Reply With Quote
I don't get how Gay with his bad contract generates so much interest. Toronto making Davis available is surprising...
Gay talks are heating up: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/88...zzlies-sources
I don't think the Raptors have what the Grizzlies want. However, they have some pieces that other teams may like in a mega-trade. It's possible that the Spurs with their expirings and young players can make a small trade or two if they feel like they need to improve still.
I don't get how Gay with his bad contract generates so much interest. Toronto making Davis available is surprising...
A contract is only bad if it precludes you from doing something you want to do. The Raptors have a huge void at the three and can definitely afford to overpay for a player like Gay. I'd see it as a good investment for them.
Good point but giving young assets for him sounds counterproductive at best, if they get him for Bargnani and Calderon I could see the point but if they send Davis and/or picks, it sounds extremely bad.
Honestly, if the Raptors can get Gay for Ed Davis, then they have to do it. They can't afford to sit around and watch people develop nowadays. If they get Arthur back as well (or maybe Sullinger from Boston for Lowery), then they have a better starting lineup than they do now. Despite what people think, Gay is a good player. If anything, Davis shouldn't be enough to get him since the Grizzlies are under the tax now.
Funny that TOR can't find any takers for Calderon (strange that Boston did show any interest so far considering what happened to Rondo).
Still, I wonder if ST fans would be willing to trade Jack straight up for Calderon to fix our backup PG problem (the biggest problem for SA so far this season).
What would the Spurs do with the 4 other backup PGs on the roster?
I would much rather flip Jax + CoJo + Blair (+ Nando if they insist) for Kirilenko and Ridnour. Minnesota wouldn't do it, though. Maybe for Williams, Ridnour, and Amundson (filler).
The problem is that SA doesn't really have 4 backup PGs, at least not reliable ones. Neal is a SG. Nando is a rookie combo guard, who showed great passing skills, but turns the ball over too much to be a reliable PG. Mills is a SG in a PG body and Cojo doesn't belong to the rotation. I am not saying I would do it but it's not like It doesn't make any sense.
Still, I think the Grizz and Tor might want to find a 3rd team to give them an asset for Calderon (the asset would go to the Grizz)
I would prefer your trade easily, but I don't think Minny would entertain it as you said.
Anyway, it's just a thought. It would be nice to get a great backup PG once again, even though losing Jack would hurt the team, especially in the playoffs.
I could see this going down . . .
To Mavericks: Calderon
To Grizzlies: Davis, Ross, Kleiza, Carter, (Dahntay) Jones, future 1st round pick (via Mavs)
To Raptors: Gay, Arthur, Beaubois
Mavs deplete their wing depth (they can bring back Douglas-Roberts for some scoring punch on the wing and/or just wait until Maggette inevitably get's bought out post deadline), but get an upgrade at PG, while not adding salary past this season
Grizzlies get two quality prospects, a 1st (which they're looking for), replace some of the outgoing scoring punch on the wing and shed significant long term salary
Raptors get a pseudo star and player they've long coveted, who also fills a longtime positional need, while plugging would be holes as well
Woj says that finding a third team to take Calderon is the final hurdle that must be cleared to move Gay to Toronto. The Spurs could be that team if they were willing to see Jack wind up on the Grizz. I don't think they would.
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=bhlme2k
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--gr...033758281.html
I'd prefer them not trading Jack to a team the Spurs could face in the playoffs. He'd be a Spurs killer.
I agree and I think the Spurs FO would also agree.
His name is Manu.
Probably the best back up point guard in the league, tbh. Spurs don't need a pure point guard if Manu's coming off the bench. They need to find a defensive (good 3 point spot up shooting) 6'1"- 6'4" guy that can play with Manu and defend opposing point guards (defending the back-up point guard is the Spurs weakness; not necessarily offensive point guard play).
I honestly think Corey Joseph has the tools to be that guy but we won't really find that out til next year.
When I said backup PG problems, It was essentially pointing out the guys that play with Manu (Neal, Mills, Nando), not Manu. All of them are crap defenders and when SA plays against a team like the Clips with Bledsoe, it's like a living nightmare when he pressures our guys.
I will be honest. I don't like Manu coming off the bench. I understand he has do it because of our personnel, but if SA could get a reliable backup PG (Calderon for example), SA could simply start Manu and pair Calderon with Green, who fits your description of a guy that could guard 1-3 and shoot 3s.
I agree with you that Cory fits our need, but we have to be realistic here because he won't play significant minutes this season.
In the end, it's just an idea. I agree with Mel in a sense that that's not how the FO thinks. They value Jack and they know they can count on him in the post-season, when it matters.
I actually love Manu off the bench. Why? Because it balances out the offensive efficiency throughout the duration of the 48 minutes. With Manu coming off the bench, Spurs will always have Manu or Parker ( or both) on the court at all times. That's huge in the long run.
And yeah I don't see them ever trading Jack to Memphis or any contender or anyone period for a back up point guard. You don't ever trade an important 20-25 mpg proven playoff performer for a player that wont see more than 14 minutes at best come post season ( Parker will play heavy minutes). Makes no sense to.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 01-30-2013 at 12:03 PM.
A guy that fits the bill is Avery Bradley. If the Celtics continue regressing, he could be available. But the price for him may be too high for what the Spurs are willing to offer ( De Colo/Neal?).
In theory what you're saying makes sense and I don't disagree with you. But it's only practical when none of the starting pieces struggle. We all saw the meltdown with SAS offense when Green could not hit an open 3 against OKC. All the offensive balance went the " " and Pop had o start Manu in the middle of the WCF, he benched Green for the rest of the series and we saw Neal obligated to run the offense in the 2nd unit, which is always a bad idea.
Not saying that SA should jump all over it or anything, but I don't agree with you that It doesn't make sense. I reliable backup PG always make sense, especially when you have guys like Neal or Mills who can't handle to ball to save their lives.
Bradley is essentially untouchable, unless you're sending a star to Boston. Neal/De Colo can't get it done. Not even close tbh.
That was on Pop's watch, IMO. If you told me before the series started that for games 5-6, the Spurs would be without their 2nd best big man (Pop limited Splitters' minutes to the bare minimum) and without their starting 2 guard, I would have told you Spurs lose both games. And that's exactly what happened. (How good would OKC be those last 2 games without their 2nd best big man and Sefolosha?)
Sure Green couldn't buy a three in the WCF for 4 games, but the guy hit shots all damn year long (44% from three that year in over 234 attempts) and he was shooting 46% from 3 leading up to the OKC series in over 35 attempts (he was money for 8 playoff games in a row). You don't bury your depth because of the output of a small sample size. You don't. If anything you stick to your guns and just keep certain players on shorter leashes. Especially with this Spurs team, where the main 3 horses are up there in age and need to conserve more energy than they've been accustomed to in previous deep runs during their championship years (meaning utilizing the depth is essential to maintaining efficient output of the Big 3) .
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 01-30-2013 at 01:41 PM.
You're over exaggerating a little too much, tbh. Neal or Mills aren't Pete Maravich with the ball by any means. But they can make due for 14 mpg at most playing with Manu off the bench. The Spurs bringing up the ball and setting up the offense was not a weakness and wasn't the reason they lost last year. The reason they lost is because they were out executed by a younger, quicker, damn good team when it mattered. They couldn't make enough stops and couldn't make enough shots when it mattered.
A star for a back up PG with a PER of 9.5? I disagree. Bradley's value has dropped since last year. And I never said Neal/De Colo could get it done, I said that's what the Spurs would probably offer initially.
I don't think Pop was counting on Green's disappearing at all. In fact, I believe he was totally confident on him considering he had good series against the Jazz and the Clips. Jack, on the other hand, played like in the Clips series, barely getting minutes against them. He only got Pop's confidence after hitting big shot after big shot in the OKC series. Pop simply had no choice other than let him play meaningful minutes.
Splitter didn't play a lot of minutes because Pop didn't trust him and in Pop's mind, Splitter was not the 2nd best BIG of the team ,Diaw was, and that was why Boris was starting. Splitter was essentially Duncan's backup and had no confidence whatsoever with his shot, especially at the FT line. He couldn't even post up Fisher and that's pathetic.
What Green does in the regular season doesn't matter if he can't do it during the whole post-season. That's exactly why Spurs fans hate Matt Bonner (the regular season hero) and that's exactly why Spurs fans don't give a about Jack's numbers in the regular season.
Yeah utilizing depth is essential to this team, but it's worthless if the starters that play big minutes in the playoffs don't deliver. I am not exaggerating about Neal and Mills. We simply can't trust them with the ball, especially facing teams with guys like Bledsoe, Bradley, Shumpert, etc.
The OKC series had a lot of factors. Everything was fine while Parker was getting his buckets, hence 2 great wins at home.
Once they started to switch on the P&R and put Thabo on TP, the offensive flow was destroyed. Green couldn't buy a bucket, Diaw was ignored by OKC's defense and Timmy struggled offensively against Ibaka/Perk. Manu stepped up in that series and so did Jack, but that wasn't enough.
Bradley isn't a PG, he is an undersized SG. His PER doesn't matter for 2 factors :
1st - PER is not good to measure the defensive impact of player (Bowen was always awful in terms of PER). Bradley is one of the best defensive guards in the league. If you don't believe me, watch a Boston game.
2nd - He is coming back from a serious injury.
Yeah his value may have dropped because of his injury and that's exactly why Boston should sell him low now. It wouldn't make any sense.
Lol at MAnu being able to play PG, you want him to set a turnover record or something?
Manu's assist to turnover ratio is the second best on the team by a considerable margin and compares favorably with many starting PGs in the NBA, including All Stars such as Westbrook and Holiday.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
