Wednesday, May 26th, 2010...9:02 am
Episode 8 of the 48MoH Podcast: Report From the Chicago Pre-Draft Camp
Jump to Comments
The San Antonio Spurs have a lot on their plate, despite having been ousted from the NBA Playoffs two and a half weeks ago. The silver and black have the NBA Draft in about a month and free agency not long after. In the latest 48MoH Podcast, Tim joins me to talk about covering the NBA Pre-Draft Camp in Chicago. What did he hear about the Spurs offseason ahead in the Windy City? Did he see World Wide Wes?
Make sure to subscribe to the 48 Minutes of Hell podcast via RSS feed or iTunes. And tell your friends, because we’re awesome.
63 Comments
May 26th, 2010 at 9:14 am
This World Wide Wes dude is funny it seems like he is every major coach or players agent…how did he become this guy?? lmao
May 26th, 2010 at 10:03 am
i hope we get paul george or larry sanders
May 26th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Your piece regarding DeMarcus Cousins’ lack of social maturity is interesting. I’ve been somewhat a fan of his, but I’m beginning to change my mind. I’m not sure the Spurs want a super talented guy with super large issues. I’d hoped that his immaturity was due to his age, but his problems seem to go beyond that.
This is good news regarding Splitter. He really is the key to our offseason. If we get Splitter, then it saves us from having to trade up in the draft or to directly trade for a C this summer.
We are fortunate that this draft is chocked full of wings. As you say, we can draft a decent rookie wing and then unload Jefferson this summer. I think we can get a really decent player at the 20 spot who may be able to come in and immediately contribute. Let’s face it, they won’t have to contribute THAT much to beat what Jefferson did last year. I really hope we unload that guy.
I’d like to see us get these guys in this order
1. George Paul
2. Xavier Henry
3. Damian Jones
May 26th, 2010 at 10:50 am
World Wide Wes is too legit. Try looking up some of the stories and urban legends that surround him. He’s like the guy from the Dos Equis commercials if that guy were into basketball.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Yeah World Wide Wes is the truth he got more pull than a pick-up apparently…hahaha
May 26th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Hi, Andrew, Tim, I was wondering if you got a chance to talk to Quincy Pondexter, or heard any news about his prospects? I really like his game as a good fit for the Spurs. Any thoughts?
May 26th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I’ve posted strongly favoring Paul George since prior to all these reports, it looks like his value has since been steadily climbing and climbing. I also preferred gambling on Larry Sanders who seems to be climbing right out of the spurs pick range as well… perhaps my previous assessment of James Anderson was too negative, although he is prone to lapses and mistakes.
I do think, however, that there are quality SFs available via trade (consider Golden State has Reggie Williams, Maggette, Azubuike, etc), so I would rather pass on tweeners such as Damian James, and certainly Babbitt- no interest whatsoever increasing our small ball options.
All in all, I don’t see why the Nets would have any interest in Splitter… I mean the #3 pick for a back up center? Nor Parker or RJ when they have Devin and Terrence Williams… I think we can forget about #2 pick also, they like their guards… For most all trade partners Blair is the best fit, he can look like an offensive star for a team that doesn’t mind what we always be an defensive liability.
There will likely be at least 2 guys going at #20 or later that make their GMs look smart, and a dozen teams ahead of the Spurs will make regrettable choices… so trading the pick, unless we get back more for RJ, is probably not worth doing anyway. I would say keep RJ for an improved 2nd season, because we could do worse, if add depth at the 3, 4 & 5, except that he’ll leave for a faster team come next summer anyway, so let’s say adios sooner than later.
May 26th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
td4life
May 26th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I like Sanders as well. And I agree with you on Babbitt. I don’t think he can meet Spur expectations defensively. But James? How do you see him as a “tweener”? And please, don’t tell me it’s because he rebounds unusually well at the college level for a SF. That just wouldn’t cut it. Other than that, any other reasons?
Also, if you haven’t had the opportunity, check out Quincy Pondexter, University of Washington. He’s my top pick for the Spurs. Any thoughts on his game?
By the way, my top four picks for the Spurs are:
Pondexter
James
Sanders
George
May 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Good to hear positive news on the Splitter front. He’d be a great addition for a team that desperately needs help in the paint. And if you’re the MVP of the Spanish league (easily the best league outside of the NBA), you’re going to be a quality NBA player.
I’m really liking the depth this draft offers. Seems the FO will have several options from which to choose. George, Babbitt, James, Robinson, and others all seem like solid prospects.
May 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
@ Jim
Draftexpress.com has a good write up on James. One sentence stands out however: “It may not be easy to immediately identify a clear-cut role for James, as he’s a bit of a jack of all trades master of none, and is clearly stuck between the small forward and power forward positions at this point.”
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Damion-James-1074/
The feeling on James is that he’s reached his potential. I would agree, I’ve seen many of his games.
A 20th pick has a snowball’s chance in hell of being good enough to earn minutes on a championship contender anyway, so I say use the pick on someone with the most potential. Don’t correct me with Blair; he was a lottery pick who slipped.
Why is no one talking about Stanley Robinson from UConn? He’s a 6′8″ SF with a 7′ wingspan and “freakish athleticism.” He’s got some legit weaknesses, but his potential, at the 20th pick, is absurd.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Damion James would be a great pickup at 20. Chad Ford had this to say about him, “James is one of the more underrated players in the draft. Very few players have his combination of athleticism and motor.
He doesn’t have a position on offense, but he can defend multiple positions on the floor. He would be able to step in right away with the Spurs’ veterans and provide meaningful minutes.”
I also had the opportunity to see him play a lot of home game on campus and he is a Double- Double and would immediately impact the boards. He’s the SF that Pop wishes he would get out of RJ.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
I’m actually going to amend/back off my previous post in regard to Robinson and James. So much of this draft depends on 2 huge ifs: Splitter joining us and moving Jefferson.
The worst thing is the fact that the draft will come before we’ll know anything about Splitter and Jefferson. Ideally, if Splitter joins, we draft smaller positions with an eye to the future, i.e. players with more potential. If we can swing a Jefferson trade, optimism would hope we can get some tax relief and a couple of back-ups, ideally a serviceable PG and a sharp-shooting wing.
The ultimate would be getting both done before draft day, then drafting for potential, with an eye at someone who can work with Hill/Parker/Blair/Splitter for the next half decade.
If we can do one, I think James would be a good draft. If both happen, we can draft Robinson etc. If neither happens, the draft won’t make any difference this season, and I don’t think a 20th pick can improve fast enough to offset Duncan’s decline.
I’m glad I’m not Buford.
May 26th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
ThatBigGuy
May 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
It’s difficult to make a case by picking one sentence out of a fairly thorough write-up by just one outfit (Draft Express) that evaluates college talent. For example, here’s another excerpt from the same report, which in some ways actually appears to contradict the sentence you quoted in your post:
“Sporting a terrific 7-1 wingspan, a chiseled frame and standing nearly 6-8 in shoes, James has all the physical tools needed to be an excellent defender, especially when you consider his terrific toughness and aggressiveness.
That clearly manifests itself on the court as well, as he is very active, uses his body extremely effectively, does a good job of utilizing his length to contest shots, and gets his hands on a ton of loose balls. James is a playmaker on the defensive end, getting in the passing lanes on a regular basis, blocking shots at a good rate, and doing a great job on the defensive glass. His lateral quickness on the perimeter may not be stellar, but it looks more than adequate for the NBA level. In fact, he seemed to do a better job guarding the perimeter from the film we saw than in the post, where his lack of size can get exposed at times.”
This excerpt suggests that James is clearly more suited to the SF spot in the NBA. In addition, the Spurs during the Popovich era have always liked scrappy, defenders at the SF spot, who were content to more or less let the game come to them on the offensive end. They have not pursued dominant offensive players at SF, but instead have looked to fill the position with savvy players, with versatile skills, that can hit the three, and if anything, are “defensive” play-makers, not high volume shooters. In my view, James has the ability to grow into such a role.
“The feeling on James is that he’s reached his potential. I would agree, I’ve seen many of his games.”
Well, there’s a funny thing about potential: oftentimes it never happens. In addition, I doubt James is at his full potential, at age 22. At the “college level”, you’re probably correct; he’s done about as much “as was asked of him”. But in my view, he still has the potential to develop his game with good coaching & work ethic at the “NBA level”.
“A 20th pick has a snowball’s chance in hell of being good enough to earn minutes on a championship contender anyway, so I say use the pick on someone with the most potential.”
First, see my point above about “potential”. And I assume you’re talking about contribution, “in their first year”. There’s been plenty of 20+ picks that have worked themselves into a key role on title challengers at some point during their careers.
All in all, I think James has the ability to play SF in the NBA. He’ll have to work on some of his skills (e.g., ball-handling, passing), but he’s a very good athlete, and has great determination & perseverance. That said, in my view, Pondexter is a more polished SF prospect at present, probably has more upside to his game as a NBA SF talent, and fits the Spurs system quite well.
May 26th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I agree with those who think Damion James would be a nice pick up at 20. He is a big guy for the SF position but that wouldn’t be a bad thing. I’m not sure he is a playmaker who can break the defense down, but he is an EXCELLENT rebounder and has great athleticism. The scouting report says he has long arms and can defend multiple positions. Thats certainly a BIG plus. Thats a He probably needs to work with Chip on his shooting, but most rooks need that anyway. I think that he, among several other guys could come into the organization and take RJ’s place immediately. That would certainly free RJ up for a trade. Maybe we could piece together some sign and trade deals involving RJ and a few shooters (Morrow and Miller). That would certainly be the beginnings of a decent bench as long as we got Splitter.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I agree with Jim’s keen insight on the SF spot, especially in regards to the Spurs’ system 100%.
I think we are expecting to draft a defensive-minded 3 to replace one of the greatest defenders in recent memory in Bruce Bowen, because last year what we did was get a non-defending, non-aggressive Richard Jefferson. Among many circles, the trade is a failure, but how about when the Spurs had Stephen Jackson in 2003? He could be comparable to RJ of 2010, but he isn’t because he was able to hide his defensive liabilities behind that “All-World” defender that stood next to him in the back-court, Mr. Bowen.
I say it’s time to get back to getting that lock-down defender because if we don’t find one soon, penetration will gut us to death like the Suns did to us this playoffs. We need to find that defending role-player that can find his niche by hitting the glass and hitting a shot from 3.
Damion James could be that answer. So could, according to Doug Gottlieb, Stanley Robinson. So could Quincy Pondexter. To tell you the truth, all we need is length and quickness at that position and someone who is able to hit a 3 and defend the best to his abilities. That’s it. Bottom line.
For sure Pop and RC know this, and expect them to alleviate this issue come training camp. If this diamond in the Spurs’ rough can be found, we have a chance to keep the title hopes alive.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:06 am
As always, one of the late draft picks will go on to have impact out of proportion to his late selection; of course I am hoping that the Spurs get that guy. With Twos and Threes, their value shows up much earlier than with Ones, Fives, and true Fours, so upside is less probable with older rookies, although that is of course an oversimplification… nonetheless, this is why I am somewhat hesitant regarding Pondexter- here’s a senior who is already 22 and though he has shown exceptional growth is not that highly sought after despite his size and athleticism. On paper, he’s not a bad choice, despite lacking handle, passing, and a shot (traditionally we’d be looking for a spot up shooter, esp. considering his weak handle) — and of course, I gladly defer to the Spurs expert evaluators if they were to go with him… I’m just skeptical that he’s the sleeper, will fill our need, and get heavy minutes over the next 3 years in San Antonio.
Some of the same things apply to the local 22 year old, D James. Although James may have an adequate shot, he’s always been a tweener and will have to develop into a SF to stick as an NBA starter. With his athleticism, he kind of reminds me of Travis Outlaw, who is arguably more useful playing the 4 than the 3 (not what we need) and has yet to secure his role as a 3… there’s always hoping that James does make that transition to the 3, and becomes a more dedicated perimeter defender than the likes of Outlaw. When I think of the roles at both ends that we are looking for our SF to fill, his rebounding rate will be compromised relative to his role at UT. It goes without saying that his scoring will too.
