Thursday, July 1st, 2010...7:56 am
Richard Jefferson opting out is a bad beat for San Antonio
If the NBA off-season were a game of poker, the San Antonio Spurs just lost a big stack of chips when Richard Jefferson opted out of his contract. For all the financial relief it provides Peter Holt and Spurs ownership, it comes at the cost of R.C. Buford’s biggest trade asset.
With the NBA draft come and gone, most of the Tony Parker trade talk has subsided, though one has to wonder whether or not those deals are still off the table, or if they had any validity in the first place. The primary reason Tony Parker’s name has been so frequent in such talks is the assumption that Parker represented the San Antonio Spurs biggest trade value.
But you know what they say about assumptions, something about breaking down the word and it looking like this: Ass|u|me. While a deal involving Tony Parker may still net the most amount of talent in return, it also comes at the highest price.
For all intents and purposes, Richard Jefferson’s expiring contract was house money. In trading Richard Jefferson’s expiring contract, the San Antonio Spurs could have found another big stack while replacing merely mediocre production from the small forward position. Tony Parker would probably still be able to bring in a similar deal, but it costs you Tony Parker.
In a deal that returns similar pieces, would you rather pay with a run of the mill small forward, or your potential All-Star/All-NBA point guard?
51 Comments
July 1st, 2010 at 8:10 am
From a trade aspect, I agree with what you say. RJ’s contract was like playing with house money. However, keep in mind that there were rumors the Spurs wanted to trade RJ as far back as the February trade deadline and the FO had no takers. I know RJ was an expiring contract, but there are also other expiring contracts around the league who we presumalby would have been competing with come the February trade deadline.
I maintain that Malik Hairston who makes $740k/yr can come in and produce most of what RJ did last year. Whoever RJ signs with, he will come at a discount. This should enhance our ability to negotiate a S&T with other Free Agents in the market (my picks are Ronnie Brewer and/or Mike Miller). While I agree that a S&T is difficult to work out, it can be done.
P.S. I am becoming more inclined to believe that the max RJ can command is around $8mil/year. He’s smoking something nice if he thinks he’ll get a 4 yr $40mil contract.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:21 am
If another team merely wants an expiring contract we could probably re-sign Robert Horry to a partially guaranteed deal and trade him. We get a player we want, Robert gets some extra cash and the other team releases him to clear cap space. Everyone wins.
Huge expiring contracts like RJ’s only seem to get used in complex multi-team deals involving lots of players. Houston turned McGrady’s expiring into Kevin Martin but they also had to give up Landry. Moving RJ might mean we also give up someone like Blair or Hill. Also, these deals inevitably involve taking on someone else’s problem contract. You sure that’s what we want?
July 1st, 2010 at 8:43 am
[...] Richard Jefferson opting out is a bad beat for San Antonio48 Minutes of Hell (blog)If the NBA off-season were a game of poker, the San Antonio Spurs just lost a big stack of chips when Richard Jefferson opted out of his contract. …NBA AM: Do The Spurs Have Some Moves?HoopsWorldNBA Free Agency: Richard Jefferson Shocker Should Spook San Antonio SpursBleacher ReportNBA Free Agents: Spurs' Jefferson Opts Out $15.2 Million, Does Spurs A Huge FavorSB NationChicago Sun-Times (blog) -NBA.com (blog) -Project Spursall 198 news articles » [...]
July 1st, 2010 at 9:11 am
[...] Richard Jefferson opting out is a bad beat for San Antonio48 Minutes of Hell (blog)If the NBA off-season were a game of poker, the San Antonio Spurs just lost a big stack of chips when Richard Jefferson opted out of his contract. …NBA AM: Do The Spurs Have Some Moves?HoopsWorldNBA Free Agency: Richard Jefferson Shocker Should Spook San Antonio SpursBleacher ReportNBA Free Agents: Spurs' Jefferson Opts Out $15.2 Million, Does Spurs A Huge FavorSB NationChicago Sun-Times (blog) -NBA.com (blog) -Project Spursall 198 news articles » [...]
July 1st, 2010 at 9:17 am
Just when I thought I couldn’t dislike RJ anymore than I already did, ugh.
July 1st, 2010 at 10:40 am
This is a re-post from the last article, still applicable:
Here’s what I would do if I was RC:
Trade Tony Parker to Philly for Andre Iguodala. Salaries are basically identical, but Iggy(26 yrs old) is locked in for 5 years and TP(28 yrs old) is just 2 years.
We need a starting SF, Philly needs a legit PG and just drafted Evan Turner who plays similar positions as Iggy.
We let Jefferson walk and sign one of these free agent point guards to back up George Hill :
Luke Ridnour, Ray Felton (prob too much$$),Jannero Pargo, Steve Blake.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I disagree.
Now they can make a move for Mike Miller or Korver. I heard on ESPN that RJ is bolting for a team that better fits his style.
They need shooter to open up the lanes for MANU and TP. It would make TD’s job a lot easier too.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrew A. McNeill. Andrew A. McNeill said: Richard Jefferson opting out is a bad beat for San Antonio http://dlvr.it/2CRGD [...]
July 1st, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@ Hobson13
If the market value for RJ is $8M/year for 4 years, I think we have to let him walk. I don’t think we even consider matching an offer like that. Way too expensive for his production.
But if there’s a palatable sign and trade that brings in a solid role player with a decent salary, I’m all for it. (Sidenote - I heart Mike Miller; totally underrated, good shooter and a very good passer).
Worst case scenario though, we let RJ walk, we save $ and give his PT to some combination of Anderson, Gee, Hairston and Temple (although that scenario isn’t w/o its risks as well).
