Reply With Quote
We are way past that, but not that it matters like I said. This whole thread is hypothetical anyways.
Talk to me when your definition of a question actually ends in a question mark.
We are way past that, but not that it matters like I said. This whole thread is hypothetical anyways.
I answered your 2 questions already, aint a troll but whatever IMHO
I haven't seen Clarkson play, but just by looking at the measurements and his stats, I would take Simmons. They both have a high vertical but Simmons has 3" reach advantage. Furthermore, Clarksons stats, specifically the 3 point shooting at 33% this season isn't really great.This was your question" Isn't Clarkson a kind of better Simmons anyway?"
I answered it by saying Id prefer both same type of players than a scrub. But if your question is would I trade Simmons plus a first for Clarkson, then that would be interesting, hard to answer.
Enough to make the assessment of him that I made. Get's to the rim well, is an improved shooter, but not much of a play maker. He'd be best playing alongside another guard or wing that can handle lead play making duties, similar to Hill.
Still, he'd be a nice fit next to Mills, for the simple fact that he can defend SG's and at least act as a co-PG offensively. It's all moot anyway though.
Watching Clarkson play the point against the Dubs right now. Really a game of a pawn versus a queen, Clarkson looks like the Lakers' best player by a good margin. Kobe and Russell are out. The Lakers are a train wreck, painful to watch. Their D looks like a Chinese fire drill.
Imho he was their best player last year aswell, making all rookie first of course it doesnt say much but the potential and the materialization is atleast there.
Any reclamation projects/bad fits on current team out there that may have the right combination of compelling skill, salary, and favorable team control?
Ben McLemore comes to mind.
After reading Manu's article in La Nacion and how happy all bench guys are in their roles, even the diminished one's, how surprisingly good and useful Simmons ha been, how well Boban is doing every chance he get to play and how much they love Anderson (me encanta means they love him) and how they find it hard to even get these guys minutes, a trade this season is out the window. Butler and Bonner also had the rest of the year just guaranteed and it seems like this is the group that we are staying put with.
Between Simmons looking good and Green gaining form, the Spurs don't have a need for a veteran fourth wing. The bigs are in great shape too. The only reason to cut anyone would be to protect a d-league prospect (like they did with Daye/JMG), but the best Toro prospect is Lalanne, and he's already protected.
I think you're reaching with the Spanish semantics, though. I'm sure Manu and the Spurs like Anderson just fine, but there's little functional difference between "me gusta" and "me encanta", at least not enough to code meaning into Manu's usage. Not to mention that "me encanta" literally means "he enchants me", while "me gusta" literally means "he tastes good to me". If Manu were really thinking about subtle meanings, it's no wonder he went with the former.
I am native in Spanish. Me encanta is a lot stronger than me gusta. It's ok if you don't infer that Manu loves playing with him, but it's actually a good translation. Certainly stronger than I like playing with him.
Only way I see him traded is if the Spurs don't have a plan for him next season and plan on leaving him out of the rotation. Even then they probably still want him for depth, but hes good enough to get minutes somewhere and he might eventually grow dissatisfied like Nando was. But considering how Pop has gone out if his way to find him minutes and play time despite the win now mode and the serious depth of the rotation, I don't think they plan on giving him up.
I am not suggesting that Anderson is going to get traded. I don't think the team needs anything this year, and PATFO don't really trade for the future. Anyway, I know what the colloquial translation of "me encanta" is. I never questioned what it denotes, only what it connotes. People use "love" in a lot of contexts where it doesn't really have a lot of strengths. It's like people putting exclamation points when they're not really shouting. If you google "I love playing with/for", you'll get a ton of responses from situations where it's clear they don't mean it very strongly (like Murray and the Eagles). I simply think that Manu was saying "It's cool to play with Kyle" and not "Playing with Kyle is the most awesomest thing in the whole universe".
I disagree with you bc me encanta is not the same as ahh it's cool. Personally, me encanta goes right next to really liking someone, really enjoying playing with someone and if you say you love playing with someone you don't have to emphasize "really".
