Reply With Quote
The Spurs are going after another max player. There's no reason they'd have all these people at camp unless they needed warm bodies to potentially fill out the roster.
Chinook has had what I feel is the best interpretation of what the OKC trade means to the Spurs (see above).
They may be better for it in the long run, but we are better for it as things stand right now.
The Spurs are going after another max player. There's no reason they'd have all these people at camp unless they needed warm bodies to potentially fill out the roster.
Dunno why the LJC thing has to be interpreted by people. He's in camp because he intends to sign the contract the Spurs promised him three years ago. The team is signing him because that's how promises and stashes work. This has nothing to do with Durant, Duncan or anyone else. There's not a cap scenario where this wasn't going to happen.
Bertans: By all counts, they've wanted to bring him over for a while now. He is supposedly set to make almost four times the rookie min. He's not a "warm body"
LJC: Noted above.
Lorbek: The team brings in their stashes every year for work outs. Hanga will be in if he hasn't already. Same with Dangubic and probably Denmon. Lorbek being a free agent and not high sought after for the first time in like a decade explains why he is just making his first visit -- if this is even his first visit at all.
Last edited by Chinook; 06-26-2016 at 03:57 PM.
Whatever; that's semantics and irrelevant. The point is, the Spurs situation isn't comparable to the Cavs'.
Two injuries to their top six (not including Curry, who was clearly not right) and a one game suspension to their second best player, is not subjective.
Yeah, they might start big. Kanter's defensive issues are more pick and roll and rim protection oriented; not post defense. They should be able to get by with him defending either a 41 year old Duncan or near 37 year old Gasol, neither of which will be the focus of the Spurs offense.If they swap out Pau with Duncan, the Thunder will start off big ... and it simply won't matter. Kanter isn't a good defender. The Spurs would eat them alive on that end. And they'd have no size off the bench at that point. I'm certainly not considering Collison, Ily and Sabonis a dominating bench rotation. I'd expect the Spurs to destroy them with the second units.
Apparently you've never heard of shortened rotations, which they'd obviously be playing with in the 2nd or 3rd round. So what if both Adams and Kanter start? The Spurs would inevitably remove Duncan/Gasol 6-7 minutes in, at which point they could sub one out, then have him come back for the other and serve as the backup center.
Their best player, who has severe troubling getting to the rim. Durant and Oladipo are both capable enough defenders and Leonard has yet to show the capacity to dominate a series offensively.Probably their best player now that the Thunder would no longer be starting their best defensive wing.
By every team metric, they are. They have so many free agents, it's impossible to say how their bench will look like at the moment. More importantly, the core four will be back.The Clippers aren't elite. And no, they really just don't have a bench anymore. Not even Crawford or Aldrich. They might have Jeff Green still, but that's hardly intimidating. If you think LAC will somehow pull it together, that's fine. But they definitely shouldn't be favored against the Spurs right now. They have so many more questions including injuries to their second-best player (not worried about Paul since his injury isn't really something that will carry over).
Spurs-Clippers would be a virtual coin flip.
You mean '14? The big three and Diaw aren't the same players and the team doesn't play the same way. They're a more conventional team now, yet they're still inferior in star power to the other contenders.2015 was definitely an example of the team having another gear. They just didn't have the cohesion they needed. I can agree about this year, though. LAC doesn't have another either, especially if they lose their bench.
This is just a pointless line of argument to go down. I have no interest in your claims of having been able to predict the future. I'm not going to say you didn't "know" that about the Spurs. I frankly do no care to get into the subjectivity of that. It has no bearing on reality and no predictive power.
Gasol has destroyed Kanter repeatedly. The dude is just awful at defense in general. One of the worst in the league.Yeah, they might start big. Kanter's defensive issues are more pick and roll and rim protection oriented; not post defense. They should be able to get by with him defending either a 41 year old Duncan or near 37 year old Gasol, neither of which will be the focus of the Spurs offense.
A snide remark that misses the point. Losing Ibaka means the Thunder no longer have the ability to both match up again the Spurs' starting lineup while also playing two seven-footers against the bench. If the Spurs have three tall bigs (Duncan, LMA and Andersen) to match up against OKC's two, then OKC doesn't really have the size advantage anymore. They go from having three legit bigs to having two and question marks.Apparently you've never heard of shortened rotations, which they'd obviously be playing with in the 2nd or 3rd round. So what if both Adams and Kanter start? The Spurs would inevitably remove Duncan/Gasol 6-7 minutes in, at which point they could sub one out, then have him come back for the other and serve as the backup center.
If you mean that he isn't dropping 40 consistently, yeah. If you mean that he hasn't absolutely gone off on bad defense, no. And it's not just him anyway. Having worse defenders out there is going to make everyone's job easier.Their best player, who has sever troubling getting to the rim. Durant and Oladipo are both capable enough defenders and Leonard has yet to show the capacity to dominate a series offensively.
No. Maybe by every metric, they rank in the top something, maybe. Elite is a matter of subjective analysis. If elite means top three, then they aren't. Or if elite means top five regular-season records, then they aren't. Or one of the last four in the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons to not put them in the same category as teams that have lost the Finals one year and won it the following year.By every team metric they are. They have so many free agents, it's impossible to say how their bench will look like at the moment. More importantly, the core four will be back.
Anyway, their core will be back, as will the Spurs' core. But it's not obvious that Griffin will be healthy after reinjuring his hip. And if you take the guys under contract for the Spurs and compare that to the guys under contract for the Clippers, it's not very close right now. They have a ton of work to do -- more so than the Spurs. You can act like it's a coin-flip all you want. I won't even dispute that. But that's taking a step back from saying they were the favorites just a post-cycle ago.
I meant 2015. Duncan, Leonard, Parker and Green all had games where they individually hit that next level. But they just didn't have them at the same time -- especially in the second half of that series.You mean '14? The big three and Diaw aren't the same players and the team doesn't play the same way. They're a more conventional team now, yet they're still inferior in star power to the other contenders.
Gordon is a good defender. You can say a lot of things about him, but him being a bad defender isn't really one.
I was talking about him dedicating himself to it. He plays defense when he wants to - always has.
When he was leaving Charlotte, he blamed his ty play (and refusal to play defense) on the fact that the coach had never played in the NBA. I'm sure I could dig up the article, but he didn't leave any gray area. You're right that he CAN play D, and the team would need him to. But he's never shown much willingness to put the team first. He pouts, he takes games off, and he acts bored playing defense way too often.
Who knows? Maybe the Spurs' culture could influence him. But I'd have to see it to believe it. And if he didn't think Pop was giving him enough minutes? Meh... I can easily see him going the way of SJax II. I can't easily see him dedicating himself to defense.
Charlotte? I'm talking about Eric Gordon, who as far as I know has only played with NO and LAC.
You've moved the goal posts and are missing the missing the point.
The point is, what it took for the Cavs to win isn't applicable to the Spurs.
The bottom line is, their length and athleticism has repeatedly proven to smother the Spurs offense (sure, Ibaka was a big part of that, but he wasn't the only part).Gasol has destroyed Kanter repeatedly. The dude is just awful at defense in general. One of the worst in the league.
I also like their and the other three teams elite chances against the Spurs in close games, because they all have superior play makers.
So what? I don't believe that swings this match-up and it may not even be true. If Duncan returns and by that point is in the same state he was in at the end of this past season, they can get by with Ilyasova on him unfortunately.A snide remark that misses the point. Losing Ibaka means the Thunder no longer have the ability to both match up again the Spurs' starting lineup while also playing two seven-footers against the bench. If the Spurs have three tall bigs (Duncan, LMA and Andersen) to match up against OKC's two, then OKC doesn't really have the size advantage anymore. They go from having three legit bigs to having two and question marks.
No, I mean that he struggles mightily creating for others and getting to the line, so when he has the inevitable off shooting nights, he doesn't offer much offensively and the same goes for Aldridge.If you mean that he isn't dropping 40 consistently, yeah. If you mean that he hasn't absolutely gone off on bad defense, no. And it's not just him anyway. Having worse defenders out there is going to make everyone's job easier.
Not maybe, they do and have pretty much since Paul arrived.No. Maybe by every metric, they rank in the top something, maybe. Elite is a matter of subjective analysis. If elite means top three, then they aren't. Or if elite means top five regular-season records, then they aren't. Or one of the last four in the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons to not put them in the same category as teams that have lost the Finals one year and won it the following year.