With a guy like Stanley Robinson, I think we all love the that he’s gonna work very hard (see Udoka and Bonner, or far more preferably, Bowen), and the notion that he, in fact, becomes a lock-down defender. But again, if we’re saving all his juice for the defensive end, he’s at least got to space the floor on offense. Short of that he will be getting very few minutes throughout his career.
College excellence simply doesn’t always translate to the NBA, whether your name’s Adam Morrison or Luke Babbitt. And it works both ways, so who know what these guys like Paul George or even Larry Sanders, or anybody really, is capable of.
It is interesting to think that Kleiza and Childress might return stateside. (If I’m the Hawks I let JJ go, in favor of a big man, and swing Childress (2/3) and Josh Smith (3/4), and who cares about Marvin Williams)… but, again, I am happy to draft a Big, or a guard, if a more promising talent is one the board… we can get a wing from the pro ranks.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:37 am
If anyone can share some details re: the John Hollinger draft ratings indicated in the podcast, it sure would be interesting to see the formula he uses, and how strong the bias based on previous performance (college/international). Is it more accurate for guys that are college stars than guys that aren’t, or have sleepers historically shown value in his system?
I wonder how his formula would project for Splitter.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:13 am
@td4life
I believe Hollinger talked about this in his last chat. According to his college projections, which are soley made up of college stats, Cousins is the highest rated prospect (last year according to him, Blair was #1). His formula for both the college and international players is pretty good in predicting production in their rookie year. I don’t think he’s come out with the international numbers yet, but my guess is that Splitter is head and shoulders above the rest.
@ThatBigGuy
Not knowing what Splitter is going to do is why we should simply take the best available prospect; pick the guy we think is going to make the best pro in our system. If that guy is Sanders, Robinson, or even a PG, so be it - you can always figure it out later, or at worst, buy a late 1st round pick with cash (which happens every year) if you really want to fill a need.
Based on the depth at the SF position, I think the #20 pick will give us plenty of options. Robinson, James, Babbitt, Pondexter, and George all look to be pretty solid prospects. And because they all could potentially be there at 20, the determination might come down to the intangibles - attitude, maturity, work ethic, etc. The interviews could mean the difference, and this is where I expect the expertise of our FO to show through.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Actually the looming lockout should HELP the Spurs be able to move Jefferson’s contract, because if teams are going to be forced to get under the cap by the lockout period, then what they’re going to want is to shed guaranteed contracts, so getting a huge expiring deal is a bonus for them.
The only question then remains is whether or not the Spurs, who would have to take back the extra years in the deal, would be willing to do so. Thing is, the new CBA will probably allow teams some time to get under a new, lower cap — they can’t punish their darlings like the Lakers who are WAY over teh cap by forcing the changes immediately.
So maybe each team will get a couple of years, which, coinciding with Duncan and Ginobli’s waning deals, even if they have to take back two or three extra years, should allow them to refit the last teams of the Duncan era accordingly.
And even if there is a lockout, worst case scenario, the owners are going to save money anyway because they won’t have to pay salaries during that time, also making taking on 2-3 deals attractive.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:53 am
@ Jim
James has listed weaknesses of lateral quickness, limited upside, and is a tweener. I just think that he’s a PF in a SF’s body.
Blair is a C in a midget’s body, and even though he played well sometimes, he really struggled against larger players. Hence his minutes were situational.
And yes, I meant the 20th pick won’t impact the team as a rookie.
@ Tyler
I agree with picking the best available. I would think that we’d want to draft a big man, seeing as so much of our defense relies on funneling drives to the baseline where a shot blocker is waiting. But then what do you do with a rookie C if Splitter comes? He’ll never see the court. Then we’d wish we had drafted a SF or back-up PG.
Ugh, my brain hurts.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:26 am
td4life,
“As always, one of the late draft picks will go on to have impact out of proportion to his late selection”
Well, unfortunately this always happens because the correlation between draft order and per minute production is extremely low. College production does a better job of predicting NBA production than draft order (per D. Berri using PAWS40 and WP48). Rebounds has the highest correlation between college and NBA. So picking a SF because he rebounds well isn’t a terrible idea.
DJ is considered a “tweener” for one reason really. He doesn’t have a good handle. It’s not because of his lack of jumpshot or peremiter D or anything like that. He’s got a mid range jumper and may develop legit NBA 3 pt range (although I really care about is the corner 3, which is basicallly the same as in college). He turned into a really nice defender his senior year. I’ve watched him steal the ball 1 on 1 in the open court from top college guards (not that he’d be able to do that in the NBA.) He will be able to guard slower 2’s, 3’s, and smaller 4’s.
No draft pick is a guarantee, but it’s likely that James will be able to rebound, hit open jumpers, and guard the 3 at the NBA level. So you have to ask, do we need our SF to be able to create from the perimeter. If you’re a Bowen fan you’ll say no. Not that I’m saying James will be the next Bowen, he’ll be a worse defender and better producer. I think our guards are good enough that we don’t need our 3 to create offense, just be able to take advantage of what’s given.
As for those people interested in Stanley Robinson. Damion James basically beats or equals him in every stat, and did it in four fewer minutes per game and James has good potential as a defender. Personally, I don’t believe in drafting based on defense alone. You have to be an amazing defender at the NBA level to make up for poor production, and there’s no reason to suspect that Robinson will be able to produce effectively at the next level.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:29 am
I generally agree with drafting the best talent, unless of course, there is a incredibly promising fit for our area of need available…i.e. let’s say, for example, that Buford&Co see some things in a Willie Warren that they think make him a lock as an NBA guard, head and shoulders above the remaining guys, but there’s also very promising big that they really like, yet they also can take a great shooting three, who shows well on defense? And they already have Tiago locked in.
That’s a good problem to have. Do we fill the need at SF. Do we draft depth at the pivot? Do we pass on the highest rated guy available, b/c he’s a guard, when one of the other guys is also a steal? If their confidence was high enough in the guy, I’d still take the big. I think lots of prospects are truly available via trade this summer, because of the CBA, as stated in the podcast.
If our only real chance at a career impact player is on a guard I take it, for the same reasons. If we can trade an expensive final year contract for two very well paid players and 4 years which give us any combination of shooting, defense, inside help, or play-making, I’d be pretty friggin’ excited. Even if we have to exchnage other pieces to make it work.
(Btw, why did we trade Dragic’s rights exactly? I mean why not draft Hairston straight up at 45? To save a little salary?)
May 27th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Maybe the Timberwolves would be willing to deal Al Jefferson…
With the 4th pick in the draft they will likely take Favors or Cousins, future NBA starters. Big Al is under contract until 2013. They may be interested in a Richard Jefferson and #20 trade for Al and Corey Brewer.
For the Spurs, we all know what Al brings to the table and Brewer is a really good defender with great length and athleticism. Hopefully RJ can be a better fit in Minnesota. If not, his expiring contract will be a very attractive trade asset.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:04 am
@td4life
Right. That’s why most teams tier all the prospects. For example, based on a team’s evaluations, the best group of prospects would be in tier 1, the next best in tier 2, next best in tier 3, etc. This gives you a way to rank the prospects into similar groups, yet leaves open the possibility to fill a need.
So, if you’re the Spurs and there’s one guy left in your 1st tier, you pick him no matter what if he’s there, regardless of position. However, say the only guys left are from the same tier, you could pick a guy to fill a need position simply because everyone on that tier is equal based on your evaluations.
I’m assuming the Spurs do something similar to this. If I was to rate the top 5 prospects based on what I’ve seen and read:
Tier 1:
Wall
Tier 2:
Turner - I didn’t feel right lumping Turner in with Wall because I think Wall is head and shoulders the best prospect in this draft. However, I think Turner will also turn out to be a better pro than the 3 guys in tier 3, hence why Turner is the only player in tier 2.
Tier 3: (no order)
Favors
Cousins
Wes Johnson
I thought about tiering (if that’s a word) the entire 1st round, but in a draft w/ so much depth, you could easily waste a day….
May 27th, 2010 at 11:06 am
bduran,
You and I are saying the same things about Robinson. A great defender with inadequate offense (if that’s what Robinson turns out to be) is, at best, only gonna earn situational minutes.
I call James a tweener b/c he has played so much power forward in his career, as he’s a better package for that role at the amateur level. Rebounding rate can be misleading here. If you’re a good rebounding collegiate PG, great. If you’re a center, sure. But I keep thinking of Micheal Beasley.
James has the motor, so I guess you guys are thinking he’s the next Gerald Wallace? I don’t think so. He’s not gonna be that kind of cleaner on a Spurs team, not if we get the championship-caliber (even role-playing) bigs that we need, not if we’re asking him to hit threes and play lock-down perimeter defense.
May 27th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
ThatBigGuy
May 27th, 2010 at 9:53 am
“James has listed weaknesses of lateral quickness, limited upside, and is a tweener.”
Again, here’s Draft Express on James:
“His lateral quickness on the perimeter may not be stellar, but it looks more than adequate for the NBA level. In fact, he seemed to do a better job guarding the perimeter from the film we saw than in the post, where his lack of size can get exposed at times.”
That sure suggests to me that he’s got the capability of playing SF in the NBA. If he’s a tweener, it was in college (because of his great knack at rebounding), which obviously didn’t hurt his overall game. He doesn’t have a great handle, but he’s not a retard either. He can improve in this area, with a lot of practice, and focus. By the way, a lot of NBA SF’s don’t have “great” handles.
td4life
May 27th, 2010 at 2:06 am
“Pondexter– here’s a senior who is already 22 and though he has shown exceptional growth is not that highly sought after despite his size and athleticism. On paper, he’s not a bad choice, despite lacking handle, passing, and a shot (traditionally we’d be looking for a spot up shooter, esp. considering his weak handle).”
Pondexter’s not highly sought after because he’s a “diamond in the rough”, up there in the farthest portion of the northwest. He’s a late bloomer, he’s a disciplined worker that has matured in character with four years at a top-notchhed school, finds a way to get better in almost all aspects of his game every year, and has a very versatile, all-around game that the Spurs salivate for at the SF spot. A perfect fit for the Spurs system, particularly after further developing his three-point shot. He does not have a “weak” handle, is known for creating his mid-range shot off the dribble, has one of the top TS% in college basketball (63%), and is a decent passer at his position, making good decisions with the ball (a low T/O per possession of 12%). He needs to work on his range as a spot up shooter, but that can clearly be developed, given that he shot the three at an okay 35% clip, and has good shooting mechanics (look at what G. Hill did in his second year in the NBA - went from 32 to 40%).
May 27th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Jim Henderson
May 27th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“That sure suggests to me that he’s got the capability of playing SF in the NBA. If he’s a tweener, it was in college (because of his great knack at rebounding), which obviously didn’t hurt his overall game.”
Yeah, I’m not sure why a select few people are so down on James. Perhaps its because he is 6′8″ and almost 230 lbs. which is big for a SF. If you add this to the fact that he averaged more than 10 rebs I could see how people might think he is a small PF. However, if the scouting report indicates he has adequate quickness to play the SF spot, these two other factors are simply icing on the cake. If he is the great athlete as advertised and can improve his shot and handle, this guy could turn out to be a beast. I’m not saying the Spurs should ABSOLUTELY draft him (there are too many variables in play between now and the draft) but I do think we could do a lot worse.
Bottom line: I think we can draft a good wing that can come in and play immediately play meaningful minutes. This years draft has a number of young talents and I have faith that our FO will make the right decision just like they did with Parker, Manu, Hill, and Blair.
