Cause and effect question....

[Phenomanul]

Drew Gooden was probably a guy who couldn't have thrived in a highly structured offense like the Spurs' (maybe with a couple of years and perhaps with several training camps under his belt??)... Anyway it's a difficult question to answer, but if the Spurs had known that they were going to scrap more than half of their playbook to transition into a more fluid offense (one that caters more to Gooden's game). Should he have been kept? His post game was second only to Duncan's last year... He's looking pretty good with Dallas thus far....

yeah, yeah... I know... more lux tax.... still an interesting question.

[ss1986v2]

Drew Gooden was probably a guy who couldn't have thrived in a highly structured offense like the Spurs' (maybe with a couple of years and perhaps with several training camps under his belt??)... Anyway it's a difficult question to answer, but if the Spurs had known that they were going to scrap more than half of their playbook to transition into a more fluid offense (one that caters more to Gooden's game). Should he have been kept? His post game was second only to Duncan's last year... He's looking pretty good with Dallas thus far....

yeah, yeah... I know... more lux tax.... still an interesting question.

keeping gooden meant no dice. which would you have chosen?

[Phenomanul]

keeping gooden meant no dice. which would you have chosen?

Not the same positions, I know... but the Spurs aquisition of Haislip came from no where as did the acquisition of Bogans....

Gooden is better than both... probably not as good of a fit as Dice though... the season is yet to tell...

[ducks]

gooden is playing PREASON GAMES not regular season games

[Interrohater]

Yea, you make an interesting point. He was incredibly slow, to me, in defensive rotations, which would have him sitting on the bench anyway if Pop really is trying to revert back to a "defense first" mindset. I wonder if it's still too early to throw the book at Haislip since we've only seen him play twice with not only a new team, but an entirely different mindset. He's been playing overseas for a minute, he may just need a bit of time to adjust. I sure as hell hope so.

[Buddy Holly]

Gooden's terrible IQ and ball hogging weren't welcomed on this team.

For every one good thing he did he did three bad things.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the key difference -- to me, at least -- is that while Gooden can find ways to score the basketball (perhaps, that's exactly why he would tend to thrive in a more open offense), he's an absolute turnstile on the defensive end.

At the end of the day, the addition of Jefferson and his inclusion in the offense should help the Spurs to be an above-average offensive team (if Duncan and Ginobili stay healthy), but reliance on Gooden would have made the Spurs a middling defensive team and one likely to go out in the 2nd round or earlier.

It remains true that defense is the difference between being a playoff team and winning titles, and I just don't think that Drew Gooden's offensive production -- no matter the system -- could mask his fairly glaring defensive deficiencies. With that in mind, I don't think its just a coincidence that after Jefferson, the Spurs' biggest transactions this summer have almost entirely been aimed at finding people who are at least perceived to be reliable defenders at this level -- McDyess, Ratliff, Bogans.

[Interrohater]

i think the key difference -- to me, at least -- is that while gooden can find ways to score the basketball (perhaps, that's exactly why he would tend to thrive in a more open offense), he's an absolute turnstile on the defensive end.

At the end of the day, the addition of jefferson and his inclusion in the offense should help the spurs to be an above-average offensive team (if duncan and ginobili stay healthy), but reliance on gooden would have made the spurs a middling defensive team and one likely to go out in the 2nd round or earlier.

It remains true that defense is the difference between being a playoff team and winning titles, and i just don't think that drew gooden's offensive production -- no matter the system -- could mask his fairly glaring defensive deficiencies. With that in mind, i don't think its just a coincidence that after jefferson, the spurs' biggest transactions this summer have almost entirely been aimed at finding people who are at least perceived to be reliable defenders at this level -- mcdyess, ratliff, bogans.
+1

[Phenomanul]

I think the key difference -- to me, at least -- is that while Gooden can find ways to score the basketball (perhaps, that's exactly why he would tend to thrive in a more open offense), he's an absolute turnstile on the defensive end.

At the end of the day, the addition of Jefferson and his inclusion in the offense should help the Spurs to be an above-average offensive team (if Duncan and Ginobili stay healthy), but reliance on Gooden would have made the Spurs a middling defensive team and one likely to go out in the 2nd round or earlier.

It remains true that defense is the difference between being a playoff team and winning titles, and I just don't think that Drew Gooden's offensive production -- no matter the system -- could mask his fairly glaring defensive deficiencies. With that in mind, I don't think its just a coincidence that after Jefferson, the Spurs' biggest transactions this summer have almost entirely been aimed at finding people who are at least perceived to be reliable defenders at this level -- McDyess, Ratliff, Bogans.

Fair enough...

You probably hit the nail on the head... I'm sure the Spurs' brass probably saw those same attributes you mention (factoring into their decision to let Gooden walk)... So it's highly plausible that the decision was made regardless of the size of the Spurs' playbook... or whether or not its complexity would even be altered....

The return to defensive dominance was far more important to management than any perceived offensive advantage/versatility...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Gooden's terrible IQ and ball hogging weren't welcomed on this team.

For every one good thing he did he did three bad things.


I think the key difference -- to me, at least -- is that while Gooden can find ways to score the basketball (perhaps, that's exactly why he would tend to thrive in a more open offense), he's an absolute turnstile on the defensive end.

At the end of the day, the addition of Jefferson and his inclusion in the offense should help the Spurs to be an above-average offensive team (if Duncan and Ginobili stay healthy), but reliance on Gooden would have made the Spurs a middling defensive team and one likely to go out in the 2nd round or earlier.

It remains true that defense is the difference between being a playoff team and winning titles, and I just don't think that Drew Gooden's offensive production -- no matter the system -- could mask his fairly glaring defensive deficiencies. With that in mind, I don't think its just a coincidence that after Jefferson, the Spurs' biggest transactions this summer have almost entirely been aimed at finding people who are at least perceived to be reliable defenders at this level -- McDyess, Ratliff, Bogans.

Gooden is no loss for the reasons stated above. His ball-hooging stagnated the offense, and his defensive ineptitude was glaring.

[Phenomanul]

I can agree with criticizing Gooden's defensive impact...

I don't agree so much with the notion that he stagnated the offense (over-stressed a bit maybe?)... again, I believe that this particular attribute was likely perceived due to his lack of the knowledge of the Spurs' sets... In fact, most of his pick'n'rolls with Manu were textbook...

[FromWayDowntown]

The return to defensive dominance was far more important to management than any perceived offensive advantage/versatility...

I'm not sure I'd put it in quite those terms, but I think that's the general idea.

I think the Spurs brass understands that this team must score to win; and I don't think they honestly believe that they'll be the defensive machine that they were in the early-to-mid 00's. But I think this summer's moves evidenced a compromise that: (1) they had to be more versatile on the offensive end and needed another versatile scoring wing to accomplish that in the modern NBA -- another guy who can create his own shot, has range, and can get to the line frequently (particularly in case Ginobili was slow to return or breaks down again); and (2) they had to be better defensively -- hopefully elite, but at least better than 2008-09 -- while giving Duncan some legitimate help defending other bigs and rebounding against other bigs.

Jefferson, to an extent, deals with both problems and his acquisition was, in just about every conceivable sense, a no-brainer for that reason.

But if you keep Gooden here, you tip the balance way too heavily in favor of scoring, I think. You might address #1 above (though with a player who tends to dominate the ball -- a bad mix on a team that operates best while sharing it), but you do nothing to address #2. In fact, with Gooden back in the mix, you cost yourself a roster spot and rotation minutes (given what it would have taken, salary-wise, to keep him) that could have been used to bolster the defense and give Duncan the support that he needs on both ends. Relative to a guy like McDyess (and I think the money is relatively equal) Gooden hasn't actually proven to be better offensively and is demonstrably worse on the defensive end.

Frankly, I don't think the Spurs ever really considered bringing Gooden back. I don't have any proof of that; but from the moves that the Spurs did make, bringing Gooden back would have made absolutely no sense.

[raspsa]

Defensively Gooden would be a liability. He's a good rebounder but Spurs have that area covered. Gooden could score but once again Spurs have addressed that need. McDyess is older but can be expected to fit seamlessly with the Spurs and brings mental toughness and playoff experience.