by Jesse Blanchard
Storified by Jesse Blanchard· Wed, Feb 20 2013 14:19:38
My biggest hesitancy with Smith (and one I think SA’s front office probably shares) is what will it take to resign him. If it’s max money, I don’t think there is any way SA would deal Spittler and Jax for a 30 game rental.
I share the notion that Smith’s skill set could be dynamite in SA. Our style, coaching staff and personnel is tailor made for him, especially if he cuts down on the mid range jumpers. But is the FO willing to roll the dice that they can resign him for a reasonable amount? That’s a tough call….
If the fit works, and there’s a chance at titles, why not extend Smith for max money?
Here’s how I see it. The roster is set through the duration of Duncan’s career. This is the core, the depth, everything. This is what you’re contending with. Any trades done on the periphery of the Big Three don’t really matter. The Spurs have all the depth and role player’s they’ll ever need to contend right now.
The only changes that really move the needle on the Spurs title chances are making an upgrade along the top four or five spots of their rotation. In the playoffs against a team like the Thunder, this is what matters most. Smith accomplishes this. He’d step in and be the Spurs third best player and an immediate answer to Ibaka. The Spurs have advantages everywhere else.
The money the Spurs get from Jackson’s expiring contract and whatever paycut Manu gets can be spread out over re-signing Splitter and Manu and maybe two quality rotation pieces, but two quality rotation pieces still wouldn’t equal Smith in value.
I can go to other websites and read what that bottom feeder Jon Stewart had to say about Clint Eastwood.
Otherwise, good stuff……..
Conceptually its not a bad idea, but to me it all comes down to corporate knowledge. Can Smith really pick it up in under 30 games to replace what Jax/Tiago/Diaw brought in system knowledge? It’s a possibility, but why do we need to roll the dice? Are we that hopelessly outmatched by the Thunder? We’re the 1 seed as of today, this seems like something we would do if we were in a dogfight for the 4 seed and needed to shake things up, not a team fixing the kinks in a wonderfully efficient machine that has the best record in the NBA, and a top 5 offense and Defense.
I would like to see Smith in silver and black but giving away Splitter AND Diaw is too high of a price to pay. They both look great this year and Diaw’s passing is even better than what J-Smoove can bring in my opinion. Stephen Jackson has become replaceable, Blair as well ,but those aren’t the pieces ATL is interested in. The biggest issue though is that I can’t see SA offer Smith a max deal, he will then walk and the Spurs will look like total idiots after having traded 2-3 players for basically nothing. Does this sound like a Spurs move? not to me !
So go. Flee from someone else’s opinion like the petulant child you appear to be.
As a spurs fan i would love to get Josh Smith and would give up splitter and blair to get him. Atlanta does not have much leverage here so if they like that deal lets do it!
If the asking price was Splitter/Diaw/Jackson, would you do it?
I wish we could be sure he would resign, but everything points to no. He wants to get paid like a Franchise guy, but do we want to throw cash at this guy and lock our cap up for years based on potential? Will he buy into the system? Will we have that answer before we have to cut the check?
You missed the point……..its a sports website
Good points. I would just be hesitant to sign a guy for more than he’s really worth. But I guess if he improves and refines his shot selection, based on how well the Spurs manage their cap, it would be a deal you could still work around (I’m def talking myself into it). I definitely agree that unless it’s a move-the-needle type deal, it doesn’t really matter all that much.
I guess the crux of the issue is this – if we trade for Smith, will the Spurs be able to resign him at all? Max or near-max aside, is this a place he wants to be? If the answer is yes, I’d pull the trigger.
(A crunchtime lineup of TD-Smith-Leonard-Manu-TP vs. Ibaka-Durant-Sefelosha-Martin-Westbrook?!?!? 9 All-star or near-All-star’s on the court at once??)
Generally, I’d prefer it if you’d use an example from both sides if you’re going to drag politics into a column. It’s not like there’s any shortage of wacky stuff to take from the DNC, either.
Otherwise, interesting article.
Exactly my thoughts….
Dude, let it go. It’s just a pop culture reference. Go wave the partisan flag somewhere else, there’s nothing vaguely political going on here.
That’d just make it actually a political item instead of a reference to a fitting humorous incident.
Why is this such a big deal?
I don’t think it fits that well, but to each their own. Sliding in not one, but two political references, in the same sentence, both from the same side, makes it political already. I prefer sports to avoid it altogether, but if we must, I prefer a bit of fairness. As it is, it feels a good deal like the author is trying to inject his own jab at an unrelated issue.
I generally enjoy Jesse’s writing, though, it’s just a suggestion.
“Dude,” who’s waving a partisan flag? I enjoy this site to get away from that political stuff even if it is vaguely camo-flauged in the writers view. This isn’t the first time this author called injected a political card reference to “tea party” in his writing. Just sayin’
Pingback: Corporate Knowledge: Some of the best deals are those never done
Colin and SargeSmash,
I get your points and will note them in the future. And in most of my sports writing I generally leave non-sports references out completely. But this is a different format I’m experimenting with, one I’m aiming to more closely resemble sports talk among friends over a few beers. The rules are a little looser.
The reference linked I felt fit in perfectly with my point, which was there are enough flaws and arguments there to use in an argument without inventing new flaws out of thin air to pile on.
There were arguments to be made that Smith is a flawed player ill-suited for the Spurs, just as one could argue President Obama a disappointing President. But too often we let our biases create an caricature of a person not even remotely true. In using the reference I wouldn’t ask you to be for or against a political party, just not to go crazy in your opposition. While it’s a fair point that the same thing has been done on the other side, this is the most recent example that comes to mind.
All this being said, I look forward to you guys joining future discussions. Hopefully on Twitter. My hope is to eventually bring a few Twitter participants in and giving them column space in the main feature to expand on their thoughts beyond 140 characters. Not just for experts or bloggers, but our readers and Twitter followers.
Designed by DEAR SEVEN | Powered by Dearseven.com | A young Leading NYC digital agency - Helping brands tell their story and make new friends.