May 27th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
td4life,
Rebounding is more consistent than you think. Rebounding translates well from college to NBA, and team to team. Pairing up with other rebounders doesn’t seem to matter as much as people think. Sure, he’s not going to get 10.3 board per 30 in the NBA, especially since he won’t be getting many minutes at the 4 spot (although he’d get some with us, damn Pops love of small ball).
I have no idea why you would prefer an good rebounding PG to a SF. Rebounds are important and ideally we would put above average rebounders at every position. Actually, rebounding guards aren’t as big a deal with our team because we force them to get back on D. Less opportunity for them to get offesnvie boards even if they’re good at it.
Also, citing one player, like Michael Beasley, doesn’t really mean anything. Yes, based on his college numbers I’d have thought he’d be doing better. However, he’s still young and may end up being good. Still, one case isn’t a rule. In general, good college rebounders end up being good pro rebounders. It’s no guarantee, but you have to go on something. James is hard working, athletic, and has good size for SF. Compared to other draftees at SF he had average height, above average wingspan and standing reach. There is no reason to think he won’t rebound well as a SF.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
bduran,
i wasn’t saying that i’d prefer a rebounding pg, just that that rebounding rate would be a more reliable indicator than with a power forward who’s expected to play more of an outside game for us. I think Beasley is an obvious comparison when considering rebounding. Again, in the role we are looking to fill, I think it’s a bit much to expect James (or anyone!) to have such an extraordinary motor matched with over-the-top focus and athleticism that he can grab rebounds comparable to his historical rate while also doing the things we hope he will at a given end of the court.
That is, unless you are talking such limited minutes that there’s no need to develop his niche versus exhausting the guy over the course of the game, and just let him go out there and do it all. Well, I’m optimistic, obviously, that we get a guy who will develop into 28+, eventually 35+ mpg… but I’m not so optimistic as that.
Of the two I lean slightly toward Pondexter’s skill set, and the possibility that he’s a George Hill (although, Jim Henderson, UW is no UPUI… Fresno State, oh the other hand…) But, hey, if either is the guy the FO likes, they know better than I. Meanwhile, I’m hoping they see something in one of these guys that we don’t know about, or another stud somehow falls to 20, or just pick lucky. In this draft, we should expect getting a far superior rookie to someone like Hairston. Still hoping for a good roster shuffle, though.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
i meant IUPUI
May 27th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
[...] can listen to that podcast in full length by clicking right…….here. Share this [...]
May 27th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
td4life,
As I said, DJ is not going to rebound at the same rate as in college. Of course not. What I’m saying is that he’s likely to rebound well for an NBA SF. It’s all relative. The average NBA SF certainly does not get 10.3 boards in 30 minutes a game. In college DJ played both the 3 and 4 and rebounded well for either position. So history would suggest he would continue to rebound at an above average rate in the NBA.
Beasley is not an obvious comparison. No such thing really. Still a 6′10″ PF doesn’t seem like an obvious choice. Especially a guy who is only two years into his career and only played a year in college.
Drafting is a crapshoot. The truth is, even college production is a poor predictor of NBA success, but it’s certainly better than saying “Player X is probably like Player Y”. As far as rebounding goes, i would certainly trust the past correlation between college rebounding and NBA rebounding over thinking, that well, Beasley hasn’t rebounded that great in his second year so neither will James.
Like you said, I also trust in the FO. As long as they draft someone with good college production I’ll be happy trusting that they’ve figured out the rest of equation. They’ve done a good job the past couple of years and if they say Pondexter is better than James (assuming both our available when we pick) I’ll believe them.
May 27th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
The FO has made some outstanding decisions. However, they have made some horrible decisions as well.
Who wouldn’t like to see Scola and Dragic in Spurs uniforms? Losing Scola was terrrrrrible. (as Barkley would say) He does what Dice does only he does it better and is younger.
May 27th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
bduran,
For the record, Beasley’s predraft height was 6′8.25″ with a 7′ wingspan, and 8′11″ reach, and has yet to find a true position in the NBA, despite projections that he would be a superstar, and nothing if not a voracious rebounder. On the other hand, he isn’t much of a small forward at all, I’ll grant you that. And worse, though he had a good presence in interviews, he has since shown to be a little bit of a headcase with a star complex. I think we agree that if the kid from Nacogdoches delivers at the next level, hunger and work ethic are key.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, since we are not particularly looking for a great rebounder from the SF position, given all the other things we need from that spot…. in contrast to what we need, rebounding success in harmony with other skills, or at other positions, CAN be a reliable indicator of NBA success, overall: A great defensive rebounding big man enhances his role bodying up, boxing out, blocking shots. While a great offensive rebounder is not as likely to be ready for the kicked-out 3-pointer. And clearly, most of the guys we’re talking about aren’t gonna be S-Jackson G-F types, where rebounding instincts can be a helluva bonus…. it seems like with a guy like James or Babbitt, you are just asking for more small ball… I don’t think Pop loves small ball so much as he’s just trying to create mismatches with the talent he has. Fruitless as that may be.
May 27th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
re: damion james being a 3 or 4,
he completed the combine lateral quickness drill in 10.9 seconds, second to the 10.8 john wall put up. that should squelch any doubts on his ability to guard anyone at all. his work ethic is up to spurs standards (maybe not bowen-level, but who’s is?) so i think he can develop the handle and 3pt shot. from chad ford:
“James was in for his first day with MacLean, but he was already in terrific shape. He’s got big hands, terrific strength and attacks every drill like he’s trying to kill. In one drill, during which MacLean had players moving from box to box and dunking each time they came to the rim, James nearly ripped the rim from the backboard on every play. ”
that’s what i want to see from a spur. as for his size and weight, i think it’s a bonus, not a liability. if he can move like that at 6′8″ and 230, it makes me think he can be an artest in his prime type, punishing defender as well, capable of slowing down lebron.
i think we can’t go wrong with james, but his ceiling is admittably not much higher.
with stanley robinson, i could see him being a special player, and he seems to have woken up after hauling scrap metal, but i don’t know that he offers better value than james. for quincy pondexter, who’s scrappy and a great player, i don’t know that he’ll enough to guard people like we need. no doubt that he’s a ridiculous athlete, but his shot is suspect too, and i got the impression, especially after watching him in the tournament, that he’s more athlete than player. i think we could coach him, but i like james over him too, as immediate help.
in the end though, i’d like to see us pick up an athletic big at 20, someone who can lock down on d and develop his offense. i’m not certain we can find someone like that, but this draft is loaded with bigs, so we should take advantage of that. i honestly think wings will fall in this draft, so someone like james could be had for a high 2nd round pick.
May 27th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
andy,
your take on James sure is encouraging… I still like George’s range and upside personally, but also generally agree regarding front court help, if the talent is there.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Andy,
We’ll done.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
also, regarding espn’s (hollinger’s) draft rater:
you can expect james to be the 13th best prospect of this crop, brian zoubek would be a good 2nd round pickup, and we should stay away from craig brackens and soloman alabi. heaps of salt, imo.
dejuan blair was not the #1 prospect from last year’s ratings, that was ty lawson, followed closely by blake griffen. blair was 7th, which still ain’t bad. the list was:
1. lawson
2. griffen
3. tyreke evans
4. austin daye
5. stephen curry
6. nick calathes
7. blair
8. danny green
9. jonny flynn
10. james harden
you can’t say that any of these people are busts yet, but evans, blair, curry, harden, and lawson were all good to great this past year.
finally, andrew! if you want to do a live podcast from south africa, do it via skype or google voice.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
@ ChrisG
Dude, do your research on the Spurs’ draft picks.
We drafted Scola in 2002, but when we attempted to bring him over in 2005, he had a $3 million buyout agreement with his European team. An NBA team can only pay $500,000 of a player’s buyout, leaving Scola to pay $2.5 million out of his own pocket. In 2007 we traded his rights to Houston and he was able to lower his buyout to a reasonable level so that he was able to join the Rockets.
It was NOT a lapse on the Spurs’ part.
Would everyone stop bring up Scola as a black mark on the FO? We held his rights for 5 years, he wasn’t able to make it over, and we made a trade to turn his rights into other pieces (rights to a diff Euro, cash, and Nando DeColo). There is no way the Spurs could have seen a 27 year old Euro finishing 3rd in the ROY balloting.
As far as Dragic (45th pick in 2008) goes, we traded him to the Suns for Malik Hairston (48th pick, 2008), cash, and a 2009 2nd round pick, which turned into DeJuan Blair. Until Dragic’s 4th quarter of Game 3, there is no way anyone would have say the Suns came out on top of that trade.
This isn’t a Laker’s blog, you better bring your A-game.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
The NBA needs to lower saleries, then add incentives to contracts for making the playoffs and for winning in each of the rounds. Each team could give a 2.5% to everyone on their team with the NBA matching (2.5%). This would put the incentive on everyone to win! 25% bonus if you win a championship! The game would be much better.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
andy
May 27th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
“…. in the end though, i’d like to see us pick up an athletic big at 20, someone who can lock down on d and develop his offense. i’m not certain we can find someone like that, but this draft is loaded with bigs, so we should take advantage of that.”
Yeah, well, check out Larry Sanders then.
May 27th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
ThatBigGuy,
Even in his rookie year, Dragic was proving himself as the back up to Nash that the Suns have long been aching for. And Phoenix was thrilled with him, a DEFINITE keeper, well prior to these playoffs.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:07 am
@jim
yeah, i haven’t seen larry sanders play, but is upside the only thing that separates him from jarvis varnado (earnestly, cause i haven’t seen a single clip of sanders yet and i’m at work right now)? if we can get varanado in the 2nd, which is looking less likely, then i’d rather take him and james in the 1st over sanders and a leftover wing. by the way, does anyone know what # our 2nd rounder is?
i like that james can step in and help us right now. varnado too, at least as a backup 4 who’ll provide some hustle and blocked shots. this is all assuming splitter arrives on our doorstep, of course, which from the podcast seems to be the consensus. with this kinda draft, we can look at:
1- parker, hill/temple/jerrels
2- hill, ginobili/hairston
3- james, jefferson/hairston
4- splitter, blair
5- duncan, mcdyess
with health and maybe signing some shooters (morrow), i think that’s a 55-win contender, or at the least a conference finalist. that 2nd unit would be seriously scary too. more of a return to the traditional 1-5 lineups too, for you purists. another thing is the flexibility to go small ball with james, which everyone loves (hah!).
May 28th, 2010 at 5:44 am
andy,
I think the problem with Varanado is upside and fit. Honestly, I think someone is going to get a steal with him. However, the knocks on him are that he has no jumpshot and doesn’t play man defense well due to lack of strength. If we’re looking to draft a big I think we need someone who projects to be able to play some minutes alongside Blair in the future.
Sanders already seems to be more well rounded and has only been playing basketball for five years.
Also, the problem with Hollinger’s draft rater is that it looks like it’s predicting PER. PER over values scoring. If you go to the wiki on PER it says that the break even point on 2pt FGs is 30%. Meaning if you shoot over 30% you can increase your PER simply by taking as many shots as possible. This is one reason why I prefer Wins Produced and Win Score. If you look at college Win Score, Blair was the best his year. This year DJ is tied for 3rd in WS40 among PFs (and close to first at 15.6 vs 15.9) and a clear leader among SFs. You have to adjust for position which is why I only looked at SF/PF. The closer you play to the basket the more you produce (more boards, easier scoring, etc.).
WS40 is far from perfect, but if I’m only looking at stats it’s my favorite.
td4life,
“it seems like with a guy like James or Babbitt, you are just asking for more small ball”
I don’t get this statement. Babbitt seems to have all the typical SF skills on O that you’d want in the NBA. Why would that encourage small ball? As for DJ, he brings what we want, guarding the 3, has a jumper, gets boards and loose balls.
I’ll reiterate. Drafting is a crapshoot. If we draft DJ and all he turns out to be is a rebounding SF without great D or ability to spread the floor I’ll be disappointed. But at least he’ll be able to do one thing for us.
Gaining possession of the ball is VERY important in basketball (obviously). Therefore, you want people who are good at gaining and keeping possession at every position. This means rebouding, stealing, grabbing loose balls and not turning it over.
May 28th, 2010 at 5:59 am
@ Thatbigguy
“Would everyone stop bring up Scola as a black mark on the FO? We held his rights for 5 years, he wasn’t able to make it over, and we made a trade to turn his rights into other pieces (rights to a diff Euro, cash, and Nando DeColo).”
Dude, you made my point.
We traded his rights for nothing of real value. That is a bad trade. It doesn’t matter that we tried in ‘05 to bring him over. It was a poor decision by the Spurs brass.
“There is no way the Spurs could have seen a 27 year old Euro finishing 3rd in the ROY balloting.”
Yeah, there is a way. However, the brass didn’t see it. That is the friggin point. The Spurs traded away a valuable player for junk. Only after time has passed can the trade be judged. We struck out on this one.
“Until Dragic’s 4th quarter of Game 3, there is no way anyone would have say the Suns came out on top of that trade.”
But he did have that game. You can’t dismiss an all world 4th quarter in a playoff game when judging a young player. That is ludicrious.
And unless Hairston does something on the court other than mop up duty the trade is in the Suns favor. Dragic is more polished and of greater value to his team on the court than Blair. (as of now)
God knows we need Blair and Hairston to be contributors next year.
You better quit being so defensive as to letting it blind your common sense. That wasn’t exactly an “A” post pal; It was far too easy to cut up.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:14 am
Absolutely love the end of this podcast. It has been my point all year long. Mahimi and Hairriston should have played to see what they are as players.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:18 am
Just some clarification on the Dragic trade:
The Spurs drafted Dragic on behalf of the Suns. The Spurs and Suns had already agreed to a trade that sent the Spurs pick (which the Suns requested them to draft Dragic with) to Phoenix for two second round picks.
Those second round picks that the Suns gave San Antonio ended up being Malik Hairston and DeJuan Blair.
May 28th, 2010 at 7:10 am
@ Andy
You’re right about Hollinger’s ranking in regards to Blair - guess I got that mixed up with WS40.
But in regards to Varnado - isn’t he a Ian Mahinmi clone? If anything, I’d rather bring Ian back in than spend a pick on Varnado. I watched a lot of SEC college basketball the last two years and although he’s a great shot blocker, at only 210 lbs, he’s going to get manhandled down low by most NBA big men. I like his potential, but I think he’s a few years off from contributing in our system. I’d rather take a guy with less upside that can come in and contribute now rather than a guy you’re going to have wait for a few years.
I can see Varnado and Larry Sanders having more success in an uptempo offense like Phoenix or GS that utilizes their athleticism as opposed to a more halfcourt oriented, bruising team like SA or Utah.
But I agree, the potential is there for Sanders and Varnado. I just question the fit w/ our system.
May 28th, 2010 at 7:14 am
Pick #49 in the second round I believe…..
May 28th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Blair is better than Dragic. Yes I think we can ignore one fourth quarter. Blair’s rookie year was far, far better than Dragic’s. Dragic looks like a guy who’s starting to come on late in his sophmore year. However, I’ll wait for him to have a good full year and Blair to not develop further before I start bemoaning the trade that brough us Blair.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The Spurs drafted Dragic on behalf of the Suns
Thanks for clarifying that. Honestly, I didn’t even know that was within the rules to do that.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:46 am
@Bduran
“Blair is better than Dragic. Yes I think we can ignore one fourth quarter. Blair’s rookie year was far, far better than Dragic’s. Dragic looks like a guy who’s starting to come on late in his sophmore year. However, I’ll wait for him to have a good full year and Blair to not develop further before I start bemoaning the trade that brough us Blair.”
I just don’t agree with that. Blair can only be used at situational times. There are players we is expected to guard that he can not handle. His lack of any perimeter game forces him to defend these players. Until the Spurs pick up a Channing Frye type player, that allows Blair to camp near the basket at the offensive end and not be forced to guard the opposing center than Blair can only be used in certain instances.
Look, I love Blair’s lighning fast hands on the glass, but he is a liability on the defensive end because of his size.
May 28th, 2010 at 10:27 am
“I just don’t agree with that. Blair can only be used at situational times.”
Blair looks to develop into a production machine. In 18 minutes he grabbed 6.4 boards and scored efficiently as an undersized rookie. He steals the ball at a decent rate and looks like he may turn into a decent blocker on help D. He will never be great on D, but pair him up with another big who is and he’ll be fine.
Dragic shot 40% his rookie and year and didn’t exactly accumulate a lot of other stats. Not good. Also, i was wrong above, his shooting % went down towards the end of the year, although he did start getting more assists. He sophmore campaign is OK from a production standpoint, but not great. i don’t know about his D. So far he’s had one bad year and one subpar year. I’m not ready to coronate him yet. Get the image of the Spurs game out of your head.
When thinking about what Blair brings, you can’t just focus on D. We’re unlikely to get someone who outproduces him. So you have to think how much increased opponent production does Blair allow by being on the court and how much more does Blair produce than whomever else we could get? I find it hard to believe that Blair doesn’t become a good enough defender that he isn’t a net positive. I think he’s a net positive right now and will only get better.
The one problem I have with Blair right now is the need to pair him with a jump shooter because of his lack of one. If we either a) get a jump shooting big or b)help Blair develop his shot then Blair needs lots more minutes.
May 28th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Trust me, ALL aspects of Blair’s game will improve in due time. And please remember, Dragic is 24, Blair is 21. That’s a BIG difference. Blair’s played just one year in the NBA, Dragic two years. That’s a BIG difference. It is very common that 2nd year guys make a big jump in their play. Blair will be no exception. And by the way, poor to mediocre “D” is a VERY common thing to see in VERY young, rookie players. Blair will become a better defender at the PF spot. He will learn to get better position. He will learn to avoid silly fouls. He will learn to strip down low like all top undersized “bigs” do. And he’s not bad at steals, shot-blocking, and of course, great at the final element of defense, the defensive boards. Offensively he will become a monster once he develops that knock down 15-20 footer, and improves his handle a bit, which he will. Just be patient, and watch with delight. This guy will become a real player. I don’t see how anyone cannot see that. How many guys do you know, in the HISTORY OF THE GAME, that have gotten TWO 20/20 games in their rookie year, at 6′6″, with no mid-range jumper, and at age 20? I’ll give you the answer: NONE.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“How many guys do you know, in the HISTORY OF THE GAME, that have gotten TWO 20/20 games in their rookie year, at 6′6″, with no mid-range jumper, and at age 20? I’ll give you the answer: NONE.”
