okc can't sign him.
Ugh. Fredette sucks.
okc can't sign him.
he's been making threes all year, but trust me on that, mcbob is not a stretch 4. He is one my favourites though.
nah i don't agree, he is very athletic and a great per minute rebounder, he is getting less rebs in charlotte because he is playing like a stretch 4 which he is not.
was a net cancer in both
Ha. The good thing is it seems they are likely to keep Mills which is far and away the best scenario apart from some pipe dream hypothetical. But Fredette could work as a reclamation project.he needs the ball a little too much but given the right environment he can provide value. He can still shoot and having space and a system would help. His drawback would be poor defense and below average foot speed. He's like Patty and Gary Neal in that he's a willing shooter and like Neal but not Patty in terms of defense.
I think Patty will only get better tbqh.
I am leaning on the Spurs signing Frye in free agency and that is it besides signing Diaw and Mills.
He's good value if it's the full MLE for only one year to preserve cap room for 2015. I wouldn't pay him $15m/3yr but for $5m/1yr he'd be great
I think the MLE has to be for more than one year.
It can be used for players UP TO 4 years for teams who are not paying the tax, and UP TO 3 years for those paying the tax.
I don't believe so. S&Ts do. What's true regardless is that the subsequent years don't have to be guaranteed. So the Spurs could give McRoberts a deal that would only clog the cap for one year. Provided he's willing, of course.
I'm not too sure what people really see in McRoberts.Sure he can stretch the floor to a degree and has some toughness about him, but his shot selection and BBIQ on both ends is pretty terrible. Not a fan.
Ah, thanks.
He has a great year passing the ball. He's mobile, athletic amd can now shoot. If he buys in to the system, he'd be tje best fit out there.
Meh, he can shoot, but his shot selection ( or lack thereof) negates his true accuracy (too many ill-advised/contested long 2's for my liking).
Would rather go the internal improvement route and go w/ Baynes for 1/3rd; 1/4th of McRoberts' market value. And I'm not a huge fan of that scenario.
Hawes or Frye are better fits, but will cost 1-2 mil more per.
Neither Hawes nor Fyre fit better than McRoberts would. They are stretch-fives, which the Spurs do not need. They also are not as adept at passing the ball (although I seem to recall that Channing can do it at an acceptable level). They lack Josh's athleticism and mobility, which sort of negates their ability to play next to Duncan. The main thing they have is that they are more proven in their current roles. McRoberts just started being a stretch-four this year, and there are still some growing pains. But Josh's potential there is tremendous.
Baynes is a center, which means he and McRoberts aren't fighting for the same minutes. If Aron holds on, it will be as the third center just like he was this year. If Pop starts Splitter/Duncan again, then of course the third center gets fourth-big minutes. But If Pop does the right thing and trends away from that combo, then Baynes will get the few minutes Tim and Tiago don't eat. In any event, getting a second reliable power-forward is pretty key, as Bonner's ability to play the position more than situationally is in question. Also, Baynes will probably make about half of what McRoberts will make. I think Aron earned a bigger raise (percentage-wise) than Josh did.
Shot selection is mostly the result of the system teams run. Josh had to shoot a lot in the Miami series, since he was often left open and his team needed the points. In the Spurs' system, he'd get fewer shots, by they'd be better looks. Provided he continues to work on his form (with Chip if he lands in SA), then McRoberts could end up being a strong shooter.
While McRoberts would be a great fit, if they draft Jokic I don't see the point tbh... Spend the MLE on a wing that can play with Manu without creating complete chaos on defense (basically not Beli)... Or on a PG/combo guard if Mills walks...
Last edited by Baam; 06-20-2014 at 01:30 PM.
In any case the Spurs need to keep Chip.
I believe Kerr was the main threat to recruit him and they signed Gentry as the first assistant so I think it's pretty much a given he's staying...
Hawes or Frye are better players but would want multi year deals. $5m is overpaying for McRoberts, but he could possibly get $7m/2yr elsewhere so we'd need to pay him more to compensate for taking less years.
As for Chinooks post, there's simply no difference between a stretch 4 and a stretch 5. Both just a big man who can shoot the 3.
Lol. Of course there's a difference. Stretch-fours play PF, and stretch-fives play C. Literally, the only thing they have in common is that they shoot threes.
The difference is on defense, right? I would expect a stretch 5 to have some semblance of rim protection or post defense, while I would expect a stretch 4 to be more comfortable defending PnRs and stepping out to contest midrange jumpers. On offense, positional designations are less meaningful.
Yes, it's most important on defense. But it still matters on offense. Could McRoberts start next to Millsap or Thad Young? Size matters when it comes to setting screens and rebounding, both of which stretch-fives should be expected to do over their PF counterparts.
Complete semantics between the power forward and center position. A center with a jumpshot is just a tall power forward. Same way a power forward who can't shoot a jump shot is an undersized center.
What makes Blair a center and Bosh a power forward? Maybe there used to be a difference when every team has a big bruising 7 footer but the game has changed, the positions are interchangeable. No difference at all between a stretch 4 or stretch 5.
You have it backwards. PF and C USED TO BE interchangeable back when Duncan and Garnett came into the league. Now, they're divergent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions