Reply With Quote
It's gotta be a combination of 1-2...
I've made it clear I'm on board going ALL IN on Paul..
We've heard it all ad nauseam: They'd have to gut the team; he'll be drastically overpaid in years 3 and 4; he's ball dominant; he's overly demanding/tough to play with; he's a "choker". Here's the alternatives . . .
1) Run it (mostly) back and pay substantially more for current team.
2) Let majority of free agents walk, replace with relatively inexpensive short term contracts and attain as much flexibility as possible for (unimpressive) '18 free agent class.
3) Pursue Holiday, Hill, etc., instead and if successful, pay lesser but still substantial amount to significantly worse player than Paul.
Using current information at disposal (so no hypotheticals, like "Murray becomes a star"), explain how any of those get them closer to a championship than a top 6-8 player.
It's gotta be a combination of 1-2...
I've made it clear I'm on board going ALL IN on Paul..
No easy answers because none of the guys we are looking at will ensure we beat GSW. We'd still be heavy underdogs.
Heavy underdogs?
Come on...we weren't even heavy underdogs this year, and I anticipate the team will improve somehow over the summer.
We were heavy underdogs to win in 7. Some people act like the fact that we might have won game 1 by 20 if Kawhi hadn't gotten injured meant we were going to beat the Warriors to 4 games. Nonsense. Houston beat us by 20 in game 1 and we beat them down the rest of the way. Most experts gave us 1 or 2 games. That said, changing up the team to add Paul makes us different, but not necessarily better and not at GSW level.
On a bang for the buck perspective I would rather have george hill instead of cp3.
George hill's age.and size/length are the primary reasons. With his wingspan he plays like a 6'5 or above defender.
He is not ball dominant like cp3. Still in his prime and in tip top shape. Better 3 point shooter and a better defender at this point in cp3's career.
I think he would fit in seemlessly.
These folks won't admit it but they are essentially in "wait out" mode that doesn't leave the team in the best position to take advantage of potential GSW misfortune in next few years (injuries, fatigue, internal strife, coaching instability/downgrade (Kerr health status) etc..)
It's just a more polite way of conceding everything to GS than Harlem's "no shame losing to the Warriors" bandwagon stance..
Depends on the cost, but I think Lowry is a much better fit with Kawhi and LMA. If he's max or bust, you bust. But if you can add him and someone else, that's better than Paul.
I don't really have one.
In reality, on top of a adding a significant contributor in FA, they need young player development. And also, they need to stop overpaying roleplayers. So I am against overpaying Mills or JSimms, which would take out option 2.
Im scared of Lowry and his propensity to disappear or get injured in the playoffs.
So I take it you won't be on the pay Kyle bandwagon next offseason then
Ditch cp3, wait for cap space to lure Lebron in 2018. In the meantime, bolster up with a solid PG in George Hill or a shooting point in Andre Igoudala (if Spurs have the means to pay them, of course). The staring lineup will either be:
-George Hill, Jonathan Simmons / DG, Kawhi, LMA, Pau
or
-Dejounte, Iggy, Kawhi, LMA, and Pau
for the first couple months until Parker comes back.
I don't think people realize this, but George Hill is 31 years old with a more injury-prone body than CP3
That role player will cost no less than $25M/yr. No thanks. I'm out.
Spurs don't need another ball dominant player right now. Just look at them when they signed LMA. What the Spurs need right now is a consistent role player that will make 3's when needed (since DG can't do that anymore), and at least have the ability to take the ball up the court (which Mills can't do). The last thing the Spurs need is giving the ball to cp3 who dribbles it out in 20 seconds out of the 24 second shot clock for an iso play or dumping it in the post to LMA who does fadeaways instead of taking it to the rim.I don't think people realize this, but George Hill is 31 years old with a more injury-prone body than CP3
That role player will cost no less than $25M/yr. No thanks. I'm out.
Let's be honest. Kawhi is the only good ball handler we have. He'll be better off taking a break and letting CP3 do his thing, just like Lebron does with Kyrie or KD does with Curry. Right now Kawhi has to be our best defender and only creator on offense, that's so ed up that even Kerr said we're too over dependent on him.
We don't need anymore little game managers that can't run an offense and will just stand in the corner and toss it to Aldridge in the post. Spurs need stars.
Again, the question is about odds. There's no move anyone can make that would make them favorites against Warriors.
Ball dominant is overstated. The more talent you play with, the less the ball will be in your hands and it can work fine as long as there's enough range shooting. Leonard-Paul-Aldridge provide that. Spurs have played a lot of ISO ball with Leonard-Aldridge previous 2 years because of lack of consistent creator at guard. Having Paul would change dynamics. Instead of forcing Aldridge to masquerade as prime Duncan in post, he'd be more of a pick-and-pop/floor spacer, like Heat Bosh and Cavaliers Love. Leonard and Paul would get more catch and shoots too, playing off of each other.
The idea of CP3 running pick and pop with Aldridge while Kawhi is able to "rest" on offense should not only make LMA a more effective player but allow Kawhi to use more energy on defense.
Spot on, tbh..
No brainer on Paul if they can pull it off. The biggest problem the Spurs have is at PG - you all saw what happened when Parker went down. And after Kawhi went down the Spurs's offense was gone. Mills couldn't make a pass and it kills everything else.
Currently, the Spurs have no reliable PG so I'm not sure how they plan to start the year. You bring Paul and then maybe you bring Lebron the following year
Parker can run a PnR as well as most guards. The problem for the Spurs is that LMA doesn't want to play that way, and having Paul isn't going to make him do so.
If you had
a) Kahwichael
b) a motivated LMA who came ready to play to his potential (meaning as an athletic Z-Bo will a great PnR game) and never backed down and
c) Jrue Holiday or Jeff Teague
The Spurs would be almost even with GS. But getting LMA to play better is almost independent of the guard he plays with at this point. Paul would make off-ball role-players better. He won't make iso-oriented jump-shooters better.
And no, I'm not advocating Teague or Jrue. I'm just saying that Paul and LMA aren't a great fit together unless LMA changes his game.
LMA and CP3 is a great fit dude. CP3 gives blake WIDE OPEN ING SHOTS. LMA would not need to be so much of an ISO scorer. That's without LMA changing his game.
Wtf. Spurs would win with 4/5 of a team.
That would actually work out, as LMA does better in those situations.
cp3 doesn't give blake wide open shots... opposing teams give blake wide open shots. It's the other way around.
Who will get LMA to set a pick?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
