Trade Idea: Bonner & Finley for Jeff Foster [Archive]

Marcus Bryant

10-24-2009, 10:46 AM

Credit to Bruno for this one (http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ygl92sb), which he has been advocating throughout the offseason.

Spurs would do this to shore up the front court. While, yes, the front court has been significantly improved over last season, a lot rests on an aging, injury prone Theo Ratliff and DeJuan Blair to back up TD and McDyess. Foster provides a starting quality rebounding big for the rotation, one who can step in to the starting lineup if need be. We've seen what Bonner logging heavy minutes in the rotation can do to the team's defense last season (though without him the team would have fared worse during the regular season). I think the benefit of Bonner's outside shot is less valuable now as you have another big in McDyess he has enough range on his J to space the court for TD. Adding Foster would have the effect of not putting too much pressure on Blair too soon. While, yes, he looks like the real deal, he's yet to play a 100 game season and he does need work on his D. The Spurs didn't really want Finley back this season. While yes, it's nice to have a veteran shooter like him in the backcourt, it's more of a luxury at this point. This would also allow the Spurs to retain both Hairston and Williams.

Pacers would do this primarily for Finley and Bonner's expiring contracts. In Murphy, Granger, and Dunleavy, they have some rather big contracts for a team which is still in rebuilding mode. Not sure if they are close to paying the Lux Tax, but if they are then this deal would make much more sense for them. Such a trade would also be Caucasian neutral, which apparently is quite important in Indianapolis.

I think the biggest concern for the Spurs would be the impact to team shooting, the loss of experienced depth in the backcourt, and that Foster's deal would extend past the end of the season. Allowing Finley and Bonner's contracts to expire would help them to mitigate the significant increase in team salary which the Jefferson trade and the McDyess signing have created.

Mel_13

10-24-2009, 10:50 AM

Credit to Bruno for this one (http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ygl92sb), which he has been advocating throughout the offseason.

Spurs would do this to shore up the front court. While, yes, the front court has been significantly improved over last season, a lot rests on an aging, injury prone Theo Ratliff and DeJuan Blair to back up TD and McDyess. Foster provides a starting quality rebounding big for the rotation, one who can step in to the starting lineup if need be. We've seen what Bonner logging heavy minutes in the rotation can do to the team's defense last season (though without him the team would have fared worse during the regular season). I think the benefit of Bonner's outside shot is less valuable now as you have another big in McDyess he has enough range on his J to space the court for TD. Adding Foster would have the effect of not putting too much pressure on Blair too soon. While, yes, he looks like the real deal, he's yet to play a 100 game season and he does need work on his D. The Spurs didn't really want Finley back this season. While yes, it's nice to have a veteran shooter like him in the backcourt, it's more of a luxury at this point. This would also allow the Spurs to retain both Hairston and Williams.

Pacers would do this primarily for Finley and Bonner's expiring contracts. In Murphy, Granger, and Dunleavy, they have some rather big contracts for a team which is still in rebuilding mode. Such a trade would also be Caucasian neutral, which apparently is quite important in Indianapolis.

I think the biggest concern for the Spurs would be the impact to team shooting, the loss of experienced depth in the backcourt, and that Foster's deal would extend past the end of the season. Allowing Finley and Bonner's contracts to expire would help them to mitigate the significant increase in team salary which the Jefferson trade and the McDyess signing have created.

Definitely my personal favorite trade possibility.

Has enough in it to make it realistic for both teams.

IMO, addresses the areas of greatest need, rebounding and post defense.

Plug him into Bonner's 15-20 minutes and see a significant improvement.

Cueing MaNu4Tres :lol

weebo

10-24-2009, 10:57 AM

Won't happen. Bonner's three point threat (if you can call it that) is what keeps him on the Spurs. He opens up the floor for Tony and Manu and doesn't get in the way of TD. Also, Pop's man love for Finely will never allow them to part ways.

Chieflion

10-24-2009, 10:57 AM

As far as I think Foster would help us, our swingman rotation would look like

SG: Roger Mason, Manu Ginobili, George Hill
SF: Richard Jefferson

Mason and Hill does not have the size to play the 3, plus if we have to rely on Hairston, Bogans and Haislip to fill up the rotation, then the Spurs backcourt will be weakened. Besides, I think the Spurs would not want to add extra salary as they want to use their LLE and MLE next season.

Marcus Bryant

10-24-2009, 10:59 AM

I also can't help but think that Bonner and Finley have been showcased a little this preseason.

Marcus Bryant

10-24-2009, 11:00 AM

As far as I think Foster would help us, our swingman rotation would look like

SG: Roger Mason, Manu Ginobili, George Hill
SF: Richard Jefferson

Mason and Hill does not have the size to play the 3, plus if we have to rely on Hairston and Hailslip to fill up the rotation, then the Spurs backcourt will be weakened. Besides, I think the Spurs would not want to add extra salary as they want to use their LLE and MLE next season.

Where's Bogans, Hairston, and Williams? Not to mention Haislip.

Riverwalkman

10-24-2009, 11:01 AM

As far as I think Foster would help us, our swingman rotation would look like

SG: Roger Mason, Manu Ginobili, George Hill
SF: Richard Jefferson

Mason and Hill does not have the size to play the 3, plus if we have to rely on Hairston and Hailslip to fill up the rotation, then the Spurs backcourt will be weakened. Besides, I think the Spurs would not want to add extra salary as they want to use their LLE and MLE next season.
Bogans is a swingman, though he sucks.

Chieflion

10-24-2009, 11:03 AM

Where's Bogans, Hairston, and Williams?
One of them is going to be cut, should be Williams. No way Hairston gets playing time over those guys (could be sent to Austin). Bogans has been an offensive liability. He cannot even buy a basket. Besides, the Spurs would be giving cap relief to the Pacers without incentives. I doubt the Pacers would be willing to add a protected first.

Marcus Bryant

10-24-2009, 11:08 AM

Prospective swingman rotation minutes

Ginobili 25
Mason 25
Hairston/Bogans 10
Jefferson 30
Haislip/Williams 6

And of course Jefferson and Mason could take more of the 16 which would go to Hairston, Bogans, Haislip, or Williams.

weebo

10-24-2009, 11:08 AM

I also can't help but think that Bonner and Finley have been showcased a little this preseason.

Actually, both Bonner and Finely had a good preseason. So, if their play continues in a limited role they could prove to be invaluable both on the court and fiscally.

DAF86

10-24-2009, 11:09 AM

Meh, I prefer to have Bonner and Finley than Foster.

DPG21920

10-24-2009, 11:10 AM

I also can't help but think that Bonner and Finley have been showcased a little this preseason.

What is there to showcase? People know what Fin/Bonner bring.

flox

10-24-2009, 11:10 AM

Never, ever, ever will happen, Pacers are trying to rebuild image after Brawl and just now are rewinning the community, Foster is a fan favorite and the fans would be devastated and the Pacers would have a net loss by trading Foster. Last year they were offered a First + Klezia (expiring) and wouldn't do it, and he was just signed to a long term deal when his highest trade value was an expiring decent bigman. With a team suffering from attendance pre-recession, there is no way they would do this deal.

Marcus Bryant

10-24-2009, 11:12 AM

One of them is going to be cut, should be Williams. No way Hairston gets playing time over those guys (could be sent to Austin). Bogans has been an offensive liability. He cannot even buy a basket. Besides, the Spurs would be giving cap relief to the Pacers without incentives. I doubt the Pacers would be willing to add a protected first.

Bogans is to provide perimeter defense in spot situations.

Even after such a trade, the Spurs would still have a top 3 swingman rotation of Ginobili, Jefferson, and Mason. As it stands, the Spurs' top 3 frontcourt rotation is Duncan, McDyess, and Blair. Not to mention that the Spurs' leading scorer is a perimeter player starting at the 1. This is still a big man's league. The Spurs need more up front, even after acquiring McDyess and Blair.

DBMethos

10-24-2009, 11:12 AM

I think their expiring contracts would be put to better use around the trade deadline, after we've seen what areas we need improvement in. Better players than Foster should become available at that time as well.

Riverwalkman

10-24-2009, 11:18 AM

I've got an interesting fact about Foster: he is one of the 6 players in league who have never get traded in the past 10 years.

Others are: Kobe, Duncan, Dirk, Ilgauskas, and Pierce.

DPG21920

10-24-2009, 11:18 AM

I think the Spurs definitely need another big man. That is the biggest hole. We will have to see who is available and what the cost would be. I would be all for getting a big (like Foster) if it meant it just cost expiring contracts (Fin+Bonner).

Another thing to consider would be upping the talent level and going for a guy like Camby, or a versatile player like Tyrus Thomas (who could certainly help guard guys like West/Dirk). That would bring additional costs (such as giving up Hill or Blair) and you never know if the Spurs even have enough assets to realistically pursue players such as these.

It will be interesting to see what happens, especially if the Spurs find their big man rotation to be lacking against the likes of Boston and LA to the point where they think internally that they cannot realistically have a shot at a title unless they improve.

Another factor to consider is that there is a strong possibility of Splitter being that help next year.

yavozerb

10-24-2009, 11:21 AM

BONNER AND FINLEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE!! Move on to something else already..

Mel_13

10-24-2009, 11:24 AM

FWIW

The 7 bigs currently on the roster have a total salary of 33.5M

If Splitter signs a Scola-sized deal starting at 3M, the cost in 2010-11 for Duncan, McDyess, Foster, Blair, Ian and Splitter will be 36.1M

ivanfromwestwood

10-24-2009, 11:30 AM

would doing this keep us in the tax next year? thought we might let booner or fin expire and use the cash to sign spitter?

mountainballer

10-24-2009, 11:30 AM

Pacers would do this primarily for Finley and Bonner's expiring contracts. In Murphy, Granger, and Dunleavy, they have some rather big contracts for a team which is still in rebuilding mode.

that's why they don't want to do this. not just that they will get better offers, they commandment #1 for any rebuilding team is picky and/or young players. cap relieve is all nice and yes, they might have problems to stay under the threshold next year and also yes, at almost 33 Foster isn't exactly a cornerstone for a rebuilding team. but he also doesn't have the most cap killing contract either and he is a fan favorite and life long Pacer. if the let him go, it won't be without getting either some talent or a 1st round pick in return. (they won't do it just for 2nd rounders)
another other point is, the Pacers will be much weaker with Fin and Bonner instead of Foster. they are rebuilding, but they will still try to make the PO, it's not that they have already duped the season.
what Bonner could give them , they already get 2 times from Murphy. (add McRoberts, another option for the Bonner role)
what Fin could give them, they don't need. they have very good shooters in Granger, Rush and Head. but in Foster they lose their best interior defender. neither Murphy, Hibbert, Jones can compensate for this.

sometimes it makes some sense to look at the other teams needs, before explain why they will do a move.

they would do it if Spurs trow in either:
Indi kid Hill.
Blair.
the 2011 1st round pick.
the Splitter rights.

Bruno

10-24-2009, 11:38 AM

I would be fine with Manu, RJ, Mason and Bogans as rotation as SG/SF but if you are worried about the loss of Finley, there are several solutions:

1) Finley could be waived by Pacers and re-sign with Spurs 30 days later.
2) Wally Z is still a freea agnet.
3) Bonner+Mahinmi+Williams for Foster works salary wise: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine

portnoy1

10-24-2009, 11:42 AM

LOL JEFF FOSTER? Are you fucking serious? I'd rather have Bonner, no doubt.
Jeff Foster is 6-11. So he has height and can play the center position against the Bynums/Dampiers/Nene's in the west. The real interesting thing about is his rebounding. Last season he averaged 6 pts 7rbds 2 ast a game in 25minutes per game in 74 games. Those rebounding Numbers are all real. Considering he plays next to 2nd leading rebounder Troy Murphy. So that means he actually works to get boards unlike Biedrins or Lee who rebounding numbers are bloated cause' they play with 4 guards and can get as many rebounds as they desire. In SA he would only play 20-25 minutes anyway, so those are the numbers we can expect from him of he were to join the spurs. And he also is a pretty good defender and hustles obviously. Remember back when Detroit / Spurs / Pacers were the top Defensive teams in the league, in Indiana Foster was right there with the Defensive team that went to the ECF in 2004.

flox

10-24-2009, 11:42 AM

And they still wouldn't do it to an overall loss of goodwill to the community.

portnoy1

10-24-2009, 11:45 AM

flox

10-24-2009, 12:02 PM

He is from San Antonio anyway. The pacers are rebuilding which means he wont get a ring with them unless he plays till he is 45. He is 32/33. His career is at the point where he is thinking about a ring. What better organization than the Spurs to go to.