The point is, we’ve been operating beyond our budget, which isn’t feasible for a small market team like SA with limited earnings power. Even if RJ didn’t opt out, I doubt Holt would have approved moving RJ’s expiring for more long term, guarateed money and thus, more tax (unless it was a Pau Gasol-type trade). At some point, we have to cut payroll. And to be honest, I’d rather it happen now so we have an entire training camp to incorporate any FA’s into the fold, rather than 2/3 of the way into the season at the trade deadline.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I mean, a fresh start is tempting when you aren’t working out so hot even if it means a cut in what, $7M!?:
http://www.msg.com/blogs/charlie-zegers/jefferson-s-opt-out-and-parker-s-trade-status-1.45475
July 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Ronnie Brewer. He gaurds KOBE. enough said.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Free agency is starting on fire.
Joe Johnson 6 yr $119 million
Rudy Gay 5 yr - $82 million.
Channing Frye 5 yr - $25 million.
Drew Gooden 5 yr - $32 million.
Every good player is demanding 5 yr deals ahead of the new bargaining agreement.
Richard Jefferson is gone for good.
The Spurs won’t be able to afford anyone worthwhile except James Jones, Rasual Butler, or Ime Udoka for the NBA minimum.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Iv i don’t necessarily disagree, but RJ last year was absolutely pants and someone like Dorrell Wright james jones or even Malik Hairston are going to make comparable contributions.
I regret loosing his trade chip expiring, but I don’t really find myself regretting his contributions on the court.
If someone is stupid enough to give him 5 years at 8 Million per then congrats to R.J.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Just an example but the bucks are close with John Salmons at 5 years 39 million.
Salmons killed RJ the past couple of years statistically across the board, he replaced RJ in Milaukee and basically made him a far far distant memory.
Better D, better three point shooting, better penetration.
Just a shade under 8 million per.
R.J at 40 for 5 is nuts.
July 1st, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I’m counting on a sign and trade to improve our prospects.
For the sake of arguement I’d take Brewer over Korver, but I REALLY don’t want one-dimensional players.
If we could get 2 of the following 4 guys, I’d be about as optimistic as I could be going forward:
D. Wright
J. Childress
A. Morrow
M. Miller
July 1st, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Dorell wright and Josh childress would be ideal.
Give more minutes to hairston and still have a decent starter. Rj is really screwing us; we have no bargaining power without his sign and trade value from bird rights.
July 1st, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I’m trying to figure out if this article is satire or not… This is like the Spurs catching a flush on the river. Trust me there is not one teary eye in the Spurs front office about this…
July 1st, 2010 at 6:53 pm
td4life
July 1st, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“For the sake of argument I’d take Brewer over Korver, but I REALLY don’t want one-dimensional players…..
…..If we could get 2 of the following 4 guys, I’d be about as optimistic as I could be going forward:
D. Wright
J. Childress
A. Morrow
M. Miller”
I’m with you. I’d much prefer a shooter/defender in one player, but if I had to choose, I’d generally take the top defender over the top shooter.
Here’s my top dozen wings (that I believe we may have a shot at), ranked in order of preference:
D. Wright
A. Morrow
R. Bell
T. Outlaw
J. Childress
R. Brewer
R. Gomes
J. Jones
K. Korver
T. Allen
M. Barnes
R.Butler
Unfortunately, I just think we will be priced-out on Miller. Too bad, I like him too.
July 1st, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Mike Miller 5 yr -$30 million.
Amir Johnson 5 yr - $34 million.
Spurs don’t have any true options, but hope Jefferson agrees to a sign and trade somewhere.
July 1st, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I’d love the Spurs to make a big acquistion that may vault them into contention right away. But, realistically thats unlikely with the players on their roster and lack of cap room. We thought with Jefferson, they had put themselves in a good spot last year and it didn’t work out. Maybe we need to wait and see what we have in Anderson and hopefully Splitter. Spurs should continue looking for the right deal for Tony.
If the Spurs can get Splitter over to the team and sign lets say Childress or Brewer, I would consider it a good offseason. Hopefully, Anderson is the steal of the draft that I am hearing and that should make the Spurs much improved.
I concur with some of the other posters I think Hairston wo can provide about what Jefferson did on the court. Hairston might not have those 20 point nights, but I think he will be far more consistent than Jefferson.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Channing Frye 5 yrs 30 million…..
Scares the hell out of me just how expensive stretch fours are in the nba.
I know i’ve been a Bonner defender in the past and I still think he has a place within the organization if only sub 10 minutes per night, but Frye in all honesty is not a huge upgrade on Bonner. Crazy money out there right now.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Yeah, they haven’t even signed Amare, but they have 30 mil. to pull out of their butt for this one-dimensional player? And you gotta remember, Frye has only shot like that for one year. I would not have paid him 30 mil. Sorry…
July 1st, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Let’s make sure we’re fair here…
RJ is a good player for the SA Spurs. He has the potential to be a great player in a different system. The team that comes to mind in NY Knicks (D’Antoni) which is a run-n-gun non-defensive system where RJ can get 20+ a game.
A sign and trade is almos a must at this point to get any sort of value out of him. If he leaves outright, the team is still close to or over the cap depending on the possible resigning of some FAs.
Right now, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, McDyess, Blair and Hill all are under contract w/ guaranteed salaries totaling about $53 million. Hairson, Jerrels, Gee and Temple account for another $3.2 million (non-guaranteed). Anderson (draft pick) can be signed to a rookie contract regardless of cap situation. That totals 11 players. Thirteen (12 active plus 1 inactive) is required by the NBA.
Notice, that the above list of players would have Hairston or Anderson (both undersized) playing SF.
In order to fill out the roster, the Spurs have a few exceptions at their disposal. The mid-level exception will be about $5.8, the bi-annual exception worth about $1.7 and a few others. Tiaggo Splitter, if he comes to the team, will most likely recieves the mid-level (if he accepts). The bi-annual can be used on any number of players.
The options for Richard Jefferson are that he is dealt in a sign and trade (sign and trade deals must be done for at least 3 years) as long as another team agrees to the terms. As mentioned previously, New York seems like a good destination if/when they lose out on the LBJ sweepstakes. Good recipient for the Spurs would be Wilson Chandler. Maybe even Minnesota (for Corey Brewer) or Detroit (Tayshaun Prince).
Regardless of what happens, the Spurs don’t have many options w/ regard to picking up QUALITY members. There is a chance that the Spurs will have to convert a SG to SF next year.
July 1st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
There are no guarantees someone would have taken him. Expiring contracts are nice though. ON the pplus side, they can give Splitter the MLE without worrying about the luxury tax. If they can bring in a Wright/Gomes/James Jones with the LLE, they did fairly well even without a trade.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Rj 4 years 30 to 32 mil with partial guarrentees on final year of 8 mill. It’s a little high , but we get a solid pro with less expectations who can continue to adapt his game to spurs system . Who’s to say he can’t become a deadly spot up corner 3 shooter like Bowen evolved into ?
July 1st, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Quoting bushka:
“Just an example but the bucks are close with John Salmons at 5 years 39 million.
Salmons killed RJ the past couple of years statistically across the board, he replaced RJ in Milaukee and basically made him a far far distant memory.
Better D, better three point shooting, better penetration.”
I don’t know what numbers you looked at. Over the past 3 seasons, Salmons has been a 32%, 42%, and now 38% shooter from 3; RJ shot 36%, 40%, and 32%. Their overall FG% from last year is identical. Salmons is a good jump shooter but is not good about driving to the rim or finishing once he’s there. RJ shoots more FTs per shot he takes. Salmons may be a good defender and I wouldn’t know, I didn’t watch many Bucks games last year. In this aspect (as in all things) RJ is average and so Salmons can’t be that much better on D. One thing to keep in mind is that the Bucks together are a good defensive team while the 09-1o Spurs were in the middle of the pack.
Salmons is not great at rebounding or passing the ball. For a 6’7 guy who plays a ton he does not rebound much at all. His assist numbers are also low considering how many shots he takes.
On a related note, I love how confident everybody is that RJ’s production will be instantly replaced by one of the deep bench guys from last year. RJ is an NBA starter who’s just about average at everything he does - which means there’s only 15 or so better small forwards in the universe! If Hairston turns out to be as good as an average starter it will be a huge stroke of luck. Normally you have to go out and pay a medium-sized contract and lock a guy up for 3-4 years just to get average production.
Don’t just assume the devil you know is worse than the one you don’t. There are small forwards in the league who are much much worse than Richard Jefferson and it would suck to get stuck with one with no other options.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Duncan splitter Parker ginobili Jefferson. Great starting 5. Hill 6th man. Dice 7 Blair 8 Anderson 9 or temple gee hairston. Whoever is bringing the most to the table. Has a much better feel than last years squad. A cheap vet point with a 3 ball would give us a real good shot
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:35 am
@greyberger. I agree wholeheartedly. We will never be a team of stars like the lakers. We have won in the past by being a star team. Jeff has alot of experience and judging by his “humbling” year, may yet offer the spurs something closer to what was first envisioned
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:38 am
I have no real hope for FA. There is way too much cap space going around and not enough available talent or common sense to go with it. It is a players market right now.
At this point signing RJ is likely the best we can do because we have no cap space. However, I think he will likely command to much money in this screwed up market. He’s probably only worth about 5 a year and he needs at least 8 for 3 years to make his opt out worth it and he may be able to do much better than that right now. I think we will be left relying on guys like Anderson and Malik to fill this void plus maybe some vet FA for the min or Biannual.
At this point I really wish we’d drafted Damion James. I like Anderson, but not so much at the 3 spot. Oh well, we’ll see what happens. Maybe we’ll sign Splitter and Blair will develop a sweet 20 foot jumper. That would be nice.
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:17 am
I hope that we do get Jefferson back. Looking over the list, I cant think of a better guy to do what he does (or is capable of doing) and reducing his salary for a long term deal makes more sense this year in order to save tax money through his Bird rights. We can still get a Dorrell Wright or similar player with LLE which could give servicable depth.
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 am
If we bring back RJ, I think it will be better than last year. Just don’t get into a situation where we are bidding against ourselves. I am also assuming Splitter is a go for this team next year. But at this point, we need a SF that plays defense. The Celtics almost won because Kobe was getting harassed by their defense. If we can’t get a stopper, then we can’t win with a defensive mentality.
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 am
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/jeffersons_return_could_be_imminent_97624399.html
I’m sure many of you have seen this already, but it is encouraging for us to potentially not have a rookie SG at the three starting out the gates.
Resign RJ to a reasonable deal and then go after a good backup in case he gets injured; dorrell wright.
Parker - Hill - Temple
Manu - Anderson - Hairston
Jefferson - Wright
Duncan - Blair - Bonner
Splitter - McDyess
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
@ greyberger
I don’t think we’d be relying on one guy to replicate his #’s, but on a group of guys. Between the guys that will fill the SF spot at times (Anderson, Gee, Hairston, Temple) I think we can get similar production.
