Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010...12:57 pm
NBA Mock Draft, TrueHoop-Style: The Spurs select…
According to fellow TrueHoopers, the 2010 NBA Draft will play out this way:
1. Washington: John Wall
2. Philadelphia: Evan Turner
3. New Jersey: Derrick Favors
4. Minnesota: Wesley Johnson
5. Sacramento: DeMarcus Cousins
6. Golden State: Greg Monroe
7. Detroit: Epke Udoh
8. Los Angeles: Al-Farouq Aminu
9. Utah: Xavier Henry
10. Indiana: Paul George
11. New Orleans: Cole Aldrich
12. Memphis: Ed Davis
13. Toronto: Avery Bradley
14. Houston: Patrick Patterson
15. Milwaukee: Gordon Hayward
16. Minnesota: Hassan Whiteside
17. Chicago: Luke Babbitt
18. Miami: Eric Bledsoe
19. Boston: James Anderson
20. San Antonio: Damion James
Damion James to the Spurs
Honestly, I’m not completely enamored with Damion James. Not because he’s a poor player–he could step in and help the Spurs right away. But the Spurs need to upgrade their talent beyond what James brings to the table, and James represents a small step forward at a time when the Spurs need to take one or two big steps forward.
From where I sit, the Spurs need to add shooting and another big this offseason. Tiago Splitter would absolutely help, and acquiring Splitter is far more likely (some believe he is already committed to the Spurs) than the Spurs moving up in the draft to select Derrick Favors, DeMarcus Cousins or Ed Davis. But if the Spurs have a decent opportunity to move up, they should do it, even if Tiago Splitter is already locked into the Spurs’ future. Trading Tony Parker for a pick somewhere between 2 and 6 is equitable, provided that George Hill continues to develop.
The Spurs’ Wing Situation
The Spurs lack proficient three point shooting wings. And since Brent Barry left the team, the Spurs sorely miss a third ball handler and playmaker. Damion James is none of these things.
The 2010 NBA Draft contains a few interesting players who could help the Spurs in this regard, especially Evan Turner (who is out of reach), Paul George and Luke Babbitt. But according to the TrueHoop Mock Draft, George and Babbitt are gone before the Spurs select.
In my opinion, this draft contains five players who could become NBA superstars: John Wall, Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, DeMarcus Cousins and Paul George. Babbitt doesn’t have that kind of potential, but he’s an impact player. And from a locker room standpoint, Babbitt is a Spur.
The Spurs’ wing situation is further complicated by Richard Jefferson, Alonzo Gee and Malik Hairston. Jefferson is now an expiring contract, and could be attractive to other teams come February. And his 2009-10 play was so underwhelming, I’m convinced the Spurs could equal his production if they simply turned his minutes over to Gee and Hairston.
Of Gee and Hairston, Gee is more intriguing. When he had opportunity to play NBA minutes last season, Gee shined. Our Andrew McNeill covered Toros home games, and often spoke of Gee as a legit NBA player. And from a small sample size, it appears he’s a competent three point shooter. Gee is a Spur who will receive plenty of offseason scrutiny from 48MoH.
Malik Hairston appears to be an NBA player, as well. But his two strongest deficiencies are shooting and ball-handling. In short stints, he’s shown an ability to defend and get to the rim, but unless he improves his catch and shoot game and ability to handle the ball in the half-court, it’s hard to imagine Hairston sticking in San Antonio. He’ll find a home in the NBA, no doubt. But his future in San Antonio is uncertain.
Mock Drafting Damion James
So we can see that the Spurs’ wing situation is thin. Jefferson will either be traded or wished-well when his contract expires. Gee and Hairston are interesting, but uncertain. And the Spurs need to upgrade their collective skill set at the 3.
What does Damion James does well is enough to justify the 20th pick. He can guard three positions, is a passable spot-up shooter, and can supply a brand of low-minute, high-energy hoops that necessarily enamores players to coaches. Beyond this, James receive high praise for his work ethic and professionalism, two things the Spurs value as basketball skills and not merely character traits.
We’ll see. The Spurs have a history of surprising on draft night. And honestly, I’m open to a surprise during the 2010 NBA Draft. Although Damion James is a solid player, I’m hoping the Spurs uncover an unheralded diamond in the rough or unexpectedly move up in the draft. The gap between them and the Lakers is wide enough that one or two small improvements won’t get Tim Duncan back to the NBA Finals.
114 Comments
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
[...] #20 — Damion James, San Antonio Spurs – Tim Varner, 48 Minutes of Hell [...]
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
In terms of overall organizational philosophy, the Spurs march to the beat of their own drum. No matter what the “consensus”, the Spurs haven’t been afraid of turning heads (George who?? From where??).
That’s why I’d be suprised if we didn’t make some waves, either draft night or soon thereafter.
And in terms of overall draft philosophy, I’m pretty sure we’ll simply take the best player regardless of position at whatever spot we end up at. Even with Splitter, we still need an overall upgrade in talent before we can even think about contending. If the best player (in the FO’s view) is a big man, then that’s who we should take. Of course, we’d like an upgrade at wing, but if we’re bypassing a better player to fill a need, I think that’s a mistake; I don’t consider that to be a winning strategy for the long term.
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrew A. McNeill, San Antonio Spurs. San Antonio Spurs said: 48 Minutes of Hell >> NBA Mock Draft, TrueHoop-Style: The Spurs select http://buzztap.com/-7287mo [...]
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
to think of contending? im pretty sure tiago and two quality three piont shooters and we’re already in contention. don’t underesting the power of parker, ginobili and duncan and remember how many games parker ginobili and duncan missed while we still made the playoffs…
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Zainn – Those are my sentiments exactly.
You are speaking of an “All World” core that has won 3 championships together.
I would take our construction of these three positions against any other team of these three position. In other words – we need better pieces to compliment.
Someone to knock down the open shot. Somone to help Timmy defend in the paint. Someone reliable to step up and take the shot when Manu is catching a breather.
If you put our core up agains any other team in these positions, we win every time. The only difference is we need help from role players.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I am going to have to disagree. What the Spurs need most is not more three point shooting. It’s better defense. We need (1) a perimeter defensive stopper, and (2) a big who can defend his man and the rim. Whatever offense such players can bring to the table is secondary in importance. I think Splitter can be this team’s Oberto/Mohammed. What the Spurs need to add is a Bowen.
Look at this year’s Celtics as a model: Depth in the front court. Tough defenders on the ball and on the opponent’s top perimeter scorer. Great team defense that was very hard to score on. Crisp, precise, sharing offense. That team came a hair’s breath away from downing the Lakers. Along the way they beat the Cavs and the Magic. This is the Spurs formula, the one they have thrived with during the Popovich years.
The Spurs had plenty of offense this year. What they could not get, consistently and when it really mattered, was stops. If they are to compete for a title, they are going to have to get that back.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
I’m not really a fan of this pick. Unless James ends up being a lot better than I think he is, this will be a pick to forget. I’d rather take a flier on a big man with lots of potential than get somebody that’s going to give this team 10-15 minutes of no offense and rookie defense.
Give me potential over certain mediocrity.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I know this is off the subject, but the Warriors just traded Maggette to the Bucks.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AvnSEXTz9qFEB_JhIptidCO8vLYF?slug=ys-maggettebucks062210
This is an awful trade for the Bucks. They unloaded the high priced RJ to the Spurs last year and now they turn around and saddle themselves to a 3 year $31 million contract for free?? The W’s were really looking to unload one of the worst contracts in the league and the Bucks didn’t even get anything for taking Maggette. They should have at least gotten Azebuike or Morrow if not Randolph as a sweetener for that sour contract. GS must be dancing in the street. What a stupid FO the Bucks have.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:04 pm
@quincyscott
I wholeheartedly agree that Taigo + shooters is not enough, we need smart athletic defenders. That said, if Ray Allen had shown up for them in more games, especially game 7, they’d have their second championship. More offense might not be the Spurs biggest need, but if the athlete we added was effective on both ends (what RJ was “supposed” to be) we would be radically improved. And this is with TP in the fold, much more vital without him. The truth is the Spurs have many needs and are a lot of pieces away.
I agree wholeheartedly with Varner’s not exactly exciting assessment of D. James.
“And honestly, I’m open to a surprise during the 2010 NBA Draft[...] I’m hoping the Spurs uncover an unheralded diamond in the rough” –Damn right. We basically need one heck of a surprise, and a sleeper (or 2) par excellence.
“The gap between them and the Lakers is wide enough that one or two small improvements won’t get Tim Duncan back to the NBA Finals.” — Also sad, but also very true.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Spurs trade up to the #10 pick and draft Cole Aldrich.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm
To the Author:
Gee shined in the minutes he played….
Well so did Ian….
good write-up/analysis but again we have to get a player that fits this out of date system. It doesnt matter if we get splitter and the best player on the board, if we dont play the correct players or use the correct scheme we wont win period.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
How about a new front line of
Duncan, Splitter, Blair, Dice, Murphy and Aldrich
instead of
Duncan, Dice, Bonner, Blair, Mahinmi
A big upgrade and a potential trade chip.
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Honestly, nobody could ever be mad if we end up with James as our 20th pick. He’s an upgrade over RJ, can guard multiple positions and has a constant motor. He has a high IQ and always goes all out, plus we are thin at the SF position anyway. He could be that corner 3 guy that we need and rebounds like no other.
It would be cool to get a “diamond in the rough” but if we get D. James I would be excited.
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Hear are the top ten things the Spurs should do this off season.
1. Sign Garrett Temple. He’s cool under pressure and he looks more like a true point guard than either Parker of Hill. He could windup being the Spurs point guard of the future. …very promising.
2. Start the the season with George Hill as the starting shooting guard. Genobili should win 6th man of the year next season.
3. Sign Tiago Splitter. The Lakers are way too long and athletic for the Spurs. Duncan needs Splitter like Robinson needed Duncan 13 years ago. Just get it done.
4. Do not resign Roger Mason nor Matt Bonner. Neither deserves a second chance on this team. Mason is a major defensive liability and Bonner does not bang with the big boys. Last season I cringed every time I saw them enter the game. Mason’s hip-slap was ridiculous. You don’t have to draw more attention to something you’re supposed to do.
5. Ian Mahinmi is an enigma. Don’t resign him. In a nutshell Mahinmi is going to be known as a “could’ve been”.
6. Let Kieth Bogans walk. He’s not good enough of a defensive specialist for the headaches he gives coach Popovich. He appears to be uncoachable. I would be very surprised to see him in a Spurs uniform next year.
7. Malik Hairston deserves a second look. He’s young, athletic and can learn to play better defense. He seems coach-able. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is not in a Spurs uniform next season.
8. Make an offer to Ray Allen. Offer him a legitimate chance at a championship. Offer him space. The space to shoot …caused by the legitimate low post players the Spurs have.
9. Shop Tony Parker. He is the most trade-able asset. Plus Parker needs to have the ball in his hands alot in order to be successful. They need a good passer, not someone who over-dribbles and thinks “score” first. In 07 that (Spurs) team was tailor made for him. Times have changed. The team has changed. They need someone who can start a good team-fastbreak not a one-man-fastbreak. Parker lacks size and grit at the Defensive end. This is why I think Garrett Temple may be the answer at the point and Hill as his backup.
10. Convince Tim Duncan to defer to Tiago Splitter. Timmy will have to concede that he is no longer the go-to-man, just as David Robinson did for him 13 years ago. Timmy has a lot of talent around him in Jefferson, Ginobili, Hill, Blair, and hopefully Splitter and Allen that he doesn’t have to carry the scoring load. This can work if Parker is traded so everyone I just mention can touch the ball.
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
lenneezz, how would minutes be managed in ur philosophy with three players each for the 4 and 5 position? Ur dumb…
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
quincyscott
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“What the Spurs need most is not more three point shooting. It’s better defense. We need (1) a perimeter defensive stopper, and (2) a big who can defend his man and the rim.”
I agree with your post, EXCEPT, we ALSO NEED one more veteran 40% shooter that can nail the three in the clutch, and during intense playoff competition. Raja Bell, if healthy, even though he’s getting up in years, would probably do the trick for 20-25 mpg. (47% from three in the playoffs). Plus he can defend on the perimeter. The big question is, is he affordable. I believe he’s a free agent this summer, coming off an injury at Golden State.
Hobson13
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“This is an awful trade for the Bucks……….GS must be dancing in the street. What a stupid FO the Bucks have.”
Actually, BOTH front offices are dumbasses on this deal. The deal was characterized as cost-cutting, yet the Warriors are getting players that are not really worth anything (Gadzuric), or redundant (Bell – except at least he can play some “D” – but do they want him long-term? If not, why bring him over with a 2-year contract?), and they’re only saving about 15 million, piece-mealed over three years, all to field an inferior product. In addition, Bell is under contract in 2011 as well, which could impact their ability to make a big splash in the FA market in 2011. Furthermore, the Warriors don’t need anymore GUARDS, unless they’ve made a definitive decision not to make a serious move to try and resign Morrow (their loss, someone else’s gain). And even so, they have Ellis & Curry soaking up close to 40 mpg. each, and they still have Azuibuike as well, so why would they want Bell too? Both he and Azuibuike are too good to be playing 10 mpg. Also, they don’t need some overpaid (6.8 mil.), less than mediocre “big” (Gadzuric) to do what Turiaf already does for them better (which is to simply back-up Biedrins for 15 minutes per game), and for less money (4.1 mil.). And Turiaf can also back-up Randolph, while Gadzuric cannot. Also, the Bucks will have major redundancy going on at SF unless they just don’t plan on resigning Salmons, who by the way, played pretty well for them last year, and is unlikely to demand a higher salary than what Maggette’s getting now.
All around, a mindless trade between two embarrassing franchises, and of course, it precludes the Spurs from making the Warriors a better deal (RJ, & the number 20 pick, which could be a guy like Larry Sanders). That deal would be better cost-cutting, and a better deal for their future, in terms of getting a guy like Sanders, and having more cap space in 2011 (from RJ’s expiring deal) to resign Curry & Randolph, and sign a nice FA piece, to go along with Ellis, Biedrins, Sanders, and whoever else they end up signing this summer.
Lenneezz
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“Spurs trade up to the #10 pick and draft Cole Aldrich.”
Who do you have in mind to trade for Cole
Aldrich?!
“A big upgrade and a potential trade chip.”
What potential trade chip?!
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I would be shocked to see the Spurs draft Damien James. Hairston is just as good and so is Gee. The Spurs need a solid three point shooter who also has good handles and can take it to the paint. But maybe even more importantly they’ll need a strong rebounder who can be an eraser at the rim. James doesn’t fit either bill.
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
“But maybe even more importantly they’ll need a strong rebounder who can be an eraser at the rim. James doesn’t fit either bill.”
Are you serious?! Damion James is the Big XII all time leading rebounder and averaged 10 and a half boards last season. Also shot .383 from 3pt land and if anything he’s great in transition, he just isn’t a good passer.
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I’m compelled to reiterate a point that I’ve made in the past for those of you that still seem to be somewhat matter of fact in your belief that pulling the trigger on a TP trade “for a top five pick” is generally a good idea.
I’ll start by asking if any of you would trade TP straight up for any of the following players? (the players are generally ranked from oldest to youngest, with some exceptions, and they AVERAGE just a bit older than TP – thus you can consider each player when he was around 28 or younger for your evaluation):
M. Camby
Abdur-Rahim
S. Marbury
K. Van Horn
A. Daniels
T. Battie
M. Bibby
R. LaFrentz
A. Jamison
S. Francis
B. Davis
L.Odom
J. Bender
S. Swift
D. Miles
Marcus Fizer
M. Miller
T. Chandler
E. Curry
J. Richardson
Jay Williams
M. Dunleavy
D. Gooden
N. Tskitishvili
D. Milicic
E. Okafor
B. Gordon
S. Livingston
D. Harris
Marvin Williams
R. Felton
A. Morrison
Tyrus Thomas
Shelden Williams
A. Horford
M. Conley
J. Green
Take a moment and answer the question posed above.
After you’ve answered the question, scroll down to read the “punchline”.
There were 48 players drafted between the 2nd & 5th pick during the draft years of 1996 – 2007. Thirty-seven of those 48 picks are listed above. Some of those 37 players are pretty good players, and some are not so good, but either way, I would not trade TP for any of them. The other 11 picks (not listed) are what I consider better than TP (e.g. LeBron James), or basically comparable (e.g., Chauncey Billups). In other words, a solid 8 out of 10 of the 2-5 picks over the 12 draft years in question, I would not trade TP for them. Would you?
Now obviously, some drafts are weaker/stronger than others. That said, in terms of TOP talent, I would only put this years draft as slightly better than average. And believe me, most of these 2-5 picks between 1996 & 2007 were thought to be at the time excellent chance, future all-star picks. As you can see, things don’t seem to turn out nearly as well as it appears at the time.
The moral of the story: just be careful of the hype about acquiring a top five pick in the draft. Indeed, the law of averages says that the number one pick is the only one that’s LESS of a crapshoot. Keep that in mind when mentioning the use of TP to trade-up in the draft. In my view, John Wall has the best shot at becoming a perennial all-star. After that, despite their apparent skill & talent, it’s much more unpredictable. TRULY succeeding in the NBA is more than about skill, athleticism, and talent. There are a number of intangibles that are difficult to foresee in kids 18-21 years old. Something to keep in mind.
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:42 pm
I really like what happens when you press the link for Gordon Hayward
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Oops! I forgot to leave space between the list & the “punchline” (which gives a description of the list). Oh well. I’m sure you get the point.
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
brilliant!
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:08 pm
*** CORRECTION from previous post: Azubuike is technically a SF, not a SG. ***
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
@Zainn
If you can’t understand the post than who would be the dumb one?
In my six big scenario, either Murphy or Dice would be the odd man out. It would depend on what we could get for Murphy and his expiring or Dice.
This frontline would allow Duncan to actually get less than 30 minutes a game. It would also allow 3 young bigs to develop in time for Duncan’s retirement.
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I would lean toward trading or even buying Dice out of his contract. Obiously, Murphy brings the 3 ball that we need.
A five man front court rotation is what Duncan needs at this point in his career.
Pop could get creative and go big with lineups as well.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
@ Jim Henderson
Your post has one huge assumption.
TP will play like an allstar going forward.
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pm
@Lenneezz
I’d support Jim in that assertion.
Tony seems focused like he hasn’t been for several seasons. He is all about next year, being swept was just the tonic for this team, as far as motivation goes.
In the land of hand checking he is an essential skill set in this days NBA.
In regards to the same old same old, we need D first but we are desperate for good solid 3 point shooting from a big minute contributor.
Where that comes from this off season is going to be interesting. It’s not something you can generally expect from a rookie, especially not in a system as demanding as ours, in terms of defensive rotations.
In my perfect world Malik rips summer league and training camp to bits, wows pop with an improved catch and shoot game and steals minutes from RJ like a bandit.
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
by hand checking i mean obviously…no hand checking…
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Lenneezz
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“Your post has one huge assumption.
TP will play like an allstar going forward.”
Well, I’m actually not making that assumption, buy are you really suggesting that TP is in decline already? That he’s not better than half of those picks on the list, whether an all-star or not? Indeed, from his rocking chair, if need be?
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:39 pm
@Bushka
“In regards to the same old same old, we need D first but we are desperate for good solid 3 point shooting from a big minute contributor.”
Rather than draft shooters (ie Jack McClinton), I would prefer a trade packing the #20 pick with appropriate players for some established shooting.
When I say appropriate players, I mean players appropriate to the targeted player and targeted team.
I do like going after Battier. Tough to say what Houston would want but I know Shane would fit great here.
I know it’s not easy but RC and the gang have had wonderful success finding veterans or relatively unknown talent that shoots well in the past. We really do need at least two new players that shoot the 3 well.
That is actually one reason I like the Indiana trade because Murphy would do the trick. As of now, we have Hill and Manu (and I really don’t want Boner back). God knows RJ should spend all summer in the corner shooting treys.
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Jim Henderson
Can’t answer yes or no to that Jimmy. He is coming off an injury plagued year. How he bounces back will be very important to his future.
Your analysis leaves a bit to be desired when considering value for the dollars spent. Accounting for that would prove more insightful.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
@Lenneezz. Yes yes and yes to pretty much everything especially the RJ shooting drills.
The only thing i’ll disagree with is Bonner. I don’t mind him back for just about minimum to soak up 8-10 minutes on the nights when his skill set is called for. I don’t want to see him back in the 15 to 20 range or as any form of starter.
I think if you can find a niche player and use him as a niche player at close to the minimum you grab them.
If our worst problem is that Bonners 12th in minutes on a contending team because we have so much depth, that’s a nice problem to have.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Lenneezz
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I’ll have to discontinue interaction with you if you either refuse to, or are incapable of, communicating clearly, and with reason.
I thought the question was quite simple:
Would you end up being happy if you were to now trade TP for any of the 2-5 picks listed above, evaluating them as if they were/are either TP’s age or younger?
Would you be happy if you traded Parker (injuries from last season and all!) and got back a guy like Stromile Swift, the number two pick of 2000? Or Adam Morrison, the number three pick of 2006? Or Eddie Curry, the number four pick of 2001? Or Jonathan Bender, the number five pick of 1999?
You get the picture — I hope —- that Parker, even this year, WITH all his injuries, was WAY better than the majority of players on that 37 man list! And is Parker prone to injuries, which could lower his value somewhat? Of course not, unless you think that, at the prime age of 28, missing 10 games or more (out of 82) in just one out of his previous 8 seasons (prior to 2009/10) is reason to build a permanent ward for TP at the local infirmary.
“Your analysis leaves a bit to be desired when considering value for the dollars spent. Accounting for that would prove more insightful.”
Let’s put it this way: I’d rather pay TP 12 million dollars than pay Stromile Swift 5 cents. Is that insightful enough for you?!
Look, the basic point is this:
8 out of 10, of the two through five draft picks between 1996 & 2007 were in my view not as good as TP at around the same age or younger, regardless of TP’s so-called “injury-plagued” season.
Now, are you really disagreeing with that statement because Parker had ONE season out of NINE where he missed as many as 26 games out of 82 on account of injury?
If you respond, please be specific, clear, and reasonable about anything that you might object to. Otherwise, enjoy the echo chamber.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 am
@Jim Henderson – I fail to understand what that list of players have anything to do with trading for a higher pick. Hell no you don’t trade Parker for anyone on that list straight-up, but trading for an actual draft pick is a completely different matter.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 am
Spurs should’ve been making trades with the Warriors. We probably could’ve traded for Stephen Jackson by giving up Matt Bonner and Roger Mason.
Now we could’ve got rid of Jefferson and gotten 3 decent players in return. from the Warriors. Surely someone will be available from their team out of Curry, Ellis, Bell, Morrow, Williams, Azubuike, CJ Watson.
Warriors currently have no small forwards on their team at all !?!?
Damion James can’t shoot or even dribble consistently and is way too turnover prone. He is an effort guy. He is a great athlete playing basketball, NOT an athletic basketball player.
Spurs need to make some moves for veterans.
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:03 am
[...] 15. Milwaukee: Gordon Hayward [...]
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:08 am
With this being our highest pick since drafting Duncan, I think you have to draft potential over immediacy, and I question most rookies impact immediately anyways.
Even if Splitter is on board, we need bigs in our system. I think we take the best center with the 20th pick unless George or Babbitt shockingly fall. With this pick, I would have taken Alabi from Florida State.
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:11 am
Reports out that Utah and Jersey might be in talks to trade 3 pick for Boozer….thus effectively killing any chance of a TP – Harris exchange….all rumour so far though.
I think this is the Spurs scenario most likely going forward from draft day:
Select athlete, effort project guy in draft who will either get spot minutes or go to D league
Will sign Splitter and resign Bonner.
Will sign another veteran guard to fill outgoing bogans and mason.
Will look to develop more minutes for Hairston and potentially Alonzo Gee or Garrett Temple.
Very boring spurs offseason, very under-the-radar, and most likely enough to get us back to conference finals if we have health and a little luck.
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 am
on a completely different (and sickening) note, the Lakers are reportedly interested in signing Raja Bell from the Warriors. Is Kobe going to surround himself with his old enemies???
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 am
Easy B,
I think the rumor is that New Jersey is planning on picking Wes Johnson with the #3 pick and then pursuing Boozer in free agency. Johnson and Boozer have the same agent. The ESPN.com story made it seem like they were talking about a trade, but they actually said that they were looking at the 2 players as a “package deal” with their agent.
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:55 am
[...] San Antonio – Damion James (Tim Varner of 48 Minutes of [...]
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
One mock draft that I saw has the Spurs taking Craig Brackins with the #20. I have to say that this guy looks pretty good. He would have been a lottery pick last year, but he went back to school and had a disappointing season (16.5pts and 8.5 rebs).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZdelSuiYJk
Check out his highlight video. This guy is 6’10″ and has good range and athleticism. He also appears to have good footwork and a nice fade away 10 footer. It looks like he could be that stretch, athletic 4 we’ve been looking for. He would definitely be an interesting pick at #20.
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:48 am
@ lenneezz
why would the pacers or any other team at all take on more money with dice’s contract? and why would we trade for TROY MURPHY and then put him on the bench. illogical…
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:52 am
Just a thought which I admit isn’t so crucial and may seem a little bit insane…
You say that:
“Jefferson will either be traded or wished-well when his contract expires”.
Provided that (i) we cannot find a trade for him this winter and (ii) he does not unexpectedly turn in a player worth his salary, I am not 100% sold on the fact that the Spurs should just let him walk: if his tarnished reputation around the league prevents him from getting a better deal elsewhere, I would be open to resign him for a McDyessesque deal: 2M at year, 2 years + 1 partially guaranteed.
Beacause of such lowered pay, Pop would not be/feel obliged to make him a started or give him minutes every night. On the other end, a short and cheap contract could help him shrug off the “burden” tag and acquire the “savy veteran from the bench” tag, thus improving his chances to land another contract. It kind of helps one’s free agent status not having being mentioned as a “cap-clogging-bad-contract-worse-mistake-ever-by-a-savy-front-office-which-granted-the-guy-that-traded-him-away-a-GM-of-the-year-award” player in every media report for the previous two years.
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 am
Zainn, to answer your question about putting Troy Murphy on the bench, well, he’s really not *that* good. I wouldn’t see any problem with Murphy being the 3rd or 4th big man (Duncan – Splitter – Murphy/Blair). I also doubt he’d have a problem with that either.
Coming off the bench is only a problem for egomaniacs who aren’t that good anymore (ie Iverson).
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:52 am
[...] 15. Milwaukee: Gordon Hayward [...]
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
Ian
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 am
Nothing personal, but are you having a mental block of some sort? What does that list have to do with trading for a higher pick?! Are you kidding me?!
EIGHT OUT OF TEN GUYS IN THE TOP FIVE PICKS OUT OF THE LAST TWELVE MEANINGFUL DRAFTS WERE WORSE PLAYERS THAN TONY PARKER!
THAT MEANS THAT ON AVERAGE WE HAVE ABOUT A ONE IN FOUR CHANCE OF GETTING SOMEONE COMPARABLE OR BETTER THAN TONY’S VALUE!
Is that clear enough for you?! Geez!
lvmainman
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 am
“Warriors currently have no small forwards on their team at all !?!?”
Actually Azubuike technically is (I see him as a “swingman”). And they also have a D-League guy, Williams, playing for $118,000/yr. But I agree, they should have traded for RJ and drafted Aminu to groom for 2011.
Easy B
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:11 am
“Very boring spurs offseason, very under-the-radar, and most likely enough to get us back to conference finals if we have health and a little luck.”
I doubt we’re getting to the conference finals with that strategy. Other teams are getting better also. They are not standing still.
Are there any more comments from guys on here that are “big” about trading up with Parker?
Look, I’m not saying you don’t look at it, but please realize that it’s a VERY risky proposition to trade a 3-time all-star and finals MVP for a top-five pick. The key and most realistic way of considering a Parker trade is that we would need to get 2-3 good (maybe star “potential” with NBA experience) and/or above average players back that fill critical needs in our rotation, including a big, and a point guard, because George Hill may never be good enough to man the point for a championship team. Nothing against GHill, but it simply may not be his position (and probably isn’t). And of course, all of this is most likely predicated on Parker being willing to sign a multi-year extension with the team we are trading him to.
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
ESPN Rumor Mill reports that Portland is shopping Rudy Fernandez for a draft pick.
I would trade #20 for Fernandez in a heartbeat and I think Portland would take that deal. What about y’all?
Fernandez isn’t much of a defender, but he’s 6’6″, an excellent and creative playmaker, and a very solid three point shooter. He would be what Roger Mason, Jr. was supposed to be this year – an instant offense big guard off the bench who could be a scoring focal point for the second unit. I’ve watched Fernandez play and he’s sort of Ginobili-lite with the ball. He’s crafty, a bit of a freelancer, and an excellent passer. He would mesh extremely well with Blair (who consistently played better with Ginobili on the floor) and Splitter.
If we keep the rest of our team intact, bring Splitter over, and allow Bonner and RMJ to walk away, our 2010-11 roster looks like this:
STARTERS
C – Duncan
PF – McDyess
SF – Jefferson
SG – Ginobili
PG – Parker
BENCH
C – Splitter
PF – Blair, cheap “stretch 4″ free agent (Channing Frye? Matt Bonner? Hakim Warrick? Jonathan Bender?)
SF – cheap defensive specialist free agent (my dream options, Raja Bell and Matt Barnes, will probably be too expensive)
SG – Fernandez, Hairston
PG – Hill
INACTIVE LIST
Temple, Gee, 2010 2nd rounder
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Jim Henderson
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
“Look, I’m not saying you don’t look at it, but please realize that it’s a VERY risky proposition to trade a 3-time all-star and finals MVP for a top-five pick.”
The Chris Paul rumors have allowed me to look at a Tony Parker trade in a different light. Sure, Parker is not as good as Paul, but he is a top 5 pg when on his game. If you look at some suggestions being thrown around as to what kind of trade offer it would take to acquire Paul’s services, it is very revealing. Granted, NO is in a different situation than the Spurs, but in order to get Paul, a team would have to be willing to give a good player and top pick PLUS take on one of NO’s REALLY bad contract (Okafor or Peja). If the Spurs were to trade Parker, the Nets trade suggestion (Harris and #3) may only tempt the FO to make that trade. However, even with a semi all-star and a possible big time pick, the Spurs FO would have a difficult decision.
On the other hand, there is a lot more to evaluate with Parker than simply trying to trade equal talent for equal talent. The Spurs have no guarantee he doesn’t walk off next year. We also have no guarantee that another team won’t radically overpay for him and the Spurs won’t be able to match (in fact, it is highly likely a GM will overpay). With these two factors in mind, the FO has some decisions to make THIS summer. If we don’t trade Parker we are essentially going all in and saying we will resign him (we can’t let him walk for free). If we trade him now for good, young talent, then we will at least have an idea who will be on our roster next year. I don’t claim to have the answer to this dilemma, but I would certainly listen to whatever reasonable offer was given for Parker.
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The big rumor right now is that Minnesota is desperate to move Jefferson and his big deal for an expiring contract. Shouldn’t the Spurs really look into this.
A Jefferson for Jefferson swap makes a lot of sense. Wolves save a lot of money in the future and get a slightly above average wing player.
Spurs get a low post threat. If the Spurs could draft rotation wing in the draft they could be looking pretty good next year and in the future.
Bigs-Duncan, Jefferson, Splitter, McDyess
Wings-Ginobili, Rookie, Hariston, Hill
Point-Parker, Hill
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Well, draft day is tomorrow, so I’m going to go out on a limb and take a stab at predicting the unpredictable. My predictions will necessarily need to be contingent on a few possible scenarios:
IF the Spurs trade Parker in a deal for a “top-five” pick, I say they will end up drafting DERRICK FAVORS out of Georgia Tech.
IF the Spurs trade up for a “in the ten area pick”, I say they end up drafting PAUL GEORGE out of Fresno State, OR EKPE UDOH out of Baylor.
IF the Spurs do not trade up, and they draft a wing, I say they end up drafting QUINCY PONDEXTER out of U. Washington.
IF the Spurs do not trade up, and they draft a front court player, I say they end up drafting LARRY SANDERS out of VCU.
It’s a long shot that any of these picks end up on the roster, but what the hell, I’m on the record with a guess.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I agree that trading Parker for a draft pick is a gamble, with the odds strongly against the Spurs.
However, there is a trade that I think is in the range of doable an would actually fill some holes.
Trade Parker to Portland for Nicolas Batum and Marcus Camby.
That would give the Spurs a quality big to help Tim down low, and a lock down defender who can shoot the three at SF.
Portland only got Camby because Przybilla and Oden went out with season ending injuries. He is probably not in Portland’s long range plans.
As for Batum, you have to give up quality to get quality, and I think Parker would fit well in Portland.
That would still leave the Spurs with a need at point. Between Hill, Manu, and Temple they can cope, but they will still need to land a vet point guard, maybe Ronnie Brewer.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:40 pm
@Zainn
“why would the pacers or any other team at all take on more money with dice’s contract? and why would we trade for TROY MURPHY and then put him on the bench. illogical”
Where did I ever say that Dice would go to the Pacers? Where did I ever say that Murphy would go to the bench. And I’ll put aside that bench has certain connotations. Is Manu on the bench? Ilogical.
He would get his 25+ minutes a night as a player, bench or not.
I am advocating Parker to the Pacers for Murphy, Rush and the #10. I though I’d clarify because you obviously didn’t get that.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:43 pm
“On the other hand, there is a lot more to evaluate with Parker than simply trying to trade equal talent for equal talent. The Spurs have no guarantee he doesn’t walk off next year. We also have no guarantee that another team won’t radically overpay for him and the Spurs won’t be able to match (in fact, it is highly likely a GM will overpay). With these two factors in mind, the FO has some decisions to make THIS summer. If we don’t trade Parker we are essentially going all in and saying we will resign him (we can’t let him walk for free). If we trade him now for good, young talent, then we will at least have an idea who will be on our roster next year. I don’t claim to have the answer to this dilemma, but I would certainly listen to whatever reasonable offer was given for Parker”
Well well well said.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
The #20 could get Evan or Avery. There is a good chance one of those will be availablem; probably Evan.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I like the idea of Big Al from Minny for our Jefferson best of all, since the Maggette deal was squashed earlier. Does anybody have a link to see what the list of free agents will be this year? If we cant draft a starting SF, maybe we could sign one BAE, and use the rook to back him up.
Duncan – McDyess – Blair
Jefferson – Splitter
??? – #20
Ginobili – Hairston
Parker – Hill
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 pm
With the 20th pick in the 2010 NBA Draft, The San Antonio Spurs select *best player available*!!!
Then, in a week, we trade that pick to another team for a veteran player who can fill a need on our team. Maybe we could do a TP + 20th pick for Chris Paul. Hornets need some front court depth and there seems to be several decent big men around the 20th pick. TP would give Collison another year of development, plus TP’s contract off NO’s books in only a year, crucial for a team that is more broke than Antoine Walker.
(I’m not advocating many TP trades, but Parker for Paul is worth considering, no?)
I’m thinking that we need a game changing talent added and I’m not confident that the 20th pick can provide a game changer. I’m thinking the addition of Splitter + a proven veteran makes us much better than Splitter + a rookie. A veteran is ready now, a rookie simply is not.
Take a look at Blair. He did well during the season (for a rookie) but ultimately fell short of being a game changer when the play-offs hit. Next year he becomes a game half-changer, and his 3rd year will be the Year of the Bear, no doubt. I’d equate the 20th pick with a player of Blair’s talent, but we can’t wait 2 years for 2010 Rookie X to turn the corner and become a game changer.
We’d be in so much better of a situation if Jefferson didn’t suck.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
@ Jim Henderson
“I’ll have to discontinue interaction with you if you either refuse to, or are incapable of, communicating clearly, and with reason.”
You are kinda rude buddy. I am afraid I will cut off all communications with you if you talk to me that way again.
This is just a blog man. It isn’t a non stop pissing contest for you.
If I may humbly offer a suggestion to you; lighten up.
BTW what is not reasonable and clear regarding this comment?
“Can’t answer yes or no to that Jimmy. He is coming off an injury plagued year. How he bounces back will be very important to his future.”
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
What are your thoughts on trading Richard Jefferson to Toronto for Calderon and the 13th overall pick.
He might be overpaid, but he shoots 39% from behind the arc and is capable of running the offense for limited minutes. The spurs would open up cap space and have two first round picks. One to go after a solid (bench) player in Damion James. And, one to take a chance on a player with more potential.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Hobson13
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
I agree, and I’m certainly open to trading TP. I’m just saying that I would be VERY careful, and especially so if “draft picks” are a big part of any proposed deal.
David G
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
“The big rumor right now is that Minnesota is desperate to move Jefferson and his big deal for an expiring contract. Shouldn’t the Spurs really look into this.
A Jefferson for Jefferson swap makes a lot of sense.”
I think you’re right. T-Wolves are one of the teams in which an RJ move has some potential. AJ is not a perfect fit, and we’d be assuming 36 mil. over the next three years, but if Splitter comes aboard, and we deal McDyess, it may make some sense to consider, otherwise Blair’s minutes get squeezed, and I’m not in favor of that. Perhaps include McDyess and pick up Sessions?
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
“Well, I’m actually not making that assumption, buy are you really suggesting that TP is in decline already?”
This was the first question asked to me by you Jimmy.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Jim Henderson
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“Perhaps include McDyess and pick up Sessions?”
My thoughts exactly. A Spurs front line of Jefferson, Duncan, Blair, and Splitter would certainly challenge the lakers. Ramon Sessions is a good talent and is absolutely rotting away on their bench. The Twolves were originally looking for a good SF (Danny Granger) but got shot down during the season.
This move would really tear up our salary cap situation though. Jefferson is good and can be a beast, but it would be a BIG decision for Holt, RC, and Pop to take on such a big contract. However, if AJ can return to his previous form, he is a 20/10 machine. The proposed trade would look like this:
SA gets: Al Jefferson and Ramon Sessions
Minny gets: RJ, McDyess, and #20
Do you guys really think Minny would unload him for expiring contracts??
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Lenneezz
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“You are kinda rude buddy. I am afraid I will cut off all communications with you if you talk to me that way again.”
Look, I’m just telling you that if you’re going to critique my comments with things like, “Your analysis leaves a bit to be desired…… and …. accounting for that would prove more insightful”, at least bring logic and reason to the forefront. If not, I’m just saying that I’ll be ignoring your comments in the future because they will have no useful basis for me to bother engaging.
“BTW what is not reasonable and clear regarding this comment?
“Can’t answer yes or no to that Jimmy. He is coming off an injury plagued year. How he bounces back will be very important to his future.”
How does the value of a guy like Parker, a three-time all-star (an all-NBA player just the season before last) whose only had one season in which he’s missed over 10 games during an 82 game schedule (plus all the playoff & French National games he’s been in), get dropped to the point where you question whether he’s better than ALL of those 37, number 2-5 picks that I listed? You seem to imply that Parker coming back strong is something like a 50/50 proposition, yet you provide no basis for this assessment.
And in fact, you have not provided any “reasonable” evidence that Parker’s injury issue from last year should detract from his value, and even if it does detract “slightly”, you have provided no evidence that he’s still not better than virtually all of the players on that 37-man list.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
@Jim Henderson – I understand your point that high draft picks turn out to be busts/underachievers more often than not (I thought it was a common sense but let’s just say you’re very perceptive in saying that). Now then why did you have to ask whether anyone would trade TP for the players in your list? Don’t tell me that just because every top-5 draft picks will more likely be busts, they might as well have the equally low values as the actual busts.
I’m not really countering your argument here: call me block-headed if you will but it’s just that the logic behind your argument was really strange that’s all.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
God, it’s reported that Miami traded their #18 and Cook for OKC’s #32. Ridiculous…
Can’t Spurs get a bargain like this? I mean, even the Bucks got CDR from the Nets for almost nothing.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Hobson13
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“Do you guys really think Minny would unload him for expiring contracts??”
I do, for a few reasons. Number one, the T-Wolves are obviously STILL in rebuilding mode. They’ve made a series of poor decisions over the years. I actually feel a bit sorry for them, and really hope Rubio comes over next year & is everything they hoped he would be. But the point is, they have to have to be serious in implementing a 3-5 year plan, and that starts with clearing cap space by letting go of pricey contracts. Number two, I really believe their is a problem with Love & Jefferson co-existing effectively in the same front court. They do too much of the same thing, and they’re both vying for heavy minutes (one a young potential star, and one a very effective big still in his prime). The T-Wolves need to focus around their main guys, which I suggest are Love, Brewer, Flynn, and this years number 4 pick. With RJ & McDyess expirings, with Sessions & especially AJ gone, they should have decent room to make some big decisions on whether, and for how much, to extend Love, Brewer, & Flynn (which may depend on Rubio) in 2011, plus have some cap available to sign a nice free agent (hopefully a banger/defender type center).
The question is (as you raised), would the Spurs be able/willing to take on AJ’s hefty long-term deal? That I don’t have an answer for, but I would be surprised if they have not at least looked at the feasibility of such a trade, and perhaps even made an informal preliminary inquiry. But I guess we’ll never know.
By the way, we might not have to give up the number 20 pick in this deal. I think the T-Wolves may be desperate in some ways to dump AJ’s contract, at least partly because of the conflict with Love.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Ian
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“I’m not really countering your argument here: call me block-headed if you will but it’s just that the logic behind your argument was really strange that’s all.”
You haven’t specifically identified what you mean by “strange” logic. I contend it’s actually very sound logic. In fact it’s just basic odds. Do you or anyone else want to risk trading TP as a “gamble” to hopefully get something as good or better in the future? That is in fact what the trade-up scenarios offer. And the facts show that there’s about an 80% chance that you’re going to get a player not as good as TP from your pick, and you probably won’t even know the final verdict for at least a few years. Many on here are simply too cavalier in their willingness to offer up TP for the hype of a top-five pick. I’m just attempting to temper the enthusiasm by bringing a sense of reality into the picture.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
bills
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Portland would not do that deal. You do know that they have Andre Miller at the point. Any deal with them involving Parker would necessarily have to involve Miller as well.
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“Do you guys really think Minny would unload him for expiring contracts??”
I can’t believe they would (of course its David Kahn so…) but apparently they’re talking to the Griz about Zach Randolph who has one year left on his deal. First Zach’s not a guy you want playing with a young team and second how does he fit with Love any better than Jefferson? At least R. Jefferson fills a need for the Wolves and he’s also a one year rental.
The Spurs really should push for this deal if the Wolves are serious about dumping Al’s contract. There’s very very few players who command a double team in the post and those guys don’t come around very often. It’s the only reason teams consider drafting a world class A-Hole like Cousins in the first round.
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Dejuan Blair Rookie season http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3zmUQbdiJk
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Tony Parker 2009 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK_CK_mddeE
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Ginobili 2009 2010 season
Assist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp0QYJW2gXQ
Offense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RUUlE9nRBQ
Defense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCerawsZg90
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
What the Spurs need?
1._Splitter
2._A great defender
3._A great 3pt Shooter
4._Im not worry about the draft, Popovich is going to make a great work with the future rookie
5._George Hill and Blair need to improve, practice and get better
6._Parker, Ginobili, Duncan need to Rest and get Focus
7._Richard Jefferson need to learn Defense!!!
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I would like to see the spurs get Solomon Alabi. A big man w/lots of similarities to TD, he also came to the game late, has a great attitude and good work ethic and is a team player. Talk about the perfect subject for Tim to mentor.
June 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
It’s all about having players that cause other teams to have difficulty matching up. Alabi would be a match up nightmare for other teams. he has an awesome skyhook shot shoots 80% ft. and we can’t loose sight of the future of the team. We need players that can help now and later.I’m not saying he could start now but w/Splitter (hopfully) Alabi could give Quality mins.
June 23rd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
If the Spurs were to pry Jefferson away from Minny, they would be unreal title contenders for the next few years. Could you imagine a front line of Splitter, Jefferson, and Blair? Especially one year from now once they’ve had time to grow together and learn the system? My Gawd! Timmy could play 20 min/game and just focus on mentoring these young studs. His biggest concern would be what bar he wants to go to after the Spurs win the game. In the draft the Spurs would HAVE to get a decent SF.
However, if we did get Sessions and Jefferson, you can say goodbye to Parker. No way we could afford to resign him next summer. Plus the Spurs would be 3 deep in the PG department with Hill, Sessions, and Parker with the first two being great backups if not good starters. With all that said, I would trade RJ’s arse so fast his head would spin.
June 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Labron for Jefferson and Parker via sign and trade (With assorted others to fill out the deal).
Make it happen!!
This gives you a replacement for Parker and Jefferson in one player. Allows Ginobili to come off the bench and be uber 6th man again ( as well as get rest ), Hill to start at PG and develop his game in real game min. Add Splitter to all this and champs for years I tell ya!
Yes this is tongue in cheek pipe dreaming, but wouldn’t it be amazing?
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
“get dropped to the point where you question whether he’s better than ALL of those 37, number 2-5 picks that I listed? You seem to imply that Parker coming back strong is something like a 50/50 proposition, yet you provide no basis for this assessment.”
When the fook have I said that?
I have said, not implied, that Parker’s skills are going to decline a bit more rapid than some other PG’s with different skill sets. I have said that Parker is going to demand a very large contract for 4-5 years. I have said I do not believe he should be given that contract by SA. Therefore, the Spurs should trade him now when they can still get something for him.
Jimmy, you have read things that I haven’t said. Check your glasses bub.
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I think one discrepancy that different posters are having is the issue of timing.
Odds are strong, that a player that is drafted at #10 will not have as good of a career as Parker.
However, we don’t care about comparing careers.
The correct basis for judgement should be Tony’s career from NOW.
What kind of production will Parker have for the next 5 years? How much will it cost?
Compare that with the draft picks production over the next 5 years and what that will cost.
That method is far more accurate imo.
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Of course, there are plenty of intagables to mind.
But, keeping salary in mind when comparing forecasts is more realistic.
Gotta keep it real.
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
The chances of a 5-10 pick in this draft having 4 better years than Tony Parker’s next 4 are about 1 in a 100.
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
jim, i agree that your statistics regarding trading up for a top 5 pick are technically sound, but i have one caveat.
yes, the figures bear out that an overwhelming majority of picks 2-5 are less productive than tony parker. however, this analysis doesn’t take into account the teams doing the picking. a team like atlanta, that picks marvin williams ahead of chris paul (especially considering their pg woes) seriously drags the curve down. same for detroit and darko. cleveland picking potapenko ahead of kobe bryant. no one can deny the spurs FO’s acumen at the draft. we have consistently gotten contributors and worth out of picks that by the statistics have an infintesimal shot at becoming valuable at all. there’s probably 2 all-stars (a poor measure of greatness, btw, but that’s neither here nor there) in this draft, and i have faith that the spurs would be able to divine who they are (yes, john wall +1). sure, i understand that you’d want to temper the wild enthusiasm over trading up for the pick (i’m not for trading TP for harris and the 3, but i agree that you have to consider it), but to claim that it’s “just a gamble” isn’t intellectually honest either. or perhaps i’m just a complete homer.
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
that said, i’m intractably against trading TP for the 10 plus whatever trash indiana has to offer. TP’s next 3 years, even if he’s not fully healthy, is likely worth more than anyone we’ll get at the 10 (barring someone falling). at least with the 3, we have our pick of any of the top 5 players save wall and turner (the likely top 2), and you can save judgement because the pick will be made with potential and the future in mind.
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
All the people that are saying parker’s career over the next 4-5 years vs the pick is overlooking the possibility that Parker could sign elsewhere next summer. What if he doesnt resign with the Spurs and we are left with nothing?
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Are*
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I dont think we should trade TP…..
but, I would be willing to trade with IND for only this: TP for Hibbert, TJ Ford, and the #10.
Our lineup would look like this:
PG – Hill/Ford/Temple or Jerrells
SG – Manu/Hairston/Paul George (#10)
SF – Jefferson/Gee/Paul George (#10)
PF – Spliter/McDyess/Blair
C – Duncan/Hibbert/Mahinmi
Plus we would still have the #20 pick to add.
Jefferson, Ford, McDyess all come off the books next year (~28 mil.). Think this would give us an excellent bench with 3pt shooting and Defensive/Rebounding help plus set us up for the future!
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Lenneezz
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
“When the fook have I said that?”
Below is the initial exchange that has now ended up devolving to where we are at present: talking in circles. It’s a paste & copy of the relevant aspects of our exchanges, from oldest to newest, on the topic of trading Parker.
Jim Henderson
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Lenneezz
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“Your post has one huge assumption.
TP will play like an allstar going forward.”
Well, I’m actually not making that assumption, but are you really suggesting that TP is in decline already? That he’s not better than half of those picks on the list, whether an all-star or not? Indeed, from his rocking chair, if need be?
And then you respond with the following post:
Lenneezz
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Jim Henderson
Can’t answer yes or no to that Jimmy. He is coming off an injury plagued year. How he bounces back will be very important to his future.
To which, I responded with this:
Jim Henderson
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
How does the value of a guy like Parker, a three-time all-star (an all-NBA player just the season before last) whose only had one season in which he’s missed over 10 games during an 82 game schedule (plus all the playoff & French National games he’s been in), get dropped to the point where you question whether he’s better than ALL of those 37, number 2-5 picks that I listed? You seem to imply that Parker coming back strong is something like a 50/50 proposition, yet you provide no basis for this assessment.
And in response to that series of exchanges, you respond with this:
“When the fook have I said that?”
Please try to follow the exchanges in order very carefully:
— I expressed reluctance to trade Parker for a top-five pick, and pointed out that 80% of 2-5 picks over the 12 draft years were not as good of players at age 28 or younger as is Parker at age 28. And I “asked” if people agreed with that.
— You responded by saying that I’m assuming that Parker is going to play like an all-star in the coming years, implying that you are somewhat skeptical that would be the case.
— I then asked if you were suggesting that Parker was on the verge of decline, and I again tried to elicit a response to the initial question: Is Parker better than those 37 picks that I listed.
— You responded by saying that you can’t answer the question, and that Parker just came off an injury plagued season. You ended the post, and I quote again, “how he bounces back will be very important to his future.”
— Since the meaning of the quoted sentence from your response above was unclear in terms of its relevancy to our conversation, and the entire post seemed to be concerned about TP’s health, I provided my case that Parker has not had a “pattern” of significant injuries in his nine year career, and suggested that you seemed to be inexplicably devaluing TP (because you won’t say that he’s even better than any of the 37 picks, injury or no injury) because of ONE injury-plagued season, by probing you with the following statement: “You seem to imply that Parker coming back strong is something like a 50/50 proposition, yet you provide no basis for this assessment.”
Now, I was not quoting you there. I was probing you about TP’s injury status, and how it all relates to the original exchange that provoked this discussion, because you seemed to be making two separate points about Parker that apparently left you balking at the original question, which is: is Parker better than those 37 players I listed when they were/are at age 28 or younger? You apparently can’t answer that question because of TWO concerns that you have about Parker, which you seem to believe lowers his value in relation to the 37 picks: (1) his particular skill-set; and (2) his health issues. The health issues were never clearly articulated by you as to why you brought them up in the discussion, other that to imply that the injuries lower Parkers trade-value. And the skill-set issue I never even got from you until your very last post in this exchange. So it’s only natural that I would have felt the need to probe you with statements that “may” end up incorrectly characterizing your position.
Also, my original post that prompted this exchange had “nothing” to do with “trading” Parker, and had everything to do with “trading Parker for a top-five pick”. There is a BIG difference there.
From your last post:
“Parker’s skills are going to decline a bit more rapid than some other PG’s with different skill sets.”
The assertion quoted above is strictly your opinion. You provide NO reasoning or data to make your case.
“…….Parker is going to demand a very large contract for 4-5 years.”
You don’t say what a “very large contract” means, and your statement calls for considerable speculation on your part since we won’t KNOW what Parker’s value on the open market will be NEXT year, and also because his free agency will begin at the outset of a new collective bargaining agreement (which is expected to lower salaries).
“I have said I do not believe he should be given that contract by SA.”
Without a plan for a replacement, the comment above is necessarily premature, unless you think that there’s a good shot that GHill can be a point guard for a championship team in the next few years.
“…..the Spurs should trade him now when they can still get something for him.”
There’s some basic logic in this statement, yet it is a view that I’ve never disagreed with from the outset of this exchange.
“Jimmy, you have read things that I haven’t said. Check your glasses bub.”
On the contrary, in your most recent post, you said things that I’ve not seen on here before. If you care to provide quotes of previous comments that essentially duplicates the comments in the second to last paragraph in your most recent post, we can talk about that, but I certainly don’t see them on this thread (other than that you “want to trade Parker”).
In the meantime, you need to learn how to follow the logic of an ongoing exchange better (recreating it for you has been a hassle), and also work at being more logical, specific, clear, and detailed in the points that you make.
Do you think you could answer the original question now? Is Parker, right now, better than those 37 picks when those picks were at age 28 or younger? If not, can you make a coherent case as to why not? And again, please take this into account in your response: “work at being more logical, specific, clear, and detailed in the points that you make.” Otherwise, it’s pretty hard to have a useful exchange of views.
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
dude jim you are amazing you just competely pwned leneezz. Thanks (and you have no life)
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Lenneezz
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
“The correct basis for judgement should be Tony’s career from NOW.”
That’s fine. I’ll take TP’s next four years against the BEST four-year consecutive stretch (their highest paid years) of any of those 37 picks. We’ll just say, that’s their careers (which by the way, gives an edge to those 37 picks, because a players BEST years are typically between 25 & 30, not 28 & 33). But that’s okay, I’ll still take TP over any of them.
David G
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
“The chances of a 5-10 pick in this draft having 4 better years than Tony Parker’s next 4 are about 1 in a 100.”
Great pithy comment, David. I almost fell out of my chair laughing in agreement over that one!
andy
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
“jim, i agree that your statistics regarding trading up for a top 5 pick are technically sound, but i have one caveat.
yes, the figures bear out that an overwhelming majority of picks 2-5 are less productive than tony parker. however, this analysis doesn’t take into account the teams doing the picking.”