Please, you don't know jeff foster. He does not want a ring that badly right now. Foster has no offense, is a poor shotblocker, is a decent defender in certain areas a completely useless in others, and is a scrapper thats overrated by playing on a poor Indy team- and he's been slowly slipping too. Also very not clutch player.

EricB

10-24-2009, 12:18 PM

So you want to insure against the injury proneness of a big in Ratliff for a guy that hasn't played 82 games in... How long? Has he cracked 70 the past 2 or 3 years?

EricB

10-24-2009, 12:20 PM

I don't see the benefit of giving up the depth for a slow moving mediocre white big guy.

If you want a big guy for insurance theres Mahinmi. he hasn't done anything to suggest he's any worse than Foster.

Hell Mahinmi can do what Foster does.

Mel_13

10-24-2009, 12:32 PM

anakha

10-24-2009, 12:34 PM

So you want to insure against the injury proneness of a big in Ratliff for a guy that hasn't played 82 games in... How long? Has he cracked 70 the past 2 or 3 years?

Last three seasons:

Foster:

75 games 1740 minutes
77 games 1883 minutes
74 games 1828 minutes

Ratliff

2 games 44 minutes
26 games 437 minutes
46 games 578 minutes

Whoops.

I don't see the benefit of giving up the depth for a slow moving mediocre white big guy.

If you want a big guy for insurance theres Mahinmi. he hasn't done anything to suggest he's any worse than Foster.

Hell Mahinmi can do what Foster does.

Stay on the floor?

I'm not advocating getting rid of Mahinmi, but your logic is just off here.

EricB

10-24-2009, 12:35 PM

Last three seasons:

Foster:

75 games 1740 minutes
77 games 1883 minutes
74 games 1828 minutes

Ratliff

2 games 44 minutes
26 games 437 minutes
46 games 578 minutes

he played 77 games 2 years ago.

It seems like everytime you turn on the damn ticker he was out with an injury.

He either has alot of injuries and plays with em, or theres something wrong with the NBA tickers.

That being said, Foster still sucks.

Giving up depth on the wing for a 6'11 white stiff? no thanks.

Marcus Williams would NOT fill in that depth either, he has no business on a basketball court.

EricB

10-24-2009, 12:37 PM

Whoops.

Stay on the floor?

I'm not advocating getting rid of Mahinmi, but your logic is just off here.

Whats wrong with the logic that Foster is a white stiff on the downside of his career and Mahinmi is a 22 year old center that can do exactly what Foster does but without giving up your already said depth?

Thank god you people don't run the FO.

benefactor

10-24-2009, 12:45 PM

My arguments for acquiring Foster are well chronicled in the Foster thread. Wasting keystrokes on TPark is like breaking your knuckles beating up a midget.

EricB

10-24-2009, 12:48 PM

My arguments for acquiring Foster are well chronicled in the Foster thread. Wasting keystrokes on TPark is like breaking your knuckles beating up a midget.

Go ahead and justify trading for an aging white stiff big guy.

Oh sorry, this was just an opportunity to insult me.

Gotcha.

ShoogarBear

10-24-2009, 01:03 PM

CGD

10-24-2009, 01:04 PM

Why get rid of our starting SG and C?

TIMMYD!

10-24-2009, 01:07 PM

How about Murphy?

TIMMYD!

10-24-2009, 01:20 PM

I think he is making around 10 or 11 million dollars.

Yeah but I would die if something like that happened. He shoots the three just like Bonner but he can also rebound the shit out of the ball.

benefactor

10-24-2009, 01:28 PM

Go ahead and justify trading for an aging white stiff big guy.

Oh sorry, this was just an opportunity to insult me.

Gotcha.
The fact that you are reducing him to an "aging, white stiff big guy" suggests that you have already made up your mind without caring about actual facts.

Again....midget, knuckles.

benefactor

10-24-2009, 01:30 PM

Yeah but I would die if something like that happened. He shoots the three just like Bonner but he can also rebound the shit out of the ball.
I like him too...but not to the tune of 23 million over the next two seasons.

anakha

10-24-2009, 01:31 PM

Whats wrong with the logic that Foster is a white stiff on the downside of his career and Mahinmi is a 22 year old center that can do exactly what Foster does but without giving up your already said depth?

You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that Mahinmi and Foster can do the same things, but Mahinmi's production is not bearing that out at all.

Again, I'm not advocating moving Mahinmi. I'm just pointing out the glaring hole in your argument.

Thank god you people don't run the FO.

Good old defensive, generalizing TPark. :lol

benefactor

10-24-2009, 01:35 PM

manu_maniac

10-24-2009, 01:36 PM

Yeah but I would die if something like that happened. He shoots the three just like Bonner but he can also rebound the shit out of the ball.

First of all, he pretty much only gets 2 more rebounds than Bonner. We don't need another rebounder when we already have Duncan, Dice, & Blair. Plus, he's awful at the 3 point line. His career 3pt% is 12%; Bonner's is 41%. Plus, Bonner is 3 years younger and has been in our system for 5 years. Could someone explain how he's better than Bonner, and how he would actually get decent playing time to make a difference?

This also doesn't account for losing Finley.

EDIT: I thought you were talking about Foster, not Murphy, but my points still stand in an argument about Foster vs. Bonner

BlackBellamy

10-24-2009, 01:48 PM

No trade. Jeff Foster is only an inch taller than Bonner, and (like it or not) we would miss both Bonner & Finley (at the very least for eating minutes purposes) this season otherwise. If you really want to get a Foster on the team, you should go to the source. We could sign Linda Foster!
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af206/Black_Bellamy/foster.jpg
Jeff's mom was the principal of my High School. They even look alike. This woman was big! Not like 'fat' big, more like 'could potentially beat-up the majority of jocks at my school' kinda big. And it wouldn't involve trading anyone to bring in Dr. Foster. So, what do you think?

weebo

10-24-2009, 01:57 PM

As much as people around here hate to hear it, Bonner and Finely won't be going anywhere. Why would the Spurs FO bring in guys who haven't played in the Spur's system in a year as critical to winning as this one? Barring an injury to any of the bigs or atrocious play, the guys that are on the team now will be the guys the Spurs will go with this season.

TIMMYD!

10-24-2009, 02:08 PM

First of all, he pretty much only gets 2 more rebounds than Bonner. We don't need another rebounder when we already have Duncan, Dice, & Blair. Plus, he's awful at the 3 point line. His career 3pt% is 12%; Bonner's is 41%. Plus, Bonner is 3 years younger and has been in our system for 5 years. Could someone explain how he's better than Bonner, and how he would actually get decent playing time to make a difference?

This also doesn't account for losing Finley.

EDIT: I thought you were talking about Foster, not Murphy, but my points still stand in an argument about Foster vs. Bonner

oh okay because Murphy was a 45% 3 shooter last year.

ChumpDumper

10-24-2009, 02:11 PM

For the record...I think we go with what we have for the first few months and see how it works out. Both teams will know much more about what their respective situations are going to be after the beginning of the year.

As much as people around here hate to hear it, Bonner and Finely won't be going anywhere. Why would the Spurs FO bring in guys who haven't played in the Spur's system in a year as critical to winning as this one? Barring an injury to any of the bigs or atrocious play, the guys that are on the team now will be the guys the Spurs will go with this season.Yep.

I'm high enough on Blair to conclude we don't need to trade two of the team's best shooters for a player who does essentially the same thing, and it's a fair bet Blair will be better. Sure, Foster is taller -- he just doesn't really play taller than Blair.

kobyz

10-24-2009, 02:11 PM

benefactor

10-24-2009, 02:19 PM

Yep.

I'm high enough on Blair to conclude we don't need to trade two of the team's best shooters for a player who does essentially the same thing, and it's a fair bet Blair will be better. Sure, Foster is taller -- he just doesn't really play taller than Blair.
Exactly. Getting Foster would essentially be getting the type of player that we want Blair to be. Even though Foster is not really a shot blocker, he is a very smart, fundamental defender. By the first of the year we should know if Blair is ready to be that type of defender to go with all the rest of the qualities he already brings.

benefactor

10-24-2009, 02:23 PM

Whisky Dog

10-24-2009, 02:44 PM

Let's see if I got this - trade a young, big defensively challenged white guy and an old jump shooting black guy for one old, big offensively challenged white guy? I fail to see the upside here.

Finley can be useful as a shooter if used effectively. Sometimes he can get hot and put up points like a couple of preseason games ago so you throw him out there for a few min and get him a couple of shots to see if he's on. If so give him minutes and ride the production. If not, get him out for someone like Hairston who gives more athleticism, rebounding, energy and defense.

Whisky Dog

10-24-2009, 02:44 PM

BlackBellamy

10-24-2009, 02:58 PM

Post so nice, you have to post it twice ^. :lol

TIMMYD!

10-24-2009, 06:33 PM

Thinking about a Duncan/Foster/McDyess/Ratliff/Blair front line sure is exciting though. You get all the rebounding you can handle(and some) and 48 minutes of solid interior defense no matter who is on the floor.

Nobody would want to mess with us in on the inside if we had this lineup although put Mahinmi in for Foster and we're more mobile.

benefactor

10-24-2009, 06:45 PM

Nobody would want to mess with us in on the inside if we had this lineup although put Mahinmi in for Foster and we're more mobile.
Not by a whole lot though. Foster is actually quite mobile and moves very well without the ball. Plus his defensive fundamentals are about twenty times better than Ian.

kobyz

10-24-2009, 07:23 PM

Jeff Foster is basically other version of Kurt Thomas, we find out that it not the tipe of player we need!

024

10-24-2009, 08:26 PM

i like foster, i think i even advocated a trade for him last season. but i don't think there is a need for him yet. foster is nothing spectacular, solid defense and brings rebounding but comes with a pretty big price tag and will be 33 by next year's playoffs. it's not that big of an upgrade currently but if mcdyess can't hang with bynum/gasol/garnett/shaq then i can see a trade happening.

MI21

10-24-2009, 10:56 PM

Biggest impact of this trade would be on what it would do to the Spurs' offensive philosophy. Bonner, Finley, and Bowen between them took over 8 3-point shots/game last year (40% of the team total). Manu will probably pick up some of that (although looking at his numbers you could argue that he shouldn't), and RJ is probably going to get 2-3 shots a game. Can't imagine Mason taking more three-pointers than last year in fewer minutes.

So is Pop ready to abandon the Spurs' reliance on the 3-point game, and put more emphasis on low post, slashing, and getting to the line? That (in addition to the defense) would be a nice return to old-time Spurs Basketball.

Even without this trade, I've been hoping some of what you said will ring true.

Jeffersons ability to get to the line is unquestioned, and with the type of ball movement the Spurs are renowned for, he will have a lot more driving lanes than he is used to. He will also be able to get out and run with Tony on the break which will lead to more free throws.

With more offensive options, Timmy should be able to operate 1 on 1 a little more, which means more FT attempts as his defender will be forced to foul more often. Tony when he is in "run fast directly at hoop" mode picks up FT's, we know about Manu and his knack for getting to the line. George Hill has already shown he has a similar knack.

Throw in more Blair, McDyess and less Bonner and this team should be putting opposition in foul trouble a lot more than last season. I can't wait.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 12:32 AM

bishopospurs

10-25-2009, 01:44 AM

We can do better than Foster for Bonner and Finley.

Dalamar_the_Dark

10-25-2009, 01:47 AM

Doesnt work. Foster plays too much under the basket. Will just crowd out Duncan.

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 02:53 AM

Cueing MaNu4Tres :lol

lol too funny Mel. As Mel pointed out I have to respectfully disagree with this trade proposal for 3 Reasons:

1. Bonner won't be traded unless its for a clear cut obvious improvement, good enough to warrant 25-30 minutes a game when April, May, and June come around. That's just the realistic side of the whole theory on this proposal. Popovich values Bonner way more than any of us know. He values the special skill he has for a big man and values and respects the way he plays defense and hustles. That is a reason why they are currently working on an extension.

2.
Yep.

I'm high enough on Blair to conclude we don't need to trade two of the team's best shooters for a player who does essentially the same thing, and it's a fair bet Blair will be better. Sure, Foster is taller -- he just doesn't really play taller than Blair.

Agree with this 100 percent. With Blair showing to the whole NBA that he is indeed the real Alexander and plays big ( Hence check out the boxscore against the Rockets), there really aren't significant minutes available to where Foster can make the kind of impact that justifies trading away our trading assets. Why trade away our trading assets to get a player that would be competing for the 4th big spot in the rotation with Ratliff and possibly Mahimni? And when both Foster and Ratliff are healthy Foster isn't the better player by an obvious margin.

3. The need for a player like Foster, was a reason why we signed Ratliff. Of course some of you want to rebuttal and say, " Ratliff is made of glass, Ratliff isn't durable." Which has been true in recent years. At the same time, I'm sure the Spurs' doctors checked out Ratliff thoroughly before the Spurs signed him this off-season. Combine that with the fact that Ratliff won't be seeing more than 15 minutes a game in spot up duty throughout the course of the year and how Popovich is great at managing minutes to prolong health during the course of the season, much less hardly ever holds intense practices throughout the year. Taking all that into consideration trading for a player like Foster wouldn't be a smart move. Unless it's February and Ratliff is out for the year and Blair is hitting the rookie wall then I'd say trading for Foster would be wise to do as Spurs would only have McDyess outside of Duncan to mix it up inside. But that simply is not the case right now.

Fact is most of the bigmen that would be available anyway wouldn't really get the playing time to bring anything significant to the table if the Spurs front-line is healthy. The pool of big-men in the league is already watered down as is and the best we could probably do is get a guy that would just add extra depth in quantity opposed to quality, which is something we already have.

This is a reason why I've been an advocate on using our trading assets ( Mason/ Finley and Mahimni ( if needs to be added)for an all around multi-dimensional player on the wing to rotate in and out with Manu and Richard Jefferson. This would give a Spurs a more threatening and efficient 48 minutes attack on both ends of the floor from the wing position whenever Manu or RJ are resting. This three wing rotation: RJ 32-34 minutes: Manu 25-30 minutes: Nocioni or Jackson 25-30 minutes would be the best rotation in the league and match up great with (Artest/ Kobe) ( Allen/ Pierce/ Daniels) ( Lebron/West or Parker) ( Carter/ Lewis/ Barnes/ Pietrus) ( Roy/ Outlaw/ Webster) ( Melo/ Jr Smith) both offensively and defensively.

Then if Finley does indeed come back in 30 days we'd have him in our back pocket along with Hairston and Bogans for 10-12 minutes a game for foul trouble purposes.

I'm an advocate on using our trading pieces to make our 3rd wing rotational spot an all-around threat on both ends of the floor that can also hit the open three. ( Something Nocioni and Jackson can do with great efficiency). Opposed to using our trading pieces for a big man that would just add depth and not really be a significant improvement over anyone we have if we are indeed healthy.

Ice009

10-25-2009, 05:51 AM

Yep my number one trade choices are Jackson and Nocioni.

Foster would be good too, but if those other two players are available I think it would make us a lot more dangerous like Manu4tres said.

benefactor

10-25-2009, 09:04 AM

Well MaNu4Tres, we at least agree on one thing....I would trade those guys for Jackson before I would trade for Foster. :)

Ice009

10-25-2009, 09:10 AM

I really want Jackson back and coming in these threads that are discussing it kind of sucks ;).

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:12 AM

Bonner gets far too much love in this forum. He's a situational player at best in SA. His D sucks and if he didn't have the outside shooting touch nobody would give a shit about him. That's the attraction for most of his jockers. It's no coincidence that in the season in which Bonner started 67 games and logged over 1,900 minutes that the Spurs had their worst opponents' FG% showing in a decade. It's like fans creaming themselves about Matt Bullard. It's beyond disgusting. Finley at this point is a veteran shooter for the end of the bench. He's often a turnstile on defense himself. It's not hard to see the Spurs dealing him and a team buying him out for a return to SA if the Spurs wanted him as the 5th swingman. Or they could always pick up another vet for that role.

Foster's rebounding rate last season was 73% higher than Bonner's. Plus he doesn't play like a pussy. End the man love for Bonner already.

ElNono

10-25-2009, 10:15 AM

bonner gets far too much love in this forum. He's a situational player at best in sa. His d sucks and if he didn't have the outside shooting touch nobody would give a shit about him. That's the attraction for most of his jockers. It's no coincidence that in the season in which bonner started 67 games and logged over 1,900 minutes that the spurs had their worst opponents' fg% showing in a decade. It's like fans creaming themselves about matt bullard. It's beyond disgusting. Finley at this point is a veteran shooter for the end of the bench. He's often a turnstile on defense himself. It's not hard to see the spurs dealing him and a team buying him out for a return to sa if the spurs wanted him as the 5th swingman. Or they could always pick up another vet for that role.

Foster's rebounding rate last season was 73% higher than bonner's. Plus he doesn't play like a pussy. End the man love for bonner already.

+1

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 10:19 AM

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:22 AM

We know Pop never makes mistakes or falls in love with players.

And he played Bonner so much last season because the frontcourt was that thin.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:25 AM

And in order for Bonner to be effective offensively he needs regular minutes. And he needs to start. He possesses the wrong mentality for a player with his skill set. He needs to be able to sit for extended stretches and then enter crucial parts of the game and not F up. He was the opposite in the two seasons prior to 2008-09.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:28 AM

If anything, he doesn't get enough. He's one of our best players.

ROFL.

The numbers say otherwise.

What numbers? His rebounding is abysmal. All he can do is knock down 3s with regular minutes. Now what is more important to team defense and, oh, I don't know, winning?

Where were his vaunted numbers last postseason?

The attraction is that his PER is outstanding when you compare it with his salary. He's also the best fit playing next to Duncan, no doubt about it.

No he's not. That's retarded. McDyess is clearly the best fit, at least if you bother to understand the game versus think some bullshit PER stat explains all.

That probably doesn't have anything to do with Duncan losing a step, or Bowen getting dramatically less run/being way less effective on D.

Defense starts in the paint. Putting a human pylon next to TD there is not conducive to good defense. I have precious numbers that point that out.

TJastal

10-25-2009, 10:41 AM

Foster is a fucking scrub. He's strong and strong on the glass, and that's it. You don't have to guard him at all, which puts you at a huge disadvantage. He also doesn't block shots. If you want to work with a scrub, just use Ratliff.

For once, I agree with Spurstrodamus here. :lol

TJastal

10-25-2009, 10:47 AM

we don't need another big, Foster can't play good with Duncan - he is not mobile, i rather give those minutes to Ratliff/Mahinmi/Blair/Haislip.
if we gonna use our expiring contracts it should be on a wing(Jackson, Nocioni) because our wing situation is more problematic - Manu injury risk.

Yup, if the spurs use their expiring contracts it should be for a defensive lockdown wing. Bogans isn't going to cut it, sorry.

Spursfanfromafar

10-25-2009, 10:51 AM

I guess I'm the only one who remembers how awful Bonner was last postseason. But he can shoot the 3! Finley would fit the veteran shooter role at the end of the bench, but isn't a big who can be the first off the bench or start more important? The only thing that makes sense is that the Spurs might be able to pull someone better than Foster for Finley and Bonner if they wait until closer to the February trade deadline.

Yes. I agree with that notion. If someone like say, Shane Battier falls into the lap, I would take him for Bonner & Finley. Have nothing against Foster, but I think his USPs are already filled in the current roster (rebounding by Blair, other forms of defense by Ratliff and McDyess). What the Spurs need is a lockdown defender..and Shane Battier can be an ideal replacement for Bowen

EmptyMan

10-25-2009, 11:04 AM

Bonner and Finley are great options if used right.

If being a little iffy with senile Pop.

There is no sense in giving them up for yet another Spurs noob.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 11:18 AM

Instead of typing ROFL, how about refuting it with some facts... like say... actual numbers.

Nah, ROFL was an appropriate response to your comment.

5 rebounds in 24 minutes is abysmal? Ratliff has nearly identical numbers on the glass and some people on this board act like he's a defensive shogun.

That's because he can actually keep offensive post players in front of him and block shots. When your understanding of the game comes solely from a belief in SABRmetrics applied to it then you reach stupid conclusions, such as that Bonner and Ratliff are the same caliber defensively.

Anyways, if you need #s to guide you to the truth, then Foster's rebounding rate last season was 73% higher than Wilt Chamberlain Bonner's.

Really? Last I checked, all McDyess does is take midrange jumpers. Basically he's Kurt Thomas 2.0. Whereas Bonner can stretch it out to the 3 and shoot it at one of the best clips in the league, or he can pump on you and drive in for a midrange shot or a running hook. McDyess is the real one-trick pony on offense, not Bonner. Bonner is a WAY better ballhandler than McDyess.

Good God. You are a moron. I am not going to waste any more time on you.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 11:26 AM

Though I will continue to read his brain farts for amusement.

hater

10-25-2009, 11:28 AM

Bonner is shotting the ball damn well. No way pop trades him yet

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 11:34 AM

Anyways, before I forget, PER isn't a "number", it's a method which derives its "value" from...numbers. Traditional NBA statistics fail to capture that which is obvious to anyone who actually can evaluate players without the aid of limited quantitative methods. Without the check of actual common sense, then you end up reaching conclusions such as that Matt Bullard Bonner has the same impact on the game as a Tim Duncan due to their respective bullshit PER values.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 11:36 AM

ROFL. Now he's discovered "versatility", as in Bullard Bonner and Finley give you multiple ways to lose.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 11:37 AM

Matt Bullard Bonner is an offensive juggernaut and a defensive beast. Do not believe the lies of your eyes!

The lengths to which homers go in order to justify shitty players continues to amaze me.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 11:48 AM

Of course, when you combine an excessive faith in limited quantitative methods with sheer stupidity, then you end up falling in love with Matt Bullard Bonner.

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 01:16 PM

Also, just adding on to how moronic this trade idea is... you trade away Bonner and Ratliff/Foster are redundant. In other words, you lose all of your versatility.

Agreed.

HarlemHeat37

10-25-2009, 01:20 PM

I'm with Spurstrodamus and Manu4Tres here..I don't see the big deal about Foster, he doesn't give us anything we don't already have IMO..he's a good positional defender, but not good enough to give up our expiring assets..he doesn't fill the need properly IMO..

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 01:23 PM

3. The need for a player like Foster, was a reason why we signed Ratliff. Of course some of you want to rebuttal and say, " Ratliff is made of glass, Ratliff isn't durable." Which has been true in recent years. At the same time, I'm sure the Spurs' doctors checked out Ratliff thoroughly before the Spurs signed him this off-season. Combine that with the fact that Ratliff won't be seeing more than 15 minutes a game in spot up duty throughout the course of the year and how Popovich is great at managing minutes to prolong health during the course of the season, much less hardly ever holds intense practices throughout the year. Taking all that into consideration trading for a player like Foster wouldn't be a smart move. Unless it's February and Ratliff is out for the year and Blair is hitting the rookie wall then I'd say trading for Foster would be wise to do as Spurs would only have McDyess outside of Duncan to mix it up inside. But that simply is not the case right now.

Fact is most of the bigmen that would be available anyway wouldn't really get the playing time to bring anything significant to the table if the Spurs front-line is healthy. The pool of big-men in the league is already watered down as is and the best we could probably do is get a guy that would just add extra depth in quantity opposed to quality, which is something we already have.

This is a reason why I've been an advocate on using our trading assets ( Mason/ Finley and Mahimni ( if needs to be added)for an all around multi-dimensional player on the wing to rotate in and out with Manu and Richard Jefferson. This would give a Spurs a more threatening and efficient 48 minutes attack on both ends of the floor from the wing position whenever Manu or RJ are resting. This three wing rotation: RJ 32-34 minutes: Manu 25-30 minutes: Nocioni or Jackson 25-30 minutes would be the best rotation in the league and match up great with (Artest/ Kobe) ( Allen/ Pierce/ Daniels) ( Lebron/West or Parker) ( Carter/ Lewis/ Barnes/ Pietrus) ( Roy/ Outlaw/ Webster) ( Melo/ Jr Smith) both offensively and defensively.

Then if Finley does indeed come back in 30 days we'd have him in our back pocket along with Hairston and Bogans for 10-12 minutes a game for foul trouble purposes.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 01:45 PM

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 01:55 PM

Yes, Bonner's most significant value to the Spurs is his expiring contract. Otherwise he is an uni-dimensional scrub. I have to laugh at you knuckleheads who pretend he isn't while a big who outrebounds him markedly and who does not play soft ass defense is.

And Ratliff does not provide the minutes nor the rebounding that Foster would. To say he and Foster are the same player is incorrect.

Foster would play the same role as Ratliff which would be to play great interior defense, rebound, set efficient screens, and convert wide open scenarios when others create for him or finish garbage points after an offensive rebound. Nothing more nothing less.

Foster is a better rebounder by a slight margin, but Ratliff is much superior at defending the rim and altering shots or blocking shots rather. Therefore those two attributes cancel eachother out to an extent, except I give Ratliff the edge because McDyess and Blair provide superior rebounding already. We don't have what Ratliff physically provides in terms of defending the rim. None the less Ratliff and Foster would play the same role that I mentioned above.

Just because they may do one thing better than the other doesn't mean they would have different roles.

HarlemHeat37

10-25-2009, 02:01 PM

Not just that, but obviously Blair gives us a very good additional rebounder as well..Ratliff's defense consists of protecting the rim, while Foster's defense is more positional, and this team currently needs a rim protector..

If we're going to trade Bonner, I'd rather get a legit big man, or another guy that can defend on the perimeter..

DPG21920

10-25-2009, 02:05 PM

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 02:14 PM

If you want a "legit" big man, it will take a lot more than Bonner.

Exactly therefore it would be a dumb move. Because to get a legit big man we would have to part with either Hill or Blair. Something I wouldn't do.

Foster is not a legit big man. He's a 15 mpg filler at most. Something Ratliff/Blair/ Bonner provide already.

HarlemHeat37

10-25-2009, 02:18 PM

I know it would take more for than Bonner, we already had this discussion..there are only a few big men that we can get in general, and most of them would require giving up Hill/Blair/picks..I'm just pointing out that if we were to trade Bonner, that's what I would want in return..

Foster is a waste of trading expiring contracts..you never know what happens at the deadline..some big men could be disgruntled and ask out, somebody could get bought out and we want to save $ in a dump..many options..

Getting a perimeter player wouldn't be out of the question for a Bonner package ether, and that would be better than Foster..

benefactor

10-25-2009, 02:41 PM

Lets make a scenario here.

Let's say we go with what we have to start the season. We get close to the deadline and Blair is playing well but not playing good enough positional defense consistently to stay out of foul trouble(this is actually not a reach). We are now looking at the possibility of going into the playoffs with a rotation of Duncan/McDyess/Bonner/Ratliff. Do you then pull the trigger on a trade for Foster?

benefactor

10-25-2009, 02:43 PM

Foster is not a legit big man. He's a 15 mpg filler at most. Something Ratliff/Blair/ Bonner provide already.
Sorry...this is just a lie. You say you have watched him but I'm seriously starting to doubt it.

HarlemHeat37

10-25-2009, 02:46 PM

I would take Foster if we don't have better options at the deadline..he's not a bad player at all, I just think we could potentially have better options at the deadline, especially on the perimeter..

benefactor

10-25-2009, 02:56 PM

I would take Foster if we don't have better options at the deadline..he's not a bad player at all, I just think we could potentially have better options at the deadline, especially on the perimeter..
:tu

As I said before, I would also take an impact perimeter player over Foster. I was just making sure that most of us were not under the ridiculous assumption that Foster is no more than a "15 mpg filler".

CGD

10-25-2009, 03:08 PM

No. Maybe last year, but now he would be redundant. Bonner gives us unique tools for a big. Unless there is a ridiculously good deal out there (this one is NOT), then I do not see the Spurs making any deals absent a key injury to one of our studs.

benefactor

10-25-2009, 03:11 PM

DPG21920

10-25-2009, 03:12 PM

^
We might have to be.

benefactor

10-25-2009, 03:14 PM

^
We might have to be.
I hope not. I hope that Blair can play good enough positional defense to take up the extra minutes. If he can't I think making one more move on the front line will be necessary to get us over the championship hump.

DPG21920

10-25-2009, 03:21 PM

I agree, but the Spurs might be stuck between a rock and a hard place depending on how the "market" shapes up.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2009, 03:23 PM

So now we suck again?

Relax. The season hasn't even started yet.

benefactor

10-25-2009, 03:28 PM

So now we suck again?

Relax. The season hasn't even started yet.
Nah. We're a damn good team...and Wednesday can't get here quick enough. :tu

flox

10-25-2009, 05:26 PM

Why is this still being discussed? This trade will NEVER EVER happen. Go to any Indy board and you will be laughed out of town. I've stated repeatedly this will never ever happen and yet some people are talking as if this is a viable option. People need to pay more attention to the NBA as a whole.

HarlemHeat37

10-25-2009, 05:40 PM

Chieflion

10-25-2009, 06:01 PM

flox

10-25-2009, 08:18 PM

This could easily happen, what are you talking about?..

They would be getting Foster off the books a year early..Foster is loved in Indiana and by the organization, so it makes sense that they would want him to win a ring, and not rot away on a rebuilding team..Roy Hibbert has looked very good so far in preseason, and this would open up even more playing time for him..

Seriously, go to a Indy forum. Go to Indy and ask fans on the street. If management wouldn't trade a newly extended Foster for an expiring Klezia and a 1st round pick, they will somehow agree to this deal?

z0sa

10-25-2009, 08:21 PM

:td

benefactor

10-25-2009, 08:24 PM

Seriously, go to a Indy forum. Go to Indy and ask fans on the street. If management wouldn't trade a newly extended Foster for an expiring Klezia and a 1st round pick, they will somehow agree to this deal?
Newly extended? Try October of 2008.

Things have changed over the past year. The forecast for the cap and the tax like is pretty bleak. Fans opinions matter little when you start talking about millions of dollars flying out the window. Foster is then only attractive trade piece they have. No team wants anything to do with Murphy's or Dunleavy's horrible contracts.

Mel_13

10-25-2009, 08:28 PM

Seriously, go to a Indy forum. Go to Indy and ask fans on the street. If management wouldn't trade a newly extended Foster for an expiring Klezia and a 1st round pick, they will somehow agree to this deal?

So who will they move to avoid the tax? Murphy? Ford? Good luck getting somebody to take whatever is left wearing Dunleavy's uniform. I think everyone here understands how popular Foster is in Indy, but fan favorite community guys get traded all the time. Ask San Antonio fans how it felt in 2005 when Malik Rose was dealt.

HarlemHeat37

10-25-2009, 08:33 PM

Actually, Indy fans on RealGM had a lot of discussions about moving Foster early in July, and a number of them mentioned the Spurs as a possible suitor due to our expiring contracts, and Foster's apparent interest to possibly play in San Antonio..

ouyang

10-25-2009, 08:47 PM

In this situation,I don't think popovich will trade Bonner & Finley for Jeff Foster,because they both did well in the preseasons.

flox

10-25-2009, 08:54 PM

Newly extended? Try October of 2008.

Things have changed over the past year. The forecast for the cap and the tax like is pretty bleak. Fans opinions matter little when you start talking about millions of dollars flying out the window. Foster is then only attractive trade piece they have. No team wants anything to do with Murphy's or Dunleavy's horrible contracts.

Murphy has value for some teams, and yes, newly extended when referring to the trade offer from Denver. If Indy was so worried about spending money, why would they sign Dahtany Jones to a terrible contract this season, and move to sign other players too? Also, please do your research. I was unaware that you guys thought that Indy would be in luxury tax danger this year- that is false.

HH37: Being from RealGM, you probably talked to people like DGrangerx33 who is known to ignore fan opinion- he believes that Jim O'Brien isn't a popular coach (he's moderately popular) and yes- you will see knowledgeable, hardcore NBA Indy fans take that deal because of expirings- but management won't- given the past evidence and how badly they want to regain fan support. Indy faces a loss of significant fan base if Foster is traded, and with how small their base was to begin with, they cannot take that risk. The Spurs could with Rose because they don't face the same risk.

MaNu4Tres

10-25-2009, 08:54 PM

Can this thread die already I think every possible angle has been explained in not only this thread, but two others as well.

Just an opinion. Carry on.

Mel_13

10-25-2009, 08:57 PM

Also, please do your research. I was unaware that you guys thought that Indy would be in luxury tax danger this year- that is false..

Not this year, next year. The easiest time to move one of their larger contracts will be to trade for expirings at this year's trade deadline.

flox

10-25-2009, 09:01 PM

Not this year, next year. The easiest time to move one of their larger contracts will be to trade for expirings at this year's trade deadline.

Um...I must be missing something, no they are not next year.

EDIT: Sorry- I cannot say that for a fact- if Lux tax drops by over 2-3 million then yes they are in danger.

benefactor

10-25-2009, 09:05 PM

Not this year, next year. The easiest time to move one of their larger contracts will be to trade for expirings at this year's trade deadline.
Thank you Mel...this is what I was referring to when I said they would be in danger of going into tax territory.

flox

10-25-2009, 09:08 PM

Thank you Mel...this is what I was referring to when I said they would be in danger of going into tax territory.

I find it highly unlikely that they will be in danger of going into tax territory next year...

Mel_13

10-25-2009, 09:21 PM

I find it highly unlikely that they will be in danger of going into tax territory next year...

They've got nearly 66M committed plus the cap hold for a first rounder. The lux tax line could easily be several million dollars lower than this year's figure. It's at least even money they'll need to move a contract to stay under the line.

Anyway, we can't settle anything here. The economy at large, and the Pacers' fortunes in particular will tell the tale.

The only point some of here are making is that it is far from absurd to think that Indy might move Foster.

benefactor

10-25-2009, 09:22 PM

Murphy has value for some teams, and yes, newly extended when referring to the trade offer from Denver. If Indy was so worried about spending money, why would they sign Dahtany Jones to a terrible contract this season, and move to sign other players too?

No...Murphy does not have value right now. His deal has 23 million left on it and teams that have expiring deals are not going to give them up for him because they are looking forward to 2010. And how is Dahntay Jones contract terrible? They player option for the 4th year is something I wouldn't have done but 2.5 million a year is still far from crippling financially.

Bigzax

10-25-2009, 09:44 PM

in a heartbeat.

yeah, foster may not be all that, but more muscle down low to give TD and McDyess more rest for the playoffs sounds good to me.

mahinmi is made of glass and as good as Blair might be, lets let him be a rookie and not put too much championship or bust pressure on his shoulders...

If Bonner is going to disappear in may anyway, might as well assist him on his way out as soon as there is a taker. If fin is getting any meaningful minutes in the playoffs, then somethings gone horribly wrong...

and Tpark would have his jersey before Foster's plane landed...

flox

10-25-2009, 10:08 PM

No...Murphy does not have value right now. His deal has 23 million left on it and teams that have expiring deals are not going to give them up for him because they are looking forward to 2010. And how is Dahntay Jones contract terrible? They player option for the 4th year is something I wouldn't have done but 2.5 million a year is still far from crippling financially.

Mel: I have the number lower than that, but we could be using different sites. Bene: Murphy is a top 3 rebounder in the league and is one of the best perimeter fours in the game-he has more value than you say he does. No one else was even close in giving Jones that much money and they've been giving him 2.5 million for a player who played 18mpg and is almost past their prime, and has no shot?

Mel_13

10-25-2009, 10:16 PM

Sham's the man. Best contract numbers available anywhere outside of the league offices.

Indiana's page:

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/pacers.jsp

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:33 PM

They've got nearly 66M committed plus the cap hold for a first rounder. The lux tax line could easily be several million dollars lower than this year's figure. It's at least even money they'll need to move a contract to stay under the line.

Anyway, we can't settle anything here. The economy at large, and the Pacers' fortunes in particular will tell the tale.

The only point some of here are making is that it is far from absurd to think that Indy might move Foster.

Right. I highly doubt that Foster is worth $6 mil per to the Pacers at the gate. Bonner would give Pacers fans another Caucasian to fall in love with. Judging by how Northside is hugging him that wouldn't take too long.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:35 PM

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/matchup/_/teams/mavericks-spurs

Damn. Bonner sucks hard. I mean really. Spurs fans have such short homerific memories.

flox

10-25-2009, 10:41 PM

Ah, I was using storyteller- I figured you were using sham.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:43 PM

In the end, the Spurs organisation would not do it. It does not make sense to clog the lane with old guys like Dice, Duncan, Foster, Ratliff. Reportedly, the Spurs would like to bring Splitter over next off-season with the MLE.

Right. The Spurs shouldn't clog the defensive paint with "old guys" and should instead rely on pansies like Bonner who will stay out of their cover's way.

And Bonner is 29 while Foster is 32. Big fucking age difference. Especially when you consider that Bonner's great asset is his "mobility." ROFL. Got damn Spurs fans are getting dumber season after season.

Marcus Bryant

10-25-2009, 10:54 PM

And Splitter to SA is as much a given as it was back in the summer of 2008.

DPG21920

10-25-2009, 10:59 PM

And Splitter to SA is as much a given as it was back in the summer of 2008.

I disagree with that to a certain degree. It is still far from certain, but the fact that the Spurs can offer him more money than ever is a big advantage over any previous year.

intlspurshk

10-26-2009, 03:01 AM

Addition of Foster would certainly improve SPURS defense but it will not get SPURS past Lakers. So maybe SPURS should hang on to their expiring contracts to Feb and see which team has given up their hopes and willing to take expiring contracts. Besides, I am not too sure about RJ jelling to SPURS. It is possible to combine these players to make some big moves if things do not go well as expected at that time

024

10-26-2009, 03:21 AM

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 03:30 AM

Looking at the future, Spurs should probably use expiring contracts to trade for a solid perimeter player if they are going to use the MLE on splitter. no sense in trading for a big and then using the MLE to try and lure another big over.

Good take.

Especiallly if they already have McDyess Duncan Blair tied up for sure next year and signs indicating a desire to bring Bonner back and maybe even Mahimni if they pick up his option. Spurs are indeed going to try their best to lure over Splitter and will have a good chance at that with the MLE.

At the same time Spurs may not be willing to give Mason 5-6 million a year, which should be right around his value. Finley most likely will call it a career, and Spurs will have the dilemna on resigning Manu. That would leave us with only RJ and Hairston tied up at the wing position. Your reasoning contributes to why I believe trading for a solid multi-dimensional wing would be a better option than trading for a redundant big man.( Which would be the best we could get for Bonner/ Finley or Mason/ Finley). Good post.

kobyz

10-26-2009, 04:05 AM

jjktkk

10-26-2009, 04:10 AM

Can we trade Marcus Bryant and his soapbox for anything worthwhile?

TJastal

10-26-2009, 06:33 AM

this is the best trade possibility: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ntrl7w
Foster can't gouard Nowitzki, Jackson can!
Foster can't give us many line up and match up opportunities, Jackson can!
Foster can't play small ball 4 that Pop loves, Jackson can!
Foster doesn't improve us a lot, Jackson does!
Foster doesn't has value behind this season(Splitter coming) Jackson has!
with the Foster trade there's left less minutes for the young bigs, with the Jackson trade there's more!
with the Jackson trade you can protect Manu from injuries(less minutes) and also to have insure for Manu injury situation!

The roster with Jackson trade:
Tony Parker/George Hill
Stephen Jackson/Manu Ginobili/Keith Bogans
Richard Jefferson/Michael Finley/Malik Hairston
Tim Duncan/DeJuan Blair/Marcus Haislip
Antonio McDyess/Ian Mahinmi/Theo Ratliff

Well, getting Capt Jack would defenitely help shore up that perimeter defense that's been a huge problem since Bowen left. After seeing yet another small forward shred the spurs (Granger), if I was Pop I would pull the trigger on this trade if it was offered by G.S

I think this trade would put the spurs over the top in the western conference.

Ice009

10-26-2009, 06:35 AM

this is the best trade possibility: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ntrl7w
Foster can't gouard Nowitzki, Jackson can!
Foster can't give us many line up and match up opportunities, Jackson can!
Foster can't play small ball 4 that Pop loves, Jackson can!
Foster doesn't improve us a lot, Jackson does!
Foster doesn't has value behind this season(Splitter coming) Jackson has!
with the Foster trade there's left less minutes for the young bigs, with the Jackson trade there's more!
with the Jackson trade you can protect Manu from injuries(less minutes) and also to have insure for Manu injury situation!

The roster with Jackson trade:
Tony Parker/George Hill
Stephen Jackson/Manu Ginobili/Keith Bogans
Richard Jefferson/Michael Finley/Malik Hairston
Tim Duncan/DeJuan Blair/Marcus Haislip
Antonio McDyess/Ian Mahinmi/Theo Ratliff

Jackson would be my first choice along with Nocioni. They are both 1A and 1B for me.

I think with a player like Sjax we would be pretty dangerous. Are the Spurs willing to do it? As I said a few months ago Jackson would really help on defense. Offense doesn't even have to be discussed as I am sure he would make an even bigger difference defensively.

I wonder if this is offered what would hold the Spurs back if they don't take it. Would it be the money or do they think Sjax will rock the boat and are worried about his character issues? I think they would be willing to take the money, but they are probably not sure if he will cause any trouble. Personally, I don't think you need to worry about that here with Stephen as he respects all the guys on the team, and would listen and be a great team player for us.

TJastal

10-26-2009, 06:44 AM

Jackson would be my first choice along with Nocioni. They are both 1A and 1B for me.

I think with a player like Sjax we would be pretty dangerous. Are the Spurs willing to do it?

If they want a championship this year, yes. Jackson wants out of G.S., and the spurs desperately need a guy like him who can defend the Josh Howards/Danny Grangers/Lebron James's of the league and get under their skin.

TJastal

10-26-2009, 06:49 AM

Somebody before (I think Manu4tres) said the spurs were working out an extension for Bonner.

Hope this isn't true, cuz that would kill this whole trade idea

Ice009

10-26-2009, 06:53 AM

If they want a championship this year, yes. Jackson wants out of G.S., and the spurs desperately need a guy like him who can defend the Josh Howards/Danny Grangers/Lebron James's of the league and get under their skin.

Sjax would be a great fit especially defensively. I wouldn't even think about offense with him as I would make the trade for defensive reasons first. It's a great trade IMO one that the Spurs should be all over right now trying to get.

I wonder if the Spurs are seriously looking at it or not.

I got on Mason Jr. last season around January or early February when his defense started slipping. Most people keep going on about the switch to PG, which to me is a load of shit. How did him switching to PG affect his defense? That still sucked and he was getting burned quite a bit and just making lots of errors. I recall a game against the Lakers in LA I think it was late January and he blew two assignments and the Lakers hit 2 threes I think and from that point on the game was over. Two huge mental errors from Mason Jr. to start the 3rd and put us in a 10 point hole and Pop called the game off at that point and benched everyone.

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 06:55 AM

looking at the future, spurs should probably use expiring contracts to trade for a solid perimeter player if they are going to use the MLE on splitter. no sense in trading for a big and then using the MLE to try and lure another big over.

This is an excellent point, as fans we tend to focus on the future and thus the support for keeping Hairston and the opposition by some to giving up a 1st round pick to get an aging KT. The FO has to balance the effects of current moves on this year's championship probabilities vs. future fortunes.

It's not an exact science, the ones that choose correctly are called geniuses, the others lose their jobs. So, if Foster improves the chances to win this year from 20% to 30%, do you do it given possible negative effects in 2010? What if they calculate that the odds go up to 50%? And how do you even calculate those odds to begin with?

It would seem that waiting until sometime much closer to the trade deadline, when more complete information is available, would be the smart thing to do. The debate over where the Spurs need the most help should be settled by then.

this is the best trade possibility: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ntrl7w
Foster can't gouard Nowitzki, Jackson can!
Foster can't give us many line up and match up opportunities, Jackson can!
Foster can't play small ball 4 that Pop loves, Jackson can!
Foster doesn't improve us a lot, Jackson does!
Foster doesn't has value behind this season(Splitter coming) Jackson has!
with the Foster trade there's left less minutes for the young bigs, with the Jackson trade there's more!
with the Jackson trade you can protect Manu from injuries(less minutes) and also to have insure for Manu injury situation!

Jack, Jack, he's our man
Jeff can't do it, Stephen can!!

After seeing yet another small forward shred the spurs (Granger)

Looking forward to your spin on how a 10-29 shooting night constitutes 'shredding'.

mountainballer

10-26-2009, 06:56 AM

Ice009

10-26-2009, 06:59 AM

must be like the 10th time that a trade idea thread is turned in a trade-for-Sjax thread.
not counting all the initially trade-for-Sjax threads.
so any pro Sjax and contra Sjax argument has been repeated about 100 times.
the Sjax virus kills more threads than KBP could have with his nationalisms.

the question, if Spurs need to trade for another big and if Foster could be an option or not, would be quite an interesting discussion.

lol I've wanted Jackson back since after the 2004 season. I'm not really interested in Foster, but it is a tough call who to go after. Foster would be good, but I just think Jackson would make us incredibly dangerous team. Do you wait until the trade deadline or look for a trade now if it is available? I know most of the arguments and usually try not to post in these threads cause I am a bit biased towards any trade for Sjax ;). Why would you not want an upgrade on the perimeter defensively that would give your team a lot more versatility and someone that can knock down shots in the playoffs?

How many seasons does Sjax have left on his contract? Is it 3 or 4?

TJastal

10-26-2009, 07:02 AM

Sjax would be a great fit especially defensively. I wouldn't even think about offense with him as I would make the trade for defensive reasons first. It's a great trade IMO one that the Spurs should be all over right now trying to get.

I wonder if the Spurs are seriously looking at it or not.

I got on Mason Jr. last season around January or early February when his defense started slipping. Most people keep going on about the switch to PG, which to me is a load of shit. How did him switching to PG affect his defense? That still sucked and he was getting burned quite a bit and just making lots of errors. I recall a game against the Lakers in LA I think it was late January and he blew two assignments and the Lakers hit 2 threes I think and from that point on the game was over. Two huge mental errors from Mason Jr. to start the 3rd and put us in a 10 point hole and Pop called the game off at that point and benched everyone.

Kori said the same thing about Roger's defense. Well if RMJ can't play even marginal perimeter defense that seals it. Funny, everyone was raving about his defense when he was signed. I wanted the spurs to sign Pietrus last year, but apparently he was never looked at as a serious option. Pietrus looks pretty damn good about now for the MLE, eh?

Ice009

10-26-2009, 07:11 AM

Kori said the same thing about Roger's defense. Well if RMJ can't play even marginal perimeter defense that seals it. Funny, everyone was raving about his defense when he was signed. I wanted the spurs to sign Pietrus last year, but apparently he was never looked at as a serious option. Pietrus looks pretty damn good about now for the MLE, eh?

That's the thing can RMJ ever play decent perimeter defense? If he can't then he won't get much court time.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 07:19 AM

Somebody before (I think Manu4tres) said the spurs were working out an extension for Bonner.

Hope this isn't true, cuz that would kill this whole trade idea

It wasn't clear that I heard extension. I went to one of my sources and was curious to know if Bonner is on the trading block. The answer I got back was the Spurs best interest with Bonner is sign him to a new contract and keep him here for a few more years. Pop adores his work ethic and the versatility he adds to the frontcourt by his range from outside more so than obvious any poster here on ST.

Mason/ Finley( with him coming back in 30 days)/ and Mahimni would work salary wise for Jackson. We can throw in a 1st round pick also if need to be.

We don't have to include Bonner to acquire Jackson or Nocioni salary wise.

Ice009

10-26-2009, 07:25 AM

I really don't want to be throwing around first rounds picks again though. Do you?

Mahinimi I would do if Splitter is definitely coming over next season. Also, curious if Scola is an unrestricted free agent next season?

kbrury

10-26-2009, 07:31 AM

lol I've wanted Jackson back since after the 2004 season. I'm not really interested in Foster, but it is a tough call who to go after. Foster would be good, but I just think Jackson would make us incredibly dangerous team. Do you wait until the trade deadline or look for a trade now if it is available? I know most of the arguments and usually try not to post in these threads cause I am a bit biased towards any trade for Sjax ;). Why would you not want an upgrade on the perimeter defensively that would give your team a lot more versatility and someone that can knock down shots in the playoffs?

How many seasons does Sjax have left on his contract? Is it 3 or 4?

He has 4 season left and I think you wait a while into the season before you make a major trade so you can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and also GS is probably expecting value from a trade ie Hill.

Ice009

10-26-2009, 07:36 AM

He has 4 season left and I think you wait a while into the season before you make a major trade so you can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and also GS is probably expecting value from a trade ie Hill.

