Reports: Garrett Temple waived
Reports are coming out that the San Antonio Spurs have waived Garrett Temple. The San Antonio Dispatch was the first to report the news:
Garrett Temple has been waived by the San Antonio Spurs, according to sources close to the team. Temple appeared in three games this season, totaling two points, two rebounds and two assists in 21 minutes of play.
No official word has come from the team yet, but Temple himself appeared to confirm the news on his Twitter account:
I want to thank the Spurs for giving me the opportunity. I enjoyed playing in front of these fans, they will be missed. Preciate the love SA
[Update: Now it's official.]
The San Antonio Spurs announced today that they have waived guard Garrett Temple. Temple appeared in three games this season totaling 2 points, 2 rebounds and 2 assists in 21 minutes.
Temple was inactive for last night’s game against the Los Angeles Clippers and no word had been given about any injury, so now we know why.
It’s a shame that the team looks like it is parting ways with Temple. A 6’7″ guard with long arms, he had the physical tools to guard three positions.
It’s curious that the team isn’t sending Temple to Austin for training camp with the Toros, though it’s possible Temple feels he can latch on with another NBA team and asked to be released from his contract.
Temple’s release gets the Spurs down to a 13-man roster, which means Alonzo Gee should be in San Antonio for the foreseeable future.
Wow. I wonder what went wrong? He had such promise coming off of last year and into the summer league until he got injured.
I’m sure somebody will pick him up just as a try and see acquisition.
Good luck to Garrett. I really liked him.
So much for being Pop’s new favorite player. I’m surprised that they chose Chris Quinn over Temple. Maybe they decided that they needed someone with freakishly large ears to even out the freakishly small ears of Richard Jefferson.
I saw that he had posted on his twitter last night about “everything happening for a reason” and it got me to thinking something was up…after a search turned up no news I figured it was something else.
@ Rob
I think Neal and Anderson’s fast starts have given the Spurs the luxury of tightening up the bench and maybe getting under the tax line.
For all the Temple/Jerrells discussion, neither of them made it to the 8th game of the season.
i love how people think that the Lakers, Celtics and heat r the teams to beat haha get outta hear look at the spurs.
Maybe they will consider picking up another veteran big for interior defensive help. There was clammoring on a few other Spurs related sites about Eric Dampier being available… I guess we all look at the same sites, so I wanted to see what the readers here at the 48 think about that type of option.
I personally wouldn’t be opposed to the idea, but it would have to be with the understanding that Dampier will see limited minutes in most nights, and is here to play backup / injury insurance against the likes of LA, Boston, Dallas, etc.
oh… y buena suerte, Temple!
I liked GT’s game. Hope all goes well with the rest of his career.
BlaseE
Yeah. I guess it shows just how undertalented this team was last year.
But in Temple’s case (prior to his injury in summer league) he had shown some signs of being a better b/u at pg than Hill.
His injury and/or physical ablity to recover had to of been more serious than what was publicly announced.
I thought if the Spurs got rid of him, he would atleast be trade bait; the Spurs got a 2nd for Jerrells. I think an excellent trade partner would have been the Bulls and wouldn’t be surprised if they pick him up. The Bulls are reportedly looking at PG’s, C.J. Watson is not working out well and is more of a SG (without the size)-I think they could work together because of Temple’s size, and James Johnson (SF/PF) has fallen back on the teams depth chart.
Espoon
“I thought if the Spurs got rid of him, he would atleast be trade bait; the Spurs got a 2nd for Jerrells.”
Yeah. Me too. But in the same PG scenario…I thought the Bucks could use Temple as well.
Again…gotta to be something more to it than just waiving Garrett if they couldn’t get something for him.
I’m sure the Spurs exhausted all options before finally releasing Temple. Though he looked like a good prospect for the future, the way this team is playing, it is important to concentrate on the here and now. If they don’t already have someone in their cross hairs, I’m sure the front office is keeping that spot available for a player that can help
in the playoffs against Lakers, OKC, Dallas, etc. (sorry about two posts. Accidently hit submit on first post before I was done.)