Keep in mind also, that if one or more of these guys improves their 3pt shot, it will make everyone else on the court that much more productive. One of the problems last year was that no one respected RJ from beyond the arc. If we improve our 3pt shooting at the SF spot (as a group), the overall performance of our offense should be better than last year.
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
Actually this could make the Spurs life easier. Trading RJ meant finding someone that wanted RJ and that had something you wanted back. A S&T gives the Spurs a 5-8 million dollar slot to use in a S&T with another team. Basically giving the Spurs room under the cap when they didn’t have any.
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 am
I think I figured out how to make RJs opt out work for us. Cleveland doesn’t want to just lose Lebron for nothing and their going to be needing a SF soon so … Cleveland and the Spurs do a sign and trade with Lebron and RJ. Everybody wins, right?
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Tyrone Jenkins
July 1st, 2010 at 9:48 pm
“The team that comes to mind in NY Knicks (D’Antoni) which is a run-n-gun non-defensive system where RJ can get 20+ a game.”
If the Knicks want to spend 40 mil. over 4 years to sign RJ when they got a guy right now that’s 7 years younger capable of doing everything RJ does, if not better, and for cheaper, they’re INSANE! Knicks need to be thinking PF, C, & PG, not SF.
“Maybe even Minnesota (for Corey Brewer) or Detroit (Tayshaun Prince).”
These ideas make a bit more sense, although I don’t think the T-Wolves would want to spend that much for RJ, since they have Wesley Johnson, the 4th pick in the draft, who’s probably not far from making a significant contribution right now. Plus, the T-Wolves would be more interested in unloading M. Webster than their SG, Brewer, in any deal for RJ. But then again, you never no, David Kahn appears crazy enough to do anything.
grego
July 1st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
“If they can bring in a Wright/Gomes/James Jones with the LLE…”
Unlikely to get these guys with the LLE.
Jacob
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:17 am
“We can still get a Dorrell Wright or similar player with LLE which could give servicable depth.”
Unlikely to get Wright with the LLE.
idahospur
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 am
“But at this point, we need a SF that plays defense.”
I totally agree, even if he’s not the greatest shooter.
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
To repeat myself, I have to say I don’t know why people are saying we can get guys to replace RJ’s production and be contenders- we don’t want to REPLACE his production, we want to IMPROVE on it! Remember he was a colossal bust for us last season.
And in general, I don’t understand the glass is half full mentality regarding resigning RJ to a cheaper contract… yeah, he will be better next year, but the fact remains that his skill set is not what we need (shooting and defense). He might be useful if he was aggressive at both ends of the floor, but he isn’t. He’s not a true competitor and appears to lack confidence and desire. He has never been a winner, he just fed off of and followed a “never say die” J Kidd.
Not to mention: get ready for more friggin small ball. Geez.
Our only shot at an upgrade is through a sign & trade. Paying RJ 8mil is too much, and hampers us in the long term, because he will let us down in close games, and make a disappointing effort most nights right out of the gate. We don’t need an average player on a four year contract, we need to swing for the fences and either hit or miss on promising players (such as Morrow and Wright), even if we overpay on a trial 2-3 year contract. We are a playoff team as long as Tim and Manu are healthy, RJ doesn’t change our outlook at all. I’d rather just save Holt some money and go with young guys than be locked into a $40million contract for RJ.
If we are stuck with RJ, our best bet will be to make him the #2 option and change our system accordingly.
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:56 pm
td4life
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I tend to agree, for the most part. For one thing, as a last resort, I would not pay RJ more than 24 mil. over three years. That’s if I couldn’t do anything better. I’m just hoping we can get one of the top 6-7 wings I listed off in a previous post for a sign & trade using RJ and/or McDyess.
I was pretty disappointed with RJ’s play last year. The shooting problems weren’t really my issue. My problem with him was his attitude, defense, & rebounding. He just didn’t bother giving it all mentally or physically, and then his confidence suffered. His performance on the court has inevitably bred mistrust in his teammates & coaching staff. I’d just as soon see him leave town.
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
td4life,
Of course people want better than RJ, the problem is can we get it? We have almost nothing at SF right now and no cap space to get it if we sign Splitter. The only realistic option we have at SF is RJ since we have his Bird rights. So the question becomes, can we replace his production with what we currently have, i.e. Anderson, Hairston, Gee etc., or do we bite the bullet and overpay RJ because we can’t get anyone else?
We can’t sign and trade RJ for a SF since he is a SF. I guess if we could sign and trade him for a decent PG we could then trade TP for a SF but we just don’t have a lot of options right now.
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Rumor is that the Spurs are targeting Matt Barnes for the SF position.
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
bduran
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
“We can’t sign and trade RJ for a SF since he is a SF.”
The idea is to put McDyess in a deal for a SF. For example, McDyess to Miami for James Jones. But first, sign Joel Anthony with the LLE.
TP, Hill
Manu, Anderson
Jones, Gee
Duncan, Blair
Splitter, Anthony
Temple, Hairston, whatever we can get in a sign & trade for RJ (hopefully a decent shooter, or perhaps a 5th big, or a young PG with some promise).
July 3rd, 2010 at 6:49 am
I would do that, although not for James Jones, he’s terrible and so is Joel Anthony. However, if we could get a decent SF for McDyess, then we wouldn’t even necessarily have to do anything with RJ. Of course we would try.
I’d kind of forgotten about McDyess. He played well enough last year in the playoffs to have some value.
July 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
bduran
July 3rd, 2010 at 6:49 am
“I would do that, although not for James Jones, he’s terrible and so is Joel Anthony.”
Okay, let’s not get overly hung up on the WP48. James & Anthony are not “terrible” players. I only mentioned Jones because he’s a good three-point shooter, plays solid perimeter “D”, and his salary matches up nicely with McDyess’, plus he’s 6 years younger. That said, if we can get a better SF with our limited resources, that would be great. In terms of Anthony, he’s the perfect “ROLE” player to meet our front line needs. He plays solid “D” in the paint, and is one of the best “rim protectors” in the league (3 bpg. per 36 min. - 2nd in the league behind just JaVale McGee of the Wizards - minimum 16 mpg.). We clearly NEED a young shot-blocker, and Anthony fits the bill to a “T”. Remember, the WP48 is far from a “perfect” measure of a players value to a team. It is impossible to take into account ALL the intangibles that some players bring to their game, and it is a bit less valid for certain types of “role” players. For example, Bruce Bowen had a “negative” WP48 in 2007, our last title year. We would not have won a title without Bruce Bowen that year.
July 4th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Jim,
“Okay, let’s not get overly hung up on the WP48.”
Okay let’s not. Jones is a career sub 40% FG guy who can’t rebound and he’s not exactly filling up the rest of the stat sheet.
Joel anthony is a poor rebounding big man who doesn’t do anything well except block shots. I agree that shot blocking has value, but not to the exclusion of everything else. Rebounding is extremely important too. It gives your team possession and prevents the other team from gaining possession. Having a big on the floor who isn’t a good rebounder for significant minutes is asking for trouble.
“It is impossible to take into account ALL the intangibles that some players bring to their game”
This is true, but are you saying that you can? I’m not saying that it’s impossible for someone with a negative WP48 to have a positive impact on a team, but I think it’s highly unlikely that you or why would be able to correctly evaluate this. Honestly, it seems that the “experts”, e.g. GMs, don’t do a good job either.
Look, I don’t think stats should take the fun out of discussing basketball, but I think it can be used as a starting point. If you’re WP48 is negative, you probably suck. If player A has a WP48 of .15 and player B .12, then by all means let’s have a discussion about who’s better for a team. Larger differences are probably there for a reason though and it’s probably a good idea to consider why someones WP48 is what is.
“We would not have won a title without Bruce Bowen that year.”
I like Bowen but have always wondered about this. No doubt Bowen is an amazing defender, but he was a terrible producer. The only thing he did well stat wise was shoot 3s. Low FG%, terrible rebounder, low assists, poor FT shooter who couldn’t get to the line anyway.
So the only way he was a net positive is if he was enough better a defender than an average player that the amount he reduced the opposing teams production was greater than the increase in production we could have gotten if we replaced him with an average player. Did he do this? Maybe, but I certainly wouldn’t count on anyone else being able to.
July 4th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
bduran
July 4th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
“Jones is a career sub 40% FG guy who can’t rebound and he’s not exactly filling up the rest of the stat sheet.”
Here’s what I said in my previous post:
“I only mentioned Jones because he’s a good three-point shooter, plays solid perimeter “D”, and his salary matches up nicely with McDyess’, plus he’s 6 years younger. That said, if we can get a better SF with our limited resources, that would be great.”
As you can tell, I’m not a big fan of Jones. I just used his name as a quick example. That said, I might prefer him over RJ getting lets say, 8 mil./per (particularly with the likely improvement of Gee and/or Hairston, so they can effectively platoon at the SF with Jones) because he’s a better fit in our system: his defense is more solid & consistent, and he is a career 40% spot-up 3-point shooter (RJ is at 35%). Even Gee has hit 7 out of 9 threes in the NBA - Hairston needs to find his confidence of Gee could beat him out for a roster spot). And by the way, Jones is not really a “terrible” rebounder for a SF. He’s probably slightly below average. For example, RJ career rpg. per 36 minutes is 5.3, Jones is 4.5 (e.g., Battier - 5.1; Stojakovic - 5.1 - most that average at least 20 mpg. are between 5 and 6 rpg. per 36 min.). But the bottom line is, Jones is far from my top pick for a wing (he’s probably between 8th & 10th on the list of “realistic” wings that we could acquire during the off-season).
“Joel Anthony is a poor rebounding big man who doesn’t do anything well except block shots. I agree that shot blocking has value, but not to the exclusion of everything else.”
Granted, Anthony is fairly one-dimensional as a player, but dude, we could probably have him for like ONE POINT FIVE million, and that’s what a situational role player does; they fill a specific need. Our team NEEDS a good low post defender and excellent athletic shot-blocker to contribute off the bench as like a 9th man, for about 12 - 15 mpg. WE HAVE NO YOUNG ATHLETIC SHOT-BLOCKERS ON THE TEAM. Having someone like him is a must for an overall defensive renaissance, which is how the Spurs win titles. He is also a solid, tough, low-post defender, and an ok rebounder (7 per 36 min. - which is a strength of the rest of the team anyways, with Blair, Duncan, Dice, Splitter, etc.), and from all reports I’ve seen, Anthony is also a very good “character” guy.
“I like Bowen but have always wondered about this. No doubt Bowen is an amazing defender, but he was a terrible producer.”
WE NEED TO ADD TOP DEFENDERS TO OUR ROSTER. We can put as many box score guys as we can get on the roster, but if they don’t defend well individually, and as part of a team, we will not win. The Spurs system is built to win with depth at the defensive end. Unfortunately, we are a long ways away from this now. A couple “game” 3-point shooters, and an overall upgrade defensively is required to get us back into contention. Joel Anthony is merely one relatively small part in that undertaking, but he can help us with his stingy “D” and rim protection in the paint for about 15 mpg. Splitter will help as well, partly because he’s a solid, TALL, low-post defender, but he is clearly NOT a good shot-blocker, and McDyess & Duncan have declined considerably in this regard over the past few years.
You have to understand, the Spurs strongest title teams over the past 12 years were very good overall defensively, AND good shot-blocking teams. As the Spur system was designed, BOTH have been extremely important to our success as a franchise. Our team has faded away from these strengths over the past 3-4 years, both defensively in general, AND in shot-blocking. Here’s some data to compare our title teams with our team last year in terms of shot-blocking prowess:
Top three to four shot-blocker’s, by blocks per game, all having played a MINIMUM of 600 minutes on the team during a particular season. For each year of data, the minutes of the players used totaled between 77.3 and 86.9 mpg.
1999
Blocks/game…………… Minutes/block
5.4 ………………………….15.4
2003
Blocks/game…………… Minutes/block
4.9 ………………………….15.5
2005
Blocks/game…………… Minutes/block
5.1 …………………………..15.3
2007
Blocks/game…………… Minutes/block
4.1 …………………………..20.8
2010
Blocks/game…………… Minutes/block
2.5 …………………………..32.9
As you can see, we started to fall back a bit by 2007, but our shot-blocking and overall team “D” was still sufficient to get us a title (as well as the likely net positives of other intangibles). However, as you can see, by 2010 our “rim protection” in the paint has now collapsed. This simply cannot continue if we plan to contend again in the near future. Anthony could be a solid role player for about 12-15 mpg., and could be a part in helping us in fairly quick fashion to resurrect our “rim protection” status, which as I’ve tried to demonstrate, has heretofore been a staple of our championship years. Splitter should also help a little in this regard (thanks to his 7 foot stature), and I expect Blair to improve somewhat as well (he’s not a bad shot-blocker for his height).
And of course, the other half of the defensive equation also needs to be addressed: overall team & perimeter defense. We must sign (through trade) a top defensive wing, someone that consistently gets in peoples’ faces, and plays fundamentally sound “D”. If he’s pretty good at steals great, but it’s not as important as staying in front of his man and getting a hand in his opponent’s face - EVERY TIME! And of course, overall, the entire team needs to be pushed into making a stronger commitment on the defensive end. If we can get that done, and acquire one or two additional “game” marksman from beyond the arc, perhaps we can contend again in the near future. Otherwise, we’ll be just one of those good teams that simply does not have enough to have a legitimate shot.
P.S. Lou Amundson would be another energy/defensive/shot-blocking big that I’d be interested in signing for a 12-15 mpg. role. And yes, I know he’s more of a one dimensional player as well. He’s not as good of a shot-blocker as Anthony, but a better rebounder. And no, I don’t know what his WP 48 is!
July 5th, 2010 at 6:04 am
Jim,
“Jones is not really a “terrible” rebounder for a SF”
Not sure where you get your numbers, just looking at a few players doesn’t count. It’s my recollection that average RB per 48 is in the 7-8 range (I’ll look it up again later). So this is 5.25-6 per 36. This makes Jeffersons’ career rate just below average (and his recent years well below) and it means that Jones is poor.
“You have to understand, the Spurs strongest title teams over the past 12 years were very good overall defensively, AND good shot-blocking teams.”
We were always a good offensive team as well. Top ten usually, top 5 in our last title run. This last year we were 9 in both. If you can suggest changes that improve our defense without causing our offense to fall farther then by all means do it. However, adding COMPLETELY one dimensional players won’t do it. I’m sorry but it just won’t. Maybe if TD was still TD and we could count on him to carry the weight of the big next to him then fine, add a guy who can only do one thing. Sadly, it’s not true anymore. The Big 3 are still very good, but they need more help than they used to.
Also, you keep using athleticism as a plus. I have no interest in athletic 27 year olds who haven’t figured out how to use their athleticism properly. Athleticism matters most when talking about potential and upside. At 27 that is no longer the case. The guy is what he is.
“which as I’ve tried to demonstrate, has heretofore been a staple of our championship years. ”
Yes, our championship teams have been good shot blocking teams, they were actually good at most phases of the game. I want to increase our ability to block, just not at the cost of everything else.
“WE NEED TO ADD TOP DEFENDERS TO OUR ROSTER. ”
I’m fine with this, just don’t put your blinders on. I stand by my point. Adding a player like a Bowen means he has to reduce opposing production by more than he decreases ours. I don’t think Jones and Anderson are that good.
I don’t know what Amundson’s WP48 is either, don’t have silverlight at work. However, he scores reasonably efficiently and has a decent rebound rate. He’s also a decent shot blocker although yes, not as good as Anthony. This makes him far from the one dimensional player that Anthony is. I would much prefer him.
Honestly, I wish we could keep Ian. I still think he has a lot of potential but I understand he wants to go somewhere where he can get minutes. I know he has defensive struggles in man defense, but that’s the kind of thing that only experience can really improve.
July 5th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
bduran
July 5th, 2010 at 6:04 am
“So this is 5.25-6 per 36. This makes Jeffersons’ career rate just below average (and his recent years well below) and it means that Jones is poor.”
In my view, that makes Jone’s rebound-rate below average, not “terrible” or “poor”. Terrible or poor would be 4.0 - 4.2 per 36 minutes. But this is a side story, and we’re getting into semantics. I don’t really want Jones anyway, but by the same token, you also can’t say that adding 3-point shooting & defense at the SF spot is a bad idea for our team. Jones is just not the best SF available that provides these attributes.
“We were always a good offensive team as well. Top ten usually, top 5 in our last title run. This last year we were 9 in both.”
No, we were 8th defensively last year, 9th offensively. And offense is not even close to a problem for us, other than in some efficiency losses due to mediocre 3-point shooting. And as I’ve already indicated, I would love to be able to address that area, but I don’t think it makes sense to do so if it will make our overall “defense” weaker. Indeed, our offensive rating last year was the highest it’s been since 1995-1996. Between our last title run (2007) and 2010, our ranking defensively has dropped much more precipitously (from 2nd to 8th) than has our ranking offensively (from 5th to 9th). Also, during our title years, our defensive rating was always higher than our offensive ranking, usually significantly so. In 1999: 1st defense; 11th offense; 2003: 3rd defense; 7th offense (105.6 compared to 105.5 for 9th place Portland); 2005: 1st defense; 9th offense; 2007: 2nd defense; 5th offense. Also, the participants in last years NBA finals both ranked higher defensively than offensively: Celtics: 5th defensively; 15th offensively; Lakers: 4th defensively; 11th offensively. And the fact is, the Spurs win by defense. While it makes sense to try and keep our offense in the top ten, we MUST get our defense into the top five, if not the top three, to have a chance at winning a title. I really don’t see a problem with our offense (other than adding some 3-point shooting). For example, Blair is going to become a significant offensive player, and relatively soon. Hill will also continue to improve, and Anderson has very good potential (also, if we keep TP this year, he’s likely to show a significant upgrade on the offensive end). No, our concern is much more on the defensive end. That much is clear.
“However, adding COMPLETELY one dimensional players won’t do it. I’m sorry but it just won’t.”
First of all, NOBODY, no player, is “completely” one-dimensional, and that includes Joel Anthony. And, when you’re talking about playing a guy that totally closes a gap on a significant need (low-post defense/shot-blocking) for 12-15 mpg, how is that a problem?!? God knows we have enough players that are imbalanced to the offensive end. Thus, how could adding a player that focuses on the defensive end for use as a “role player” for less than 6% of our teams total minutes be considered a problem?
“Also, you keep using athleticism as a plus. I have no interest in athletic 27 year olds who haven’t figured out how to use their athleticism properly.”
He uses it properly on the DEFENSIVE END in his shot-blocking! That IS IMPORTANT.
“Athleticism matters most when talking about potential and upside.”
That’s not true. Athleticism in and around the rim for shot-blocking is important NOW. Anthony likely has at least 3-4 years of being in top form in this regard.
“I want to increase our ability to block, just not at the cost of everything else.”
You’re not going to hurt the team by playing a guy that does one important thing extremely well for 12-15 mpg. (which can quickly close a glaring gap in our ability to effectively compete on the defensive end).
“Adding a player like a Bowen means he has to reduce opposing production by more than he decreases ours. I don’t think Jones and Anthony are that good.”
As I said, Jones is a last resort for me if RJ is gone because of his 3-point shooting. I’m not really in favor of adding Jones. Anthony on the other hand is the second best shot-blocker in the league per 36 minutes! He clearly has a shot at reducing the opposing team’s production more than he reduces ours in limited minutes, if paired with a strong scoring & rebounding team (e.g., Blair, TP, Manu, and hopefully a SF we pick up that can hit the three & rebound - Dorell Wright, for example - if we can figure out a way to get him).
“(Amundson) he scores reasonably efficiently and has a decent rebound rate. He’s also a decent shot blocker although yes, not as good as Anthony. This makes him far from the one dimensional player that Anthony is. I would much prefer him.”
As I said, I’d be happy with Amundson as well. Not as big, but he does rebound well. He’s probably a good enough shot blocker to give us a decent boost. I don’t know why we wouldn’t be going after him with the LLE. He’s a FA now, and has never made more than 855k during his three years in the league. He is limited, so he’s not going to command a “significant” increase. Why no offer? We need to start making some moves, and that’s one area we HAVE to shore up on the cheap.
July 5th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
“He uses it properly on the DEFENSIVE END in his shot-blocking! That IS IMPORTANT.”
You miss my point about athleticism. We already know he what he can do at this point. Yes he uses his athletic to block shots, but the important part is the shot blocking. He’s a great shot blocker, this is shown in the stats, saying he’s athletic doesn’t change this for better or worse. Like I said, at some point a player is what he is. If I see a great athlete at 23 I think to myself, “Now here is a guy who can really improve over what he’s already doing.” At 27, it’s not likely he’s going to improve.
“You’re not going to hurt the team by playing a guy that does one important thing extremely well for 12-15 mpg”
The other problem is we really need 48 minutes of better shot blocking, I’m not sure why we’d target someone so limited to mostly play him against opposing teams second group.
I agree with Amundson. BTW, I just checked his WP48 last year and it was .156. I realize that WP48 probably does not handle contributions to team defense satisfactorily, but I’m happy with how it handles everything else and the difference between a negative WP48 and an above average one is very large. Amundson would make me happy. I think he Blair could dominate second units.
July 5th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
bduran
July 5th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
This is what you said:
“……I have no interest in athletic 27 year olds who haven’t figured out how to use their athleticism properly.”
Followed by your most recent comment:
“Yes he uses his athleticism to block shots, but the important part is the shot blocking. He’s a great shot blocker, this is shown in the stats, saying he’s athletic doesn’t change this for better or worse.”
I simply said no, “he does use his ‘athleticism’ to block-shots.” Anthony is not a “great” shot-blocker as a “predominantly skill-based” talent, like Dikembe Mutumbo was. He is in fact an extremely “mobile” shot-blocker for his size that gets to shots to a significant degree as a result of “properly using his athleticism” to proficiently perform the “skill” of “shot-blocking”. In other words, he’s a mobile type of shot blocker, relying to a significant extent on his athleticism. He gets to shots that some good “shot-blockers” would not get to. So, more than just a “shot-blocker”, it’s the “mobile type” that I think we need the most now, due to Duncan’s reduced mobility on the defensive end. For example, some shot-blockers use more positioning, pure size, or are unusually skilled at the craft itself to get most of their blocks. Which is fine, but it’s not quite the same as having the “mobile type”. The end result, blocks per 48 minutes, is not ALL there is to determining who is the best fit on the Spurs as a defensive/shot-blocking role player at this time.
“At 27, it’s not likely he’s going to improve.”
I don’t need him to really improve much (I’ll take his shot-blocking as is), but he could improve some, particularly because he has clearly been a “late bloomer”. He was playing for a junior college in his early 20′s, before he attended UNLV.
“I’m not sure why we’d target someone so limited to mostly play him against opposing teams second group.”
Probably less than half the time against the opponents second unit. Either way, he can clearly make an impact defensively in 15 mpg. For example, I would have him in there with Duncan & Blair, about equally split.
“Amundson would make me happy. I think he Blair could dominate second units.”
I would also be happy with Amundson if we could get him. He’s a great “energy player” with an overall scrappy game. Plus, in 15 mpg. his blocks last year were a very good 2.3 per 36 minutes, or 12th in the league per 48 minutes, at 3.0 (just behind Camby).
July 6th, 2010 at 5:30 am
“In other words, he’s a mobile type of shot blocker, relying to a significant extent on his athleticism”
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I understand that anyone who blocks shots at that rate is good at it. Not just athletic, but has the timing down etc. What I’m saying is that he’s a 27 year old who doesn’t do anything else well. Meaning, he hasn’t learned to use his athletic ability to do anything else well. Here’s what I want from a defensive big, shot blocking and rebounding. If he was good at one and average at the other than fine, but he’s not. He’s great and one and terrible at the other. On top of that there’s nothing else he’s good at.
Once again I have to emphasize that rebounding is extremely important. The 4 and 5 spot should account for most of the rebounding seeing as how they are the tallest player and play closest to the basket. Filling on of those spots with a bad rebounder is not a good idea, regardless of who he’s paired with. Maybe if we had good rebounding SF, but we don’t and don’t seem to have much chance of getting one. In fact, it looks like we’ll be getting significant minutes from guys that should probably be 2s.
Also, I understand that there have been 27 year olds that have improved. However, it’s rare. Most players are declining slightly at this point. No argument for him should include though of him improvement because it’s not likely and we would be lucky if it happened.
“I’ll take his shot-blocking as is”
Bottom line is I don’t agree with this and I think it would be a waste to spend the LLE on him. I understand you’re not trying to say he’s the best or only option, but i’m saying, for me, he’s not an option.
At least we can agree on Amundson.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“Here’s what I want from a defensive big, shot blocking and rebounding.”
Ideally, everyone does. The problem is, nobody’s going to give you one of the best shot-blockers in the league that also rebounds in double-digits per 48 mins. for 1.5 million dollars. We have limited financial resources to make significant improvements in multiple areas in order to truly compete against elite teams. Improving our front line in terms of position defense with size, AND shot-blocking, is one of those areas. Splitter gives us a little bit of everything (scoring, rebounding, defense), but he’s not the best shot-blocker in the world. Anthony fits that role, and is not inferior in other areas to the extent that it would detract from the team during his 12-15 mpg. Also, we are STRONG in rebounding with Blair, Duncan, McDyess, & Splitter. Because that’s not a strong suit for Anthony should not be a problem for 12-15 mpg. paired with one of our other strong rebounders.
“He’s great and one and terrible at the other.”
No, he’s not “terrible” at anything.
“Maybe if we had good rebounding SF, but we don’t and don’t seem to have much chance of getting one.”
We don’t know about that yet. In fact Gee could be/is a pretty good rebounding SF.
“I understand you’re not trying to say he’s the best or only option, but i’m saying, for me, he’s not an option.”
Yeah, for me he’s clearly a very good option for the price. He’s a very dependable, good character guy that does one thing extremely well. And that happens to be a thing that we desperately need right now. The idea that Anthony is just “so poor” in other areas of the game, to the point where it would make him, with his shot-blocking, a negative for team in a 12-15 mpg. role, just doesn’t make sense to me (he has a higher rebound rate & block-shot rate than Rasheed Wallace - and Wallace averaged 9 ppg., 28% from three, for SIX MILLION DOLLARS, 4 times the going rate for Anthony - also Anthony is a better shot-blocker & rebounder than Ryan Hollins, who barely averages 6 ppg., and Hollins was paid 2.2 million last season). The fact is, you’re not going to win a title without sufficient shot-blocking. Even our smaller players are not very good shot-blockers. And generally speaking, you’re not going to add very good shot-blockers for cheap, particularly if they have strong skills in other areas of their game. So, unless we want to make a trade of one of our most valuable assets to get a big that can block shots and do other things very well, were left with a “less than ideal” choice.
I do agree that Amundson is one of the VERY few other guys available that might fit the role of a 12-15 mpg. defender/shot-blocker better than Anthony, although he’s not the biggest guy in the world, and probably not as good of a low-post defender. But if we want to truly compete by piecemeal (not trading TP, for example), we better acquire a guy to fill that defender/shot-blocker niche.
Leave a Reply