mason was running the point the offense was stagnent because he never demands a double team or a defensive slide.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think the trade value of Tony Parker-Longoria is at an all-time high whereas we wouldn’t get much on the dollar for Ginobili and trading Duncan would never happen. here are a few trade scenarios worked out on espn’s trade machine.
Parker and an expiring contract to Atlanta for Al Horford, Acie Law, Maurice Evans, and some scrub. (good scoring, defending PG, a replacement for Bowen, and a quality big man).
Parker, Bonner, Oberto to Toronto for Jose Calderon, Andrea Bargiani, and Jason Kapono (gives us 15 and 7 at the PG, a Bonner/Horry replacement in Bargiani, and a Finley replacement in Kapono)
Parker and Mahinmi to Golden State for Wright, Beidrins, Randolph, and Belinelli (perfect fit for Parker and gives us a lot of options)
Parker and a expiring contract to the Clippers for Camby, Thornton, and Gordon (this would solve Parker’s inevitable move to LA to be with Eva, plus gives us everything we need)
I think any of those options would make the Spurs a better team.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Jeff,
I don’t know that any of those trades make the Spurs better-why would you want to trade Parker, other than the fact that he is a top 3 point guard? Honestly, I think you’re aiming low. He’s worth more.
Tim
May 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Kevin,
Great point. This again leads me to believe that Hill is more valuable than Mason Jr.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
SpurredOn,
Your b2b scenario is actually what I had in mind. I should have been more clear in my original post.
I agree about the ballhandlers, as well. We miss Brent Barry on this front.
The return of Manu is almost enough offense in itself. The Spurs need to fin their problem at small forward and upgrade defensively. If they do those two things, they’ll be fine.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
The problem with Kleaiza is that he disappears on defense. He’d create as many problems as he solves.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Maybe. I’m not sure. It’s something to think about.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Wow, Jeff might start an all out war in this space with the thoughts of trading Parker. Like Tim said, none of those trades makes SA any better. When you have an all-world PG, you don’t trade them. He is what makes the Spurs go, and trading him would be idiotic.
I’m also with Kevin and Tim on Hill being a little more valuable because of his ability to penetrate. Trading seems to be the most likely scenario of upgrading the current roster, and I just don’t think anybody would want all expiring contracts. Something of worth would have to be included, and as pointed out by Tim, that is basically Hill or Mason. Of course, if Mason is traded and Finley retires, the Spurs don’t have a single cold-blooded gunner on next year’s squad to benefit from penetration Parker and Ginobili.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I think the reason to trade Parker is that is value is at an alltime high. While it’d hurt to lose him, we’d be a more complete team with depth in getting other guys. He is our highest trade asset and we could get more for him than any other player. I think both the Atlanta and Clip Joint scenarios strengthen the weaknesses of the Spurs and in the case of the Atlanta trade, we could do a lot worse than Law and Hill at the PG. Besides if you are looking for trade partners with the assets needed to make a serious offer and match up salaries, that limits a lot of teams and players.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Mason should be the bait. Hill has the higher ceiling. Not only that, but Hill defends better. And, who knows he might stroke the 3, in time.
Mason is a set shooter, Hill is a slasher defender. Prince would be a great pickup. I think Finley would be useful in limited minutes.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I agree that Parker’s value is at an all time high, but that definitely doesn’t mean we should trade him. I think Tim hit the nail right on the head, none of those trades makes us that much better than we are now, and while we’re giving up a top 3 or 5 point guard, we’re not getting a top 5 player back at any position.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
haha, hey I love Parker too, I think he should have gotten more MVP votes than he did. He was our team this year. But if I can trade a guy who is averaging 22 and 7 for a guy who averages, say 15 and 6, plus give me the small forward, and center we really need to get back to the Finals, you’ve got to consider it. That would fill our weaknesses we’ve had over the past 2 years.
As good as Parker was, you’re not going to find a lot of teams willing to trade their all-stars for him.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Greg,
I’d agree with you if we were looking for a one on one swap. But I was trying to complete the loose pieces on the team.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Jeff,
In principle, I agree that the Spurs should look at all the options at their disposal. Some guys would reject your suggestion out of hand, treating Tony Parker as sacrosanct. I’m not one of them. But ultimately, I don’t think the Spurs would get back enough value in the trades you suggest. This is either because I value Parker more than you do, or value the other guys less. What is Parker’s value? Well, some campaigned for him to receive MVP votes this year. At base, the Spurs need to get back an All-Star and a young prospect, and the players should fit the San Antonio system. So while we disagree, our disagreement has more to do with value than creativity. I appreciate your willingness to think outside the box.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I think you have a good idea in trying to address all team needs with one player, Jeff. I’m just not buying the particular brand of Kool-Aid that you are selling.
To expand on Greg’s thoughts, you are offering up a top 3 player at his position for 1 to 2 slightly above average players at their respective position. In the trade scenarios you laid out, none of the players are even in the top 10 at their respective positions.
In your Atlanta scenario, an Acie Law/George Hill backcourt just doesn’t cut it for me. They averaged roughly 20 MPG combined this season with a healthy dose of DNPs. I don’t want to downgrade from Parker to that for my PG.
The Toronto scenario brings the core of a 33 win team to SA. No thanks.
And the GS and LAC trade proposals don’t even bring a PG in return. That was one of the problems this year, and I would hate to exacerbate the situation by trading away the one PG on this team away.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I’d agree with that and like your opinion. I definitely think Parker reached a new level this season. I don’t know if this is his ceiling but its hard to see him leading a team to the finals with not much else to work with. As much as I love what Roger Mason Jr did this year, he rose above all expectations, lets also remember that he was just a 6th man for the lowly Wizards the year before, and that’s with all there injuries.
In looking at this past season’s all stars there are a few names that glare out as guys the Spurs would look at and the other teams would be willing to get rid of. So no LeBrons, Amares, or AIs.
Shaq ONeal - no other trade assets
Jameer Nelson
Devin Harris - no other trade assets
Rashard Lewis
Chris Bosh
Danny Granger - no other trade assets
Joe Johnson
In that case you could pair either Nelson or Lewis with a Pietrus or Courtney Lee. Or you could go after Bosh or Johnson with some of the guys I mentioned earlier.
I don’t know, just trying to think outside the box on how to shake up this lackluster team.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I’m here and will set the record straight.
Trading Tony to fill other needs can’t possibly work because his worth is much greater than his salary states. Based on this fact alone, you cannot trade him and get an equal talent return. Name one guy out there in the 11 million dollar range that is 3/4 the player Tony is. You can’t. And trading him for 3 guys only gives you bench players at best since they’ll all be getting under 4 million dollars. We just tried winning with a roster full of 4 million dollar players and look how far that got us. It was a cute idea to get things stirred up, but in no way is it a viable opportunity talent-wise or fiscally.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
*groan* These next seven weeks are going to be AH-NOI-ING, just waiting to see what the Spurs decide to do. Cut-n-waive? Trade? Hokey-pokey?
Once the first domino falls, then we’ll all get a better read on what the Spur’s “Big Blueprint for Summer Success” will be.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Thanks Bryan for elaborating a little more on my comment. You did a great job in knowing where I was going with my thoughts.
I’m not opposed to trading Parker (I really wasn’t sure how much I liked him or how high his ceiling was going to be before the season started), but I just think we have to get back more in return. We’d have to match value for value, as opposed to just value for position need. I’m all for getting Duncan all the help we can and making another run, but it’s gotta make sense in the long term as well, since Parker will most likely be heading the charge once Duncan retires.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
I agree generally with the idea that if we were to trade Parker you’d have to be getting much more value. Like Tim said, you need another All-Star plus a young guy, or a young All-Star, even something like TP for Bosh or Amar’e would be a stretch for me, but something I’d take way before I did TP for Calderon and Bargnani or Camby and Thornton.
If the Spurs were to trade anybody of any value, I think it’d be Roger Mason. He’s driven up his stock significantly, but also, he’s proven that he’s not much more than a mediocre scorer, sure he’s made a bunch of big shots, but is he really that much more than Michael Finley of years past? What the Spurs don’t need is to blow up, what they do need is some people to plug in immediately and make a difference.
I think Hill would be a viable option as a backup point, and to find a third string, well I think we just need someone that’s serviceable right? I took a quick look at the 2009 FA list, and some guys I think that can make an impact at vet’s minimum would be: Tyronne Lue, Anthony Carter, Kevin Ollie, and Bobby Jackson. Other players in RFA that you could look at include: Shannon Brown, Jarret Jack, and Fred Jones. I know these aren’t the sexiest names in the league, but hey, if we keep Hill on as a defensive point and play him primarily as backup, I think they’d all be viable limited minutes type backup guy. I mean sure, I’d love to have Ramon Sessions, but how realistic is that? Other viable options like Earl Watson or Beno Udrih are just way too expensive.
I know Pop has always built an offense around surrounding a couple guys that command a double team or collapse defenses with three point shooting prowess, however, three point shooting is something I personally would be willing to sacrifice if I were in the front office, for the sake of getting a player that can create his own shot, i.e. someone like Marvin Williams. I believe that the general consensus is that Spurs need to get younger, and I don’t see a lot of young prospects that bring everything exactly as the Spurs need, so if I’m going to have to sacrifice one of 3pt shooting or defense, I’m going to sacrifice 3pt shooting.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Parker is the starting pg and Hill should be his primary backup. The Spurs should try moving Bowen’s contract to a team lacking experience and a defensive stopper like Portland. In return the Spurs could find plenty of minutes for either Frye or Outlaw at the 3/4 spot. Frye makes 3.2mil and Outlaw makes the same amount that Bowen earns, 4mil. Easy trade that works for both clubs.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:07 am
If the Spurs are looking for a inexpensive TRUE pg then look no further than Golden State’s CJ Watson. He’s young, can penetrate and make the outside shot, has a great handle and most importantly is trapped behind a team full of guards, so offer him a cool mil (his current salary is 711,000.00) and watch him sign. The Spurs guard rotation would be PG-Parker-Hill-Watson, SG-Ginobili-Mason-Williams.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
FYI, CJ Watson played for the Spurs summer league team in 2007.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m actually very pro CJ Watson. He’s a guy I forgot to mention.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Guys and gals. My apologies for not getting to part two this morning. I got caught up elsewhere, but it’s coming shortly. About C.J Watson: good thought. I hadn’t considered him, but he’s good and cheap. The Spurs could do a lot worse.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Good memory, champ.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:55 am
[...] In Wednesday’s post, I suggested the Spurs needed to put their backcourt house in order. This might come about naturally as players develop and learn the system. The return of Manu Ginobili will help, as if I needed to tell you. But if I let the impression with any of our readers that the Spurs had some sort of crisis situation at guard, then forgive me. That’s not the case at all. It’s the position where the Spurs are strongest in terms of talent. What I do question, however, is whether the pieces all fit together. Or, more precisely, if the Spurs would not be better served exchanging a backcourt role player for another team’s wing. [...]
Leave a Reply