Spurs ended up not getting anything for Jerrells because New Orleans waived him.
Jacob – there was some discussion of Dampier in the Clippers Game Recap, here:
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/san-antonio-spurs-waive-garrett-temple#ixzz150AjR46t
I’m completely against having him wear Silver-and-Black. Rocks for hands. Bad attitude. Oh, and he just wants money.
@ Espoon
Hornets cut Jerrells so I’m pretty sure we didn’t get anything in that trade. That second rounder was conditional on that he makes their roster.
This weird news with the announcement of Anderson’s injury. 4-6 weeks…..
Quinn seems more like a Jacque-Vaughn-type safety net than Temple; more of a low-risk + good shooter PG, whereas Temple was younger and not as consistent a shooter (check out his college numbers).
I think this is about Hill struggling. My guess is Pop thought he needed a reliable back-up to run the offense and hit some shots in case Tony/Manu miss some games.
Might be a move they regret in a few years, because Temple could become an impact player.
Interesting he gets waived and now James Anderson’s out 8 weeks with a stress fracture…they must really like Alonzo Gee and Gary Neal
James Anderson is injured?
With Anderson out 8 weeks, Who’ll step in at backup SF? Gee? Manu?
I still like Earl Barron as a reserve at C behind TD and Tiago.
Doh! I said the Dampier conversation was in the Clippers recap and then I linked this page – it was in the BOBCATS recap, here: http://www.48minutesofhell.com/san-antonio-spurs-95-charlotte-bobcats-91-gregg-popovich
I really don’t like this.
I live and work in Phoenix. The AM radio stations here do a good job of giving you insider information, commentary, and opions on the local Suns.
I try to listen Ticket 760 online but all they talk about is the Dallas Cowboys! I mean come on San Antonio you have a 4 time champion in your zip code!
Does anybody have a good station in San Antonio or Austin to recommend that I listen to?
The 4-Down Podcast. No? Well, it was worth a try.
FYI, I’m working on a post about Anderson’s injury as we speak. So you folks can take that discussion over there shortly.
Thanks Andrew,
The 4 Down podcast is pretty good and I always tune in but I was just wondering if there’s a radio station engaged in good NBA chat where I can call and chime in with my 2 cents.
Oh, yeah. I’m also not a fan of this move, especially given Anderson’s injury. I really wonder what has gone on behind the scenes between Temple and Pop.
Temple is a strange case. When he came in as a complete unknown late last season, he performed with confidence. He always seemed in control when he was on the court. This season was like a completely different player … no confidence, no idea what to do while on the court, lost. Pop hates tentative players. His mantra is confidence without arrogance. We wish him well and hope he finds the right fit somewhere.
Why keep Chris Quinn over Garrett Temple? Chris Quinn gets abused defensively.
It’s too bad. I liked Temple’s game, and he’s a hard worker, good guy. He’s an NBA player for sure, and even though he started off shaky this season, I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get picked up in the near future.
That said, with the emergence of Neal & Anderson, and the pick-up of Quinn, he was not likely to see much playing time. We’re just too talented at the guard spot.
Jim Henderson
“It’s too bad. I liked Temple’s game, and he’s a hard worker, good guy. He’s an NBA player for sure, and even though he started off shaky this season, I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get picked up in the near future.”
That’s what’s so strange. Why was he just waived and not traded? If his game (which most of us are in agreement on) was good enough to play on another team…wouldn’t somebody be willing to offer something for Temple?
It’s odd that he was waived on the same day the Spurs found out about Anderson’s injury.
Somethings up. A deal to bring in another SF or Big? Who knows. But something’s up.
This is disappointing.
I had strong hopes that Temple would make a unique contribution to this team. Neal’s play bumped Temple further down the bench, but I also can’t help but wonder if his injury was still causing him trouble and holding him back?
Rob,
maybe we are gonna sign a more expensive player to add some depth, but I don’t see how losing these two players puts us in place for a significant trade.
In terms of winning now, I’d say Bonner, Blair, and Hill or Parker are our biggest tradeable assets. If McD is on the table, it would have to necessitate getting him right back, or otherwise to get an remarkable player back, Dice is proving too valuable to us.
We have Danny Ferry back upstairs, you can bet that something is definitely up.
Garrett Temple was inactive for last night’s game and tweeted “Everything happens for a reason!!! God has a plan for me” last night, which means he was most likely told he was being waived sometime after the game.
If that’s the case, and the Spurs officially filed paperwork to waive Temple last night, there would’ve been no way they could go back on that transaction this morning, when James Anderson showed up to practice with foot pain.
So basically, because of the order these incidents occurred, we have to treat them as completely independent of each other.
I would have thought that he would have been in Austin for the full year with Gee.
And Quinn is on what, a 10-day non-guaranteed contact so this makes it puzzling.
McDonald did post earlier that maybe the waive was to create the roster spot for the 3-position guy, but that doesn’t fit in the above mentioned timeline.
td4life
“In terms of winning now, I’d say Bonner, Blair, and Hill or Parker are our biggest tradeable assets. If McD is on the table, it would have to necessitate getting him right back, or otherwise to get an remarkable player back, Dice is proving too valuable to us.”
Agreed. McDyess is too valuable to trade unless somehow they can get him back. With our suddenly depleted PG situation…imo trading Parker and Hill is out of the question too.
So that leaves Blair. Who’s salary doesn’t warrant favor in a trade scenario in getting a solid rotational player unless it is for someone who’s salary matches what would be exiting.
Mbah fits the category of need for the Spurs as well as his salary in a straight up trade for Blair. But would the Bucks want or need Blair? Mbah could certainly be used favorably for the Spurs since he would be well adept at defending 2′s, 3′s and certain occasions 4′s. And is a decent situational scorer.
Of course there is always a 3 way trade option that might get the Spurs who they need…but those are time consuming to come up with. I read that the Suns just might be looking into trading Nash to the Magic but it would require a third team.
As far as unsigned players to fill a void…I don’t think anybody out there other than Ime Udoka would provide the Spurs with decent immediate help being he’s played on the team before. And immediate help is what the Spurs would need with the injury to Anderson keeping him out for 8 weeks.
The roster now stands at 13 (including an injured Anderson) so realistically the Spurs only have 12 players for the next 8 weeks. I don’t think the Spurs sit comfortably by for 8 weeks hoping some sort of combination with who they have now will win them games.
And it very well may have been a case of separate incidents regarding Temple and Anderson…but…the timing couldn’t have been any worse if that be the case.
I think they’re scrambling to get a deal done if they already haven’t been looking into it prior to Anderson’s injury.
rob
November 12th, 2010 at 6:14 am
“Agreed. McDyess is too valuable to trade unless somehow they can get him back. With our suddenly depleted PG situation…imo trading Parker and Hill is out of the question too.”
The idea of trading Blair before one would trade McDyess is preposterous, unless ALL one cares about is THIS season, in which case it might have at least minimal merit. Otherwise it’s a potentially HUGE mistake.
Jim Henderson
“The idea of trading Blair before one would trade McDyess is preposterous, unless ALL one cares about is THIS season, in which case it might have at least minimal merit. Otherwise it’s a potentially HUGE mistake.”
If you think Blair is going to be the next coming of Duncan in the future…he would have already been proving that point. Which he’s not.
My entire post wasn’t a focal on Blair either. Thanks for taking just a snippet of my post to make it seem that’s all I was saying.
IF…which is a huge quantifier…the Spurs were looking to get help because of Anderson’s injury…I wouldn’t mind trading Blair for Mbah because McDyess is playing so well and the emergence of Splitter to looking like a legit post player for this team…a guy like Mbah could provide what this team is lacking the most.