Hollah
May 28th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
@ ChrisG
We both sucked at the Dragic point. Moving on.
I’ll bring it on Scola though. Your quote on the FO seeing Scola being who he is before the trade:
“Yeah, there is a way. However, the brass didn’t see it. That is the friggin point. The Spurs traded away a valuable player for junk.”
Pure, fact-less conjecture. There is no way you can know that. I base my argument on the fact that the Spurs are a business and acted upon a classic business model to ensure the profitability of the organization.
If you have product on the shelf that’s not moving, it’s costing you money, because you don’t have room for a product that does sell. Scola was a product sitting on another continent, not bettering the team, so after 5 years (!!!) they parlayed a non-existent player into something that could help the team.
It was a smart move. Again, there is no way ANYone could have seen a 27 year old Euro making that big of an impact. Houston got lucky.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
@ ThatBigGuy
Your inventory metaphor is the best explanation I’ve ever heard regarding the Scola situation. Right on the money.
However, you then proceed to say that no one could have seen a 27yo Euro playing so well. That simply doesn’t follow from your otherwise great argument, and I’d like to suggest tweaking your point here to make the overall point stronger.
Houston got lucky — but not because Scola played so well (I know multiple people who felt at the time that he could come in and contribute on any team). Rather, Houston’s luck lies in the fact that Scola’s buyout dropped so quickly after they acquired him.
Focusing on the unforeseeability of Scola’s buyout, rather than the unforeseeability of his strong rookie production, makes the strongest case that the Spurs front office wasn’t stupid for trading Scola. That’s because even if the Spurs front office didn’t know that Scola would be 3rd in RoY votes, they had to know that he was much more likely to be an immediate contributor than Jackie Butler. But it didn’t matter to the Spurs how good Scola was if all signs were he would never come over.
The Spurs made the smart business move based on the information they had at the time and got burned when a crucial piece of that information (Scola’s buyout, and thus, availability), changed so quickly after they made the move. As you no doubt know, that kind of thing happens all the time in business. In other words: “sh*t happens.”
May 29th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Re: Scola’s buyout
It was assumed by Scola (and acknowledged by the spurs) that he would not be a good fit next to TD, because both guys are better with the ball… Scola was VERY highly regarded by summer ‘07, the reigning and two-time MVP in Europe was widely and confidently predicted to make the all-rookie team, but he wasn’t seen as great fit next to TD, and didn’t want to be buried behind in him in the rotation. Once he was acquired by Houston, he was able to find his way to the NBA in short order.
ThatBigGuy is incorrect: It was not at all unpredictable that Scola would do well from the start, far from it, rather it was just the nature of the pro sports business that he was determined to go to a team where a star in his prime would have a solid opportunity.
May 29th, 2010 at 12:46 am
SCOLA had reviews as a Manu but bigger…A big MANU???????? ru kidding me .SPURS new but thought they where fine with TIM an they get what they deserve for being SNOBISH.They where right on with Parker,Manu, why did they question them self with Scola an Dragic?They got some screws loose with this reinvention of the wheel with a CENTER who shoots 3’s.Get SPLITTER and another BIG sign a free agent proven shooter.Dump contracts
May 30th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Anyone think we can sign Channing Frye for a replacement of Bonner? He makes just under 2 mil and will be a FA.
May 30th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
DNITCH
May 30th, 2010 at 9:54 am
“Anyone think we can sign Channing Frye for a replacement of Bonner? He makes just under 2 mil and will be a FA.”
In the end, I’m not sure Frye is that big of an upgrade over Bonner. In fact, upon closer examination, I think he is almost a Bonner clone. During the playoffs Bonner shot 37% from 3 as opposed to 35% for Frye. A big knock on Bonner is that he is wildly inconsistent from game to game. If you look at their game by game stats, they both either shot really well or really badly. Even though Frye was helped out by the Suns incessant zone defense, neither one possess great one-on-one defense or can rebound well for their size. Neither are shot blockers yet they don’t have the lateral quickness to guard many of the quicker 4’s in the league nor the size to guard many 5’s.
This brings me to my last point. I think this well intended lust for a “super athletic stretch 4″ may be misplaced. There are only a few really good stretch 4’s out there in the entire league (Lamar Odom, Antawn Jamison, Bosh, Amare, Alderidge, and maybe a few others) and we certainly can’t afford them. I’m of the opinion that we should concentrate on the twin tower approach that worked well with Tim and the Admiral. With all of Robinson’s strengths, 3pt shooting was not among them and yet that tandem worked fine. Sure we can’t get another Robinson, but surely we can get people better than Rasho Nesterovich, Nazr Mohammad, Fabricio Oberto, Matt Bonner, etc. My point is that it may be fools gold spending so much energy attempting to get a 4 who is a 3 pt shooting ace. If our next C or PF can “only” consistently shoot out to 18 ft, that would be enough. Perhaps Splitter can remedy much of this issue. If not, we might have to trade for one.
May 31st, 2010 at 2:45 am
With the Dragic deal, you get Blair and Hairston. The story of this trade isn’t over. This year will probably be a big year for both guys to try and grow. Hairston has some promise, so not all is lost.
Spurs have had a cozy relationship with the Suns for a while. They also picked Barbosa for the Suns back then.
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:45 am
[...] we changed the name of the podcast. “The 48 Minutes of Hell Podcast” just wasn’t cutting it. Instead, we’re honoring the greatest play in all of team [...]
Leave a Reply