Wednesday, June 9th, 2010...7:16 am
Are the Celtics pointing out the Spurs missteps?
An aging, future-Hall-of-Fame big man. A 30-something shooting guard. A veteran post presence looking for another shot at an NBA title. Um, a ginger.
There are several similarities between the San Antonio Spurs and Boston Celtics. Two years ago, even more so. But since, their roads have forked a bit.
Watching this Celtics team in the NBA Finals, a team that was considered old and left for dead two months ago, competing for a second NBA title in three years, I’m left second-guessing Gregg Popovich and the Spurs front office.
After Pau Gasol arrived in Los Angeles on the Lakers’ doorstep with a nice little note in a greeting card and a check for $20, as if he came from Grandma, the Spurs brain trust moved away from their defense-first principles ever so slightly.
Preventing the other team from scoring was still the message delivered in practices and games, but the roster makeup was telling a different story. The moral: we need to score more to win. In was Richard Jefferson and out were guys like Bruce Bowen, Fabricio Oberto and Kurt Thomas.
I can’t fault the front office for taking a chance. Quite the opposite, in fact. And I don’t think many people foresaw Jefferson being as awkward a fit as he’s been. But would a player like Shawn Marion, who is both a better defender and corner 3-point shooter (and cheaper), been a better fit? Mightier men have wilted under the care of Coach Pop.
San Antonio was still a solid defensive team that won 50 games this past season, but they by no means inflicted as much pain as the teams that inspired Graydon to name this site 48 Minutes of Hell.
Though the Celtics are a good offensive team, it is still a squad whose gameplan is rooted on the defensive end of the floor. With each series victory that brought the Celtics to a Finals matchup with the Lakers, I wondered more and more what would’ve happened if RC Buford and Co. would’ve stuck to their guns more.
Ah the double-edged sword of hindsight.
78 Comments
June 9th, 2010 at 8:18 am
So your theory is Boston brought in Ray Allen for his intimidating defensive presence?
June 9th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Boston brought in Ray Allen so KG would come too. Boston also has an edge in a slightly less talented Eastern conference. 1-8 in the West was awesome this year, but only 1-4 in the East.
I also admire the FO’s decision to bring in RJ. We were no closer to a title than last year and you would think a scorer could still score even with 3 other scorers.
Healthy off season and some quality moves are key.
June 9th, 2010 at 8:26 am
If you look at the Celtics roster, they have 4 offensive options in the starting 5. Perkins is the “Bowen” guy. The game has changed to where you can’t have only 3 options on offense. In my opinion, the move was what was needed for the Spurs, and I think we could’ve given LA a run for their money if we had made it to them
June 9th, 2010 at 10:35 am
@Jordan The Lakers would have demolished us. Before the playoffs started, I was one of those that believed we could’ve played with LA and given them a series. But after watching LA in playoff games, we easily would’ve been swept.
LA’s intensity and team basketball IQ is leaps and bounds more than what we brought as a team. It would have been 2001 all over again.
June 9th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I contend that our 3-point shooting (or lack thereof) is what really finished us against Phoenix, and might’ve bitten us against Dallas if not for some stepping up from George and the big guns.
I agree that the 4-man scoring is necessary these days to compete with the elite teams - look at what happened with the teams that Boston beat to get to the Finals. We really REALLY need RJ to step up and be what we thought he was (to paraphrase Coach Green) in his second season in the system. If that happens, I think other things will fall into place.
I don’t really want either team to win the championship this year, but my loathing of Kobe, Jackson and the Lakers outwieghs any issues I have with the Celts, KG and Allen.
June 9th, 2010 at 11:13 am
I agree with Jordan and what’s more, the example given for other paths we could have taken (Marion vs. Jefferson) is controversial at best.
For one you call Marion a “better corner 3pt shooter” while he was 3-19 from downtown this year.
RJ is also more accurate from close range (69% vs 61%) and gets to the line more often. RJ may not have had a great offensive year here but it was better than Marion’s last few years.
Many of the same problems that RJ had/has would face Marion too: slow start while learning the new system, can’t create his own shot, no role in a halfcourt, guard-dominated offense, etc.
He might be a better fit on defense and for rebounding, but we’d have no reason to expect him to be Bruce Bowen. On offense he could have been _worse_ than a Bruce type as he has no 3pt shot and is not very efficient with the offense he does have.
The Mavs learned the hard way not to fill your roster with one-way players. We need our best guys to be able to great defense AND score or at least be an efficient and reliable option. Just because we don’t have any defensive subs with ugly offensive game right now doesn’t mean we should be looking for one.
June 9th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I thought hindsight was always 20/20? A double edge sword is something that hurts/helps at the same time; hindsight doesn’t qualify there, sorry. Get your cliches straight, man!
June 9th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I truely believe we need to get back to the Twin Towers look with guys who can knock down an open shot.
We did it, won with it! Everyone noticed, everyone copied, and we went away from it…?
This year - our biggest problem was knocking down the open shot, and team defense. Find someone who can score efficiently, and 2 defensive 7 footers handles the defensive issues.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
DieHardSpur
June 9th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“I truely believe we need to get back to the Twin Towers look with guys who can knock down an open shot.”
I couldn’t agree more. We need Splitter, but I wouldn’t be opposed to moving up in the draft and getting Favors or Cousins in return for a Parker trade. If you look at the Lakers, their size (more so than #24)is what KILLS their opponents. The ability to alter and intimidate shots is vastly under rated in the league and the Spurs have only one player (past his prime) who can defend the rim. Duncan really needs to mentor a good young C at this point in his career. Robinson was around to help Tim 5 years and Duncan will have 2-3 years at most to tutor a young protege. Trust me, I’m under no delusions that we can get another Tim Duncan or David Robinson in this draft, but it would criminal for the best Power Forward of all time not to be able to pass on his wisdom and experience to a young stud.
“With each series victory that brought the Celtics to a Finals matchup with the Lakers, I wondered more and more what would’ve happened if RC Buford and Co. would’ve stuck to their guns more.”
First of all, I am not and have never been a Pop or RC basher. I truly believe that they make the best Front Office and coaching staff in the league. However, with that said, if RC and Pop are guilty of anything it is that they stuck to their guns too long. The Spurs continued to slot older past-their-prime veterans like Finley, Oberto, Thomas, Bowen, etc. into the lineup instead of trading or signing young talent. Last summer they finally changed strategy with the trade for Jefferson. The Celtics, on the other hand, have 4 players under 26 who are significant contributors (Perkins, Davis, Rondo, Robinson). Pop has a tough time letting go of the veterans. The case in point is Finley. Earlier in the year Pop was giving him minutes until he got injured. With the Celtics, he’s so buried on the bench that he has gotten 2 minutes in the Finals. Pop loves to play Bonner, the Spurs version of Scalabrine, while Scalabrine has yet to see minutes in the playoffs. These are the people the FO and Pop hold onto.
The “Big 3″ movement in the NBA, blazed by the Spurs, is over. You now need AT LEAST 3 very good players PLUS a decent bench in order to truly compete. We have been slow in adopting this strategy. A wise man once told me that the leaders of one cutting edge movement may be very slow to the table on the next great movement. I’m afraid the Spurs are guilty of this. With that said, however, I really think we will wake up and make big moves over the next few months. We have begun to build a younger nucleus with Blair and Hill, but really need to amp up the rebuild. I can’t see us competing for a championship this next year (barring a god send trade) but I think we could seriously compete if we make BIG moves this summer to get younger, allow the regular season to build experience, skills and knowledge, and then dip our toes in the playoffs in order for the youngsters to gain post season experience. If this approach is taken, perhaps two years out, in Duncans last year, we can really compete with the big boys.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Our defense is worse due to aging and salary cap issues (Bowen, Duncan, Dice, Ratliff, etc.), and under-performance of NEW and YOUNG players adjusting to the system (RJ, Dice, Blair, Hairston, etc.), not “really” by design.
Boston has had some success because Rondo, at just 24 years of age, has become a major star, and a young (25) and improving Perkins now effectively anchors their “D” in the paint. We don’t have those type of players right now to effectively compliment our aging “big three”. And even in Boston’s case, they still need at least one other young, very good player to allow them a legitimate shot. River’s has done a great job, and it’s very impressive (some would say fortunate) that the Celtics have come this far (overall team defense, even from role players like Tony Allen, and of course, Rondo, are the keys). That said, in my view, they’re pretty close to burning themselves out by now, and so I see the Lakers taking them in six. But we’ll see. The Celts do have a gutty and mentally strong team. I just think the physical wear & tear on an aging team is about to show it’s ugly face. Ultimately, speed & stamina are the prerequisites for deciding victors at the end of the day, and most older teams simply don’t measure up any more in these qualities.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Well then Jim -
Lets trade Manu for Dwayne Wade,
Jefferson for Lebron James,
McDyess for Dwight Howard
We would have a young all-star core.
Does that sound like a good plan in your book?
June 9th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Hobson13
June 9th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“We need Splitter, but I wouldn’t be opposed to moving up in the draft and getting Favors or Cousins in return for a Parker trade.”
Hobson, please read my last “long” post, to Tyler, on the previous thread. I would think very carefully before suggesting a trade of Parker, etc., for Favors or Cousins. If the FO is “very sure” about either of those guys (Favors, Cousins) it’s worth considering, but from what I know, I’d rather make trades for players that have already played at least one year in the NBA. Otherwise, I agree with your main point, that we need another talented tall guy that can effectively alter/block shots around the rim. I also agree with your point that Pop likes to hold onto pass-their-prime veterans for too long, to the point where a problematic age imbalance of players in the rotation has now occurred. We need at least one or two more young players to crack our top eight, if not our top five. And I agree with your entire last paragraph.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
DieHardSpur
June 9th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
” Well then Jim -
Lets trade Manu for Dwayne Wade,
Jefferson for Lebron James,
McDyess for Dwight Howard
We would have a young all-star core.
Does that sound like a good plan in your book?”