Yeah, well I would say NO to including Hill. The only prospect I would be willing to give them is Mahinimi.

If you made the trade who would you be willing to include?

TJastal

10-26-2009, 07:36 AM

"Looking forward to your spin on how a 10-29 shooting night constitutes 'shreddin"

I'm not just looking at his shooting %, looking at his overall game, to which he clearly left his stamp on. To the tune of 28pts, 14reb, 6asst.

Its a pattern that is very discernible, dating back to last year. The spurs have nobody on the roster that can reasonably check the other teams' best wing player. Short list of players who have recently torched the spurs (from memory) - Granger, JHoward, Durant, Artest, Kobe, Lebron, Iguadola.

The thing about Stephen Jackson that makes him unique is he much like Bowen was back in his prime, where he can effectively guard a variety of players, which probably includes all the players mentioned above.

Who else are the spurs going to turn to this year to keep all these guys from going off night after night? Getting Stephen Jackson in here makes 100% perfect sense given that he wants out of Golden State ASAP and he would help immediately in that area.

I suppose you are going to tell me Bogans is going to shut all these players down...

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 07:37 AM

I really don't want to be throwing around first rounds picks again though. Do you?

If it boils down to it. I would in a heart beat. These are perhaps the last two years the Spurs might ever have a great chance at raising the Larry O'Brien Trophy. I wouldn't pull any stops. Especially if a LATE first round pick was the deal maker.

Getting Stephen Jackson would help us greatly. Whenever we would play the Lakers, Kobe would have to be playing defense for 48 minutes with a wing rotation consisting of Manu, RJ, and Jackson. On top of that have to be carrying the load offensively. I'm all for making him work on both sides every minute he's on the court. With Mason and Finley getting quality minutes Kobe can hide half the game on the defensive side of the ball. Which helps him on the other end. At the same time we would have RJ and Stephen to throw at him on the defensive end. I'm all for it.

TJastal

10-26-2009, 07:41 AM

If it boils down to it. I would in a heart beat. These are perhaps the last two years the Spurs might ever have a great chance at raising the Larry O'Brien Trophy. I wouldn't pull any stops. Especially if a LATE first round pick was the deal maker.

Getting Stephen Jackson would help us greatly. Whenever we would play the Lakers, Kobe would have to be playing defense for 48 minutes with a wing rotation consisting of Manu, RJ, and Jackson. On top of that have to be carrying the load offensively. I'm all for making him work on both sides every minute he's on the court. With Mason and Finley getting quality minutes Kobe can hide half the game on the defensive side of the ball. Which helps him on the other end. At the same time we would have RJ and Stephen to throw at him on the defensive end. I'm all for it.

+1 Its time to pull out ALL the stops and go for broke. Duncan's career is defenitely on its descent, and Manu's too.

Ice009

10-26-2009, 07:44 AM

If it boils down to it. I would in a heart beat. These are perhaps the last two years the Spurs might ever have a great chance at raising the Larry O'Brien Trophy. I wouldn't pull any stops. Especially if a LATE first round pick was the deal maker.

Getting Stephen Jackson would help us greatly. Whenever we would play the Lakers, Kobe would have to be playing defense for 48 minutes with a wing rotation consisting of Manu, RJ, and Jackson. On top of that have to be carrying the load offensively. I'm all for making him work on both sides every minute he's on the court. With Mason and Finley getting quality minutes Kobe can hide half the game on the defensive side of the ball. Which helps him on the other end. At the same time we would have RJ and Stephen to throw at him on the defensive end. I'm all for it.

Well you have convinced me, but I already wanted him on the team anyway ;). I guess we don't need to pay the extra luxury tax that a first round pick would give us and I suppose we won't get anyone near as good as Sjax with that pick. Is this next draft supposed to be a deep one?

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 07:44 AM

"Looking forward to your spin on how a 10-29 shooting night constitutes 'shreddin"

I'm not just looking at his shooting %, looking at his overall game, to which he clearly left his stamp on. To the tune of 28pts, 14reb, 6asst.

:lol

All Star playing 40 minutes in a preseason game will accumulate counting stats. 29 points on 29 shots is hardly indicative of a 'shredding'.

kbrury

10-26-2009, 07:47 AM

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 07:48 AM

He has 4 season left and I think you wait a while into the season before you make a major trade so you can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and also GS is probably expecting value from a trade ie Hill.

Even if he has 4 years left. The day Tim retires our reign and era where we compete for a championship year in and year out is over. That being said if Tim does retire in 2 years, we can trade Jackson's remaining contract to a true contender for expirings and a pick. If we can get rid of Rasho and Maliks contract we can get rid of Jackson if it were to ever boil down to it. Jackson makes 7.6 this year and 8.2 next year. Great value for a player of his caliber.

Jackson's remaining contract for 4 years won't necessary require talented value. Golden State is already having a hard time finding a suitor as is because of his contract. More than likely Golden State will ask for value in young prospects on rookie scale contracts in the beginnning and teams would laugh. Then when the trading deadline comes around the best offer they most likely recieve are expirings and a 1st maybe. That's the way the business works. The only teams that would be willing to consider adding Jackson and his contract are contenders that have a real possibility for a title. Therefore there's only a select few Golden State can negotiate with anyway.

San Antonio, Dallas, Cleveland have been mentioned.

You won't see a lottery team or an inferior fringe playoff team that are in rebuilding or semi rebuilding mode making a move to add a contract like Jackson's. Not in this day and age.

kbrury

10-26-2009, 07:55 AM

Even if he has 4 years left. The day Tim retires our reign and era where we compete for a championship year in and year out is over. That being said if Tim does retire in 2 years, we can trade Jackson's remaining contract to a true contender for expirings and a pick. If we can get rid of Rasho and Maliks contract we can get rid of Jackson if it were to ever boil down to it. Jackson makes 7.6 this year and 8.2 next year. Great value for a player of his caliber.

Jackson's remaining contract for 4 years won't necessary require talented value. Golden State is already having a hard time finding a suitor as is because of his contract. More than likely Golden State will ask for value in young prospects on rookie scale contracts in the beginnning and teams would laugh. Then when the trading deadline comes around the best offer they most likely recieve are expirings and a 1st maybe. That's the way the business works. The only teams that would be willing to consider adding Jackson and his contract are contenders that have a real possibility for a title. Therefore there's only a select few Golden State can negotiate with anyway.

San Antonio, Dallas, Cleveland have been mentioned.

You won't see a lottery team or an inferior fringe playoff team that is in rebuilding or semi rebuilding mode making a move to add a contract like Jackson's. Not in this day and age.

So what exactly did you say that was different then what I said in one fragment?

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 07:57 AM

Well you have convinced me, but I already wanted him on the team anyway ;). I guess we don't need to pay the extra luxury tax that a first round pick would give us and I suppose we won't get anyone near as good as Sjax with that pick. Is this next draft supposed to be a deep one?

Whoever knows. This last draft was suppose to be the weakest and we ended up with DeJuan Blair. You can never know who will fall in your lap or what will happen on draft day.

It's a mystery all the way up until the day of the draft. Especially for teams with late picks. There will be very few gems. Hill was one and so was Blair.

Splitter and Jackson would be our 1st round pick next year. Sound good?

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 08:00 AM

So what exactly did you say that was different then what I said in one fragment?

Trying to get you to understand, expirings plus a 1st will probably be the best Golden State can do when it's said and done.

kbrury

10-26-2009, 08:02 AM

Trying to get you to understand, expirings plus a 1st will probably be the best Golden State can do when it's said and done.

yeah that's why I said wait into the season to one evaluate the team and to wait for the price to be reduced because they are still looking for value.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 08:06 AM

yeah that's why I said wait into the season to one evaluate the team and to wait for the price to be reduced because they are still looking for value.

Golden State most likely already understands expirings and maybe a 1st is the best they can do.

It's been over a month, nothing has happened.

kbrury

10-26-2009, 08:07 AM

Golden State most likely already understands expirings and maybe a 1st is the best they can do.

It's been over a month, nothing has happened.

I think all the teams want to see how their roster works together before they make a major move.

ElNono

10-26-2009, 08:14 AM

Ice009

10-26-2009, 08:28 AM

Has anybody actually looked at SJax salary before even suggesting going there?

Foster for Bonner/Finley is at least realistic, in that Foster would be an expiring contract next season.
And some of you guys really forgot how horrible were Bonner/Mason /Finley (in that order) on the postseason. I have to assume you either blocked it out of your mind, or simply decided to erase the memories.
Bonner would be a borderline bench player on any of the other 5 or so elite teams.

That is the whole point. Do you trust Bonner and Mason Jr. in the playoffs? What is the point of waiting around until the trade deadline if Bonner and RMJ are playing great in the regular season? Those two playing great in the regular season doesn't mean much to me. That doesn't mean they can't turn it around, but I think you know what I mean here. If you have any doubts about their ability in the playoffs then you go for the trade with Stephen Jackson now.

I don't think the regular season will tell us how they are going to perform in the playoffs. They are still both unknown and have basically only one round of playoff experience whereas Jackson has a lot more than that.

Anyway the trade can be done with out Bonner, but I'd say RMJ would have to be the centerpiece of it.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 08:29 AM

Has anybody actually looked at SJax salary before even suggesting going there?

.

Even if he has 4 years left. The day Tim retires our reign and era where we compete for a championship year in and year out is over. That being said if Tim does retire in 2 years, we can trade Jackson's remaining contract to a true contender for expirings and a pick. If we can get rid of Rasho and Maliks contract we can get rid of Jackson if it were to ever boil down to it. Jackson makes 7.6 this year and 8.2 next year. Great value for a player of his caliber.

Jackson's remaining contract for 4 years won't necessary require talented value. Golden State is already having a hard time finding a suitor as is because of his contract. More than likely Golden State will ask for value in young prospects on rookie scale contracts in the beginnning and teams would laugh. Then when the trading deadline comes around the best offer they most likely recieve are expirings and a 1st maybe. That's the way the business works. The only teams that would be willing to consider adding Jackson and his contract are contenders that have a real possibility for a title. Therefore there's only a select few Golden State can negotiate with anyway.

San Antonio, Dallas, Cleveland have been mentioned.

You won't see a lottery team or an inferior fringe playoff team that are in rebuilding or semi rebuilding mode making a move to add a contract like Jackson's. Not in this day and age.

Foster for Bonner/Finley is at least realistic, in that Foster would be an expiring contract next season.

Looking at the future, spurs should probably use expiring contracts to trade for a solid perimeter player if they are going to use the MLE on splitter. No sense in trading for a big and then using the MLE to try and lure another big over.

ElNono

10-26-2009, 09:01 AM

Even if he has 4 years left. The day Tim retires our reign and era where we compete for a championship year in and year out is over. That being said if Tim does retire in 2 years, we can trade Jackson's remaining contract to a true contender for expirings and a pick. If we can get rid of Rasho and Maliks contract we can get rid of Jackson if it were to ever boil down to it. Jackson makes 7.6 this year and 8.2 next year. Great value for a player of his caliber.

Not in this economy you won't get rid of such a contract, especially since he's going to be 32 or 33 years old, and on the decline. Just look how difficult it is for GSW to move him right now.
But above all, if you think the Spurs are going to be $20 million over the lux tax for a guy that might be an excellent player, but you know is a head case, then you're completely wrong.

For a small market team like the Spurs, 'pulling all the stops' is absorbing one bad contract (like RJ), and bringing in on of the top FA this summer (Dice). Landing Blair was pure luck.
My take on any trade talk at this point for the Spurs, at least until February when they know a little better what they have and how the other teams look like, would need to be done to address specific needs or to save money.
Foster for a combination of Bonner/Finley/RMJ would address helping Tim on defense, along with Ratliff, who simply can't play that many minutes (or so it seems).

mountainballer

10-26-2009, 09:03 AM

ok, I quit....mods please rename the thread to "get Sjax volume 57"

and btw. he will end up in Cleveland anyhow.
there they just watch the next chapter in the endless Delonte West saga:

http://www.woio.com/global/story.asp?s=11379695
Cleveland Cavaliers player Delonte West and his wife reportedly got into a spat Saturday evening that ended with West's wife filing a domestic violence report. The two reportedly fought at their apartment when Delonte tried to take her wedding ring off. Mrs. West left their home and headed to Cleveland Hopkin's International Airport, where she filed a domestic violence report.

I guess they Cavs will know that West is out of control and decide to react. they will finally take Sjax plus another long term contract (Turiaf?) off the Warriors hands for Z. Warriors will become a player in the 2010 free agency with about 15 million cap space.
and no more Sjax threads here.
good times.

yavozerb

10-26-2009, 09:04 AM

Can't wait for the season begin so I can see threads like this one disappear!!

Chieflion

10-26-2009, 09:06 AM

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=952450 -Jackson back to SA

Check out the comments. Warriors and Raptors fans actually agree to this. You know how hardcore the Raptor community is on RealGM, don't you?

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 09:09 AM

Not in this economy you won't get rid of such a contract, especially since he's going to be 32 or 33 years old, and on the decline. Just look how difficult it is for GSW to move him right now.
But above all, if you think the Spurs are going to be $20 million over the lux tax for a guy that might be an excellent player, but you know is a head case, then you're completely wrong.

I'm not completely wrong. Spurs will go over the luxury tax by 15-20 million anyway. Pop has pretty much made it known that RJ was brought here to play with Manu therefore Manu will be back next year if he's healthy. On top of that Mason/ Bonner will look to be resigned. Not to mention R.C has mentioned Spurs will explore attaining Splitter with the MLE. So regardless Spurs and Peter Holt have put all their chips in for the next two years anyway. Not just this year.

If Spurs resign Manu that will leave the Spurs with Manu/ RJ/ Hairston as the only players at the wing with a guaranteed contract. Since they are going after Splitter with the MLE, there best option to attain another player at the wing would be to resign Mason since he wouldn't cost us any of our MLE to resign him. If they don't then they are screwed in the depth department because they would only be able to sign a wing for the minimum.

That being said I rather have Jackson than Mason.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 09:13 AM

And plus you can get rid of that contract to a contender most specifically, if that time were to come.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 09:14 AM

/\ imo

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 09:21 AM

But above all, if you think the Spurs are going to be $20 million over the lux tax for a guy that might be an excellent player, but you know is a head case, then you're completely wrong.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-jacksonwarriors101609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"I play this game to win,” Jackson said. “If any fan wants a guy that wants to make money and not win games, what kind of fan are you? You should want guys that respect the game and want to win.

“That’s what I’ve always been about. It was a different experience because you felt the winning attitude. Everybody was together. It wasn’t the [front] office against the core players in San Antonio. Everyone was on the same page. It was easy to win because everyone had the same goal, to win. I think every organization should be like that.”

Sounds like he would be an extreme headcase here. Much like 2003?

ElNono

10-26-2009, 09:29 AM

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-jacksonwarriors101609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"I play this game to win,” Jackson said. “If any fan wants a guy that wants to make money and not win games, what kind of fan are you? You should want guys that respect the game and want to win.

“That’s what I’ve always been about. It was a different experience because you felt the winning attitude. Everybody was together. It wasn’t the [front] office against the core players in San Antonio. Everyone was on the same page. It was easy to win because everyone had the same goal, to win. I think every organization should be like that.”

Sounds like he would be an extreme headcase here. Much like 2003?

Don't get me wrong, I love SJax. But if you still don't understand why he left in 2003 (and it wasn't necessarily money), then I can't help you.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 09:40 AM

Don't get me wrong, I love SJax. But if you still don't understand why he left in 2003 (and it wasn't necessarily money), then I can't help you.

I do understand why he wasn't brought back. It was much more than Jackson himself. Pacers didn't want to let Brad Miller go for nothing. Sacramento wanted Brad Miller badly. The result? They needed a third party to get the sign and trade deal done and San Antonio was lucky to be included. Spurs were offered Ron Mercer and Hedo Turkoglu for absolutely nothing. At that time Stephen Jackson didn't like the Spurs offer and his agent was seeking a long term deal. At that same time when Jackson's agent was playing hard-ball, Pacers and Kings needed an answer quickly if San Antonio would be willing to take on Mercer and Turkoglu's contract by only trading the retiring Danny Ferry. If they wouldn't comply to their deadline the Spurs would have been left out and those two teams would have found another destination for the two. Spurs couldn't turn that down at that point in time because they could possibly lose out on Jackson by his agent's contract demands.

It wasn't Jackson's attitude as the reason why he left, Pop and Duncan loved Jackson that was a reason why he started for us in 2003 and another reason why he was still desired by the team, which was evident by the initial contract offer for Jackson.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 09:46 AM

In 2003 Jackson was a whiner also. He would come to the bench crying and have words with Popovich, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Just because they won a ring doesn't mean anything.

When you play an 82 games plus the playoffs over an 8 month period. There will be moments where you disagree with decisions and have words with your coach. I don't care what team you play for or who you are. Bruce and Manu have got into with Popovich on many occasions throughout their career here. In the heat of battle and competition this happens in sports. It's the nature of the beast.

The only concern I'd have with Jackson is if he put himself infront of and in favor of the team. That I just don't see happening if he were to ever wear black and silver again.

If Popovich really found Jackson's discussions with him a distraction Popovich would have sat Jackson like him and Bob Hill did to Rodman. That wasn't the case as a situation like such never transpired.

ElNono

10-26-2009, 09:51 AM

I do understand why he wasn't brought back. It was much more than Jackson himself. Pacers didn't want to let Brad Miller go for nothing. Sacramento wanted Brad Miller badly. The result? They needed a third party to get the sign and trade deal done and San Antonio was lucky to be included. Spurs were offered Ron Mercer and Hedo Turkoglu for absolutely nothing. At that time Stephen Jackson didn't like the Spurs offer and his agent was seeking a long term deal. At that same time when Jackson's agent was playing hard-ball, Pacers and Kings needed an answer quickly if San Antonio would be willing to take on Mercer and Turkoglu's contract by only trading the retiring Danny Ferry. If they wouldn't comply to their deadline the Spurs would have been left out and those two teams would have found another destination for the two. Spurs couldn't turn that down at that point in time because they could possibly lose out on Jackson by his agent's contract demands.

It wasn't Jackson's attitude, Pop and Duncan loved Jackson that was a reason why he started for us in 2003 and another reason why he was still desired by the team.

There's zero doubt in my mind that Jackson simply wanted to be THE MAN. Captain Jack. He wasn't going to be that under Duncan's shadow.
For a guy that claims that all he wants is to win rings, he passed up an opportunity to win more rings to end up in Atlanta looking for a better contract down the line? It's not like he had a boatload of suitors back then.

ElNono

10-26-2009, 10:01 AM

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as fuck. He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

I gather you mean that the market was particularly NOT hot for him?
You would think a guy that was 'lowballed' like you said would never want to face the same management, but all we hear is how much he'd like to play for the Spurs again, under the same management.
Plus he ended up taking less money in Atlanta than what the Spurs offered him. And if you're indeed right, then all the ring talk is merely posturing.
I actually think he misses being in the thick of things.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 10:02 AM

There's zero doubt in my mind that Jackson simply wanted to be THE MAN. Captain Jack. He wasn't going to be that under Duncan's shadow.
.

That is just silly.

Your wrong unfortunately, but your entitled to your opinion.

kbrury

10-26-2009, 10:04 AM

Can this thread die already I think every possible angle has been explained in not only this thread, but two others as well.

Just an opinion. Carry on.
But Ill gladly talk about Stephen Jackson all day even though he has had five times as many threads.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 10:06 AM

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as fuck. He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

He was actually offered 3 years 9 million by the Spurs and his agent asked for more with Jackson trusting the agent where everything would work out in the end and he would receive the 3 year 13-15 million deal. Turns out during this time Spurs got the call from Sacramento wanting to know if they wanted in on Turk and Mercer. They needed a quick answer, so Spurs went the safe route and went with Turkoglu and Mercer knowing they could lose out on Jackson and his agent's contract demands.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 10:08 AM

You don't have to read anything or follow what I type.

Just a suggestion.

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 10:10 AM

I have to admit kbrury im flattered your spending your time monitoring my posts.

kbrury

10-26-2009, 10:11 AM

Just thought it was a little humorous lol.

ElNono

10-26-2009, 10:15 AM

That is just silly.

Your wrong unfortunately, but your entitled to your opinion.

You're certainly entitled to yours too. :toast

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 10:30 AM

Agloco

10-26-2009, 10:32 AM

Credit to Bruno for this one (http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ygl92sb), which he has been advocating throughout the offseason.

Pacers would do this primarily for Finley and Bonner's expiring contracts. In Murphy, Granger, and Dunleavy, they have some rather big contracts for a team which is still in rebuilding mode. Not sure if they are close to paying the Lux Tax, but if they are then this deal would make much more sense for them. Such a trade would also be Caucasian neutral, which apparently is quite important in Indianapolis.

:lmao

Seriously tho, I think this gains traction as the season progresses. Especially if Bonner or Finley are stinking up the joint.

Marcus Bryant

10-26-2009, 11:42 AM

Of course Foster to SA is unrealistic but the Spurs taking on Jack's contract is a given. Of course Matt Bullard Bonner is not a one trick pony who shouldn't be logging heavy minutes in the frontcourt rotation of any serious contender. What has happened to this forum?

MaNu4Tres

10-26-2009, 11:56 AM

Of course Matt Bullard Bonner is not a one trick pony who shouldn't be logging heavy minutes in the frontcourt rotation of any serious contender. What has happened to this forum?

Since when is 15 minutes heavy minutes like you suggest?

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 01:14 PM

Kind of like 95% of your posts.

:lol

That's the best you could do? How about backing up your wild assertions with anything resembling facts, evidence, or supporting documentation?

You know, such as a contemporaneous report:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1030223/index.htm

Now back up your side of the issue with something other than your imperfect recollections or personal attacks.

Marcus Bryant

10-26-2009, 01:18 PM

Since when is 15 minutes heavy minutes like you suggest?

Anything over 10 is too much for him. 15? egads.

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 01:30 PM

Um, the only thing this article shows is that I'm exactly right. He was insulted by the offer. He ended up not having much interest in the market at the time, took a short deal, and then banked after he showed what he could do. Thanks very much for proving me right. :tu

:lol

If you read your post and that article and come to the conclusion that you have been proven right, then any further discussion is clearly useless.

Then again, you look at statistics and see proof that Beno is a good starting NBA PG. I should have known better.

Bruno

10-26-2009, 01:33 PM

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 01:39 PM

Add another to the 95%.

You have no sense of irony, do you?

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 01:44 PM

Now back up your side of the issue with something other than your imperfect recollections or personal attacks.

You've got no sense, period. I don't really blame you, though. It obviously runs in the family. How do I know that, you ask? Well, your name is Mel.

Mel_13

10-26-2009, 01:48 PM

Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those incapable of making their case with the facts.

Whisky Dog

10-26-2009, 02:20 PM

I can't believe this is an argument. Sure Finley and Bonner suck, but Foster is an average defensive player with no offense whatsoever. Should be able to get a better deal.

jjktkk

10-26-2009, 03:35 PM

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as fuck. He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

The Spurs lowballed because they had to worry about getting new contracts for Parker and Ginoboli, and IMO they did not want to give out max money to SJAX, who while talented, can be volatile and immature, basically a headcase.

benefactor

10-26-2009, 07:43 PM

I've never watched Foster play, so I will make something up.

Marcus Bryant

10-26-2009, 08:51 PM

:tu

mountainballer

10-27-2009, 03:37 AM

The Spurs lowballed because they had to worry about getting new contracts for Parker and Ginoboli, and IMO they did not want to give out max money to SJAX, who while talented, can be volatile and immature, basically a headcase.

thanks, finally someone who remembers the real circumstances. Manu was on a 2 years LLE contract from 2002-2004, so Spurs didn't have full Bird rights. they needed to take care for enough cap space in 2004 to be able to match offers higher than MLE.
(if they didn't, they get into a situation like Warriors had with Arenas in 2003, when they finally lost Arenas with nothing in return). Manu wouldn't have signed for the MLE, in 2004 it was already obvious that he is an all star talent.
if the Spurs signed Sjax to a big contract, it could have caused the loss of Manu. and I dare to claim: Sjax wouldn't have brought as the 2005 title.

(but I don't expect a guy, who thinks Beno is a great player, to get this)

neverdead2008

10-27-2009, 04:08 AM

I don't like this trade

BG_Spurs_Fan

10-27-2009, 06:10 AM

Add another to the 95%.

Unfortunately, you'll find that there are more than 95% of the posters here that know more about basketball than yourself. This includes gems like Thong and portnoy too, consider!

Whisky Dog

10-28-2009, 12:37 AM

I love offensively challenged unathletic white guys!!! Can't the Spurs find a way to bring back Shawn Bradley and Gregg Ostertag?

benefactor

10-28-2009, 05:47 AM

You lost all credibility in the discussion when you said Foster was an average defender.

Muser

10-28-2009, 06:04 AM

Foster an average defender :lmao

MaNu4Tres

10-28-2009, 06:13 AM

Foster an average defender :lmao

Your laughing as if he's made an all-defensive team at least one time in his 10 year career.

benefactor

10-28-2009, 07:03 AM

Your laughing as if he's made an all-defensive team at least one time in his 10 year career.
So now we are going to use a biased, overrated process to assess defenders?

GMAFB.

Whisky Dog

10-28-2009, 10:16 AM

You lost all credibility in the discussion when you said Foster was an average defender.

Tell me what makes Foster a good or great defender... basically anything above average? He's undersized to handle the big centers of the game and gets dominated by the likes of Shaq, Yao, Z, etc.

He's a decent defender against some of the smaller centers in the league, but looking at who the Spurs have to matchup against in the West if they want to come out - he's never been a good matchup for Gasol. Period. He may have his moments against Bynum but probably more because Bynum is inconsistent and a bit weak minded.

I don't hate the guy, I would take him as a hustle big off the bench who can give a few minutes here and there against good matchups for him. The problem is giving up 2 of the guys the Spurs will need during the regular season to get through limiting the minutes of Duncan and Manu. Bonner and Finley shouldnt get a lot of minutes, but their shooting ability will be needed on certain nights. Getting rid of those two for an offensively challenged center really reduces the amount of shooters available when teams try to pack the lane to reduce Parker, Duncan, and Jefferson/Manu's effectiveness in the paint.

rjv

10-28-2009, 10:51 AM

pass.

MaNu4Tres

10-28-2009, 10:55 AM

So now we are going to use a biased, overrated process to assess defenders?

GMAFB.

I wasn't assessing Foster. I was only commenting on Muser's "laughing his ass off" expression on Whiskey Dog's opinion that Foster is an average defender.

Spurs won't ever trade for Foster this year unless Ratliff is hurt for the year and if Blair hits a rookie wall. If Ratliff is healthy Foster will never be a Spur. You can quote me on that.

afireinside20

10-28-2009, 01:35 PM

A stiff and a fossil, for a younger stiff? Hmmmmmm.....

Bruno

11-01-2009, 07:47 PM

EricB

11-01-2009, 07:53 PM

I'd only go Collison because of the lack of injury threat and hes more athletic.

Not a shotblocking guy and kinda undersized so doesn't really help since you already have one of him in Blair.

HarlemHeat37

11-01-2009, 08:08 PM

I'd go with Collison as well..

Foster doesn't look good to me so far, looks like his back is really bothering him..it could be a serious injury for the season..

Blackjack

11-01-2009, 08:28 PM

I wouldn't trade for either at the moment..

But if you're asking if somewhere near the deadline it comes down to one of these two if the Spurs are to upgrade?

I'd go Foster.

The only reason the Spurs would be looking to upgrade at the big position would be to better match up against the Lakers, Blazers in the West and the Celtics, Magic in the East, and Collison doesn't really help in that quest; he's a solid player, but he's undersized and not going to help the Spurs where they need it most; defensively.

Having said that, I'm not sure Foster does either. A couple years ago, absolutely, but I haven't seen much lately to indicate he'd be that much of an upgrade over Theo. But unlike Collison, there's still a chance he could give the Spurs what they need; how ever small it is at this point.

tp2021

11-01-2009, 09:18 PM

I'd go Collison. He's younger, and I'm of the opinion that neither gives much in the shotblocking department, but Collison has more heft to his frame and I think he would be able to hold ground against big bodies better than Foster would.

bluebellmaniac

11-01-2009, 09:28 PM

I think our bigger need is for a big that is at least 6'10" for the probable Laker matchup come playoffs. Foster would be the guy.

mountainballer

11-02-2009, 06:18 AM

I'm curious to hear your opinion:

Spurs have 2 trade offers on the table:
- Finley and Bonner for Jeff Foster.
- Finely and Bonner for Nick Collison.

Foster and Collison have about the same contract and Holt has give the green light for the additional cost.

Would you do one of these trades? If yes, which one?

I like Collison and last deadline I thought Collison would be a very interesting option. this year not so much, Dice and Blair provide most of Collisons qualities.
at this point I go with Foster, as mentioned he would help against the big teams, especially the Lakers.
btw. Foster had some injury troubles in the last weeks, but this might not be the only reason why he lost his spot in the rotation. Pacers obviously go the youth path with Solomon Jones and Roy Hibbert. Foster could become available soon.

Bruno

11-02-2009, 06:54 AM

I think our bigger need is for a big that is at least 6'10" for the probable Laker matchup come playoffs. Foster would be the guy.

Colison has been measured at 6'10" with a 7'1.5" wingspan. He isn't a seven footer but is quite big.

Bruno

11-02-2009, 06:58 AM

btw. Foster had some injury troubles in the last weeks, but this might not be the only reason why he lost his spot in the rotation. Pacers obviously go the youth path with Solomon Jones and Roy Hibbert. Foster could become available soon.

Hansbrough should also be back soon. If he plays well, Foster could be more available.

mystargtr34

11-02-2009, 07:13 AM

Colison has been measured at 6'10" with a 7'1.5" wingspan. He isn't a seven footer but is quite big.

Just quickly, whats his standing reach, and height without shoes?

Bruno

11-02-2009, 07:22 AM

Just quickly, whats his standing reach, and height without shoes?

Height without shoes: 6'8.75"
Standing reach: 9'0"

mystargtr34

11-02-2009, 07:30 AM

Height without shoes: 6'8.75"
Standing reach: 9'0"

Thanks...

Decent size for a PF, but he only has 1.5" on Blair in terms of reach, and a smaller wingspan - so im not sure how useful he would be against true 7 footers like a Gasol or a Bynum. We already have a rebouding PF pretending to be a Center in McDyess, so Collison kind of duplicates that.

So given both have similar strengths, i would probably take Foster, the only true 7 footers on the Spurs are Tim and Theo, and Theo isnt a great man-to-man defender.

mountainballer

11-02-2009, 09:01 AM

Ratliff isn't a true 7 footer either. (6'10'' with long arms.)

btw. I'm not sure that Bonner+Finley are the most logical package, even if it seems right now.
I think currently Spurs would rather put Mason in a package than Finley.
and add Ian instead of Bonner. (unfortunately this is slightly less than necessary to get the number for Foster. after Dec.15th a package of Mason, Ian and Haislip would be enough to get Foster).

Sdayi135

11-02-2009, 09:01 AM

I'd probably go with Collison but Foster isn't a bad option either.

But as was stated before we have PFs/Cs with the same skill set as both so getting either guy would be redundant to what we already have.

Then again, if you're looking for a big, who else is out there?

Chieflion

11-02-2009, 09:03 AM

Forget it. He got injured. The Pacers lose him for two weeks.

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/62517/20091102/pacers_lose_foster_for_two_weeks/

Sdayi135

11-02-2009, 09:06 AM

Forget it. He got injured. The Pacers lose him for two weeks.

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/62517/20091102/pacers_lose_foster_for_two_weeks/

If we trade for a player like a Foster (or a Nick Collison as a someone suggessted), it'll likely be closer to the trade deadline anyways.

Mel_13

11-02-2009, 09:08 AM

Forget it. He got injured. The Pacers lose him for two weeks.

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/62517/20091102/pacers_lose_foster_for_two_weeks/

The trade either makes sense or it doesn't. An ankle sprain in November is irrelevant to that decision.

Bruno

11-02-2009, 09:55 AM

I think currently Spurs would rather put Mason in a package than Finley.
and add Ian instead of Bonner. (unfortunately this is slightly less than necessary to get the number for Foster. after Dec.15th a package of Mason, Ian and Haislip would be enough to get Foster).

With the luxury tax, doing a trade for Collison/Foster and keeping Bonner makes few sense. Bonner has a quite big salary ($3.26M) and will cost a lot of money with the tax for an end of the bench player.

If Spurs rather trade Mason than Finley, the logical package would be Mason+Bonner. Spurs could then dump one of Haislip or Mahinmi in a Beno-like trade.

MaNu4Tres

11-02-2009, 09:57 AM

Bonner has a quite big salary ($3.26M) and will cost a lot of money with the tax for an end of the bench player.

That's not reality. As long as Pop is the coach.

benefactor

11-02-2009, 11:52 AM

That's not reality. As long as Pop is the coach.
You seem to have forgotten how many times Bonner spent an extended period of time in Pop's doghouse. History suggests Pop has no problem burying Bonner at the end of the bench if he is not playing well.

Finley..on the other hand........:bang

MaNu4Tres

11-02-2009, 12:37 PM

You seem to have forgotten how many times Bonner spent an extended period of time in Pop's doghouse. History suggests Pop has no problem burying Bonner at the end of the bench if he is not playing well.

Finley..on the other hand........:bang

When Bonner came to the Spurs, he had to earn his due. That was evident by him being on the end of the bench to begin with when he joined the Spurs in 2006-2007. He stayed on the end of the bench for his first 2 seasons with the Spurs and only played mop up minutes.

Because of his hardwork and him earning his due, Pop then gave him a real opportunity. Robert Horry not coming back last year was a big part of that because Bonner was our only answer in terms of a big that could spread the floor.

Since then Pop has never put Bonner in his doghouse. So your wrong.

Bonner never got a real opportunity with the Spurs until last year.

Since then Pop has gone to Bonner over any other big.
Gooden, Thomas, Oberto to name a few.

By the way Bonner is still starting...

* FYI I'm not a Bonner fan by anymeans. I just know how you and some others overlook how much Pop values Bonner as crazy as that sounds.

benefactor

11-02-2009, 01:39 PM

When Bonner came to the Spurs, he had to earn his due. That was evident by him being on the end of the bench to begin with when he joined the Spurs in 2006-2007. He stayed on the end of the bench for his first 2 seasons with the Spurs and only played mop up minutes.

Because of his hardwork and him earning his due, Pop then gave him a real opportunity. Robert Horry not coming back last year was a big part of that because Bonner was our only answer in terms of a big that could spread the floor.

Since then Pop has never put Bonner in his doghouse. So your wrong.

Bonner has played good enough. He shot well last year and that kept him on the floor. But now that we have some depth the circumstances have changed. You just said yourself that Bonner was our only answer last year and that is why he got minutes. Are you saying that Bonner would stay on the floor even if he was not shooting well...with McDyess right there at the end of the bench at Pop's disposal? Bonner's performance in the playoffs is the reason McDyess is here, and I have no doubt that Bonner would go right back to the doghouse if he started to show signs of lacking confidence or struggles shooting.

Bonner never got a real opportunity with the Spurs until last year.

Since then Pop has gone to Bonner over any other big.
Gooden, Thomas, Oberto to name a few.

By the way Bonner is still starting...

lol...look at those options. Gooden was too dumb to pick up the system, Thomas was struggling and Oberto is incredibly limited. It's not like he was playing ahead of some world beaters. You act like I give a damn about Bonner starting. I have already stated several times that I don't care if he starts right now, because the player that was brought here to replace him will probably be in there ahead of him as soon as he is comfortable in the system.

mountainballer

11-03-2009, 05:21 AM

Bonner has played good enough. He shot well last year and that kept him on the floor. But now that we have some depth the circumstances have changed. You just said yourself that Bonner was our only answer last year and that is why he got minutes. Are you saying that Bonner would stay on the floor even if he was not shooting well...with McDyess right there at the end of the bench at Pop's disposal? Bonner's performance in the playoffs is the reason McDyess is here, and I have no doubt that Bonner would go right back to the doghouse if he started to show signs of lacking confidence or struggles shooting.

I see it like you. playing Bonner right now is just very pragmatic. Blair and Dice will need several NBA games to become an integral part of the system and Pop will also keep the minutes of Tim and Dice as low as possible, at least in the 1st half of the season. Bonner is a decent option for 15-20 regular season minutes, especially against teams that are weak on the boards. but I'm pretty sure it's not the big plan to enter the next PO with Bonner as a part of the PO rotation.
best case is, he plays decent enough to allow Dice and Blair a stepwise integration and at deadline he (his expiring contract) becomes part of a trade for a quality role player.