Okay, Andy, that is at least minimally a valid point. In other words, I do agree the Spurs FO has earned an edge over the average franchise in term of their acumen in evaluating talent. That said, it is difficult to quantify, and it by no means reduces the risk to any significant or meaningful extent. Plus, the sample size and relevant data available is quite limited. In other words, the Spurs have had little experience at selecting top-five picks, and there are plenty of “misses” in many of their low-round, and 2nd round picks.
“…..but to claim that it’s “just a gamble” isn’t intellectually honest either. or perhaps i’m just a complete homer.”
No, it’s not JUST a gamble, but a good part of it is, otherwise no FO’s would make any mistakes, and we know that’s far from the case. I know the Spurs FO is good, but please be careful to not over-value their talents. They’re smart, but they’re not Nostradamus!
DNITCH
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
“All the people that are saying parker’s career over the next 4-5 years vs the pick is overlooking the possibility that Parker could sign elsewhere next summer. What if he doesnt resign with the Spurs and we are left with nothing?”
Well, if you’re referring to me, remember, I never said I wasn’t open to trading TP. My posts on this thread have focused on my general reluctance to trade TP for a top-five pick. There’s a big difference there.
jk31007
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Problem is, Indiana is not going to trade Hibbert, Ford, & the number 10 pick for Parker. Not gonna happen. Not without Parker agreeing to a hefty 4-year extension, which is highly unlikely.
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
zainn
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
“dude jim you are amazing you just competely pwned leneezz. Thanks (and you have no life)”
Gee, thanks, I guess I just get more done in a couple of hours than whatever “important” stuff you do all day. Better work on your time-management, and efficiency in the completion of tasks. And maybe take a writing class; if you did, maybe “your life” might be a bit more successful and fulfilling. Take care.
June 24th, 2010 at 12:25 am
@ jk31007,
Wow, if the Pacers would be willing to give up Hibbert, I’d be down with that trade! Hill could start and Ford could be a good backup that can get to the rim off the pick and roll. Hibbert/Splitter would be great to match up with Bynum, Oden, and Ming in the playoffs. Plus the #10 and #20 draft picks.
I wish the front office is being active with ideas like this one.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:35 am
if were going to go for a title we cant expect for these pieces to just come from the sky i say if we cant get a top 10 pick through draft we go after these guys in order im glad everyones downt to finally get a smart big, non other than big al who molded his game after the big fundamental. been wanting him before dice but hey!he was better than bonner (nothing)lets start by going inside to out 1.) secure Al jefferson. if so teams are screwed #2) get shane battier! if we do this he will be the next best thing to bruce bowen and i think he brings just as much passion and heart & we are lacking that bad (cough mmmhmm*cough TP) so i think he will be the difference in setting the tone for our perimeter defense for all the young ones and show how to play with heart Unlike our man RJ. if we cant get shane i say we go after PLAN B JOHN SALMONS very underrated perimeter defeder who pops that 3 we love all the while being a natural defender and with the influence of the spurs he can be great he still is getting better every year even though hes getting a lil older
June 24th, 2010 at 1:40 am
oh yeah and i was waiting for that come back jim seriously i was refreshing my page and i was like oh there it is hahaha why do people have to disrespect ea. w/out any motive whatsoever ?! lets talk basketball not shit hahah
June 24th, 2010 at 5:22 am
“The chances of a 5-10 pick in this draft having 4 better years than Tony Parker’s next 4 are about 1 in a 100″
I actually agree. But you have to weigh performance vs cost.
June 24th, 2010 at 5:27 am
@ Jimmy-
“That’s fine. I’ll take TP’s next four years against the BEST four-year consecutive stretch (their highest paid years) of any of those 37 picks. We’ll just say, that’s their careers (which by the way, gives an edge to those 37 picks, because a players BEST years are typically between 25 & 30, not 28 & 33). But that’s okay, I’ll still take TP over any of them”
Again and again. I said a cost performance analysis was what I was basing my supposition that TP should be traded. I did not say just a performance vs performance criteria should be used, which is what you are referencing.
June 24th, 2010 at 6:41 am
It appears that Parker isn’t going anywhere.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Spurs-keeping-Tony-Parker;_ylt=AitLCh2yjwcIBD5LYicKwGC8vLYF?urn=nba,250938
It’s probably just as well. I really do wish the Spurs would go for the Jeffeson for Jefferson trade. The Spurs really need another big gun and Jefferson would certainly extend Duncan’s career. We will probably select either a PF or SF in todays draft. I have no idea WHO exactly they will get. I’m sure much will happen between now and tonight and perhaps a good name like Cole Alderich or Damian James will fall. I would LOVE it if we got Paul George, but that isn’t likely without trading up 10 spots or so. As I said, a Jefferson trade could vastly bolster our chances at competing with the top 5 teams in the league.
June 24th, 2010 at 7:41 am
In regards to a RJ for AJ swap, I don’t think Minnesota would go for it.
AJ is a pretty well respected player around the NBA, and like others have touched on, automatic double teams like him don’t come around all that often. For a player of his talent (even though he’s pretty bad defensively), I think Minnesota could/would hold out for a better offer.
And in regards to a salary dump, Minnesota isn’t one of these teams desperately trying to get under the cap at all costs – they’re already under the cap. A salary dump wouldn’t be their primary motivation for moving Al Jefferson. They’d rather take back a young, defensive big they could pair with Love.
I hope I’m wrong though. If you could pair him with a TD or Splitter, you could have a nice combo.
June 24th, 2010 at 7:58 am
Does anyone know of a resource online that will list the available free agents this summer? Trade rumors via ESPN say that Jefferson is on the trading block for Minnesota… hopefully our speculations will come to fruition!
June 24th, 2010 at 8:09 am
@ Jacob
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-10-11
That should give you a list of the available free agents. Yes, Jefferson is on the block, in fact this was rumored as far back as the middle of last season. Most of the trade scenarios that have been rumored are saying Minny would take back players like Zach Randolph and Troy Murphy. Both of these guys are expiring contracts and I don’t see how either one would fit well next to Love and the other big man (Favors or Cousins) they pick up with the 4th pick. If what they want is an expiring contract, RJ can actually fill a need for them at the SF position where the Twolves are particularly poor.
The biggest question is whether or not the Spurs want to commit to pay the luxury tax for the next few years. They can either let RJ expire or they can pay the toll and possibly get a great player. To me, it is a matter of dollars and cents at this point.
June 24th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Apparently Detroit turned down a Jefferson for Prince/#7 pick…….
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe an expiring could get it done, although Minnesota would most likely want out #20 thrown in as well…..
In Chad Ford’s latest mock, he has the Spurs taking Craig Brackins:
“Analysis: The Spurs need size, and this pick likely will come down to either Brackins or Alabi. Although Alabi has the size and upside, with Tiago Splitter possibly coming to San Antonio this fall, the Spurs may be set at the 5.
Brackins’ ability to spread the floor and play inside and outside is coveted in San Antonio. A number of GMs have told me he could end up being the sleeper of the draft. I’m also hearing tht Jordan Crawford and Devin Ebanks are getting serious consideration here.”
Interesting. I like Brackins. I had the opportunity to watch him a few times the past two seasons, and he seems like a surefire role player.
June 24th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Tyler
June 24th, 2010 at 8:22 am
“Apparently Detroit turned down a Jefferson for Prince/#7 pick”
Minny would have also had to give Detroit the 23rd and 16th picks, though. They could keep those picks plus get the #20. Two big questions I have about this trade: How is Big Al’s knee? Would Peter Holt be willing to take on Al’s contract??
Here is todays chat with Chad Ford:
“Evan (St. Paul):
What are the wolves hopeing for in a Big Al trade? what could they get realistically?
Chad Ford:
Not much anymore. They explored moving him to a number of teams and I think they’ve found that his value isn’t as high as they thought. Teams are concerned about his knee and his contract. When you have the Grizzlies refusing to do a Al Jefferson for Zach Randolph swap … his stock must be near rock bottom.”
If Al’s knee is fine, then the Spurs could pick up a top 20 player for a rock bottom price of RJ (Think Pau Gasol trade). If his knee is not fine, then the Spurs are screwed with an albatross contract. Huge possible risk, huge possible reward.
June 24th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Thanks, Hobson.
I know that I’m more than likely setting myself up for heatbreak, but I can’t help but to hope that we might trade Jeffersons with the Twolves. If we did do a deal that would net in Sessions and Big Al for Jefferson and McDyess, we would have to draft a SF and probably look at bringing in a guy like Outlaw or Josh Childress. Childress is on his way back over from Greece, and is an EXCELLENT defender. I think that we would be able to swing him our direction.
Duncan – Splitter – Mahinmi
Jefferson – Blair –
Childress – #20
Ginobili – Hill – Hairston
Parker – Sessions – Temple
June 24th, 2010 at 8:59 am
@Hobson13
You’re right. I guess an expiring is all they can get for him.
Yeah, first the decision is on Holt – is he willing to pay the tax? If yes, then you look at AJ’s knee. This scenario makes me think of the Tyson Chandler trade to OKC.
In the end though, I think the Spurs will opt not to take on that risk. That seems to fit more in line with the philosophy of the organization. We’ve never been one to take huge risks and I don’t see that changing.
On a personal note, I’m not too high on Al Jefferson. First, the knee is a concern. Second, I think he’s overpaid. He’s got a pretty fat contract for someone who’s pretty terrible defensively. As good as he is on the block, I have a hard time paying someone star money when I don’t consider them a star. And last, he’s a black hole down low. AJ doesn’t pass out of the post well at all, and in our system, we need good interior passers to hit our shooters on the perimeter (even though those “shooters” were pretty much nonexistant this year).
June 24th, 2010 at 10:16 am
@ Tyler
I agree with your assestment of Al Jefferson.
1. He is a poor defender
2. He is a poor at passing
but he’s shown a great willingness and desire to get better and he’s always been on horrible teams and poorly run organization.
If the Spurs (huge IF) got him this offseason I think they’d have him concentrate of defense and Popovich could design the defense around two big men again. I think he could at least go from liability to slight assest with the right system and coaching on the defensive end.
About passing out of the post…most young big men are terrible at passing out of the post (probably because in previous levels of play they never had to pass out of the post no matter how many guys were thrown at them). Again I beleive Al Jefferson could get better at this skill and the Spurs offense doesn’t ask the post players to make passes like Walton or Divac used to. Its more wait for the double team and pass it to a guy on the perimter and then the perimiter guy swings it to the open player.
About the Cost Anaylasis with Tony Parker.
First trying to get cap space if fools gold and especially so in San Antonio.
Even with Tony Parker at 10 million per vs a rookie at 3 million the Spurs are much better off with Tony Parker. He’s a star player and that’s what wins in the NBA. You don’t win with sub-standard replacement level players like TJ Ford or Roy Hibbert. (a tell tell sign about how a player is viewed around the league is can the player’s current team give him away…in TJ Ford’s case, that’s a NO)
It will also be very easy to say in three years player X was drafted number 19 and has produced at nearly the same level as Tony Parker has and then say the Spurs would have drafted him 10th plus saved money if they would have shipped Parker to Indiana, but we don’t have any idea who the Spurs would pick at number 10…
To have a true cost anaylais, whoever thinks Parker for the 10th pick is ideal then choose a player right now for the Spurs and compare their contributions going foward.
June 24th, 2010 at 10:29 am
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-draftbuzz062410
Warriors looking to move Biedrins
“League sources said the Golden State Warriors are trying to move center Andris Biedrins(notes). The Warriors already shipped the remaining three years and $31 million of Corey Maggette’s(notes) contract to the Milwaukee Bucks and wouldn’t mind moving Biedrins’ deal, which has four years and $36 million left.”
Marc J. Spears, 12:26 p.m. ET, June 24
June 24th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Lenneezz
June 24th, 2010 at 5:27 am
This is what I said:
“I’ll take TP’s next four years against the BEST four-year consecutive stretch (their highest paid years) of any of those 37 picks.”
Do you see where it says, “THEIR HIGHEST PAID YEARS”?!
Please be more specific on how you think it’s LOGICAL to use a “cost analysis”. For example, it is NOT logical to employ a cost analysis using just their rookie contract when they’re 19-24 years old on average. You need to project what they will command in salary during their BEST 4-year stretch, and compare it to TP’s next 4 years & likely salary. And by the way, you ALWAYS pay a premium for PROVEN stars, and with good reason, obviously, unless you don’t like having a shot at a title.
June 24th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Okay, I’ll take a shot at a “mock draft” for the first ten spots:
Wiz – Wall
76er’s – Turner
Nets – Favors
Wolves – Cousins
Kings – Monroe
Warriors – Aminu
Pistons – Udoh
Clips – Johnson
Jazz – Davis
Pacers – Henry
As you can see, it’s fairly similar to other mock drafts, with one major exception. The consensus of all mock drafts I’ve seen is for Johnson to go in the top five. I have him slipping to number 8. While Johnson is a polished, talented prospect, as one of the oldest players in the draft, I don’t see as much upside with him. Also, he’s kind of skinny for a small forward. Not a deal killer, but in general, I like size. Also, “filling needs” as well as taking the “best player/athlete” available are important considerations when drafting a player. This year, I think the need for “bigs” by the top ten teams is significant, thus the tilt toward the top by the top four “bigs” in this draft.
Obviously, I’m going against the grain on the Johnson pick, and will probably be wrong. But that’s how I would draft if I were those teams.
Also, Cousins going to the Wolves is not a popular pick in almost all of the mock drafts. However, with Cousins potential, I can’t see the Wolves passing him up for Johnson. Cousins would fit very well with Love, and would help with protecting the rim in the paint (among other things), while Love can do his thing out off the block. Also, this deal happens to make AJ even more expendable. We should be able to get him & Sessions for RJ and McDyess, and the Wolves could sign a free agent SF either this year (R. Gay?), or next. Sessions has a good deal of talent, and in the right system, he could be pretty good. And he’s an important part of the trade, because if we did this deal we are most likely saying good-bye to TP in 2011. By the way, financially it’s not really that bad because we lose RJ & Dice in year one, TP in year two, and TD’s contract expires in year three. Also, I don’t think AJ’s a “poor” defender, just not a particularly good one. That said, he would give us a boost in shot-blocking, because like TD, he’s probably good for about 1.5 per game. Perhaps his knee is an issue, but he’s still just 25 years old, and managed to put up 17 & 9 in the 32 mpg. last season.
The deal would give us the following line-up:
TP, Sessions, Temple
Manu, Hill, Gee
(FA – Butler?), Hairston,(#20 pick – Pondexter)
Duncan, Blair
Jefferson, Splitter
Reserves: 2nd round pick (Jerome Jordan…?), relatively cheap FA pick ups (SF/SG – shooter, defensive-minded wing)
June 24th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
If the Wolve’s deal doesn’t work out, how about this one with the Warriors:
RJ & McDyess to the Warriors for Biedrins, Azubuike, & Reggie Williams
Warriors looking to move Biedrins:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-draftbuzz062410
Biedrins gives us the ability to over the long-term employ a twin-tower effect as Duncan sooner or later rides off into the sunset. Azubuike is a sweet “swingman”, and Reggie Williams is a SF that “can play”, for cheap (under contract for 118k next year).
Granted, Biedrins has a nasty contract, but he gives us youth, size, defense, and rebounding in the paint. Negatives: not a very good shot-blocker, or shooter. He’d do a lot better on a real team, instead of those jokers in GS. Coming of some injuries, but nothing serious, is my understanding. I’m not sure he’s the best fit with Splitter though. Any thoughts on this proposed deal?
Projected line-up:
TP, Hill
Manu, Gee, Azubuike
Azubuike, Williams, Hairston
Duncan, Blair, (#20 pick – Sanders?)
Biedrins, Splitter
Reserves: 2nd round pick (best PG available…?), relatively cheap FA pick ups (best player we can afford at PG and/or shooter, defensive-minded player).
June 24th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
If Splitter is coming over then the there will be no major moves being made by the Spurs. Trading TP then would make no sense cos then we loose the depth at guard and lose an All Star caliber player. They will sign a 3 point shooter in FA but no other moves ‘cos big men rotation of TD, Splitter, Mcdyess and Blair may not be the best but will be very versatile with decent mid range shooters, bruisers, and scoring in the post too. At wings with RJ( who will be lot better this year), Ginobli , 20th pick and FA will have scoring, defence and 3 point threat. The point being handled by TP and Hill.
June 24th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I like this last lineup too, but I think we could do better than Butler at the 3
June 24th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Jim Henderson
June 24th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“RJ & McDyess to the Warriors for Biedrins, Azubuike, & Reggie Williams”
It’s obvious by now that the Warriors are willing to give away players for cap space. The Bucks were stupid enough to take Corey Maggette’s bad contract for free. However, if the W’s are willing to pay us to take Biedrins (by giving us Azebuike and Williams) then it would definitely be worth looking at. When healthy, Biedrins is a 10/10/2 kind of guy. I’m not sure he has the bulk to play against the Bynums of the world, but should do ok against a Gasol type player.
I like our Twolves trade you proposed a bit better than this one. With that said, the W’s trade would have less risk and good upside potential with Azebuike. Let’s hope the Spurs FO does something soon. Adding Splitter (unless he’s the second coming of #50)and the #20 pick is not going to have us competing with the Lakers. Period.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Hobson13
June 24th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“Let’s hope the Spurs FO does something soon. Adding Splitter (unless he’s the second coming of #50)and the #20 pick is not going to have us competing with the Lakers. Period.”
Amen.
By the way, let me ask any of you guys a question: Draft Express has Johnson going #3 to the Nets. Why would NJ draft Johnson when they have the #11 pick from last year, Terrence Williams, who is going to be a player……..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYtCETJVoXk
……….instead for drafting Favors to go along side of Lopez? If they want another small forward, why not take Pondexter (if we don’t take him first) or some other SF with their 23rd pick? I think it’s a ruse NJ’s using to try to get concessions from the Wolves, and it appears the Wolves are smartly not biting. In fact, in my opinion the Wolves should take Cousins at #4 anyway even if NJ takes Favors OR Johnson.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
sandman
June 24th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“If Splitter is coming over then the there will be no major moves being made by the Spurs.”
“…….They will sign a 3 point shooter in FA but no other moves……”
Maybe so, but that team’s NOT going to even get to the WCF’s, let alone win a title.
June 27th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
ldhl89
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Nice video on Blair, by the way!
Leave a Reply