I used the translation that Manu loves playing with him, but Nono translated it as "really like him". You add the adverb "really" to emphasize that it's beyond your casual ahh it's cool like say playing with Ayers was cool. (Was it?) That was a bit of sarcasm by me to spin a bit of humor here, but for sure me encanta causes the inference that Manu enjoys playing with him a whole lot, which is just a tad above ahh it's cool.
You are talking semantics when you should be talking inflection. I didn't hear the quote from Manu, so I don't know.
Its on that post from ElNono, about the article from LaNacion.
If you didn't read the article its a good one.
Edit: for future reference and anyone who didn't read that article. Its referenced here: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...49#post8365849
and here is the original in Spanish http://canchallena.lanacion.com.ar/1...-la-diferencia
I thought the quote was from a spoken interview. Expressions like that are best understood if spoken. In print it could be anything, as it could in English. Since Manu spends more ink on Simmons in the article, he could intend the expression, "me encanta" to mean literally anything from,"I also love playing with Kyle" to something more glowing. A real nada IMHO.
He didn't say "also". He stated he really liked him, or liked him very much, or loved him take your pick. A lot is said about others in that essay including how special his relationship on and off the court is with Patty and Boris. And he made comments specifically referencing other players.
I take his words to mean exactly what he said concerning Kyle. If you value what he stated about others to mean what he said, then this is also true. He really likes the player.
Just for the record, I didn't say that he said "also". I said that might reasonably have been his intent in the context. It is just too uncertain. And I was not intending to offer a synopsis of the entire article - just saying that in that paragraph of the article and in the context of our Simmons/Kyle discussion, Manu started with Simmons and devoted more ink to him. In the final analysis I have no reason to doubt that he is high on Kyle. I just wish his comments had been spoken not written. We could certainly discern more that way.
Oh ok. Not wanting to enter a debate bc all of this came from just my estimation based on Manu's essay that everyone is really satisfied with their roles and that despite Anderson's relative lack of playing time they really like him (love him was my translation). I referenced him specifically bc he's been the subject of most trade ideas here in this thread, but also if you read the article and have watched the team recently you would know the other guys are contributing more, and Anderson seems to have lost minutes and also seems to need more development. Within that context it was revealing to me that Manu specifically said they love him over there, or really like him, or whatever is the expression the reader wants to infer on their own.
Then Chinook and I started a debate on the meaning of Manu's expression, but it was limited to that. Chinook saying he didn't think it meant as much as I thought but he still didn't see a trade happening. I posted the article for casual visitors who had missed it(like yourself) and would want to draw their own conclusions or were confused by my debate of sorts with Chinook over the expression. It also gives a broader context as you noted. I limited my initial comment to Kyle, but there was more there about the whole bench.
Anyone who is interested in the debate can also read it and make their own inferences. I never mentioned Simmons in all of this or Boban, until you brought them up specifically, bc initially it was obvious they are contributing, and their games are more developed or established at this point and save the rare comment on Simmons, most of the trade discussion centered on Anderson.
But I did specify I don't see any trades happening anyway. Despite limited roles this season fir these 3, they may need to step into larger roles next season or the one after if they are still here.
I said weeks ago that I would be stunned if the Spurs made any moves this season - even more so now that Rocket and Rasual are guaranteed for the duration. I also said weeks ago that I hope that Kyle and Simmons represent the Spurs TNG. I think Pop has hopes/expectations that mirror my own. I made those comments before Boban was seeing the court much except in garbage time. I would add him to those hopes/expectations now. My whole point about Manu that you have either missed or ignored is that we would be in a better position to know what Manu meant if he had spoken the words for us to hear rather than written them for us to read. Inflection can make all the difference.
I apologize. We had indeed a misunderstanding. My initial comment was very narrow to the trades ideas. My discussion with Chinook was also very narrow (at least from my point of view, can't say Chinook's) to a translation. You were the first I suppose to bring context, and inflection into it from the perspective of how things were said. (Maybe Chinook went into inflection a bit, but I was more literal in sticking to a translation bc from reading the essay, any smart person can come to their own conclusions concerning context and I was not going to dispute what Chinook concluded on his own, but I could argue a translation). When you stated you didn't hear the comment and could not infer more, I provided the text. I was still being very literal, and I thought you simply didn't know that the expression we were discussing was in an essay... so that caused some confusion. I was still talking translation and you meant something else. It was figuratively talking apples and oranges. Before I talk oranges with you, I have one last apple to share. Jesus Gomez from Pounding the Rock translated the quote:
This translation also supports that my original translation was good as far as what was written and accurately translating it to English.Even Kyle Anderson, whose game I love, has helped us a lot
Now to talk oranges. I guess I now understand why you inferred Manu meant:referencing Simmons. Originally that threw me off. I quite honestly didn't understand why you had to talk about Simmons or other guys, when the discussion had been limited to the statement quoted concerning one guy, but now I guess I do. You can discern some things from context for sure, and word selection. The context of the statement I quoted came right after Manu had given a very approving review of Simmons and Boban's recent games. In Simmons' case, it was a gratifying surprise for him that he was playing so well after being so raw in preseason and he acknowledged that he's helped the team out a lot and brings some unique things that perhaps no one else has (not even Kawhi... that is glowing!!). In Boban's case, they knew he was a good player but it was questionable whether or not he could adapt to the NBA speed, therefore it was a pleasant surprise as well to see him come around so quickly and contribute to wins. In that context, Manu devoted less words to Kyle, but he might have felt the need to be more explicit in how much he likes playing with him because otherwise Kyle's contributions would go unnoticed and he would be overlooked as an important contributor in the bench. Someone would infer that he is a guy that is not in the level of the other two because he had lost playing time. To do the guy justice, he had to be explicit in stating that he has helped out a lot when he's played, he loves his game, and the reason he hasn't played is because they have a deep bench rotation and go with matches.,"I also love playing with Kyle"
Yes I agree with you that Manu didn't mean he loved Kyle's game more than anyone else's, or that he was more special than anyone (Maybe this is what Chinook meant as well, now that I think about it). I think it simply meant what he said, that he loves playing with him and his contributions have helped. Considering that Kyle has not played much outside of garbage time or against weak teams recently, I was happy to find out that they have him in high esteem, regardless of how he's ranked with anyone. Just independently of other guys, you could say, they really like him. (It is like selecting your favorite children... do you need to? Can you not appreciate anyone individually? It will be unfair to compare them, as they are different and someone is bound to be on the losing end.)
If anything for the wing position I think Pop indeed prefers Simmons because he's more athletic and can certainly bring some things to the team that no one else has. Kyle's skillset is repe ive in this current bench. Some people have taken the issues of fit too far to criticize Kyle, as if all of a sudden he's a guy who can't play. He's still a developing kid, much younger than Simmons/Boban, who is still in the formative stages of his game at this level, but what he can really bring to the team will probably not flourish yet, as he needs more confidence, better outside shooting, and possibly also more opportunities. His game, like Manu's requires chemistry and rhythm with guys to make adequate/timely passes. He's not a guy who is going to suck in the help regularly like Tony, Manu, Simmons (even they don't suck in the help regularly and sometimes if they attack the basket have to be prepared to finish vs a big guy, as they are not necessarily getting doubled, with opportunities for passing). Kyle's passing is more based on an understanding of angles, and having good court vision, spotting things, guys open for a moment. It's what Becky and Pop have stated essentially, and from seeing him find cutters and guys moving off the ball in other leagues, I know that he creates for others in ways that are unorthodox. He wasn't a PnR heavy kind of PG even in college. He was just a master of finding guys in transition, cutting, curling, coming off screens, alley oops, a whole lot of other kinds of passes. He's been unable to develop much of that with all the yanking early in the season, Pop's super strict coaching and now he's getting less chances and this season was not going to be about his development anyways.
Last edited by SAGirl; 01-14-2016 at 01:56 PM. Reason: long post, grammatical errors.
No need to apologize - we just weren't connecting. However, you were not being too literal when I was using words like "inflection," "hear" and "spoken."
Covington!
Can the Spurs even be players in waiver market this year? i forget how that process works.
I assume Bonner would have to be cut first.
Also does the Duncan knee thing make it more likely the Spurs do a small trade for a 4/5 big?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions