4-Down Episode 9: What about Ian?

by

So we changed the name of the podcast. “The 48 Minutes of Hell Podcast” just wasn’t cutting it. Instead, we’re honoring the greatest play in all of team sports history, the 4-down.

In the ninth episode of the podcast - first using the new name - we had Tom Ziller of AOL Fanhouse and Sactown Royalty on to discuss the Spurs’ free agent big man Ian Mahinmi with Tim Varner and me. Mahinmi is an unrestricted free agent this summer, and we discuss the pros and cons of the Spurs making a run at re-signing the French national.

Some of Mahinmi’s public comments since the season ended lead you to believe that where Ian Mahinmi will sign depends on how much playing time he can get. Can the Spurs cater to his requests? Do they even want to? Or is Mahinmi just bluffing?

Ziller also took time to write a great piece on Mahinmi for Fanhouse, conveniently coinciding with our podcast:

Well-known veterans will indeed get the bulk of attention come July 1. But there’s a corps of young, relatively anonymous players up for grabs as well. One of the most mysterious in this set is 6’11 Spurs forward Ian Mahinmi. The Frenchman, 23, saw only spotty action in San Antonio this season, appearing in 26 games and logging more than 15 minutes in a game only twice. In that limited action, Mahinmi performed, shooting 63 percent from the floor and collecting more than 18 percent of all available rebounds while on the court.

That production syncs with his more extensive NBA D-League experience. Mahinmi played more than 1,300 minutes with the Spurs-owned Austin Toros in 2007-08, finishing the season third in the league in PER, top-10 in rebounds and blocks per game, fourth in effective field goal percentage, second in True Shooting percentage, second in Win Shares, and a first-team All D-League honoree. Basically, Mahinmi is what almost every team is looking for in the draft this June: an active, productive young big man.

Take a listen as three guys spend entirely too much time talking about a player who played 165 minutes last season and was fifth in the Spurs big man rotation.

Make sure to subscribe to the 48 Minutes of Hell podcast via RSS feed or iTunes. And tell your friends, because we’re awesome.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Tim in Surrey

    @Easy B: Sorry, but there’s no chance of getting AI and Holliday from the 76ers. No chance at all. Everybody in the league is high on Holliday after the last two months of the season, especially since he was the youngest player in the league (and younger than most of the players in THIS year’s draft). Maybe they could get Iguodala, but I doubt it. Collins has lots of good experience working with wings of his sort. The Spurs have a much better shot at getting the #2 pick and Lou Williams for Parker. But the salaries wouldn’t work.

    @JimH and Andy: DeJuan Blair has been a close friend and mentor to Dexter Pittman. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Spurs sign him if he isn’t drafted (which, given his weight problems, his underwhelming performance this season, and the unfortunate tragedy that forced him to miss the draft keep, seems entirely possible). Perhaps more important, I find that friendship encouraging because of course Blair has improved his conditioning so much over the last year.

    About Luke Babbitt: From what I saw, his defense wasn’t awful. It just didn’t seem to be a priority-which is sometimes a coaching decision. It’s hard to say. It’s a concern but not a deal-breaker for me. But to me, if you’re in a position to get Luke Babbitt, you’re also in a position to look at players like Xavier Henry or Avery Bradley, who I think would fit the Spurs better.

    For what it’s worth, I think this is a good time to revamp the roster a bit. JimH and others are right to recognise that the Spurs as presently constituted aren’t going to win any more championships. Adding Splitter would help but they still have substantial problems, especially in terms of interior defense and outside shooting. I do follow NCAA ball quite a lot and have for a long time and I think a lot of people are missing the boat on this draft. It isn’t loaded with superstars, although Wall, Turner, Favors, and Cousins are a solid group at the top. But it’s very, very deep, at every position except point guard. There are a lot of players who would’ve been first-round picks in 2009 or 2011 who might not even get drafted this year (including Pittman). And players like Craig Brackens, Solomon Alabi, and Quincy Pondexter would’ve been lottery selections last year.

    I think the Spurs would be wise to collect one or more extra picks from teams like Minnesota, that have multiple first-round picks (which are expensive), or teams like New Jersey, that are impatient to win. If they’re confident that Hill, Ginobili, and Temple can handle the point, this is a great year to trade a charismatic All-Star point guard who is starting to slow down a bit. But what I’d rather see them do is find a way to keep their #20 pick and also get another first-round pick, preferably a bit higher-and maybe an extra second-rounder as well. That way they could get a talented wing player AND a talented interior defender. Just my $.02…

  • bduran

    “ONE team in 20 years, and they happened to have the best player of all-time. Sure you don’t want to trade Manu to OKC?”

    Well, this isn’t exactly a useful statistic.

    As for Pittman, I’d be okay with it if he’s there in the second round. I’m a big horns fan, but Pittman takes himself out of the game too much. He’d be a project.

    “If they’re confident that Hill, Ginobili, and Temple can handle the point, this is a great year to trade a charismatic All-Star point guard who is starting to slow down a bit.”

    The things is, I don’t think they are, I’m not. If we were going to trade TP we’d need a decent PG in return which reduces what we can get for him. Trading with Minnesota we’d need Ridnour back and then I’m not sure what else we’d get to make it worth it.

  • http://espn.com Jacob

    Honestly, Ian is the least of our worries, so im highly inclined not to ‘give a shit’.

    we need something else to harp on for a bit. :)

  • idahospur

    Definitely need a new article. At least talk about Finley now with the Celtics. That is somehow related.

    Chad Ford at ESPN.com has been speculating that the Spurs are offering up Parker for a higher draft pick. Stating the Spurs have been aggressive in looking for a new big man. Let’s get some inside info on that!

  • http://espn.com Jacob

    If they offer up Parker, they had better get back a big (or a high draft pick for one), and another good point guard.

    1 proven for 1 non-proven(potential) = bad business decision

  • Tyler

    @ Jim

    I’d define a “franchise” player as a someone who could be the best player on a championship caliber team. And if you’re a GM, you’d be willing to throw a max contract at this type of guy. However, not all max guys are franchise players. Joe Johnson might get a max deal this summer, but I have a hard time seeing him as the best player on a title caliber team.

    From your list, I’d consider these guys franchise players:
    Iverson (in his prime obviously)
    Duncan
    Yao
    James
    Wade
    Howard
    Williams
    Paul
    Durant
    Bryant
    Nash

    (I’m hesitant to label Anthony and Bosh as franchise players. Anthony has yet to put it all together, and I see Bosh in the same mold as a Pau Gasol - perrennial All-Star, but better suited as the seond option to a more ball dominant guard. And for Yao, the injuries could quickly take him off the list.)

    As for how I rate players, I have them in tiers:
    1. Franchise players - without them, you have virtually no chance to win a title. The exception to the rule - Pistons
    2. Perrennial All-Stars - these are guys that could be the 2nd best player on a championship team. And typically to win a title, you need at least 1, if not 2 in addition to a franchise player. Gasol is a great example. I also put TP and Manu in this category. Because of injuries, both have probably squandered a few All-Star selections. And in Manu’s case, his role as a 6th man probably doesn’t help him.
    3. Quality Starter - might make a cameo or two in an All-Star game in some situations, but by and large, they’re considered role players. Nonetheless, they’re essential for any championship team. Sean Elliott is a good example - not quite good enough to be your second best player, but if he’s your 3rd or 4th best player, that’s a great team.
    4. Bench Players - On a good team, this might the latter part of your rotation. You definitely need them to survive over the course of an 82 game season, but they’re role will be reduced in the playoffs. Steve Kerr is a good example, you don’t have to depend on him every night, but on certain nights, he can be useful.

    Because of the fluidity of the NBA game, these guideline are anything but rigid. Players can improve and move up the ladder, while others can switch teams and have success no one thought possible (Nash, Steve). And if you wanted, you could divide each level further into subcategories, but there’s only so much time in the day.

    PS. I think we actually agree somewhat on Blair. He should become a quality starter, and in the right situtation, I can possibly see him earning an All-Star selection or two. However, I still think he’s too limited physically to be your 2nd best player on a title winner. But to my main point, if you can package him with picks to get what our FO believes will become a franchise player, I think you go for it. After all, as we near the post TD era, we are going to need the next face of the franchise.

    Sorry for the long post.

  • Jim Henderson

    Easy B
    June 8th, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Not a bad idea, on the surface. What we have to look at from the Sixers perspective is, are they doing this to dump a “long-term” salary commitment (Iggy), and picking up a large expiring (Parker) to create cap space in 2011? Or, are they doing this with the intention to resign Parker for the long-term? If their intention is to keep Parker, what are their chances of resigning him? Then, on the Holiday aspect, this guy, at 19 years old, has star written all over his future. I don’t think the Sixers let him go, particularly if they don’t have an “agreement” with Parker to resign. They are more likely to let Lou Williams (he’s pretty good, and still has some upside) go in the deal, with Iggy, for just Parker. That way if Parker bolts after one year, they’ll still have Holiday, and more cap space. We’ll have the under-rated wing, Iggy, to fully take over at SF as we usher out RJ at the trade deadline, hopefully for an additional shooter, and the talented Williams will be here to help at the point in the absence of Parker. And yes, Rasul Butler is a guy we could look at as one shooter pick-up this off-season as a free agent (we need two, maybe three, really - if Bonner is gone).

    Granted, I’d prefer Holiday in the deal, but they’d probably have to have some assurance from Parker that he’s staying, and/or we could see if Philly has some interest in Mahinmi, and try to throw him into the deal on a sign & trade with Hairston & Parker. That “might” be enough to pry away both Iggy AND Holiday. Maybe. In the final analysis though, Doug Collins would have to be a “big” fan of Tony Parker to consider such a deal, and I think he would need to be very confident that he could ultimately wrap Parker up for at least four years to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger on that trade.

    Remember, in my view, we’re beyond the “tinkering” stage to get back in title contention. Just one deal is probably not sufficient. In fact, I think we should be very active this year, both in the off-season, and at the trade deadline, to reshape this team in some important ways. Usually, that means at least two significant trades, some smart free agent signings, and some rapid development organically (Blair, Hill, etc.), with an eye at challenging in 2011-2012. I don’t think we can get there by next year. We simply don’t have the resources (cash, or trade bait we can afford to depart with) to acquire a championship like Boston did by trading away their “5th pick” (now the starting PF on OKC), and two other solid players, for Ray Allen & Glenn Davis in 2007.

    Tim in Surrey
    June 8th, 2010 at 3:35 am

    “I do follow NCAA ball quite a lot and have for a long time and I think a lot of people are missing the boat on this draft. It isn’t loaded with superstars, although Wall, Turner, Favors, and Cousins are a solid group at the top. But it’s very, very deep, at every position except point guard. There are a lot of players who would’ve been first-round picks in 2009 or 2011 who might not even get drafted this year (including Pittman). And players like Craig Brackens, Solomon Alabi, and Quincy Pondexter would’ve been lottery selections last year.”

    Exactly right, Tim.

  • Easy B

    @Jim and Tim,
    I see your point about Holliday, and maybe it is asking a bit much, i was also looking through the roster at Williams, but haven’t seen him play much.
    I think most people would still be very high on Parker, seeing how influential small guards are on the game at this time, but could also see Philly baulking with concerns of final year of contract stuff.
    They may however, be high on themselves retaining a player like Parker, given that they have some good pieces and young talent and draft picks….
    As I hear myself saying that, yeah, no way we get Holliday aswell.

  • doggydogworld

    “….the club’s three returning leading scorers next season would total 95 years old.”

    Boston’s Big 3 total 100 years old.

  • td4life

    In SA’s case, the label “Big 3″ was never much more than hyperbole. Boston certainly doesn’t have a “Big 3″, they rely heavily on any of their top 6-8 guys having a good game to get their wins. This is also true of these Lakers, who rely on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th guys on their roster to have a great night or even get the win for them: if that doesn’t happen, they will lose to Boston. Billups is forever underrated, but the Pistons needed team depth and Larry Brown.

    The Spurs don’t need a younger “Big 3″. To compete over the next 2-4 years, the Spurs need a MORE TALENTED ROSTER OVERALL, whether that means 5 major contributors or 7 depends on how diverse the talent of our best guys, not so much about their ages. Younger stars can carry you night in, night out and may be able to do more because of their motor and athleticism, but often help you less owing to the lack of headiness.

    Ray Allen has been the best player on his team for a large percentage of games which they won, yet was tradebait because of his age.

    We are not likely to get a young superstar in exchange for Manu. And whoever we get back may help us fill other needs, but we will then need a guy that can take over a game. Not a lot of those in the league. The piece about the age of our Big 3 is meaningless in relation to championships… unlike the old Bulls, we don’t have a dominant scorer like MJ, currently we need FOUR scorers, as well as adding shooting, defense, and inside help for TD… if we break up the “Big 3″, we will need not only scoring and defense, but play-making, and dribble-penetration… one set of problems for another. Maybe the FO can address either set of short-comings, but age only presents one set of legitimate concerns: long-term competitiveness. (And I am on record as saying that when in comes to long-term competitiveness in regard to championships, it’s a lost cause without lottery picks, and a LOT of very good luck. Maybe that very lucky draft pick comes this summer, and maybe we sacrifice one of our stars to get it. We’ll see.)

    Tim and Manu are still way better than average, but they need specific help around them, as does anybody, including Bosh, Wade, Bryant, James, Howard, Paul, Durant, etc. Tony is ideally suited to be a 6th man, a role he can fill for us even if he is technically a starter in his contract year. However, Tony can also be liability on the court because of (unlike the other two guys) the things he can’t do that he should.

  • Tyler

    “However, Tony can also be liability on the court because of (unlike the other two guys) the things he can’t do that he should.”

    Like what?

  • Jim Henderson

    doggydogworld
    June 8th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    “Boston’s Big 3 total 100 years old.”

    Yeah, and as far as I’m concerned it would be a HUGE upset if they won the finals. We’ll see, maybe they’ll be the second team in 20 years, thanks to Rondo’s first playoff’s of ALL-WORLD play.

  • td4life

    @Tyler
    Tony’s play is better suited to a ball-handling two-guard than that of point guard. The Spurs have historically been better with with Tim or Many leading the offense because of Tony’s play-making. More importantly, Ginobili is much better at making his teammates better, and this more than anything is what you’d want out of both your leading scorer and starting point-guard.

    You can live with a starting PG who is not a world-class play-maker if he does a few other things that you want in a PG, such as shoot really well from outside, or if he was an exceptional defender.

    @Jim
    Certainly Boston are underdogs, but they don’t have a “Big 3″, not only is their best player the “4th” guy on their roster, Wallace was key versus Orlando and remains so, and they aren’t where they are without Davis, Tony Allen, and especially Perkins.

  • Colin

    Fellas

    Boston getting to and winning the finals would be no upset. They’ve OUTPLAYED every team they’ve faced thus far (Heat, Cavs, and Magic) and it would be no different if they beat the Lakers…..

  • Tyler

    @td4life

    I agree that Manu’s playmaking ability makes his teammates better (more so than TP), but as we’ve seen over his career, Manu’s minutes need to be limited to get the best out of him. That leaves big chunks of the game where we need another playmaker on the perimeter - that’s where TP comes in. His ability to slash and break down a defense is second to few when healthy. The havoc he creates gives others better looks after ball rotation and the opportunity to drive against a scrambling defense. That’s something we desperately need when Manu is not on the floor.

    I think we get too caught up in labeling guys to a certain position and expecting them to fulfill the traditional roles of that position. The evolution of the game hasn’t been more evident than in the past decade or so. As the league has become smaller and quicker, guys like TP have become extremely valuable, to the point they’re a necessity now.

  • Tyler

    I guess what I was trying to say is that I wouldn’t label TP as a liability.

    Sure, he has trouble with bigger guards, but who doesn’t? I certainly wouldn’t call him a liability on that end of the court.

    And while he might not be a great 3pt shooter, he’s deadly from midrange - 45.5% in the area outside the paint and inside the 3pt line in 08-09. Not a great floor spacer, but again, not a liability in my mind.

  • bduran

    Jim,

    You know citing the 95 years thing isn’t meaningful right? You can’t look at a piece of data and then assume the cause.

  • Jim Henderson

    Colin
    June 8th, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    Boston has played well, and they’ve made a nice run. I give them credit for that. However, there is NO question that they went through TWO teams that ABSOLUTELY choked in the 2nd round & ECF’s. Both Cleveland & Orlando have more talent, played much better throughout the regular season, and gained home court advantage only to choke it back up. L.A. will NOT choke. As a result, Boston will finally be put to bed. They’re getting tired. LA in six.

    bduran
    June 9th, 2010 at 5:41 am

    “You know citing the 95 years thing isn’t meaningful right? You can’t look at a piece of data and then assume the cause.”

    It does not have statistical validity, if that’s what you mean. That said, it is interesting anecdotal information, and it would be useful to conduct a study to try and more closely determine what effect “team age” has on “team success”. The fact is, basketball is MORE a physical than a mental game, athletes peak physically in their early twenties, and then begin a gradual decline that begins to accelerate in their thirties. Reduced speed & stamina are the two key areas that begin to detract from a player’s ability to help their team as they age, particularly late in the season, and without getting sufficient rest (a rest requirement that continues to increase with age). The body’s recovery time is simply not as quick. Ray Allen’s performance in last nights finals game was a perfect example of this. He had plenty of open looks but couldn’t make a shot. As you know, it wasn’t because Ray Allen can’t shoot anymore (far from it - that’s the last thing that goes on an aging bb player). But if you looked at his shot, you could tell that his shot was simply more “flat” than normal. That is a tell-tale sign of “tired” legs, which is not surprising at his age, coming off a big game in game two, traveling across the country, and playing another game with just one day off.

  • bduran

    “That said, it is interesting anecdotal information, and it would be useful to conduct a study to try and more closely determine what effect “team age” has on “team success”. ”

    Problem is, team age could be correlated with team success. As in, good teams have good players so their roster probably stays more stable as the players age. Also, good teams draft later and have better players and so get fewer minutes from very young players.

    As far as the age of the Spurs go, our best 3 players next year could easily be TD, Manu, and Grizzly Blair. Our top five will likely bring in TP and Hill. So sure, Manu and TD are over 30 and getting older, but still playing at a high level, however, the rest of the talent is getting younger compared to our last championship.

  • Agloco

    #
    “DNITCH
    June 2nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Is there any truth to the rumor that the Spurs are looking to ship Parker out to the Pacers for Troy Murphy, Brandon Rush, and the #10 pick?”

    — LOL wow, these TP trade rumors get around fast. I guess Chad Ford figures that the Spurs don’t really need a PG next season. No one ever addresses that inconvenient point when discussing TP trades.

  • Jim Henderson

    Tyler
    June 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am

    First of all, I agree with your definition of “franchise player”.

    I also agree with who you identified as franchise players off the draft picks that I had provided in an earlier post, EXCEPT for Yao. I think injuries have in effect taken him off the list already. “Franchise guys” have to be dependable, and Yao has had enough time to prove that he simply isn’t.

    I also believe that the following guys are close, in rank order: Pierce, Gasol, Anthony, & Bosh.

    On your tiers, “perennial” all-star to me means that you’ve been selected as an all-star in more than half of the years that you’ve played. There’s not a lot of perennial all-stars outside of the franchise players. Thus, I would just call that category “all-stars”, which would allow players like Manu, TP, Danny Granger, etc. to reside in the same basic category without coming up with “special qualifications” on a case by case basis. The “quality starter” category is fine, but I would take out anyone that’s been selected as an all-star, and put them in the “all-star” category. The “bench player” description sounds fine to me.

    It sounds like “role players” would typically come out of the 4th & 5th man in the “quality starter” group, and from the “bench player” group.

    Now, what I want to provide is a snap shot of the actual likelihood of securing a “franchise player” through a teams own draft pick, because the common perception appears to be that it is more likely than it really is.

    In a previous post, I listed off the top five picks in the drafts between 1996 & 2007, but only if they appeared in at least one all-star game. I did the same thing with the 10-20 picks, but this was based on whether they have been a “starter” or better for “most” of their careers.

    Subsequently, we’ve now whittled this list down to what we have defined as “franchise players”. We have BOTH agreed that the following EIGHT players out of the top five picks of the previously identified draft years should be deemed a “franchise player”:

    Iverson (1) (1996)
    Duncan (1) (1997)
    James (1) (2003)
    Wade (5) (2003)
    Howard (1) (2004)
    Williams (3) (2005)
    Paul (4) (2005)
    Durant (2) (2007)

    The following TWO players were deemed a “franchise player” out of the 10-20 picks during the same draft period:

    Bryant (13) 1996
    Nash (15) 1996

    Lets hone in on the top five picks, since the common perception is that we would have a good chance at getting a “franchise player” if we were to somehow secure a top five pick, and acquiring a top five pick is often considered by many imperative to winning a championship.

    I’ll start by just listing some facts from my “little study”:

    — draft years looked at - 1996 through 2007
    — number of draft years looked at - 12
    — TOTAL number of top five picks - 60
    — Number of “franchise players” - 8
    — Number of drafts “franchise players” came from - 6
    — Number of “franchise players” that were #1 picks - 4
    — Number of “franchise players” that were 1-3 picks - 6

    From this data:

    — overall, cumulative odds of drafting a franchise player from one of the top five picks - 13%
    — odds of having just ONE franchise player come out of the top five picks in any given draft year - 33%
    — odds of having TWO franchise players come out of the top five picks in any given draft year - 17%
    — odds the number one pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 33%
    — odds the number 2-3 pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 17%
    — odds the number 4-5 pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 17%
    — odds the number two pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
    — odds the number three pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
    — odds the number four pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
    — odds the number five pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%

    Granted, this is limited data, based on just 12 years of drafts, but as you can see, the chances of drafting a franchise player appear to be very slim, even for those teams that get into the top-five selection order of the draft, by virtue of a POOR record, and a bit of LUCK. Furthermore, you can see that the “cream of the crop” generally rises quickly from pick five up to pick one (4 franchise players from the top pick, just one each from picks #2, #3, #4, & #5).

    Thus, for those that want to trade up to the number 2-5 picks, you have approximately an 8% chance of drafting a “franchise player”. I’d think long and hard on that one. In my view it’s simply too risky to trade a guy like Parker for less than a number one pick, which just isn’t going to happen.

    The fact is, you have to be a very poor team AND lucky to get a reasonable chance of getting a “franchise player” out of the draft. Thus, I would rather focus my efforts with putting together a great “team” full of all-stars, almost all-stars, and key role players that are “gamers” (like Derek Fisher reiterated that he is in game three last night). I would rather the FO follow a Pistons model to a championship over the next several years, by acquiring key pieces of young, and in-prime off-the-radar stars, & budding stars. I think the Spurs FO is savvy enough to get us a decent chance at another championship using this model over the next 3-5 years, before we will probably inevitably tank. We can take our luck at the top picks at that time, because at that time we would have nothing to lose.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    June 9th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    “Problem is, team age could be correlated with team success.”

    Of course, this is a problem. It would have to involve a sophisticated study that factored out as much as possible the impact of extraneous variables.

    “As far as the age of the Spurs go, our best 3 players next year could easily be TD, Manu, and Grizzly Blair.”

    It’s VERY unlikely that Blair will pass Parker next year. I know that you and others resist accepting it, but we are too old as currently constructed to realistically challenge next year, or probably the year after, for that matter. Regardless of what td4life had to say about age not being a factor, I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at Ray Allen’s performance last night. That was a clear-cut age-related factor. His shot was simply flat, and that’s a sign of tired legs, which is a sign of aging. In fact, if you look at Garnet & Pierce’s performances, they are inconsistent as well. That is a sign of age, because those two have always been consistent in big games in the past. They have Rondo, but you have to have 2-3 young “studs” to compliment your aging stars to win. And neither Boston or the Spurs do. Winning a championship is difficult as it is, but with your top three players averaging in their early thirties, it just makes it that much more difficult, all else being equal. Bottom-line: Basketball’s a PHYSICAL game, and our physical peak declines sooner than most people want to acknowledge.

  • Colin

    Jim

    My point is that is exactly why the regular season can’t be a true gauge for post-season success. If that were the case, the Mavs would have 3 or 4 championships by now. The better team wins 4/7 games in the playoffs. It wasn’t luck or a “choke” job that let the Celtics beat the Cavs and Magic back to back. The better team won.

  • bduran

    Jim,

    “Look at Ray Allen’s performance last night. That was a clear-cut age-related factor. His shot was simply flat, and that’s a sign of tired legs, which is a sign of aging. In fact, if you look at Garnet & Pierce’s performances, they are inconsistent as well.”

    This is not proof of our your point. Although if you’re pointing to Boston as an example of why aging teams can’t compete for championships then I have to point out that they are in the NBA finals and got there after beating two very good teams on the road. Yeah, the East is easier in general, but their playoff road was as tough as anyone. They may not be favored to beat LA, but you can’t seriously argue that they aren’t contenders this year.

    As for our team youth, we have returning

    Tony Parker - 28
    George Hill - 24
    Richard Jefferson - 29
    Dejuan Blair - 21
    Ginobili - 32
    Tim Duncan - 34
    McDyess - 35
    Avg - 29

    Adding Splitter and a draft pick allowing us to reduce McDyess’ minutes and then we’re looking good on youth with our two oldest player still producing at a very high level.

    Now we know Boston is older than us, let’s look at LA. Not sure who’s returning so here are their major contributors this year.

    Kobe - 31
    Fisher - 35
    Gasol - 29
    Bynum - 22 (with injury problems already)
    Artest - 30
    Odom - 30
    Farmar - 23
    Brown - 24
    Avg - 28

    Not terribly different. So we’re a little older than LA and younger than Boston.

    I want to add young talent for depth, but I think the guys we have now our fine.

  • Tyler

    @ Jim

    Sounds like our definitions or groupings of players is pretty similar….semantics at this point.

    And I generally agree with you - finding a franchise player in any draft is not only uncommon, but very risky. But like I said, if our FO sees that next cornerstone and something others don’t (which has been the case on a few occasions), I’d be in favor of trying to move up in the draft. Based on our FO’s track record, I’ve come to trust their judgement.

    Having said that, if we did move into the top 3 or top 5, we simply can’t miss on that player. Missing on a player that high is a recipe for disaster - that’s what the Clippers of the world do. The top of the draft is the last place you take much risk - you have to grab a solid player at the very least (and if TP was dealt, defintely more than a “solid” player). You leave the “leaps of faith” so to speak to the 2nd round.

  • Jim Henderson

    Colin
    June 9th, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    “My point is that is exactly why the regular season can’t be a true gauge for post-season success.”

    Then why have their been so few lower-seeded teams that have gone on to win a title?(Celts would have probably been 8th seeded in the West, and even in the East, they only had one series with home court advantage). Of course the regular season results don’t directly lead to championships, but much more frequently than not, playoff teams with top-tier regular season records win championships over those with lower-tier records.

    “It wasn’t luck or a “choke” job that let the Celtics beat the Cavs and Magic back to back.”

    No, it was clearly choke-jobs, by both teams.

    bduran
    June 9th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    “This is not proof of our your point.”

    It’s not proof, but it’s a solid indication.

    “Yeah, the East is easier in general, but their playoff road was as tough as anyone. They may not be favored to beat LA, but you can’t seriously argue that they aren’t contenders this year.”

    First of all, if you don’t know a choke is when you see one, I don’t know what to tell you, but the Cavs & the Magic both choked in those series. I give the Celtics credit for taking advantage of this fact, but they are only a “better” team than the Cavs & Magic because of massive, inexplicable chokes by both of those teams. And the only reason that the Celtics are holding on to contender status is because of their young talent at two key positions: Rondo at the point, and Perkins in the middle.

    “As for our team youth, we have returning

    Tony Parker – 28
    George Hill – 24
    Richard Jefferson – 29
    Dejuan Blair – 21
    Ginobili – 32
    Tim Duncan – 34
    McDyess – 35
    Avg – 29″

    Actually, by the time the season roles around, McDyess will be 36, Ginobli will be 33, and RJ will be 30. Average age = 29.4

    Not many other team’s top seven to nine players are older than that. But the major point is, and using LA as the example, we have too many of our top players age 33 & above. Right at about age 33-34 is when you see the decline start to settle in for most players. We have THREE of our top players at age 33 & above. The Lakers only have ONE. By the way, Boston’s top eight averages 29.8, with FOUR guys at 33 and above. They’re on their last legs, in my view.

    Thus, again, in my opinion, we’re simply too old as currently constructed to challenge for the title. That Boston is this close is clearly an exception to the rule, in my book.

    Tyler
    June 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    “……if our FO sees that next cornerstone and something others don’t (which has been the case on a few occasions), I’d be in favor of trying to move up in the draft.”

    I agree, and in my view, the chances are they don’t.

    “Having said that, if we did move into the top 3 or top 5, we simply can’t miss on that player. Missing on a player that high is a recipe for disaster – that’s what the Clippers of the world do.”

    That’s right, I agree. And as you move away from number one, the risk builds quickly. Be careful there. I think the Spurs should look at it like this: if they had the number one pick, who would that be? If this pick is determined to be a franchise player, and that draftee is in fact still available at number 3, 4, or 5, see if you can work out a deal that makes sense. Otherwise the risk is pretty prohibitive, in my view.

  • Colin

    Jim

    …………..We’ll agree to disagree. The Celts beat two higher seeds than them. They won 4/7 games against every team they’ve played. Their starting 5 including Garnett hasn’t lost a playoff series since they’ve been put together. They are in the finals competing for a championship and no one else in the east is. They got there by playing better than their opponent. Of course if they played in the West it would have been harder. Could the Lakers have beaten Cleveland and the Magic back to back……..??

  • Jim Henderson

    Colin
    June 9th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    “Could the Lakers have beaten Cleveland and the Magic back to back……..??”

    Yes, VERY likely, because Cleveland & Orlando played like shit. In fact the Lakers might have won in five, assuming the Cavs & Magic played the same stupid way. LeBron sucked (for him), Jamison sucked, Williams sucked, and their coach sucked (and got fired for it after winning 60+ games this year), and not playing Hickson much more than he did was more than stupid in that match-up with Boston. For Orlando, two key players sucked, Lewis & Carter, and again, Van Gundy’s coaching was not his best (and Nelson was inconsistent, especially as a play-maker, which is not his strength anyway). In that match-up, he should have went more with Bass, and played Williams more as well (for his play-making ability). And how does the number 2 seed in the East, a team that won 59 games this season, lose the first two games at HOME in the ECF’s? Unheard of, and it wasn’t because Boston’s so great, believe me.

  • bduran

    Jim,

    “It’s not proof, but it’s a solid indication.”

    Nope it’s one instance. One instance is not a solid indication, it’s one instance. I’m not even saying you’re wrong about Ray Allen, but even then one player is one player and not a solid indication.

    “Actually, by the time the season roles around, McDyess will be 36, Ginobli will be 33, and RJ will be 30. Average age = 29.4″

    LA will be older as well and we’ll still be younger than Boston is now.

    “First of all, if you don’t know a choke is when you see one, I don’t know what to tell you, but the Cavs & the Magic both choked in those series”

    These are my favorite kinds of arguments. The ones where you can’t say anything to back up your argument so you say things like “Well, if you can’t recognize how right I am, you’re an idiot.”

    Maybe, the Cavs and Magic didn’t choke. Maybe Boston returned the level the played at in the first half of the season when they were playing as well as anyone in the league. One team choking, maybe. Attributing both wins to choke jobs? I don’t think so. If you can’t see this maybe you’ve never seen a basketball or the sun (See what I did there?).

    “We have THREE of our top players at age 33 & above.”

    TWO! I expect we need some change. McD shouldn’t be in our top 5 next year. I’m counting on Blair and us getting another big from somewhere to help take McD’s minutes. As for TD and Manu. If they suffer injury then yes, we will be in trouble. However, both of them are still producing at a very high level. As long as they continue to produce well, who cares? We can worry about it all we want but there is no one better for us until one of them succumbs to age/injury.

    “In fact the Lakers might have won in five, assuming the Cavs & Magic played the same stupid way.”

    Yeah, because the Lakers beat the far superior Suns and Thunder in six, so clearly this indicates a 5 win series over the Magic and Cavaliers.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    June 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    “Nope it’s one instance. One instance is not a solid indication, it’s one instance. I’m not even saying you’re wrong about Ray Allen, but even then one player is one player and not a solid indication.”

    When a guy like Ray Allen, almost 35 year old, and one of the best pure shooters in the game, with solid mechanics and mental preparation, goes o-13 with a noticeably “flat” shot, in my view it is “a solid indication” that he didn’t have his normal lift because his legs were tired. A guy that age will get tired legs from “too many games” much easier than a younger guy. Duncan, even Manu, are going to start to more frequently run into this same problem. It’s just a function of aging. Sure it’s one instance, but this is not stats we’re talking about here. It’s my subjective observation & evaluation. Take it for what it’s worth.

    “LA will be older as well and we’ll still be younger than Boston is now.”

    Perhaps not if they don’t resign Ray Allen, and make a trade or free agent signing for someone 6-10 years younger. Certainly conceivable. Even so, I don’t want to compete with Boston for being the oldest team in the league anyway. Their shot for a title will continue to go down if they don’t get younger. LA will be older, but they’ll still have only one guy in their top 7-9 players aged 33 and above, and they’ll have just come off winning two straight titles. Hard to argue with that.

    “One team choking, maybe. Attributing both wins to choke jobs? I don’t think so.”

    It is pretty amazing, but in my humble OPINION, both of those teams choked those series, and Boston did well to take advantage of it. I saw the games. Boston’s defense was not that good to cause that many star players (with clutch playoff performances in the past under their belt) to turn the ball over so much, particularly in key situations, and throw up a ton of absolute bricks, many of them on uncontested shots. They were ridiculous performances from 60-win teams, one for which the coach was fired on account of the “choke” he presided over. If you didn’t see some choking going on, we can just agree to disagree. That’s fine. But to me it was pretty obvious.

    “However, both of them are still producing at a very high level. As long as they continue to produce well, who cares?”

    They are in decline, and their production is likely to continue to fade. Also, their production now is not at a high enough level to effectively compete for a title given the existing supporting cast. And it’s still to be determined what kind of help the Spurs are going to be able to provide them with next year.

    “Yeah, because the Lakers beat the far superior Suns and Thunder in six, so clearly this indicates a 5 win series over the Magic and Cavaliers.”

    I said they “might” (not “clearly”) have been able to win in five, given how poorly the Cavs & Magic played against the Celtics. Clearly, the Suns and Thunder played much more inspired and confident ball than the Cavs & Magic did. Their star players didn’t turn in pathetic performances. Their coaches didn’t get fired after the series loss. In fact, they’ve been offered lucrative extensions. And in the case of the Suns, their bench paid hefty dividends as one of the most effective 2nd units in the league. Plus, the Lakers were coming off their season-ending slump when they faced the Thunder. They needed to face an aggressive series from a young & athletic upstart to get their play as a team back up to a high level.

  • bduran

    Jim,

    “in my view it is “a solid indication” that he didn’t have his normal lift because his legs were tired.”

    If you want to discuss Ray Allen fine. However, if you want to use one game of one player to prove a point about the league in general then I’m not going to accept it.

    You said.

    “Perhaps not if they don’t resign Ray Allen, and make a trade or free agent signing for someone 6-10 years younger.”

    I said.

    “we’ll still be younger than Boston is now”

    So unless they go back in time and dump Allen my point stands.

    “LA will be older, but they’ll still have only one guy in their top 7-9 players aged 33 and above, and they’ll have just come off winning two straight titles. Hard to argue with that.”

    Hard to want to. Why 33? Why not 30, 31, 32? We’ll only have one top player 34 or older.

    “It is pretty amazing, but in my humble OPINION, both of those teams choked those series,”

    This seems to me like you’re trying to make this argument to support your, Boston shouldn’t be there, argument to support your age argument. When one team outplays another they can make the team they beat look bad. It’s a common mistake in sports to simply say, “the team that lost really beat themselves.” This is rarely true in a 7 game series. I think I’ll just apply Occam’s razor and chose the theory that Boston really is pretty good.

    “Also, their production now is not at a high enough level to effectively compete for a title given the existing supporting cast.”

    This is trivially true. Their production is what is and we didn’t compete for a title. However, is this because the production of our top two players doesn’t compare to the production of the top two players of the other competitive teams? Or because our supporting cast isn’t as good as the other top teams? According to both WP48 and my subjective analysis it’s the latter.

  • Colin

    Jim

    Based on your assessments of the Magic and Cavs, the better team won those series. Boston has proved itself as a title contender with their current starting 5 healthy. You’re talking yourself in circles now man. I’ll stay away from predicting who will win, but Boston IS there and no one from the east is. They earned it, it was not given to them.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    June 10th, 2010 at 5:42 am

    “If you want to discuss Ray Allen fine. However, if you want to use one game of one player to prove a point about the league in general then I’m not going to accept it.”

    I am more specifically talking about Ray Allen from game three of the finals, but I’m also making the broader point that ALL athletes on average show a decline in speed and stamina that becomes more noticeable once they reach their early thirties. “Tired legs” is one of the “stamina” declines that can, and occasionally does, affect the trajectory of a shooter’s shot just enough to appreciably disturb his shooting efficiency. As I said, take it for what it’s worth, and accept it or not. That’s obviously your prerogative.

    “Hard to want to. Why 33? Why not 30, 31, 32? We’ll only have one top player 34 or older.”

    MY observation is that the average player begins to show appreciable decline in his game (compared to his prime years) at around age 33, give or take a year. And by the way, why do you continually leave out McDyess in our top 7-9 players? He was clearly our 5th or 6th man all of last season, and showed no evidence in the playoffs that his role would shrink out of the top 7-9 players. At this point, you can’t rely on Splitter, and you can’t rely on our draft pick. So how can you possibly count McDyess out of our top 7-9? And if you use 34 as the cutoff point, we have two, and the Lakers have one. If you don’t count McDyess, we have one and the Celtics have two (cannot count Wallace if you don’t count McDyess). Either way, we’re talking about three of the oldest teams in the league. Boston’s on it’s last stand (in MY view), and the Lakers have a couple of more years in them because they in know way “rely” on their old guy (Fisher), they have one of the most mentally tough & greatest players in the history of the game (Bryant - still almost three years younger than TD, and without a chronic knee problem), and they have TWO talented 7 footers, both under the age of 30 (Gasol & Bynum).

    “This is rarely true in a 7 game series. I think I’ll just apply Occam’s razor and chose the theory that Boston really is pretty good.”

    Boston is very good, but Cleveland and Orlando “choked” in my view. There was nothing special that Boston did to produce the unusually poor performances from some of the Cavs & Magics star players. And as I said, the coaching was pitiful, particularly for the now fired Mike Brown. Apparently he doesn’t understand match-ups too well, and has difficulty getting his team mentally prepared & focused. But really, even the coaching is not a sufficient explanation for ALL these veteran players to play so beneath their capabilities. Many of the important players on the Cavs & Magic simply “choked”, in my view. It happens, but usually not to this extent. So really, I was flabbergasted.

    “According to both WP48 and my subjective analysis it’s the latter.”

    Well, as I’ve told you before, I’m not going to put all my eggs in one basket, the WP48. Efficiency is great, but I need my best guys on the floor for a lot of minutes, and our top two have the lowest combined mpg. by far of any of the top teams.

  • Jim Henderson

    Colin
    June 10th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    “…..but Boston IS there and no one from the east is. They earned it, it was not given to them.”

    As I’ve said repeatedly, Boston deserves credit for playing well, and seizing the opportunity presented to them by the “choking” Cavs & Magic. No, I give Boston plenty of credit. They’re a tough, savvy, experienced, and prideful team. And they found a way to win those series against younger & more talented opposition. But what Boston was able to accomplish, and the assertion that the Cav’s & Magic “choked”, are not mutually exclusive concepts.

  • bduran

    ” I’m also making the broader point that ALL athletes on average show a decline in speed and stamina that becomes more noticeable once they reach their early thirties”

    You can’t make the broader point with one example in one game. Well, I guess you can but no reasonable person should accept it. Look, I remember reading a study on 82games.com (I think) that said shooting guards suffered a sharp decline at age 32. However, we won’t know what Manu does next year until we see it. Pointing out what Ray Allen did in one game at the age of 35 is really not very useful.

    “MY observation is that the average player begins to show appreciable decline in his game (compared to his prime years) at around age 33, give or take a year.”

    I have to be honest, unless your “observation” includes statistical analysis of age of decline, I give it no credit. Sure, we all know that players decline as they age, but specifically identifying age 33 as the age of decline without crunching the numbers is worthless.

    “And by the way, why do you continually leave out McDyess in our top 7-9 players?”

    He won’t be in our top 5, I’m fine with him in the 7-9 range. Next year our top 5 should be TD, Manu, TP, Hill, and Blair. Jefferson should be our six or seven. I’m also hoping we get Splitter. If McD comes in after that I’m fine.

    Tonight Boston tied up the series. No matter what happens they took it to six. At this point Boston has beaten the Cavs and Magic on the road, and taken the Lakers to at least six. Your premise is flawed. Boston, the oldest team in the league, is a legitimate contender.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    June 10th, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    “You can’t make the broader point with one example in one game.”

    The Allen observation is just one example of the broader point, that ALL athletes show a decline in stamina as they age, and this can effect their games, in certain situations. Things like “flat” shots occur quite often, particularly in older players, often as a result of tired legs, and particularly in the second of back-to-backs, or on an unusually intense stretch on the road against tough competition, or near the end of a long season. I’m not attempting to “prove” the broader point with one example in one game. It’s simply an observation, and in my view a fair extrapolation, from someone that has seen a lot of games, and has seen a lot of players age over a LONG period of time.

    “…..we won’t know what Manu does next year until we see it.”

    That is true, but in my view the odds keep going up every year at this point that a more noticeable decline will start to settle in.

    “Pointing out what Ray Allen did in one game at the age of 35 is really not very useful.”

    But the larger point is NOT about what “Ray Allen did in one game”. The Allen case is merely an example of something that happens to older people, in this case a professional athlete: that is, that our stamina declines more noticeably in our early to mid thirties, and this depreciating stamina reduces our capacity to perform as well physically in an enduring persistent, repetitive, and intense fashion.

    “Sure, we all know that players decline as they age, but specifically identifying age 33 as the age of decline without crunching the numbers is worthless.”

    I said age 33, give or take a year, is about the time when the majority of players evidence more noticeable decline in their game from their prime years. The fact is, there is no known statistic that documents the following: “what is the average year of a player when he experiences more noticeable decline compared to his prime years”. If you expect ANYONE to lend support to my argument through statistics you’re barking up the wrong tree. I suppose I would have to list every player in the league above age 34 and look at their minute allocation beginning at age 30 to see if their minutes (factoring out significant injury periods) and/or productive efficiency had depreciated more noticeably during their early thirties than at any time prior, or after. Well, to be frank, I’m not going to take the time to do that, so I guess you’ll just have to accept that my personal and subjective observation over decades of being an astute student of the game is simply not credible, and maybe even “worthless”. That said, statistics are far from the only thing that can reveal important insights about the game of basketball, as I’m sure you would freely acknowledge.

    “He won’t be in our top 5, I’m fine with him in the 7-9 range.”

    On the general point of age, we we’re talking about the top players in the rotation, which usually includes at least 7-9 players, and you specifically left out McDyess out when you were looking at the number of “older” players in the rotation on the teams in question. And we cannot count Splitter in this exercise. As it stands now, the most relevant information is that we’re scheduled to go into next season with probably the second oldest team in the league in terms of players that play regularly (10-15 mpg.+). For me, that’s too old if you plan to win.

    “Your premise is flawed. Boston, the oldest team in the league, is a legitimate contender.”

    My premise is not flawed. You say the fact that only ONE team has won a title in the past 20 years with their top scorers averaging 95+ years old is a meaningless stat. Well, so is saying that age isn’t a problem because the “old” Celtics are taking this years finals to at least six games. That one instance does not prove that old age in one’s top players is not a deterrent to winning a title. It’s just one instance.

    Furthermore, Boston stayed in the series by relying on there young legs in a crucial game four, particularly in the fourth quarter when it mattered the most. The young guys simply bailed the old guys out. The great majority of the crucial fourth quarter was played most productively by, age in parentheses; Robinson (26), Davis (24), T. Allen (28), and Perkins (25), with just one cagey veteran, R. Allen (34) in the mix, who didn’t do too much. No question, it was “young” legs that won that game for the Celtics, a game where a key “young” guy, Bynum, was only able to only play 12 ineffective minutes for the losing team, due to an injury flare-up.

  • bduran

    “you specifically left out McDyess”

    No, I included him in my average age. Then I said I expect him to see reduced minutes next year and move to the end of our rotation.

    “The great majority of the crucial fourth quarter was played most productively by, age in parentheses; Robinson (26), Davis (24), T. Allen (28), and Perkins (25), with just one cagey veteran, R. Allen (34) in the mix, who didn’t do too much.”

    I guess we didn’t watch the same game since Perkins played zero minutes in the fourth and Rasheed Wallace played almost the whole quarter. Allen played almost the whole second half and had 10 points on 5 shots. They may not have been the two most important people in that stretch, but they certainly contributed and I don’t think it really helps your point.

    “The young guys simply bailed the old guys out. ”

    And Rondo, he was on the bench. Also, the Boston starters made it a close game in the third so I don’t think “bailed” is the word I would use.

    You also mentioned Bynum’s injury. I think this helps out my point that the Lakers aren’t that much younger than us. A key component of their youth has been injury prone his whole career. Reduces how much he can contribue and effectively bumps the Laker’s age up.

    “what is the average year of a player when he experiences more noticeable decline compared to his prime years”.

    I think Hollinger or Berri or someone at 82games.com looked at this once. I seem to remember reading that they found shooting guards hitting a sharper decline at age 32. Maybe I’m misremembering. Of course, even if it’s true you don’t know what will happen to a player until it happens. Also, given how well Manu has played the last few years his play could take a significant decline and still be very valuable to us.

    “Well, so is saying that age isn’t a problem because the “old” Celtics are taking this years finals to at least six games.”

    I only mentioned the Celtics because you have been used their aging players as example to support your argument. I’m saying bad example. The Celtics have now beat two very good teams in 7 game series and are going to take another one to at least 6. Their starters are Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rondo, and Perkins. Our starters will be TD, Manu, Hill/Tp, Jefferson, and Blair. Their better at PG and SF, we’re better at the other spots. This is why I think depth is the key and managing our older players minutes instead of just saying, “No way, we can’t do it” when clearly it is being done by another team RIGHT NOW.

    If you say that KG, Pierce, and Allen have all aged and are no longer as good as they once were then I agree. Take those guys in their prime along with Rondo and no one could stand against them. However, declining in play is not the same thing as being unable to contribute to a championship team.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    June 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    “No, I included him in my average age. Then I said I expect him to see reduced minutes next year and move to the end of our rotation.”

    You included McDyess in the average age, 1-7 to 9, but you OMITTED him in the number of players we have above 33 or 34 years old.

    “They may not have been the two most important people in that stretch, but they certainly contributed and I don’t think it really helps your point.”

    You’re right, it was Wallace (he made his only shot of the game, a wide-open three, assisted by T. Allen), not Perkins in the fourth. However, it does not detract at all from my point in any meaningful way. The most important facts for the Celtics in game four are these: For the entire game, the “old guys” Wallace & Allen combined for 5 of 16 shooting, had 15 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist in 63 minutes played. The young guys, Davis, Robinson, & T. Allen combined for 12-22 shooting, had 33 points, 10 rebounds, and 3 assists in 57 minutes played. An even bigger and more important advantage occurred between the start of the 4th quarter (when LA maintained a 62-60 lead) and the 3:45 mark in the game, a span during which the Celtics clearly took control of the game by completing a 25-12 run. During this crucial stretch, the “young three” scored 18 points on a combination of 6 buckets plus 6 free throws, while the “old two” scored 7 points on 3 buckets and 1 free throw. In addition, two of the three buckets scored by the old two were assisted by two of the young three, whereas just one of the young three’s six buckets were assisted by the one of the old two. Davis & Robinson alone scored 15 (to just 7 for Allen & Wallace) of the Celtics 25 points in that crucial 8 minute stretch at the start of the fourth quarter. The young players gave Allen and Wallace an important boost of energy, and they of course could not help but make a modest contribution as a result. Nevertheless, the Celtics young bench players were clearly what turned the tide in that game.

    “You also mentioned Bynum’s injury. I think this helps out my point that the Lakers aren’t that much younger than us. A key component of their youth has been injury prone his whole career. Reduces how much he can contribue and effectively bumps the Laker’s age up.”

    Bynum’s still just 22 years old. It’s WAY too early to write-off or depreciate his potential contributions in the coming years.

    “Also, given how well Manu has played the last few years his play could take a significant decline and still be very valuable to us.”

    Look, I love Manu. I think he’ll be a valuable player even as his play continues to decline. I’m just saying, we’re left right now with depending on him like he’s our stud, our “go-to guy”, and the chances are that he will become less & less capable of fulfilling that role over the next couple of years. We need another young, dependable guy that can flat out “ball” to lessen the load for both Manu & TD.

    “Their starters are Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rondo, and Perkins. Our starters will be TD, Manu, Hill/Tp, Jefferson, and Blair. Their better at PG and SF, we’re better at the other spots.”

    No, they’re better at center or PF as well, depending on where you have Duncan lined up. Plus, as it currently stands, they have an OVERALL deeper, more talented, more experienced, and mostly younger group off their bench (Davis, Robinson, Allen, Wallace, Daniels).

    “This is why I think depth is the key and managing our older players minutes instead of just saying, “No way, we can’t do it” when clearly it is being done by another team RIGHT NOW.”

    To an extent, I agree, but can we sufficiently upgrade our depth with our current salary cap restrictions? And to be honest, I don’t think Boston can win another title with their “big three” either. They’ve made a valiant stand this year, with some GREAT coaching by Doc Rivers, but I really think they’re at the end of their road. We’ll see, but I don’t see them getting to another final with the “big three” still in tact.

    And Boston probably has a better shot at challenging for a title than us because they have two YOUNG starters surrounding their aging “big three” that are perfect fits for their team, at two crucial positions: one is a budding superstar (Rondo, at the point), and one is a perfect compliment that competently helps Garnett defend the paint (Perkins - in the middle). Now, we can speculate all we want about Splitter - if he comes, how good will he actually perform on our team, in the NBA, etc., but the fact is we don’t have Splitter now. Perkins has been gelling with Rondo & the big three for three years now - hard to compare with a newly acquired European star, IF we even get him.

    “If you say that KG, Pierce, and Allen have all aged and are no longer as good as they once were then I agree. Take those guys in their prime along with Rondo and no one could stand against them. However, declining in play is not the same thing as being unable to contribute to a championship team.”

    I agree with this last paragraph. Yeah!

←  Older Comments
 →