You yourself have argued that Anderson is best suited to play the 2 and is only playing the 3 due to attrition. If a player like Mbah (who would fit this system great) were to be had…Blair is the only player that is logical to give up for that trade.
And I would have to admitt…I would give up Blair for Mbah. He’s (again in your past arguements) is the type of defensive player the Spurs could use. And again in what I’ve read in some of your posts…this teams lack of defending the perimeter and 3 point shooting is something that needs to be corrected. Mbah would be a huge leap in addressing that need.
So if Splitter becomes (which he’s had all indications of becoming) a solid post defender AND the Spurs (in your opininon on numerous occasions) need better perimeter defense…why is this “preposterous” in your POV?
rob
November 12th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
“If you think Blair is going to be the next coming of Duncan in the future…he would have already been proving that point. Which he’s not.
Did I EVER say that, or even remotely suggest it?! No, so stop being silly.
“Thanks for taking just a snippet of my post to make it seem that’s all I was saying.”
Excuse me, but in your previous comment you clearly implied that it would be very difficult to trade McDyess (even though he has a 5 mil. exp. contract), and have been clearly pushing your idea to trade Blair to get Moute. Thus, my previous post does not represent a “snippet”, but in fact captures one of the main themes from your previous post.
“IF…which is a huge quantifier…the Spurs were looking to get help because of Anderson’s injury…I wouldn’t mind trading Blair for Mbah…..”
We’re not going to make a “big” trade to address a two-month problem at back-up SF. That would not be sensible. And as I stated previously, Blair likely has more overall upside to his game than Moute, and is 3-4 years younger.
“….a guy like Mbah could provide what this team is lacking the most.”
No, what we’re lacking the most is some size and/or athleticism in a top-notched “rim protector” on the front line. It is very unlikely that Moute would be enough to put us over the top, and I wouldn’t recommend trading our best young asset with the most upside for the prospects of improving marginally right now.
“You yourself have argued that Anderson is best suited to play the 2 and is only playing the 3 due to attrition.”
There’s NO room to play Anderson right now at the SG (Manu, Hill, and the Neal steal). With Moute, there would be no room to play him at the SF either, particularly with RJ’s emergence.
“…. this teams lack of defending the perimeter and 3 point shooting is something that needs to be corrected. Mbah would be a huge leap in addressing that need.”
Our problems on the perimeter go way beyond an upgrade at back-up SF, certainly if title aspirations are in the equation. Moute would represent fools gold for a title this year at the expense of losing a potentially very good player for the next decade or more. You can do that, but as arm-chair FO I’m not.
“So if Splitter becomes (which he’s had all indications of becoming) a solid post defender AND the Spurs (in your opininon on numerous occasions) need better perimeter defense…why is this “preposterous†in your POV?”
Splitter is a center, the 21 year old Blair is potentially our PF of the future, and has “occasional all-star” potential. Trading PF Blair for SF Moute, a much more clearly one-dimensional type of player with more limited upside at this point, who at age 24 is pretty much destined to play behind RJ for 4 years, is preposterous to me.
As far as perimeter “D”, a rim protector would offset to some extent us not being real strong out on the perimeter. Nevertheless, we will need to get better on the perimeter as well, mainly with the guys we have now most likely. And I do think that’s possible. We need more out of Hill, Manu, TP, Neal, RJ, and Anderson when he gets back. Pop needs to drill them defensively, and the big three need to lead by example in this regard, but we may need to reduce their minutes some to get more out of them defensively. In the meantime, it looks like Dampier is the best big available. I would sign him. If we can get Damp in top shape in the next two months he could pay some dividends as a rim protector, a career 2.1 bpg. per 36 minutes. I also would sign a veteran that can give us some “D” at the back-up SF until Anderson returns. I mentioned several guys previously on the “Anderson” thread as possibilities, and even Udoka could potentially be an effective 2-month band-aid option.
I wouldn’t trade a big (not counting bonner)without some kind of plan to acquire another big.
I saw a dozen or so great trades over the last few seasons, but right now I can’t say I see much out there. If a pietrus could be acquired for bonner and a box of trainer’s tape, I’d do it, but I think we are gonna continue to have to pull talent out of obscurity, for a while. But, you know, one more steal late in the draft and we would be in great shape for the future. As for winning now, let’s see what these guys can do… they sure need to step up their play right now.
I f you want to try and get Moute from the Bucks, I’d say we would need to package GHill.
Hill, Bonner, & Quinn
for
Moute, Ilyasova, & Dooling
It balances their team with some offense/ shooting from range, and balances our team with an overall upgrade on defense. Moute would probably be our best defender, and Ilyasova’s an upgrade over Bonner defensively, plus he he’s 7 years younger with more upside. Dooling is strong defensively, but not as consistent as Hill. Pop might be able to help rectify that problem, plus Dooling could be motivated by playing on a contender with a storied history.
Milwaukee struggles offensively because they don’t have good enough shooters to spread the floor. In this deal they would get 3 guys that shoot 39-40% from three.
They already have Delfino & Magette at SF. They could afford to part with Moute. Hill would work great in the back court along with Jennings & Salmons. Bonner & Quinn can effectively spread the floor in situational minutes, allowing Bogut & Gooden to operate more effectively down low.
Ilyasova could end up improving his 3-pt. efficiency, and he’s a more athletic stretch 4 than Bonner. Moute gives us the situational defender to guard the opponent’s best 3/4, and maybe some of the larger, not too quick SG’s. Dooling can give us some veteran ball-hawking (and he can be a scorer in spurts) as the combo PG/SG, but mainly the back-up to Parker.
Anyway, most deal’s are not perfect, but this may at least be something to chew on. The only problem is it would be three new players to integrate.
As an alternative, we could simply consider Hill for Moute. I think Neal & Quinn could handle the back-up PG spot, especially with Manu on our team. We would however have to hope that Parker does not miss much this year due to injury.
Hill would help improve Milwaukee some offensively, and Moute would help improve us some defensively.
Jim Henderson
“No, what we’re lacking the most is some size and/or athleticism in a top-notched “rim protector†on the front line.”
And Blair provides this?
That’s part of the team’s issues which looks to be headed in a positive direction with Splitter’s progress. Sign Dampier as you mentioned and the team has legit rim protection in Duncan, Splitter, Dampier. And as it stands now…Bonner is an even better post defender than Blair. Blair is proving thus far to be a “one demensional” player for this team. Perhaps he would do better in another system…but right now (and not to say he won’t get better) he’d best be used like last year…offensive boards and put backs instead of forcing him to try and become something of “potential”.
“Moute would represent fools gold for a title this year at the expense of losing a potentially very good player for the next decade or more.”
“Potentially” has other manifistations tied to it’s often used meaning. Blair does have potential to becoming a “good” player in this league as you said. The other side of potential though…Blair could also become an average at best player. There’s nothing concrete yet in his performances that lead one to believe he is a “for sure” future top post player in this league. Where as Moute is a proven commodity in what he provides with regards to perimeter defense and situational scoring. And having a dependable b/u to Jefferson for 4 years is not perposterous…it’s solidifying.
In this regard I am looking to the future when Ginobili, in the next couple of years due to age, ( or now if he acquires injury) is not going to be able to perform as well. Anderson takes on that role as starter. And if Anderson takes on that role…who then backs up RJ?
“As an alternative, we could simply consider Hill for Moute. I think Neal & Quinn could handle the back-up PG spot, especially with Manu on our team. We would however have to hope that Parker does not miss much this year due to injury.
Hill would help improve Milwaukee some offensively, and Moute would help improve us some defensively.”
Also…in that regard…I wouldn’t give up Hill to get Mbah. That would be defeating the purpose of solidifying our perimeter defense and taking away a known commodity in this team’s roster. Having Hill, Manu and Mbah on the court at the same time would make the Spurs one of the best perimeter defending team’s in the league.
But I can see your point of not wanting to give up Blair based on potential. But potential is not what I think the team needs at this time more so than solidifying it’s weak points. Losing Blair in trade does not make the team weaker in the post. It just reduces it’s depth. Which I believe could be recktified with another proven rim protecting big such as a Dampier type of player.
Also…as far as a future PF is concerned…I think the Spurs could get somebody else in the next year or two that is just as good as Blair is proving to be now with just as much “potential” for the future.
Jim Henderson
Also, if I may…if something like trading Blair were to happen…I have faith in this organization’s proven ability to find and secure talent. If it were not for that proven aspect…I might be as apprehensive as you to trading Blair.
rob
November 13th, 2010 at 1:52 am
“And Blair provides this?”
Did I say that he provided that? No, as it’s irrelevant because Moute doesn’t either. Blair gives us rebounding and the best upside; Moute provides more perimeter “D”, and less upside. If it’s a choice between those two, I prefer the former.
“And as it stands now…Bonner is an even better post defender than Blair.”
Not really, and Blair’s a much better disruptor, getting steals and causing turnovers.
“Perhaps he would do better in another system…but right now (and not to say he won’t get better) he’d best be used like last year…offensive boards and put backs instead of forcing him to try and become something of “potentialâ€.
We’re not forcing him to do anything. We’re developing him with important game-time experience with teammates and opponents that are on average better than him. If you’ve ever taken up a sport in the past, recall that your improvement occurred faster when you played with/against competitors that were a bit better than you. At first there were inevitably times when you were embarrassed and frustrated with your performance. That’s called growing pains, and it’s ultimately the fastest way to upgrade your game to your potential.
“Blair does have potential to becoming a “good†player in this league as you said. The other side of potential though…Blair could also become an average at best player. There’s nothing concrete yet in his performances that lead one to believe he is a “for sure†future top post player in this league.”
No, Blair has the potential to become a “VERY” good player. He already is a good player. Of course there’s no sure thing in potential. That’s why teams hire professionals that specifically focus on scouting, talent evaluation, and coachability. They look at a wide variety of factors, some quite obvious, and others quite obscure (filled with intangibles) to come up with an estimated range for upside, and a range in terms of the likelihood that the player will ultimately reach that upside range. Now I could sit here a create this massive and detailed check list on DeJuan Blair, and why I think his range for potential is significant, and fairly likely to be reached, but the project would be a bit exhaustive for this forum.
“Where as Moute is a proven commodity in what he provides with regards to perimeter defense and situational scoring. And having a dependable b/u to Jefferson for 4 years is not perposterous…it’s solidifying.”
As I said, I’m not giving up a “potential occasional all-star PF over the next decade or more” for a “proven one-dimensional back-up SF”. That to me is preposterous.
“In this regard I am looking to the future when Ginobili, in the next couple of years due to age, ( or now if he acquires injury) is not going to be able to perform as well. Anderson takes on that role as starter. And if Anderson takes on that role…who then backs up RJ?”
Well, those are a lot of “ifs”. And IF we’re concerned about that, we either need to develop Neal as a SG, or pick up a less “costly” back-up SF if Gee can’t cut it. But no, we don’t trade Blair based on “ifs”.
“Having Hill, Manu and Mbah on the court at the same time would make the Spurs one of the best perimeter defending team’s in the league.”
First of all, Neal has the potential to get better defensively, and quite quickly at that, because he’s got the ability, and a coaching staff that he’s never had in his career before. Second, Hill, Manu in Moute would be an upgrade, but it’s premature to suggest that they “would” makes us become “one of the best perimeter defending team’s in the league.” And third, you forget to account for what you “lose” in the deal that brings Moute here: one of the best per minute rebounders in the league. Defense is very important, but rebounding is just as critical. Plus you can’t take the long-term out of the equation. Blair without much doubt provides us with best chance at significant long-term upside on our current roster. And that chance is VERY valuable.
“But potential is not what I think the team needs at this time more so than solidifying it’s weak points.”
As I said before, if ALL one cares about is NOW, then the Moute deal has some merit, but ONLY if we also pick up the best big available right now in Dampier. I still don’t like it, but it would at least provide us with more than the current remote chance at getting a title shot this year, because it is very unlikely that we can win this year with our current front line, Moute or no Moute.
“Also…as far as a future PF is concerned…I think the Spurs could get somebody else in the next year or two that is just as good as Blair is proving to be now with just as much “potential†for the future.”
Yeah, I totally disagree with that. I want you to remember that comment 2-3 years from now, and then recall our discussion.
rob
November 13th, 2010 at 2:04 am
I don’t worry at all. I doubt very much that the FO will be trading Blair anytime soon. And even if they did, I’m quite confident that it would be for someone with more promise than Moute.
Jim Henderson
Points well taken and respected in your rebutals. But they are just pov like mine. Which in this case I happen to disagree.
Based on just 36minutes per game:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mbahalu01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/blairde01.html
I just happen to think that Mbah would be better than you suspect and Blair not as good as you project. Though Blair is going to be good I agree…I would suspect that averaging Blair’s per 36 from last year and this probably is what you’re going to get consistently throughout his career. Perhaps slightly higher…but I wouldn’t suspect by much. Consequently if you look at Mbah’s per 36 you see that when he had a more active role on the team (and that was his rookie year) his per 36 is very respectable. I’m sure he would do even better on this Spurs team than the Bucks.
But I also contend that the Spurs could find and secure just as good a player as Blair will become just because their record of finding talent is historically one of the best in the league.
And this is all based on hypothetical. You’re correct in that this may be the wrong move. I’m not stating it as fact to be the wright move. I just think it would be a good move and one that could be a benefit to helping this team win.
Question. If this team becomes as good as it’s indicating to being able to score…what’s the point of having a great offensive rebounding player with limitations to defending the post?
rob
November 13th, 2010 at 4:08 am
“Though Blair is going to be good I agree…I would suspect that averaging Blair’s per 36 from last year and this probably is what you’re going to get consistently throughout his career.”
Please give me some detailed reasoning as to why you would suspect that? Otherwise it’s merely an opinion, and does not even approach a reasoned assessment.
“I’m sure he would do even better on this Spurs team than the Bucks.”
But why? What in some detail is your reasoning here?
“But I also contend that the Spurs could find and secure just as good a player as Blair will become just because their record of finding talent is historically one of the best in the league.”
Are they sanguine about finding another Tony Parker just because they’ve found a few players as good in the past? Granted, perhaps this is an extreme example, but nevertheless the logic prevails. Blair is a special talent. I don’t think you, and many others on here get that. As an FO you can’t cavalierly let Blair go because you’ve had some success at finding other talent in the past. That is a silly proposition.
“I just think it would be a good move and one that could be a benefit to helping this team win.”
It’s a move that is very unlikely to put us over the top now, and it subtracts from our ability to build a young team for years to come that has special talent.
“Question. If this team becomes as good as it’s indicating to being able to score…what’s the point of having a great offensive rebounding player with limitations to defending the post?”
Again, you’re minimizing considerably what Blair brings to the table, both in terms of overall production, and long-term potential, which you by instinct seem to totally discount in the way you frame and focus the issue. Blair is not just good at offensive rebounding, and every just about any young player has “limitations”. I’ve already talked at length about ALL the ways in which Blair makes us a better team. I’m not about to repeat them all here again.
I saw this coming. Temple had no interest in running the offense. Every time he got in he forced his own shot. Too bad he blew it.