DieHard, that’s a ridiculous post. I’ve already presented numerous more realistic ways over the past couple months for this team to improve it’s overall quality of youth, and also improve the by addressing critical needs. If you’d care to back up critiques of these proposals with data and logic I’d be happy to defend my position. But try to refrain from posting nonsense in the future. It makes you look like a fool.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Most interesting comments indeed but with nothing more than the constant rehashing of what’s wrong with the Spurs and how other teams have found success this singular off season. The same criticisms being levied against the Spurs are what was generally said currently about the Celts before they entered this championship round.
Age is the great levening agent and ALL PLAYERS including the Kobes of the world get OLD- some sooner than others. Look at Fisher who is an unrestricted free agent trying to compete with younger faster quicker point guards. Garnett had a great game that was wasted but still Boston was right there with approximately 2 minutes left and Allen being horrific.
Can the Spurs be successful next year- yes! Most of the athletes being projected for the Spurs like the Marions/Stoudamires all need the ball in their hands just like RJ. Trading Parker solves nothing as what will be gotten for him in return? An oft injured Chris Paul! What can NY offer-a few more broken down guys!
Wholesale changes never work- subtle ones do.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Jim,
I absolutely agree with your premise that drafting a franchise player is a long shot. I really don’t believe we could get a Super Star player, but I do think we could get an All-Star caliber big in the top of this draft. If we were to trade Parker for essentially a draft pick and say a decent PG, I don’t necessarily believe that it HAS to be the #1 pick. If we could get a top 4 pick (ensuring either Favors or Cousins), I think we could let Parker go. I don’t have to remind you that Parker, while a legit top 7 PG is only marginally an All Star player and certainly wouldn’t have gotten his Finals MVP if he played against a more formidable team that didn’t have Eric Snow attempting to guard Parker.
You are right in the fact that the FO would have to really know one of these guys could be a stud before pulling the trigger on such a trade. However, if there’s one thing the FO can do it is evaluate talent. In all honesty, I have no clue what the FO will do, but there have been numerous rumors surrounding Parker since we got knocked out and they just won’t seem to die.
“I’d rather make trades for players that have already played at least one year in the NBA.”
That’s reasonable. I think guys like Anthony Randolph and Kevin Love would be very intriguing. I’m not sure if we have the right pieces, but they seem to be available for the right price. I still think we could get Randolph for Jefferson IF we wanted to swallow Maggette’s nasty contract.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
annie
June 9th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“Wholesale changes never work- subtle ones do.”
Do you mean like several summers ago when the Celtics traded Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West, the draft rights to Jeff Green for Ray Allen. The same summer they also traded Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair, a 2009 first round draft pick for Kevin Garnett. I think those wholesale changes have worked out ok for the Celtics.
No offense, but this team is at a cross roads this summer. We’ve tried subtle changes for years. Either we wheel and deal or we go the way of the dinosaur.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I agree that something has changed. I’ve wondered if the Pop has fallen in love too much with Dennis Lindsey’s excel spread sheets or whatever it is that convinces him that Bonner is a player to be trusted.
I think Pop’s overanalytical/neurotic nature has made the team soft.
What makes Boston a better team is they are more determined and play aggressively. They remind me of our 99 team in regards to attitude. Since that year Pop has shifted his focus to getting players with good GPAs but horrible basketball IQ.
Pop wants players he can manipulate but then gets mad when they play softly. That’s the downside to the type of player he’s grown to appreciate.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Gotta agree with Diehardspur and Hobson13 that the twin tower effect and blossoming youth are needed to win a championship.
Lakers are blocking an avg of 9 shots a game against the Celtics or basically 1 out of every 9 shots the Celtics shoot. That’s some serious defense. Add to that Artest shutting down Pierce and Kobe’s getting 2 steals a game and Fisher’s flopping/drawing charges and defensively the Lakers have become a force.
Could the Spurs have played Ratliff/Mahinmi minutes to get that same effect? We’ll never know. Spurs had the pieces but never used them to full effect.
Spurs need a defensive big to protect the rim, a wing defender, and a clutch outside shooter.
Re-Sign Bobby Jones -http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Bobby-Jones-351/ - he fits better than Keith Bogans, get Bowen to mentor him, like Olajuwon mentored Kobe or Mark Price mentored Rajon Rondo.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
@Hobson13 - I wouldn’t necessarily call Nate Robinson a “significant contributor”… Sure, the guy’s been showing some flashes of late but he still averages less than 10 minutes on the court. Doc wasn’t too keen on using him until very recently. Spurs also had young solid contributors in their roster too you know - Parker, RJ, Hill were all solid contributors (of course we’d expected a lot more from them, esp. RJ) and while they weren’t exactly all less than 26 years of age, they were young (<30) nonetheless. Comparing age of the roster between Spurs and Celtics is quite meaningless I think.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
annie
June 9th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“The same criticisms being levied against the Spurs are what was generally said currently about the Celts before they entered this championship round.”
Boston is done with their “big three”. This is their last shot, and they’re about to run out of gas. And they have two young guns at two key positions: Rondo at point, and Perkins in the middle. And they’re still too old. And the Spurs are even worse off at present. We cannot compete for a title next year with this team. We can be a playoff team, and that’s nice. A title? VERY unlikely.
“Wholesale changes never work- subtle ones do.”
There is a mid-line between “wholesale” & “subtle” changes, is there not?
And I echo Hobsons sentiments on this issue.
Hollywood
June 9th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Hollywood, I think you’re getting a bit overly into arm-chair Pop-Psychology. No pun intended!
June 9th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
@Hollywood -
“They remind me of our 99 team in regards to attitude. Since that year Pop has shifted his focus to getting players with good GPAs but horrible basketball IQ.”
So I guess you’re saying players like Manu, TP, Oberto have a really low basketball IQ?
June 9th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Hobson13
June 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
“I really don’t believe we could get a Super Star player, but I do think we could get an All-Star caliber big in the top of this draft. If we were to trade Parker for essentially a draft pick and say a decent PG, I don’t necessarily believe that it HAS to be the #1 pick. If we could get a top 4 pick (ensuring either Favors or Cousins), I think we could let Parker go.”
Actually, check out this post from the previous thread.
Jim Henderson
June 4th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
“……..Okay, I took a spin through the the 12 drafts from 1996 through 2007, with the intent to look at the draft picks 1-5, and 10-20. Here’s what I found, draft # in parentheses:
1-5 picks, one all-star appearance or better:
1996 – Iverson (1), Marbury (4), R. Allen (5)
1997 – Duncan (1), Billups (3)
1998 – Jamison (4), V. Carter (5)
1999 – Brand (1), B. Davis (3)
2000 – K. Martin (1)
2001 – P. Gasol (3)
2002 – Y. Ming (1)
2003 – James (1), Anthony (3), Bosh (4), Wade (5)
2004 – Howard (1)
2005 – D. Williams (3), C. Paul (4)
2006 – ZERO
2007 – Durant (2)
20 one-time or better all-stars out of 12 drafts from the top five picks. The MEDIAN is 1.5 one-time all-stars or better players yielded out of the top five picks in the average draft. Basically, a team has about a 30% chance of drafting a one-time or better all-star out of the top five picks. Average seasons played by the players listed in these drafts, about nine. By far, the best draft years for top five picks were 1996 and 2003.”
As you can see, even the chance of getting a one-time or better all-star from the top five picks is not very high. Something to consider.
June 9th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Everyone wants to blow up this entire team it seems to get guys. Boston is proving the opposite of what you are bringing up. Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, and hill are the same as pierce, allen, rondo, and garnet. I dont think mcdysee and wallace are too much of stretch. The spurs need to add a three point shooter (maybe 2) and an athletic big man who can block shots. Personally, Id love them to bring back mahimi add splitter and then draft a 3 pt SF and maybe add another to the team. This would resolve all their problems.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The big problem for the Spurs on defence is Tim Duncan. He can not defend the pick n roll, he can not leap and block shots.
Paul Gasol’s fundamental team defence is amazing. The way he defended the suns pick n roll offence was awesome to watch and also now against the Celtics.
The Spurs need a mobile big on defence. I don’t understand why Mahinmi didn’t get more of a chance against the Suns, I think he would of caused a few problems for them with his mobility on defence.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
@Renato-Duncan was not a defensive liability during the Phoenix series. I think it was the way we played PHX’s pick and roll that made Timmy look bad. Spurs tried a lot of ball switching that generated a lot of small-big mismatches. Nash, Grant Hill and Dragic had a field day running rings around Duncan or shooting jumpers when Timmy backed down.
San Antonio also played some drop zone against the PnR, and it was generally more effective. But a drop zone to be truly effective would still have to rely on excellent rotation and the ball defender fighting hard against those picks. In short, ineffective team defense, not Timmy’s shortcomings, was what did SA in the series.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Jim Henderson
June 9th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
“As you can see, even the chance of getting a one-time or better all-star from the top five picks is not very high. Something to consider.”
Damn. Maybe the FO has some special insights into Favors (after all they interviewed him) that we don’t know about.
Ian
June 9th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
” I wouldn’t necessarily call Nate Robinson a “significant contributor”… Sure, the guy’s been showing some flashes of late but he still averages less than 10 minutes on the court.”
Nate is a very solid scorer. I would agree that earlier on he wasn’t a big part of the team, but he is finding his way on the floor more and more since that big game (game 6 I think) against Orlando. He has been underused by the Celtics, IMO.
“Parker, RJ, Hill were all solid contributors (of course we’d expected a lot more from them, esp. RJ) and while they weren’t exactly all less than 26 years of age, they were young”
Hill is really the only one of the three who is young. Parker has been in the league 8 years and RJ is pushing 30.
“Comparing age of the roster between Spurs and Celtics is quite meaningless I think.”
My point in comparing them was that both rosters are very different. The Celtics FO changed and adapted while the Spurs were busy trying to plug in old veterans. Thats why the Celtics are still playing (with a better/younger bench) and the Spurs aren’t.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Steve Nash is the engine that drives the Suns. Bruce Bowen used to give him fits and that was key to our mastery. For whatever reason, George Hill could not handle him … at all. That’s what killed us in that series.
But on the central point of this post … that Pop made a subtle but significant change in committing to greater offense (that explains Bonner’s minutes), I completely agree. I wrote a comment on this site last year making the same observation. Was it to make up for what he perceived as an inevitable drop off in Timmy’s production? Not sure, but the change was real and the consequences significant.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Renato
June 9th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
“Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, and hill are the same as pierce, allen, rondo, and garnet.”
They are not. Rondo is the difference. He’s a bonafide star now. Hill is not. In addition, you left out the 25 year old, 6′10″, 275 pd. Kendrick Perkins that anchors the Celtics “D” in the paint now, with his size & shot-blocking. We have nothing of the sort that’s comparable.
Hobson13
June 9th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Damn. Maybe the FO has some special insights into Favors (after all they interviewed him) that we don’t know about.”
Well, we can hope so, but don’t read “too much” into that interview. The team has the ability to conduct a lot of interviews, and it’s a good opportunity for management to just get an early read on that player to file away in case Favors becomes available for some reason in the future. Obviously they were intrigued by Favors, and were perhaps even impressed with certain facets of his game, but it might not be any more than that. And we probably won’t ever know anything about it, unless the FO pulls off a bold move on draft day! It’s always a possibility, but not likely.
agutierrez
June 9th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
“But on the central point of this post … that Pop made a subtle but significant change in committing to greater offense (that explains Bonner’s minutes), I completely agree.”
It’s because we simply did not have enough good defenders on the team due to aging and salary cap issues (Bowen, Duncan, Dice, Ratliff, etc.), and under-performance of NEW and YOUNG players adjusting to the system (RJ, Dice, Blair, Hairston, etc.). It was not “really” by design.
We needed more offense on the team this year because our defenders, as a team, were simply unable to get enough stops. And Bonner played more minutes partly because we don’t have enough good three-point shooters that also play good defense, and Bonner is our leading three-point shooter.
June 9th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
This Spurs team was built to play against the Lakers, and never got the chance. So who knows what the reserging Spurs we saw at the end of the season and against Dallas could have done to the Lakers? The problem is, they ran into the worst possible match up for them, the Pheonix Suns. Basketball is a game of matchups, and the Spurs did not match up well with the Suns at all. In my opinion, I think the Spurs should keep their core, work their usual magic in the draft, and pick up a shooter and/or perimiter defender (along with Splitter) to take one more stab at the Tim Duncan title era. Tony Parker and Tim Duncan will be all stars next year (aside from injury), and Manu Ginobli is Manu Ginobli. The only way I think the Spurs would make a big move, is if they are offered an unrefusable offer.
June 9th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
“Buckets
June 9th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The big problem for the Spurs on defence is Tim Duncan. He can not defend the pick n roll, he can not leap and block shots.
Paul Gasol’s fundamental team defence is amazing. The way he defended the suns pick n roll offence was awesome to watch and also now against the Celtics.”
Buckets, did we watch different series? What PnR defense by Gasol are you talking? Nash was shooting over Gasol the same way he was shooting over Timmy, every time Gasol switched over. Everything changed once Lakers put Artest on Nash. He, like Bowen, fought through the picks, stuck close to Nash, and didn’t let him shoot, and Nash could not take him with dribble, as he could have done with Timmy or Gasol (that’s why they both backed down, conceding midrange jumper, which Nash hit at a ridiculous rate). Hill simply could not fight through screens as Bowen was doing, or as Artest did. Obviously, it didn’t hurt that both Bowen and Artest have at least 5 inches on Nash (not counting Bowens long-long arms). That’s why we were always beating the Suns - because Bowen was athletic enough to stay with Nash through screens and dribbles, and long enough to do not give him any daylight for shooting or passing. Artest did the same in the end-of-game situations. Players like Gasol or Dunkan cannot switch on Nash on the perimeter and defend him there - they can impede him for a short period, to allow the guard / SF to recover.
June 9th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
@Hobson13 - You sound as if Celtics were contending for championship each year AND adapting to the aging roster. They were mostly bad to mediocre for the last decade or so (in the weaker Eastern Conference no less) and they were mostly forced to adapt in order to be relevant while Spurs were contending for the championship each year. The two teams have been very different and that’s why it’s quite meaningless to compare their roster and resulting track records. It’s little unfair, I think, to blame the FO for not focussing on player developments in favor of winning the championships in the last decade.
Having said that, though, it’ll be really great if the Spurs FO actually moved up to draft Favors, even if it means losing Parker and Blair/Splitter (or whoever they can throw in for that matter). I’m not against drafting & developing a super-talented player, and the time might be just right too.
June 9th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Ian
June 9th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
“it’ll be really great if the Spurs FO actually moved up to draft Favors, even if it means losing Parker and Blair/Splitter (or whoever they can throw in for that matter). I’m not against drafting & developing a super-talented player, and the time might be just right too.”
Before you get too enthusiastic about letting go of Parker et al., through a trade-up for Favors or Cousins, consider two of my recent posts from the previous thread:
Jim Henderson
June 4th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Okay, I took a spin through the the 12 drafts from 1996 through 2007, with the intent to look at the draft picks 1-5, and 10-20. Here’s what I found, draft # in parentheses:
1-5 picks, one all-star appearance or better:
1996 – Iverson (1), Marbury (4), R. Allen (5)
1997 – Duncan (1), Billups (3)
1998 – Jamison (4), V. Carter (5)
1999 – Brand (1), B. Davis (3)
2000 – K. Martin (1)
2001 – P. Gasol (3)
2002 – Y. Ming (1)
2003 – James (1), Anthony (3), Bosh (4), Wade (5)
2004 – Howard (1)
2005 – D. Williams (3), C. Paul (4)
2006 – ZERO
2007 – Durant (2)
20 one-time or better all-stars out of 12 drafts from the top five picks. The MEDIAN is 1.5 one-time all-stars or better players yielded out of the top five picks in the average draft. Basically, a team has about a 30% chance of drafting a one-time or better all-star out of the top five picks. Average seasons played by the players listed in these drafts, about nine. By far, the best draft years for top five picks were 1996 and 2003.
Jim Henderson
June 9th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Now, what I want to provide is a snap shot of the actual likelihood of securing a “franchise player” through a teams own draft pick, because the common perception appears to be that it is more likely than it really is.
In a previous post, I listed off the top five picks in the drafts between 1996 & 2007, but only if they appeared in at least one all-star game. I did the same thing with the 10-20 picks, but this was based on whether they have been a “starter” or better for “most” of their careers.
Subsequently, we’ve now whittled this list down to what we have defined as “franchise players”. We have BOTH agreed that the following EIGHT players out of the top five picks of the previously identified draft years should be deemed a “franchise player”:
Iverson (1) (1996)
Duncan (1) (1997)
James (1) (2003)
Wade (5) (2003)
Howard (1) (2004)
Williams (3) (2005)
Paul (4) (2005)
Durant (2) (2007)
The following TWO players were deemed a “franchise player” out of the 10-20 picks during the same draft period:
Bryant (13) 1996
Nash (15) 1996
Lets hone in on the top five picks, since the common perception is that we would have a good chance at getting a “franchise player” if we were to somehow secure a top five pick, and acquiring a top five pick is often considered by many imperative to winning a championship.
I’ll start by just listing some facts from my “little study”:
– draft years looked at – 1996 through 2007
– number of draft years looked at – 12
– TOTAL number of top five picks – 60
– Number of “franchise players” – 8
– Number of drafts “franchise players” came from – 6
– Number of “franchise players” that were #1 picks – 4
– Number of “franchise players” that were 1-3 picks – 6
From this data:
– overall, cumulative odds of drafting a franchise player from one of the top five picks – 13%
– odds of having just ONE franchise player come out of the top five picks in any given draft year – 33%
– odds of having TWO franchise players come out of the top five picks in any given draft year – 17%
– odds the number one pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 33%
– odds the number 2-3 pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 17%
– odds the number 4-5 pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 17%
– odds the number two pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 8%
– odds the number three pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 8%
– odds the number four pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 8%
– odds the number five pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player – 8%
Granted, this is limited data, based on just 12 years of drafts, but as you can see, the chances of drafting a franchise player appear to be very slim, even for those teams that get into the top-five selection order of the draft, by virtue of a POOR record, and a bit of LUCK. Furthermore, you can see that the “cream of the crop” generally rises quickly from pick five up to pick one (4 franchise players from the top pick, just one each from picks #2, #3, #4, & #5).
Thus, for those that want to trade up to the number 2-5 picks, you have approximately an 8% chance of drafting a “franchise player”. I’d think long and hard on that one. In my view it’s simply too risky to trade a guy like Parker for less than a number one pick, which just isn’t going to happen.
The fact is, you have to be a very poor team AND lucky to get a reasonable chance of getting a “franchise player” out of the draft. Thus, I would rather focus my efforts with putting together a great “team” full of all-stars, almost all-stars, and key role players that are “gamers” (like Derek Fisher reiterated that he is in game three last night). I would rather the FO follow a Pistons model to a championship over the next several years, by acquiring key pieces of young, and in-prime off-the-radar stars, & budding stars. I think the Spurs FO is savvy enough to get us a decent chance at another championship using this model over the next 3-5 years, before we will probably inevitably tank. We can take our luck at the top picks at that time, because at that time we would have nothing to lose.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:11 am
Not an equal comparison, as the Celtics play in the East. Even while defeating Cleveland, I kept thinking how few scoring options the Cavs had outside of LeBron, while the Spurs were dealing with a Suns team that was great at shooting the 3 and had five viable options on the floor. If the Celtics played in the West, their age and inconsistency on the offensive end would leave them short of reaching the Finals.
I’ll also add that what has driven Boston this post-season, and what stalled the Spurs, is that one player on the Celtics plays great: Rando, whose great play makes everyone else better. No Spurs player was great this post-season. If Parker or Manu had played at such a great level throughout (and perhaps Manu would’ve continued doing so without the nasal injury), their individual contributions plus making things easier for other players would’ve vaulted this Spurs team into the WCF and an equivalent situation as Boston: a seven game series vs LA.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:28 am
The difference between the spurs and celts is
1. A defensive center in Perkins ( top 2 in playoffs in blocks) when teamed with KG you basically have a twin tower combination ( 2 , 7 footers). Hopefully with Tiango teaming with TD we do the same.
2. Two of our big 4 ( best players ) play the same PG position, unlke the Spurs big 4 . to maximize talent we should consider trading one of our PG for a small forward. This would”nt have been a problem if only RJ lived up to expectations.
I’m definetly for trading parker for a top 10 pick , getting a quality 3 to be our top 4 , plus a back-up good PG. And leaving enough cap space for next year to offer Splitter a 3 year contract enough to move him over.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:06 am
How would a hypothetical Parker to Portland trade look like? Would Greg Oden be available in such a trade? If so, is it a good gamble given his alarming proclivity for injury?
June 10th, 2010 at 5:37 am
I feel like there is a silver lining to both options, whether we get Tiago Splitter or Derrick Favors. I would be happy with either one of them. Either way, the Spurs would have another big to pair with Tim Duncan.
Tiago Splitter: If nothing else, we wouldn’t be able to say it was a wasted draft pick if he comes over. He would have an immediate impact on the team, giving Tim Duncan the best center he has played with since David Robinson, and the Spurs the much-needed interior presence to go along with TD. No need to go into details about the tools Splitter would bring to the team, because there are enough threads about him on here that already do that.
Derrick Favors: If the Spurs can somehow get Favors, that would also be a huge plus. With me living in Alabama, I got a chance to see a pretty good bit of his games at Georgia Tech, and liked what I saw. He has a nice combination of length, athleticism, quickness, good awareness for somebody as young as he is, and is a pretty good defender and should be one of the best in the league with some polishing. From what I heard from the announcers, he also has a good work ethic, and that’s a neccesity for being a Spur. He supposedly fits the profile of what the Spurs have been looking for since David Robinson retired, and could potentially take over for Tim Duncan as the franchise player one day.
I’m well aware that Derrick Favors is a project, but I like his chances of becoming a dominant big man one day if he comes to the Spurs mainly for 2 reasons:
1.) He would be mentored by the G.O.A.T. power forward; a top 10 all-time great regardless of position.
2.) Since he wouldn’t be going to a losing team, there wouldn’t be any ridiculous expectations for him. He could be a difference maker without the pressure of carrying the team. I believe that’s a major factor in why the success rate for high draft picks is so low.
Like I said, I would be happy with either move if for no other reason than Tim Duncan having a legit big man next to him. But the more I read and hear about the possibilty of the Spurs trading up to get Derrick Favors, no matter how big or small that possibility might be, the more I’m in favor of that happening. The big question, and the key to making that happen obviously is what they would have to give up to make that happen. I do rememember several years back either Peter Holt or R.C. Buford saying that the Spurs planned on using TD in the David Robinson role toward the end of his career.
I strongly believe that if you have any kind of chance to get a potential franchise big man, you at least have to look into it. The more things change, the more they stay the same. In other words, as much as the game has changed over the years, one thing has remained constant: The way to build your team is from the inside out. The league might be a guard-driven league and all that, but you won’t win a championship without a dominant (or highly skilled) big man. Here are a couple of stats as proof:
-56 out of the 64 NBA champions (including the current NBA Finals teams) have had a dominant/high skill big man- either a center or power forward.
-35 out the 55 league MVPs have went to either a center or power forward.
One other thing, I know I’m preaching to the chior on this one, but obviously the workload on Tim Duncan is way to much. It’s making him look older than what he is. I feel like even at 34 years old, with a dependable center next to him, he could still be dominant. Here is the way I see it:
The lack of another dependable big has led to TD playing most of the game these days as the sole big on the floor. Which means that in addition to the normal 20/10 he puts up, he also has to help make up for the 10 rebounds a game they lose from not having that other big next to him. He also has to guard the best big on the floor for the other team, and block all the shots.
With him being the only big on the floor most of the time, that means the Spurs are going small. When they go small, that means Richard Jefferson moves over to power forward. As a result, you are asking him not only to get the normal 6 rebounds expected from a small forward, but split the center’s rebounds with Tim Duncan. It’s unrealistic to expect that to happen every night. So in essence, TD is having to give production for both post positions which again, at his age and miles he has, is too much for him, and that’s why he wears down after the All-Star break.
The Spurs need to go back to the Twin Tower approach, that’s what got them the championships in the first place. Whether they get Tiago Splitter or Derrick Favors, they need another big in there with TD in the worst way, along with a peremeter defender. This is just how I see it.
June 10th, 2010 at 5:40 am
One other thing I forgot, it would be a tragedy if Tim Duncan never had the chance to mentor a young C/PF the way David Robinson did him. Even David Robinson had Moses Malone for a teammate for 1 year, and coincidentally that was the year he won the MVP.
June 10th, 2010 at 7:33 am
The Spurs biggest need is obtaining rebounding and defensive help for Duncan. Let’s face it, he is not the defensive power he was in 2007 (bad knee) when he had pretty good lateral movement and some hops. The Spurs have a chance to draft a rebounding defender at the 20 spot and if they go for a perimeter shooting small forward instead I think RJ will give up and the problem of a prime defender at the rim remains. Splitter might help, but I wouldn’t put my eggs in that basket. Solomon Alabi or Hassan Whiteside might be available and if the Spurs keep Mahinmi and pull off the Splitter miracle they have the parts to truly contend with the Lakers and upcomers like Oklahoma and Portland.
June 10th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Trading to draft Favors does not impact ability to sign Splitter. We could end up with both.
June 10th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Sounds like some of you guys are willing to trade away Parker & Blair, for an 8% chance of a “franchise player”, and a 30% chance of a one-time or better all-star (Favors). Why would you trade away a guy who’s already a three-time all-star at age 28, and a 21 year old guy with a decent chance of becoming at least a one-time all-star himself? How can you be so definitive in your views on the “trade-up” idea, with those kind of odds?
June 10th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Here is why the Spurs need to do some trading. The salary cap is expected to be around $51-54M next year. Spurs players under contract for next year with their salary from the current year (rounded off):
Blair $.85M
Duncan $22.2M
Ginobili $10.7M
Hill $1.1M
Jefferson $14.2M
McDyess $4.5M
Parker $12.6M
This is going to be about $12M over the salary cap. Roughly 1/3 of the entire salary cap is consumed by Jefferson and McDyess, and add in Parker and it is well over half the entire cap. This is ugly.
Teams can violate the cap to sign players they draft (including Splitter), players with Bird-rights (including Bonner), players accepting league minimum (Temple, Hairston, Gee, Jerrells, training camp walkons all possible), and maybe one player under the mid-level exception. The bi-annual exception was used to sign Haislip (yikes!) and that is only available every other year.
Unless the Spurs will field a team of the 7 players I listed above with salaries, filled out with players chosen from (Splitter, Temple, Hairston, Gee, Jerrells, Bonner, late 1st round pick in 2010, late 2nd round pick in 2010, training camp walk-on),
which would look alot like the 2009/2010 team that flamed out in the 2nd round (but with Tim and Manu a year older), the Spurs will have to do some sort of trade. Otherwise, given they are not likely to make it past the 2nd round, might as well blow up the team for draft picks and start rebuilding.
Parker has not meshed well with Ginobili on offense (they both have similar offensive games, drive and dish or shoot a pull-up jumper on a fake drive, or run the pick-and-roll, and now has not been able to get Jefferson involved in the offense. Parker is not the pure point guard that Hill has grown to be. Parker needs to create off the dribble. Based on playing style, salary level needed to bring in other players, trade value, redundancy of position, Parker is likely on the trading block.
Someone suggested trading Jefferson and a low pick for Elton Brand and the #2 pick. I can’t see why the 76ers would do that. They give up a high pick and are stuck with a big salary for 1 more year. They accomplish the same salary dump by keeping Brand 1 more year and trading him a year from now. The 76ers might do Brand for Jefferson straight up. Maybe. But they won’t give up a #2 pick to take on Jefferson’s salary for a year.
So, I think Jefferson is untradeable, and Tim and Manu are untouchable. I expect to see Temple and Hairston back, but think Bogans, Mason, will be gone, and Jerrells and Gee won’t make the roster if they even return. Bonner might get signed as the backup center.
I’d like to see either Splitter signed or his rights traded, eg Parker + Blair + rights to Splitter for a starting C or PF, and backup SF and backup PG. Then this acquired post player, Duncan, Jefferson, Ginobili, and Hill start, and the two acquired role players, McDyess, Bonner and Temple round out the bench rotation.
I don’t know if such a team can win a title, but they could be significantly improved from the current season.
J
June 10th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
It is my guess that the loss of Tom Thibodeau will be the Celtics undoing. We will see what the loss of a great defensive mind plays on a team as good as the Celtics are now. I don’t see them making the playoffs next year or for the foreseeable future. If I were Doc, I’d exit stage left and go watch my son play college ball.
June 11th, 2010 at 8:15 am
“Parker has not meshed well with Ginobili on offense ”
Yeah, those guys could never win a championship together.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I sure is a ridiculous statement.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
J
June 10th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
“Someone suggested trading Jefferson and a low pick for Elton Brand and the #2 pick. I can’t see why the 76ers would do that. They give up a high pick and are stuck with a big salary for 1 more year. They accomplish the same salary dump by keeping Brand 1 more year and trading him a year from now. The 76ers might do Brand for Jefferson straight up.”
This would be a deplorable trade for the Spurs. I think Philly would seriously look at doing this deal. First of all, Brand has TWO more years on his contract after next, not one. Brand is currently making RJ kind of money for the next 3 years and is producing at an RJ rate. Brand is way past his prime and has yet to fully recover from his knee injuries two years ago. We would essentially be keeping an RJ like player for 3 more years. This would absolutely destroy all cap space and ensure we would keep an older team on the floor (Brand is 31 years old) for the forseeable future.
The second pick in the draft has the possibility of really improving the outlook for the future, but Brands contract is awful. In fact, the only other contract that maybe worse than his is Gilbert Arenas’. But even in Gilberts case, he is several years younger than Brand. I could see the Spurs trading Parker for a decent piece plus a high draft pick, but they wouldn’t trade Parker for Brand and a high draft pick. Elton is a good guy, but his balling days are over.
P.S. Elton was always an undersized PF who was crafty and had a way of always finding the ball. Sound like another guy we have who makes only $850K/year.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Heres why Rivers is a better coach than Pop.
HE MAKES IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS.
HE PLAYS THE PLAYERS WHO PLAY WELL.
HE PLAYS THE HUSTLE/ATHLETIC PLAYERS
Look. I hate Glenn Davis for multiple reasons. His shot sucks, hes a pussy, and hes probably the dumbest player since Bill Walker. But look what happens. You play a guy who fouls hard, and works for hustle balls (rebounds, putbacks, etc) and you win games.
This is why we should have tried playing our young, hungry players. Not Bonner and McDyess. Blair, Ian…. etc….
Ive said it on here for the past year. Now Doc Rivers is getting all my money.
LEARN
June 11th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
“Parker is not the pure point guard that Hill has grown to be. ”
Hill is not a pure PG by any measure. Most of the time when he’s on the floor he just takes the ball to half court and hands it to Manu. Manu was the closest thing that we had to a pure PG this year. He took his passing to another level…
June 11th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
The beat- I dont really agree with that statement. Manu is a slasher and a better passer than Parker for sure, but I wouldnt really call him our closest thing to a pure PG.
We played the best when Hill was in and Parker was injured. Why? Easy. Hill would defer to other players he would DISTRIBUTE THE BALL to get others involved in the game. If Manu was hot, hill got it to Manu. If Tim was open on the block he got it to Tim. Thats what a “pure” pg does. Gets the ball to everyone and gets his 5 into “reacting” offense.
George never really broke someone down and dished out a “damn did you see THAT PASS” but he did allow the offense to get into a flow.
Which is exactly what Parker doesnt allow us to do. Parker gets in the paint and creates a two man with Tim. Great Pick and roll player. But if you watch the games that parker controls, when TD and he arent scoring, we are S.O.L because no one else is warm or in any FLOW because they get lulled into stand and watch mode.
The above is a reason, a major one, why Jefferson cant mesh too well with our offense. Parker jams the lane and Jefferson is a suspect shooter.
Parker was a great asset when Tim was in his prime. But thats over. We arent going to find a big of TDs caliber, thus Parker is useless (in terms of winning a ring with what we have) since he can only drive and work off pick roll. That being said he can offer a lot in return for us, which is why I think we should do it (trade).
No team has won that was built around a PG with such a limited skill set.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
@TradeTp,
Excellent points. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I won’t rehash your points, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen Parker dribble out the clock while 4 other players stood around watching. I’ve said over and over that once TP gets the ball, it sticks to his hands. Sure many of his passes lead to another pass which leads to an open shot (a hockey assist), but how many other guards in the league can you say that about? Virtually all of them. For years, we’ve relied heavily on our 3 pt shooting. The game plan was simple: Tony penetrates, collapsing the defense and then kicking out for an open 3. You’ll notice that Boston and LA, since they have multiple play makers, rank 17th and 23rd respectively in 3 pt%. We need young play makers at the C and SF positions.
We are working off an old system of having only 3 play makers and everyone else standing on the perimeter waiting for an open shot. That system is dead. The teams still playing today have 4 if not 5 guys on the court capable of initiating some level of offense. A team of decent players who can create their own shot is better than one stud player collapsing the defense. If Tony can be traded for 2 decent, young pieces who can create their own shot (almost regardless of what position they play), then Parker should be a trade chip.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Hobson- I think that is where a majority of my hate for pop comes from. People hail him as a great coach, but really he has only one plan: Tim.
He has beaten a dead horse and I dont see us winning with the old three.
Coaches make adjustments. Greg has never had to coach except for the past two years. We have all seen where that has gotten us.
Unless we ship virtually everyone esle including TD I dont think we should keep Parker. We would never do that, so…. lets see where or who we can get.
Let me pose this question:
Does it really matter where we finish if we dont win the ring?
So why are we so intent on hanging on to 567 or 8th place in the west? Blow it up.
June 11th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Trade Tp
June 11th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“So why are we so intent on hanging on to 567 or 8th place in the west? Blow it up”
I somewhat agree. Although I would hate to fall out of the playoffs, I think we are at a point where we have to take risks. If we don’t make some serious upgrades, we will slip right out of the playoff picture maybe even as soon as next year. Parker, with all his strenghts, can be replaced, not by one person (Hill), but by the better overall play of the team and whoever we can get in a Parker for ____ trade. I still hope we can unload the bum formerly known as RJ before we are forced to part with Parker. I know it’s far from certain, but if we could get several young pieces out of an RJ trade, I would do that in a second.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Trade Tp
June 11th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
hobson13
June 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Both of you, fair points overall. That said, I do think you’re both overstating your case in your critique of Parker. In other words, many of your points are accurate, but simply exaggerated, in my view. For example, Parker is not a “ballhog”, and to whatever extent he runs the offense in the way he does, most of that is by design (playing w/o TP for a month exposed the fact that the design is now obsolete). I do agree that the Spur offense has always been “Duncan-centered”, along with a few clutch marksman for spot up threes, which does play to TP’s strengths, but frankly, Pop has been a bit late in the game to begin a transition off the Duncan/Parker dominance in the pick & roll and kick outs for open threes, for the following reasons: (1) we are clearly short on clutch three-point marksmen; (2) Duncan has been more noticeably in decline for the past two years; (3) RJ should have been an additional trigger to make a change, because the heart of the offensive system, as just described, does not suit RJ’s skills.
Now, I happen to believe that TP can play very effectively in different way, with more ball movement. He’s an a very good perimeter shooter now, he’s an unselfish player, and from the looks of those practically back-to-back threes he drained in one of the playoff games against the Suns, I believe that he may even be able to improve his three-point shot. Look at what J. Kidd did late in his career. Also, I think he feels challenged in some ways by Hill, and is envious that Hill improved his three so much in his second year.
Now, that said, I still want us to look seriously at trading either Manu or TP as long as we get more youth and something quite valuable back in return. They are by far are most valuable trade assets, and the fact is, we’re in desperate need for youth, size, & talent to provide critical depth on our front line, and everywhere else for that matter (perimeter defender, three-point shooter, etc.). In short, before we go into the draft & free agency, we better have been already thinking in earnest about what needs to be changed about our offensive system, how to get back to more traditional Spurs defense (which hopefully we could still try to do even with a declining Duncan), so that we can have a better handle on what players can we want to acquire to accomplish this necessary transformation.
June 11th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Jim Henderson
June 11th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
In other words, many of your points are accurate, but simply exaggerated, in my view. (playing w/o TP for a month exposed the fact that the design is now obsolete).
That’s an excellent point. Perhaps more criticism should be placed on Pops failure to change the offensive system. With that said, could Parker even change styles after 8 years of playing with the ball in his hands? In order for this team to be more offensively potent, the ball needs to move quickly from side to side. This necessarily means fewer touches for Parker. Will his ego allow him to do this in a contract year?
P.S. Completely off the subject: I wonder how far up in the draft we could move if we bundled Splitters rights with our #20 pick? I also wonder what it would take (within reason) to get a guy like Kevin Love or Anthony Randolph. Could we get one of these guys for say George Hill and #20?
June 11th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Trade Tp - Doc Rivers is garbage. Tom Thibideau is the Wizard of Beantown. Neither of these guys can hold a candle to Popovich. Popovich didn’t just win, he created a culture. That’s why your trolling now, because of the culture that Pop built. I only use the word trolling because of your usual hostile approach to getting your message across.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Miggy
Agreed. Give Rivers the players (Garnett, Allen, Robinson, Rondo) and he looks good. Hell, give any coach good players and he looks good. Phil Jackson didn’t win championships without Jordan, Shaq, or Kobe. Nor did Poppovich win without Duncan, Robinson, Ginobili, or Parker. Let’s not give Rivers too much credit here. He is the head coach and ultimately he will come out looking good after this group disbands, but it took the balls and foresight from Ainge to deal for these guys and Thibideau to implement his defensive principles.
I know we saw Rivers as coach of the Celts in the years before Allen and Garnett. No one was singing his praise then??!! Thibideau isn’t given nearly the credit he deserves. He WILL be a head coach in the NBA in the next few years.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I would love nothing more, Jim Henderson, than to see TP continue to improve his shot off the dribble (not confident that he will ever be fantastic catch and shoot guy, but that would be truly fantastic), this would dramatically help the Spurs and is the single best way he can improve his long-term value and get fatter contract offers next summer. So maybe Tony delivers on his promise, and takes a real step forward, maybe he’s an all-star next year? Because of his heretofore limited skill set, I have long considered trading him, but I am on-the-fence these days because we need scorers. Still, I trade him for the right player(s). But think we can otherwise add more talent while keeping him — though, without true Bigs, it’s moot either way.
To Hobson13, I’d have to say that I am very reluctant to trade Hill, despite the fact that I don’t ever see him as true PG, but I think we will see him become more and more complete and versatile… too much upside! One of the few guys I almost consider untradeable… ALMOST.
I am happy to see the spurs package the 20th, but am not all that high on either Love or Anthony Randolf (what do you see in Randolf, exactly?)
But, I really do think we can trade RJ. Honestly. And, once again, I think that Don Nelson would bite. RJ will have more value elsewhere, and Nelson loves to turn around players and show them off, he thinks it displays his genius or something. He might also take RMj in a sign-and-trade as well. If we can sign some effective 2-way bigs, I think we can improve our other issues by trading RJ’s 15 mil. Obviously everyone loves Morrow, and that would be awesome, but I think GS has several nice SF/GFs that would be cheaper than RJ (or two roster spots instead of one), even if they put the Spurs into longer commitments. Does anybody know what the deal is with Azubuike? From my perspective, we need to add as much talent throughout the roster as possible… the last Boston win proved how overblown the notion of a big 3, dynamic duo, or even big 4 is, remember LA has a key top 6, as does Boston, but Boston’s one clear advantage is in roster spots 7, 8, and 9 — because we don’t have a Gasol/Bryant, or a Rondo we badly need excellent overall depth: 8 guys who can deliver: 3 inside + 5 perimeter, or 4 inside* + 4 perimeter. Right now, we have maybe 2 inside + (and not counting RJ) 3 perimeter.
* If we keep both McD and Blair, we actuallly need 5 situational bigs (with Blair being more of a long-term project than a rock in the playoffs, and McD as your 5th big in the regular season), because we don’t really think that a Dalembert can come in solve it all for us, do we? The only exception to this is if we somehow land a top 8 PF or Center, or an otherwise stellar, laterally quick, defensive big, then you can go with 4 bigs. Those 4 bigs are also justifiable if we’re getting consistently dominant perimeter play from within next year’s core group.
June 12th, 2010 at 1:11 am
Hobson13
June 11th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
“In order for this team to be more offensively potent, the ball needs to move quickly from side to side. This necessarily means fewer touches for Parker. Will his ego allow him to do this in a contract year?”
I definitely think he could. Parker is a “winner” above everything else. He actually has a very balanced ego, in my view. For example, he didn’t seem to mind in the least coming off the bench after coming back from the hand injury this year, even during the playoffs, which are always so important for veteran stars.
“I wonder how far up in the draft we could move if we bundled Splitters rights with our #20 pick?”
Probably not far enough. We’d have to make it to inside of ten to make it worth considering, and the other team might be a bit leery of the Splitter situation to give up a single digit pick. Plus, as I’ve detailed at length in previous posts, getting even someone as far up as in the top five only yields a one-time or better all-star about 30% of the time on average. So it’s really a questionable call to give up TWO (technically the rights of one of them) potentially decent players (in the case of Splitter, that appears to already be determined), for ONE potentially better than decent player.
“I also wonder what it would take (within reason) to get a guy like Kevin Love or Anthony Randolph. Could we get one of these guys for say George Hill and #20?”
Well, right now the Warriors have a few pretty talented guards, so it’s hard to say if they would be interested enough in Hill to let Randolph go. After all, the Warriors need talented young forwards almost as much as the Spurs. It depends on how high they are on Randolph, and of course, this team is in flux right now, so anything involving them is difficult to predict.
In terms of the T-Wolves, it’s a similar situation. They have three young guards with some talent: Flynn, Ellington, and Sessions. It depends on how high they are on these three. And the T-Wolves also are not deep in big men, so they aren’t going to part easily with the number 5 pick of 2008. The problem they have though is figuring out if Love & Jefferson are a good fit together, and there have in fact been indications that it’s an issue. But I think the T-Wolves would be more inclined to give one of them up for another big man (defender) rather than a guard. They could try to draft a big in the draft with our 20th pick, and maybe if someone like Larry Sanders was available they might be more inclined to making a deal. Maybe.
On the Spurs end, while I like Love’s offensive game, his size, and his rebounding, I’m not too impressed with him thus far as a defender. He’s certainly not shown himself to be a good shot-blocker. I like Randolph’s overall game better, and he is a pretty good shot-blocker, but he’s not the biggest guy in the world - pretty wirey.
Here’s my issues with the idea: Hill is a very talented player that fits our system well, and Pop apparently loves him. This draft is more deep than particularly top-heavy in my view. Thus, I don’t think we’re going to give Hill & the #20 up unless it was just the right fit. And, in my view, neither Love or Randolph are really the type of guy’s we’re ideally looking for, because they are either not big enough, or are not particularly good defenders. These guys are both PF’s with different styles, and strengths & weaknesses. And in fact, if we’re going to get a starting PF, we might as well put Blair in a deal (not something I advocate), because I project him as a starting power forward, with decent potential to be a Boozer-type in the near future. So, in my view, we should be going after a “center” with good size, and whose focus is on defense and shot-blocking, and then continue to develop Blair as our PF of the future. In addition, we need an all-around solid player at the SF spot that can defend and hit the three at a decent clip. Our guards are pretty good right now, and Hill should get better. If we keep Manu, we may need to draft a SG next year with our 1st pick. If we trade TP or Manu we’ll need to get a big AND a guard in return, unless we think Temple, Gee, or somebody is going to make a jump in his game next year.
It will be interesting to see what the Spurs end up doing this off-season. I sure hope they do something significant, because the franchise is at a major inflection point, in my view. Time to be smart, AND bold, don’t you think?
June 12th, 2010 at 4:26 am
Jim: if simpletons like me and you can grasp the fact that our offense is out of date, why cant the “best coach of all time” (writers of 48 minutes not my thought)
June 12th, 2010 at 5:17 am
Jim : “If we trade Tp/Manu….”
It really depends on our gameplan for next year. Obviously I think that scheme, right now, is more important to change than players.
No one in this draft will be anything more than a complimentary player IMO.
June 12th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
td4life
June 11th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
“I’d have to say that I am very reluctant to trade Hill, despite the fact that I don’t ever see him as true PG.”
I agree that trading Hill wouldn’t be my first choice. My thinking in throwing this idea out there was that we have to give something of value in order to get something of value. Also, Pop and the FO have an unusual knack for drafting good PGs. However, a good big is never around by the time we usually have a pick. IMO, the only way we think about trading him is if we can get a good PF or C. If we can get a big for him, then lets move him.
“I am happy to see the spurs package the 20th, but am not all that high on either Love or Anthony Randolf (what do you see in Randolf, exactly?)”
Love is a pretty good player. He is a double double machine. If Splitter turns out to be as good, things could be VERY interesting next year. Two words describe Randolph’s potential: Lamar Odom. I agree with Jim, Randolph needs to gain 20-30 lbs. to play the PF position, but he is young, big, athletic, and very versatile. He could be frighteningly good with adequate coaching. As a side note, I wish I could get an expert opinion as to whether he has the quickness to play the SF position.
“But, I really do think we can trade RJ. Honestly. And, once again, I think that Don Nelson would bite. RJ will have more value elsewhere, and Nelson loves to turn around players and show them off.”
I absolutely think we could trade RJ to the Warriors and get some nice pieces for him. Nelson and the Warriors are idiots and they will probably be looking to unload salary and start over. My concern is at what cost? They would want us to take on Maggette’s contract and while at only $9 mil/year (far less than RJs) he still has 3 more years. If we could trade RJ for Maggette, Randolph, and Morrow then that’s something we would need to seriously look at.
Jim Henderson
June 12th, 2010 at 1:11 am
“They could try to draft a big in the draft with our 20th pick, and maybe if someone like Larry Sanders was available they might be more inclined to making a deal. Maybe.”
That’s a thought. Larry Sanders isn’t projected to go until 28th pick in the first round. Perhaps we should draft him and allow Malik Hairston to step into the SF position. How much more could a guy like Paul George or Damion James produce right out of college as opposed to someone who has been out for a few years? Probably not much more if any at all.
“On the Spurs end, while I like Love’s offensive game, his size, and his rebounding, I’m not too impressed with him thus far as a defender. He’s certainly not shown himself to be a good shot-blocker. I like Randolph’s overall game better, and he is a pretty good shot-blocker, but he’s not the biggest guy in the world – pretty wirey.”
Minny hasn’t been too impressed with his defensive prowess either. I will admit he will probably never be a good shot blocker, but I think his defense can improve in the right surroundings. Randolph absolutely needs to gain muscle in order to even play the PF position. I am curious to know whether or not he has the lateral quickness to play the SF spot.
“And, in my view, neither Love or Randolph are really the type of guy’s we’re ideally looking for, because they are either not big enough, or are not particularly good defenders.”
First of all, I think we would be much more likely to get Randolph (via Jefferson trade) from GS than Love from Minny. Secondly, I don’t think Randolph would necessarily get in the way of Blair’s development. Both have drastically different games. If Randy could simply bulk up, I think he and Blair could possibly even play some together (as long as the opponent doesn’t have a massive front line like LA or Boston). With McDyess getting too old to compete and Bonner being what he is, Randolph has the potential to be a really nice 6th-8th player off the bench. At least he can create his own shot unlike McDyess or Bonner. As far as their defense is concerned, both players are young and can improve with time and coaching.
“Hill is a very talented player that fits our system well, and Pop apparently loves him. ”
I also believe that Hill is virtually untradeable unless we can get just an unreal deal on him (a good big).
June 12th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Trade Tp
June 12th, 2010 at 4:26 am
“….if simpletons like me and you can grasp the fact that our offense is out of date, why cant the “best coach of all time” (writers of 48 minutes not my thought)”
Well, as you’re quite aware, I’m not a “Pop-basher”. I have a healthy dose of respect for the guy, and what he’s accomplished during his career. In terms of our offensive system becoming obsolete, my opinion on this is almost entirely based on the decline of Tim Duncan. Indeed, the offensive system was designed from the outset to revolve around the special skill-set of Duncan: great low-post scorer, great passer overall, particularly out of the double-teams, and a great offensive rebounder. What this allowed us to do is get dominant scoring inside, great spacing to free up outside shooters for open looks, and create open lanes for slashers & finishers in the paint. A guy like Duncan, in his prime, is the absolute key to making that system function like a powerful, well-oiled machine. Now, lest I remind you, Duncan-like players in their prime are pretty much one of a kind assets. They’re almost impossible to replace, so in my view, you’re left with replacing or transforming the system instead.
Now, in my opinion, Pop knows this, and is simply having some difficulty coming to terms with it, or doesn’t see other options as viable, or better. You have to remember, Pop has had GREAT success with this system, and he absolutely loves Tim Duncan, as a player, and I think, even as a person (like a son, sort of). People often think that Pop is too tough on his players, but there’s no question that he cares about them, and has earned their respect over the years. The bottom line is, Pop still sees enough of the old, in prime, Tim Duncan (maybe a quarter of his games are fairly close) that he doesn’t want to let go of it - to change that relationship, that trust & faith they have built over the years in any meaningful way. In some ways it’d be like reassigning your son to a less focal & prestigious position within the family business because he’s become less of a consistent producer, which has adversely affected the company’s net profit, even though the company is still profitable - a tough decision to make, no doubt. The problem is, Peter Holt actually owns this business, and at some point he’s going to require his guy in charge to take a more impersonal look when considering adjustments to a system that is simply not performing as well as in the past.