Anyway, their core will be back, as will the Spurs' core. But it's not obvious that Griffin will be healthy after reinjuring his hip. And if you take the guys under contract for the Spurs and compare that to the guys under contract for the Clippers, it's not very close right now. They have a ton of work to do -- more so than the Spurs. You can act like it's a coin-flip all you want. I won't even dispute that. But that's taking a step back from saying they were the favorites just a post-cycle ago.
By next season, what the Spurs did in '13 and '14 will be 3 and 4 seasons ago. They're not the same team, haven't been since then and a barring something unforeseen, lack the capacity to improve much, if at all.
A virtual coin flip, but subjectively, in a best case scenario for both teams, I'd give them the slight edge.
I meant collectively.I meant 2015. Duncan, Leonard, Parker and Green all had games where they individually hit that next level. But they just didn't have them at the same time -- especially in the second half of that series.
It's been obvious for the past 2 seasons that the Spurs don't have that gear anymore. They had one dominant performance against an elite last season (game 1 of the WCSF) and otherwise struggled mightily to score against all of them.
I've lost all confidence in their ability to beat an elite team in a series and have them as fifth most likely to win the championship next season.
Nah, you missed the point hence:
We were talking about whether the calls against the Spurs in Game Five and Game Two had a legitimate affect on the outcome. You said they didn't because 'you knew they were going to lose the whole time'. I am saying I don't care about your claim. Maybe you did believe that. That doesn't matter and honestly this point doesn't matter either way. I am willing to scrap that entire argument for an "agree to disagree" resolution because it's just a sinkhole.The point is, what it took for the Cavs to win isn't applicable to the Spurs.
So are we ignoring 2014 in all this, or is it okay to chalk that one up to Ibaka being hurt but now assume that Ibaka wouldn't have been a huge factor in subsequent matchups?The bottom line is, their length and athleticism has repeatedly proven to smother the Spurs offense (sure, Ibaka was a big part of that, but he wasn't the only part).
So you're assuming Duncan gets injured again, which is whatever because I'm not assuming he's going to be tremendous either. But yes, losing one of their three legit bigs matters a lot considering you have been the leader of the "Spurs are too small to beat OKC" party. OKC is functionally smaller now than they were last year. If the Spurs get bigger at the same time, then it makes no sense to still give the nod to OKC.So what? I don't believe that swings this match-up and it may not even be true. If Duncan returns and by that point is in the same state he was in at the end of this past season, they can get by with Ilyasova on him unfortunately.
I mean, even if Durant and Westbrook are better play-makers, them having bad-shooting nights is just as deleterious, especially considering that they won't shoot less because of it. And now there's no Ibaka to shoot a bunch of fluky threes to balance them out.No, I mean that he struggles mightily creating for others and getting to the line, so when he has the inevitable off shooting nights, he doesn't offer much offensively and the same goes for Aldridge.
They don't. They have been a third-tier team the entire time. If you want to call that elite, I don't care. But if you want to act like they were in 2013 Spurs or 2015 Cavs, then I disagree strongly. They've never made it out of the second round. They simply don't have much to stand on right now.Not maybe, they do and have pretty much since Paul arrived.
First, who cares? Second, they have Aldridge now. They are much better than they were in 2015. And LMA has every chance to get better, as does Kawhi. , even Parker has a chance to improve over last season if he finds a way to fit into his role better. It's not like the Clippers have all this untapped potential.By next season, what the Spurs did in '13 and '14 will be 3 and 4 seasons ago. They're not the same team, haven't been since then and a barring something unforeseen, lack the capacity to improve much, if at all.
Subjective probability is almost completely useless. I couldn't care less about their "likelihood" to win. They either will or they won't. The question isn't how can they raise that number. It's what is the best team they can build after all is said and done. They don't need to think about other teams right now.I don't care what you say, to me, this team is no better than tied for fourth most likely to win the championship next season.
That was the initial point, but you love to veer off topic.
Another example of your lack of reading comprehension. I said they likely wouldn't have altered the outcome and that it ignores the reality that they controlled both games.
This isn't '14 anymore and I've always maintained, if Ibaka plays in the first 2 games, who knows how that series plays out? What we do know is, from game 3 of the '12 WCF on, the Thunder have had the Spurs number.So are we ignoring 2014 in all this, or is it okay to chalk that one up to Ibaka being hurt but now assume that Ibaka wouldn't have been a huge factor in subsequent matchups?
If you could transport the '14 Spurs to the '17 Spurs AND minus Ibaka, yeah, I'm not only favoring them over the Thunder, but any other team.
I'm not assuming, what I'm saying is, I'm not banking on 41 year old Duncan or should he retire, near 37 year old Gasol, to swing this match-up.So you're assuming Duncan gets injured again, which is whatever because I'm not assuming he's going to be tremendous either. But yes, losing one of their three legit bigs matters a lot considering you have been the leader of the "Spurs are too small to beat OKC" party. OKC is functionally smaller now than they were last year. If the Spurs get bigger at the same time, then it makes no sense to still give the nod to OKC.
I don't think I've ever once uttered the term "Spurs are too small to beat OKC". More made up .
They at least get to the line at a high rate.I mean, even if Durant and Westbrook are better play-makers, them having bad-shooting nights is just as deleterious, especially considering that they won't shoot less because of it. And now there's no Ibaka to shoot a bunch of fluky threes to balance them out.
Don't get me wrong, they've always been the last contender, a fringe one more than a true one. Projecting ahead to next season, I see the Spurs as now in that class.They don't. They have been a third-tier team the entire time. If you want to call that elite, I don't care. But if you want to act like they were in 2013 Spurs or 2015 Cavs, then I disagree strongly. They've never made it out of the second round. They simply don't have much to stand on right now.
They're not as good as they were. I don't care what their record and point differential says.First, who cares? Second, they have Aldridge now. They are much better than they were in 2015. And LMA has every chance to get better, as does Kawhi. , even Parker has a chance to improve over last season if he finds a way to fit into his role better. It's not like the Clippers have all this untapped potential.
Aldridge will be 31 entering his 11th season. Parker is an extremely rare example of getting better at that point. Most players either maintain or begin to decline.
Leonard will probably get incrementally better.
Parker will be another year older, coming off of another summer playing. He has no chance to be better and will be hard pressed to maintain.
The Clippers don't need untapped potential to beat the Spurs.
They won't because they're no longer good enough. Whether they'd be favorites over the Clippers is irrelevant. If Durant stays, you'd have to be delusional to think this team is beating three of the Warriors, Thunder, Cavaliers and Clippers.Subjective probability is almost completely useless. I couldn't care less about their "likelihood" to win. They either will or they won't. The question isn't how can they raise that number. It's what is the best team they can build after all is said and done. They don't need to think about other teams right now.
Hopefully to package him into some trade... he didn't look like an NBA player last summer...
Awww ... you did say Eric. How are the Spurs going to afford him? He's going to get at least full MLE money. I think it's more likely that someone is going to give him in the neighborhood of $8-9M. Maybe even $10-11 if his finger is totally fine, and he looks like he could be back at his best. If the FA market is as crazy as people are saying, that's not out of the question.
Sorry I didn't read closely enough, but when you were talking about him coming off the bench, I assumed you were talking about Ben. Yeah, Eric Gordon would be a of an addition, and he might sign to be a first guy off the bench. But I don't think he'll be signing any bargain contract to come here and just be part of a second unit. I think his finger will be fine, and he'll be starting for someone next season.
I went back and re-read, and you're talking about S&T to get him. What could the Spurs give that NO would be interested in? NO would have to get something tangible, to give up that cap space. Danny? That's about what it would take to get a S&T done, but it seems kind of self-defeating. Give up a starter to add a first-rate sixth man?
If there's a way to afford him, and he'd agree to come in a sixth man role, yeah I'd love to have him. That's a scenario to be excited about. Don't leave me hanging - what did you have in mind to make the money work? Sign Durant and be able to sign Gordon for the full MLE? If the Spurs could to that, and cobble together a couple of serviceable bigs? They would be right back in the mix next season. I think that's too many big "ifs" to actually happen, but it's a nice dream.
I've always wondered what chinook looks like
The Gordon comments come from talk about a Durant-less scenario, where the Spurs are forced to use the MLE and trades to improve around what is basically the same lineup. I also brought up Gordon when talking about pure cap scenarios. The hope is that the Spurs can essentially use the $20 Million or so that they'd have from everyone leaving to get Gordon and a legit starting big. Eric replaces Manu as the main offensive threat off the bench while the big replaces Duncan.
I think a scenario like that could help reinforce what is essentially a similar team if they were to remain mostly the same. They didn't get enough from the bench. I think personally the lack of a real presence inside from the bench group hurt them. Manu used to be an athletic guard that blew by bigs from a simple pick so you didn't need anyone else but him.
After years he could get by with his passing ability if he had a decent to great PnR big to whom he could pass to. Tiago worked wonders with Manu in that role. Alas, D west is not a good pick and roll big and from there on, everything was a contested jumpsho for everyone. It could work with an athletic guard in Manu's mold who can get to the rim on his own, or with a big who can score at the basket. Boban works in the last scenario, so we'll see. I do think they will try to reinforce the bench specifically and it's probably going beyond just bringing our stashed younger players over.
I think they aim to rebuild around Kawhi and are culling the potentials from the ones who will make it within the next couple of seasons, but they will still add someone for more immediate help. In reality you convinced me we are not that far off and a FA who addresses an area of weakness (doesn't have to be a star, just someone who can fix one of our problems at least), together with improvement from the younger players will keep us in contention. Teams always need a bit of luck to get past other elite teams if they are not that far off anyways.
Gotcha. I got caught skimming.
I think that $20M for Gordon and a legit big is going to be tough, but I guess that depends on how you define "legit". After seeing what OKC did to Golden State, I predicted that there was going to be a new big-man arms race this offseason. OKC blew the 3-1 lead, but I think the effect will still be the same.
Last time I looked, teams could only use the full (big) MLE if they are over the cap. Is that still the case? So I guess they could sign a big player and a few vet-min role players, then give Gordon the full MLE, assuming he would play for that? There should be enough room between the cap and the lux tax threshold for that. I know they always want to keep salaries in check, but they really don't want to play with the tax.
I hope Durant doesn't drag his feet. I don't think he's coming to SA, but it would be a real disaster if he waited a long time to decide not to, and the Spurs miss out on other players.
It's a little stricter than that. Teams can only use the MLE if the START THE SEASON over the cap. So there isn't a spending to the limit then having $5 Million more to spend. They get the $3-Million room exception. The moment they go under the cap.
I think Gordon may take a short deal for $6-8 Million a season. That would leave $13-15 Million to use on a big. Should be enough to lure at least one good one. Would potentially cost Boban, though.
Yes. Spurs should go after Roger Mason Jr all over again with Eric Gordon -- a defensive midget and liability. My goodness.
For as much as you post Chinook, you throw all you can at the wall in hopes of something to stick. From Kyle O Quinn to now Eric Gordon... Jesus, please help us all.
no to Eric Gordon.
Still riding that butt-hurt train for all it's worth, I see.
If you had any sense, you'd understand Manu is likely coming back, plus Spurs are loaded as it is at the wing with Kawhi and Green starting, and then with Bertans joining the Anderson/Simmons bench compe ion.
Why allocate the limited/valuable cap space towards most crowded position on the Spurs roster? Gordon would just stunt the growth of Anderson, Bertans, Murray while giving up truck loads of production from opposing wings because he can't defend worth a crap.
Get out of here with that Eric Gordon garbage.
This is so damned sad, dude.
Hence me telling GSH that the Gordon comments weren't really meant for the roster with Durant on it or even both Mills and Manu. You'd know that if you bothered to actually read instead of acting like a scorned lover anytime you see my screen name.
That's not even remotely loaded, especially considering that none of them are combo-guards.Spurs are loaded as it is at the wing with Kawhi and Green starting, and then with Bertans joining the Anderson/Simmons bench compe ion.
Better than signing Miles Plumlee.Why allocate the limited/valuable cap space towards most crowded position on the Spurs roster?
Doesn't play the same position as Anderson or Bertans, and Murray staying in the d-league for a year or so is not even remotely a bad thing. Manu would stunt Anderson's growth more than anyone.Gordon would just stunt the growth of Anderson, Bertans, Murray
Giving up truck-loads of production as a bench guard? He's not going to be worst than Beli or Neal.while giving up truck loads of production from opposing wings because he can't defend worth a crap
Neither is Gordon.
^^ I was going to say, Pop has taken in a large share of sieve guards so long as they could score. Heck all you had to run was a PNR defended by Mills and D west and you got a bucket or a foul, unfortunately.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