I have to say that I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that Pop & RC did not go into the RJ acquisition with the idea of beginning that transformation last season. Instead, they went full bore with the same system, despite TD’s noticeable decline, and RJ’s obvious skill-set, which they must have known was not a particularly good fit within the current system. The RJ acquisition would have been a perfect time, in my view, to begin a transformation into a faster “ball-movement” type of offense (not to be confused with higher “pace”) that relied less on the prototypical inside-outside game, and more on whipping it around the perimeter to create multiple driving lanes, and a create off-the-dribble mid-range jump-shooting game. They could still use the pick and rolls, but more so off of movement, with Duncan & the other bigs shuttling from side-to-side off the low & high blocks. It would take the emphasis off of Duncan as a dominant scoring threat on the low block, but would still depend heavily on his ball screens & passing skills, with his scoring coming more within the flow of a “movement” offense. Also, this type of basic offense, with numerous variations, would have, in my view, captured the strengths of RJ to our advantage. We have smart players and excellent passers on our team, and I don’t believe they would have any problem executing this type of offense. Also, last year would have been a more efficient time to begin implementing such changes, because of all the new people (RJ, McDyess, Blair, Bogans, etc.) we acquired last year.
Of course, this is just my evaluation of the situation. What do I know, right? It will be interesting to see signs at some point as to what Pop & RC have been planning during the off-season. I’m sure they know that a change of the game plan is something they will have to come to sooner rather than later, unless of course, they have a new Tim Duncan up their sleeve somewhere!
Trade Tp
June 12th, 2010 at 5:17 am
“No one in this draft will be anything more than a complimentary player IMO.”
Well, those are the odds, but you know, this draft is unusually deep, if not super-talented, so there is a chance that #20 could make our top nine in the rotation this year, and that would really be great.
June 12th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Hobson13
June 12th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
“First of all, I think we would be much more likely to get Randolph (via Jefferson trade) from GS than Love from Minny.”
If we can get Randolph somehow from GS for RJ, even if that means taking on Maggette’s contract, I would do that, particularly if we could get either Azubuike or Morrow in the deal.
June 12th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Jim Henderson
June 12th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
“If we can get Randolph somehow from GS for RJ, even if that means taking on Maggette’s contract, I would do that, particularly if we could get either Azubuike or Morrow in the deal.”
It may not be a bad deal. I am sure GS would like to unload Maggette’s contract. There were numerous rumors they were willing to part with Randolph in order to sweeten the deal. If a trade could be pulled off for say RJ and our second round pick for Maggette, Randolph, and a sign and trade for say Morrow (I say him because he would drastically aid our 3pt. shooting problem) that would replace our SF position, give us a 3pt ace, and give us a nice young PF who may turn out to be special. In this case, we still have Splitter’s rights and the #20 pick.
Of course the price would be Maggette’s contract. This, however, could be partially offset by letting Matt Bonner go. I strongly believe that Corey is much more creative offensively and is much more instant-offense than RJ. However, I worry about chemistry. Maggette has played for losers his entire career. He has also been known as a “I-need-to-get-mine” kind of player. Perhaps Maggette would be willing to sacrifice to come to a winning organization. The answer to this question I don’t know.
If something like this trade were to happen, the Spurs would again be on the fast track to compete with the big boys. It would take a year for the team to gell, but two years out this team would be nasty. In theory, here would be the lineup
PG: Parker, Hill
SG: Manu, Morrow
SF: Maggette, #20 pick (Damion James, etc.)
PF: Blair, Randolph
C: Duncan, Splitter
We would easily be two deep at every position with virtually all of the 2nd string able to log meaningful minutes. This is all theory, I know, but an RJ trade has the potential to transform this team. Thoughts?
June 12th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Hobson13
June 12th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“If a trade could be pulled off for say RJ and our second round pick for Maggette, Randolph, and a sign and trade for say Morrow (I say him because he would drastically aid our 3pt. shooting problem) that would replace our SF position, give us a 3pt ace, and give us a nice young PF who may turn out to be special. In this case, we still have Splitter’s rights and the #20 pick.”
Yeah, that sounds appealing, and reasonable. I have no problems with it, except that you have two young studs vying for minutes at the PF spot. Could be problematic, or counter-productive on that aspect of the realignment? That said, the line-up you projected does make us better (younger & more talented).
Perhaps though, GS would be more willing to send us Maggette, Turiaf, and Azubuike (all guys under contract next year - 16.2 mil. - Morrow is a free agent). To get rid of RJ, I’d be willing to do that as well. We’d have Turiaf, McDyess, Splitter (hopefully), Blair, & Duncan (good bye Bonner) to tag team the Lakers big three of Gasol, Bynum, & Odom. Duncan & McDyess are going to need less minutes anyway. Look at what Portland is doing for that very reason; loading up on the front line with Oden, Pryzbilla, Camby, & Aldridge (and maybe Howard comes back, or they have Pendergraph & Cunningham).
A possible line-up:
Parker
Ginobli
Maggette
Duncan
Splitter
Hill
Blair
Azubuike
McDyess
FA shooter (Rasul Butler, etc.)
Turiaf
#20 pick (probably a small forward: James, Pondexter, …)
Hairston
Temple
Gee?, 2nd round pick (a project big like Pittman)?…..
Possible Starters:
Parker
Ginobli
Maggette
Duncan
Splitter
Possible Second Unit:
Hill
Azubuike
Hairston, or #20 pick
Blair
Turiaf
Situational Reserves:
McDyess
Butler
Hairston, or #20 pick
Temple
Gee or 2nd round pick?
Very deep team with a nice mixture of size, youth, veterans, stars, defenders, and scorers.
Can we begin a more ball-movement-oriented system, and can these players gel well together? Couldn’t such a team be ready to challenge by 2011?
Now, all we have to do is HOPE that the Warriors are willing to do business with US over the other 29 teams!
June 12th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
@Jim
I’m not sold on Turiaf instead of Randolph. Although Ronny would give us more bulk, there is no upside to his game. Randolph, once fully developed, could add another dimension to the entire team. It is possible that Blair and Randolph might have to split time, but wouldn’t that be a good thing? A front court sporting Splitter, Blair, and a stronger Randolph would certainly be able to rest Duncan. I wonder if he’d have to play more than 25-30 min/night when that group matured. With that said, after reading the scouting reports a bit better, you may have a point with Azubuike instead of Morrow. Kelenna has a much more balanced offensive game, is a much better athlete/defender, and can still stroke the 3 at a 40% clip.
“Now, all we have to do is HOPE that the Warriors are willing to do business with US over the other 29 teams!”
I think a trade like this would be entirely doable. Even if he were forced to throw in the #20 pick instead of the second round pick, I still think it would be worth it from a Spurs perspective. From a GS perspective it would shed Corey’s salary without having to give up their #6 pick. The Warriors could rent a SF who can play heavy minutes and THRIVE in a run-and-gun style. Perhaps they could even resign him (for a TON less) at the end of next year. To boot, they could take a SF at #20 and have him take RJ’s place in a year. To me, it makes sense all the way around. I’ve even heard Warriors fans discuss an RJ-Corey trade before.
“Can we begin a more ball-movement-oriented system, and can these players gel well together? Couldn’t such a team be ready to challenge by 2011?”
The beautiful thing about this is that we don’t have to trade Parker. Whether we get Maggette-Azubuike-Turiaf or Maggette-Azubuike-Randolph deal, it puts this team miles ahead in the rebuilding process. The Spurs, with either trade, could be a machine if given a year to mesh. These trades would give legitimate help Duncan (Turiaf or Randolph) and Manu (Azubuike) thus increasing their careers. In this case, I would just hope Pop would have the good sense to correctly use such talent.
June 12th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
there seems to be plenty of RJ to GS scenarios that would work. Any combo from Azubuike, Maggette, Murrow, Turiaf, Randolf, even the foul prone center Biedrins. Reggie Williams is also a nice player.
Pop is actually a fan of Maggette, and tried to sign him twice. I think Magette’s attitude would improve once he gets “stuck” with the Spurs. He spurned SA in the past to sign with teams that were coming off of turn-around seasons in sexy cities, and then promptly lost key players. But being on a winning team does a lot. Besides that, he could become a significant piece of the offense, esp. if Pop rewards his defensive play. He can play a S-Jax role, we need a 20-point scorer after all. I also don’t think that his contract is unreasonable given the Spurs outlook over the next 4 years.
The alternative to Maggette is Biedrins, who has actually been an above average defender, and his development got hurt under Nellie.
If we could get Murrow, almost any deal for RJ would be worth it. With him, we could potentially get two other guys who start/help at the 3, and inside… all for RJ’s salary. That is, no matter what, we are likely to improve our SF position., while also feasibly addressing our 3-point shooting, and some of our need for help inside, possibly all three at once!
And all that without losing our top talents.
Biedrins, Williams, and Azubuike would all be considered role-players, some of whom would start.
Maggette, Murrow, and _____ would give us two of our top players, and 3rd role-player (either Williams, or Randolf, or Turiaf). Turiaf is kind of a lesser Blair. And I just don’t know how much upside Randolf has, but he’s got to be an improvement over Bonner).
Either of those scenarios are worth losing our #20 pick, if necessary. But in the later, we are definitely gonna have to spend for another Big Man, unless (or even if) we get Splitter. If we could spend and attract another Big, I’d definitely take Maggette versus Biedrins, but would be excited either way. Of course, if we didn’t get back Morrow we had have spend on a shooter. Potentially, we just bolster our 3 spot significantly and are still left with holes to solve in the summer. But Considering the 3 for 1 salary swap, I’d still take it.
June 13th, 2010 at 2:21 am
I also wanted to say that while I like Morrow’s shot a lot, I would be VERY VERY HAPPY getting a healthy Azubuike + Maggette (which I think is the least likely scenario of the bunch), and I think Randolf is probably a better addition than, say, Larry Sanders. If we took those 3, it is probably true that we’d end up drafting Elliot Williams. Although, in these RJ to GS scenarios, I see us giving up the #20. I don’t really see GS giving up Azubuike AND Maggette (esp since they like Azubuike so much), but they MIGHT if they think they can get a good SF with the #20. I do think it’s more likely that we’d get Maggette and Williams back, than Kelena, which makes the 3rd player that much more important to us… because, honestly, adding BOTH Azubuike and Maggette to our squad would be a formidable. (Despite the fact that we’d still need inside help.*)
*Assuming we could trade RJ to GS, are there any FA big men that we could acquire (ie. afford) that would be better than McD and Blair, and that could fit in with Tim and Splitter? Or is that asking too much? Is hoping for an improved Anthony Randolf the best we can imagine? (I say Turiaf is too much like Blair, and would take his minutes, so I’m not super-excited about him.) This is still betting/guessing that Splitter is our best hope, is there anyone we would be willing to trade him for.
June 13th, 2010 at 7:12 am
I still say we try and sign Tyson Chandler, or try to work out a sign and trade to get him if he opts out of his deal in Charlotte
June 13th, 2010 at 8:01 am
JIM-” my opinion on this is almost entirely based on the decline of Tim Duncan. Indeed, the offensive system was designed from the outset to revolve around the special skill-set of Duncan: great low-post scorer, great passer overall, particularly out of the double-teams, and a great offensive rebounder”
I agree wholeheartedly which is why I think that Gregg is an extremely overrated coach, hes never had to coach before. In addition why do we keep signing losers who cant score like McDyess when clearly the problem is getting tougher and having an inside presence?
“I have to say that I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that Pop & RC did not go into the RJ acquisition with the idea of beginning that transformation”
Agree again. Which is why I dont understand how people equate pop and good coach. That would be like getting Steve Nash and telling him he cant pass the ball….
Additionally can we please stop with the Splitter BS. Hes unproven. Not at all what we need.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:42 am
td4life
June 13th, 2010 at 2:21 am
“I say Turiaf is too much like Blair, and would take his minutes, so I’m not super-excited about him.”
Actually, other than more experienced, and TALLER (6′10″), Turiaf is a much better defender than Blair, and an excellent shot-blocker. Blair has more potential, and is a better scorer inside. Turiaf also has a decent 15 footer, something that at present Blair has not yet developed. No, I don’t see redundancy their at all. He would take some Duncan & McDyess minutes (allowing them to rest more - Dice should be down to 15 mpg., and Tim, 25 mpg.). Randolph & Blair could actually be the conflict, because they’re both 21 year old’s vying for minutes at the same position. Also, the reason I mentioned Turiaf is because GS is more likely to give him up in the RJ deal than Randolph because he has much less upside, and has a larger multi-year contract. Turiaf would give us veteran depth, height, and shot-blocking in the paint that would help us tag-team the Lakers big front line. We also could put McDyess in the deal, if necessary (particularly if we get Splitter soon), perhaps as additional incentive to get Azubuike and/or Morrow. He would provide GS with additional cap space going into 2011 because his contract calls for a team option.
Bentley
June 13th, 2010 at 7:12 am
“I still say we try and sign Tyson Chandler, or try to work out a sign and trade to get him if he opts out of his deal in Charlotte.”
Too injury prone, and thus too big of a risk, in my view.
Trade Tp
June 13th, 2010 at 8:01 am
“Additionally can we please stop with the Splitter BS. Hes unproven. Not at all what we need.”
Well, he’s our draft pick, and I’m sure he’s better than NOT having him at all. He’s NBA unproven, but it’s not like what he’s done in Europe is entirely meaningless. He could surprise you.
And of course, I disagree with your harsh & “unflinching” critique of Pop. I’ll just leave it at that.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Splitter cant outrebound or block the Europeans. How can he outrebound or block the NBA perimeter players?
Again, here is where McDoosh signing comes into play. We now would have Tim, Doosh, Blair, Ian, Splitter. We couldnt find minutes for 3 bigs how would we find room for 4-5?
Would you really want to take minutes from Blair to give to Splitter? Who in the F would want to do that?
I think we gave up on Ian. But thats what happens when the know-it-alls continue to sign GREAT PLAYERS like Bonner, Doosh, Finley…etc…
The criticism will still come until Gregg proves that he can coach. From day one hes had the best player (possibly in history) on his team. There has been ZERO instances where coach X (insert any name on this blog here) couldnt have won and lost as many titles as Greg.
Say what you will, but he had the best roster that he has EVER had and REFUSED/TOO STUPID to make any changes in players or scheme. Take that into account with 4th quarter meltdowns and blown leads since Tims decline… and there you have it.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am
“Well-known veterans will indeed get the bulk of attention come July 1. But there’s a corps of young, relatively anonymous players up for grabs as well. One of the most mysterious in this set is 6′11 Spurs forward Ian Mahinmi. The Frenchman, 23, saw only spotty action in San Antonio this season, appearing in 26 games and logging more than 15 minutes in a game only twice. In that limited action, Mahinmi performed, shooting 63 percent from the floor and collecting more than 18 percent of all available rebounds while on the court.”
June 13th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Trade Tp
June 13th, 2010 at 10:54 am
“Would you really want to take minutes from Blair to give to Splitter? Who in the F would want to do that?”
Well, Splitter is taller, has a better mid-range jumper, and is a better defender. That is something we could use on our front line. But getting Splitter would allow us to reduce McDyess & Duncan’s minutes, not Blairs (and that better be what Pop has in mind, because Blair needs more minutes, and to be developed more aggressively in his second year).
“There has been ZERO instances where coach X (insert any name on this blog here) couldnt have won and lost as many titles as Greg.”
Well, I guess you could say the same about Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Red Auerbach, and a number of other highly acclaimed coaches. Right? The fact is, ALL very good coaches need GREAT players to win titles, and even that’s not always enough.
Trade Tp
June 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am
There’s A LOT of PLUSES & MINUSES to Mahinmi’s game. Pop understandably just didn’t feel comfortable with him on the court. That said, I think he should have played more, and been given more of a chance earlier in the season. However, we did struggle early on as a team, and there’s no question it would have been difficult in some respects to put Mahinmi in for significant stretches, given his penchant for missed defensive rotations and foul-happy play. It is frustrating though, to potentially lose a young big with certain characteristics that could have been very helpful for our team if they could be properly harnessed.
June 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Jim
I can only remember one instance of Tyson Chandler being sweriously hurt, and that was when he was in the process of being traded to the Thunder last season. Many NBA players have proven they can play through seriously injuries, I mean look at our own Tim Duncan, with all his knee problems and he played beautifully through planter-faschitis. A healthy Tyson Chandler would give us more length, rebounding, and shot-blocking, and we’ve needed that for sometime now.
I think its something the FO should at least look into.
June 13th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Bentley
June 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
“I can only remember one instance of Tyson Chandler being sweriously hurt, and that was when he was in the process of being traded to the Thunder last season.”
In the past two seasons, Chandler has missed 37 and 31 games respectively. He absolutely has an injury history. No question, Chandler is a good defensive center who can certainly rebound and block shots. However, even if we completely ignore his injuries, Chandler just opted out of a $12 mil/year contract. He wants a long term deal and won’t come cheap. The Spurs have no cap space to sign someone of his caliber so we would be forced into a sign and trade situation. Sure, we may be able to trade RJ to GS for cap room, but who would be willing to work out a sign and trade involving RJ and Chandler. It’s not impossible, just extremely unlikely. The only player we have that could fetch Chandler is Tony Parker. I really don’t think Chandler would be worth trading a top 8 PG.
June 13th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Bentley
June 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
“I can only remember one instance of Tyson Chandler being sweriously hurt, and that was when he was in the process of being traded to the Thunder last season.”
For fully one third of his career (3 seasons), Chandler has played between 35 & 51 games of an 82 game season. Regardless of “seriousness” of injuries, he presents a dependability & durability problem that we simply don’t need right now.
Of course, working out a sensible deal for him would likely be problematic, as Hobson has outlined.
June 14th, 2010 at 1:57 am
@Jim Henderson
You have a point about Turiaf. I was going on my memory of seeing him play, and my impression of him was as an energy guy off-the-bench. I didn’t really consider his mid-range jumper, or his overall skill set, just his hustle. But the more I think about it, the more I like it, from a defensive standpoint, which is what we need anyway. Obviously he will never be more than a role-player, but having 2 gritty hustle and dirty work guys down-low is never a bad thing. I’d be optimistic to speak of these guys in the same breath as Perkins and Glen Davis, and Dice is no Rasheed Wallace, but, hey, we could do worse.
I have heard trade rumors for awhile concerning Randolf, and honestly don’t know what to make of him, but he’s only 20, so Turiaf is probably a better piece come play-off time next year. Some say Randolf is good defensively, but I’d have to see him play again to think that’s has any semblance of truth to it.
I just read an article on Morrow, and I am endorsing taking him in combination with Maggette and Turiaf. Slightly edging out Azubuike, because of his 3-point shot, youth, and what I have just read about his mentality… a guy who hates losing, and who’s committed to improving his defense is a guy I like. Though he may end up with a solid chance to land with LeBron or the like come July. I’d gladly otherwise take Azubuike, though I think GS wants to retain him.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=16153
I’d feel pretty good about our 1-2-3 positions following an RJ to GS trade scenario, so my only question is: Would our potential interior rotation of TD-Splitter-Turiaf-McD-Blair be good enough in the playoffs? I think we would be looking to be tough and physical inside, and rely on our perimeter talent and depth to shine for us offensively. Though, all in all, we would be built for defense, but be a little undersized relative to the league’s stars in most match-ups.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:37 am
td4life
June 14th, 2010 at 1:57 am
“Would our potential interior rotation of TD-Splitter-Turiaf-McD-Blair be good enough in the playoffs?”
Well, there are some question marks. IF we get Splitter, it depends on how well his game translates to the NBA. Let’s hope it translates as well as Scola’s did. It also depends on the determination of Blair to improve his all-around game, including on the defensive end (probably never a great defender, but he can become more than adequate with some time & work ethic, in my view). And it also depends on TD & McDyess staying in great shape, & injury-free. The potential is there though, and the size would be competitive: Duncan AND Splitter at 6′11”; Turiaf at 6′10″; McDyess at 6′9″ - all between 240 & 260 lbs.; and Blair at 6′6″, but 275 pds.
Leave a Reply