Draft Prospect: Derrick Favors

[Bruno]

http://nbcsportsmedia.msnbc.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/spt-100106-derrick-favors.widec.jpg
Height: 6-10
Weight: 246 lbs
Birthday: 07/15/1991
College: Georgia Tech

DraftExpress (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Derrick-Favors-1335/)
nbadraft (http://www.nbadraft.net/players/derrick-favors)

[mogrovejo]

Only saw one game of him but was extremely impressed. Awesome combination of length+athleticism+quickness+defensive intensity+awareness. Should become a defensive force in the NBA as soon as he acquires a little experience and reputation. A guy to build a great defensive squad around.

[AFBlue]

Only saw one game of him but was extremely impressed. Awesome combination of length+athleticism+quickness+defensive intensity+awareness. Should become a defensive force in the NBA as soon as he acquires a little experience and reputation. A guy to build a great defensive squad around.

Those qualities plus a reportedly good work ethic make this guy a top 5 pick. Unfortunately, the Spurs have no chance at him.

[AFBlue]

Favors in per NBAdraft.net

[Spurs Brazil]

Georgia Tech's Favors: Spurs are trying to get me
By Jeff McDonald on May 21, 10 08:50 PM

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/courtside/2010/05/georgia-techs-f-1.html

[jesterbobman]

CIA or actual interest?(As in interest in moving up)

[The Truth #6]

What's the CIA of talking to him I wonder...it can only further trade talk which they are supposedly denying.

[yavozerb]

What's the CIA of talking to him I wonder...it can only further trade talk which they are supposedly denying.

:lol...This is pretty funny cause you never hear of the spurs going through wasted motions during the draft process. This definatly will get TP's attention and the rest of the NBA for that matter.

[TimmehC]

:lol...This is pretty funny cause you never hear of the spurs going through wasted motions during the draft process. This definatly will get TP's attention and the rest of the NBA for that matter.

I think that's what they're after - basically announcing that the Spurs are open to trades.

[MaNu4Tres]

What's the CIA of talking to him I wonder...it can only further trade talk which they are supposedly denying.

CIA Pop and CIA R.C won't ever admit their intentions through the media.

They have to be shopping Parker to see what's available, it's their job. Parker will be a free agent next year, and he is going to demand the max-level contract. If Spurs don't have the intentions on giving him such a deal (which I don't blame them), they are better off trading Parker but for the right deal. Due to the fact that Parker will more than likely get the max-level contract in free agency, leaving the Spurs empty handed.

[TIMMYD!]

CIA Pop and CIA R.C won't ever admit their intentions through the media.

They have to be shopping Parker to see what's available, it's their job. Parker will be a free agent next year, and he is going to demand the max-level contract. If Spurs don't have the intentions on giving him such a deal (which I don't blame them), they are better off trading Parker but for the right deal. Due to the fact that Parker will more than likely get the max-level contract in free agency, leaving the Spurs empty handed.

You're right, Parker for sure will want a big contract and I'd trade him if it was certain he is leaving but I don't think the FO is sure either.

[MaNu4Tres]

You're right, Parker for sure will want a big contract and I'd trade him if it was certain he is leaving but I don't think the FO is sure either.

By no means am I advocating trading Parker just to trade him.

Only way I'd trade him is for the right deal.

A Parker, Blair or/and #20 and rights to Colo for Devin Harris and the #3 pick in the draft would be an example.

[Mel_13]

You're right, Parker for sure will want a big contract and I'd trade him if it was certain he is leaving but I don't think the FO is sure either.

If the Spurs want to keep Tony for the long term, they have it completely in their power to assure that happens. The only reason that it hasn't happened already is because the Spurs haven't reached the point where they are ready to offer that much money to Tony. If they were to offer Tony the largest possible extension allowed by the CBA, as they did with Manu, Tony would sign that deal in a heartbeat.

I've been saying for a long time that there won't be an extension signed this year. The only way is happens is if Tony is willing to accept substantially less than the maximum possible deal. I don't see Tony doing that so I think Tony goes into free agency next summer if he isn't traded before then.

[Bruno]

Trading Parker for a pick and a lesser vet player would be a rebuilding move. Given that Spurs have signed an aging Ginobili to a big extension, I don't think they are in rebuilding mode.

The reason why Spurs talked to Favors is because there is no drawback to do so. It's as simple as that. Now, you can always try to see some CIA behind that...

And Parker wanting a max contract or Spurs not ready to give him a big contract is a wild assumption.

[MaNu4Tres]

And Parker wanting a max contract or Spurs not ready to give him a big contract is a wild assumption.

I don't think it's as wild as you claim, he see's himself as a top 5 point guard in the league which is understandable. His agent and his group will use Chris Paul and Deron Williams' contract as leverage to get the max-level deal. At least that's my opinion.

At the same time, Spurs obviously aren't sold on the idea on giving him the max-level extension because they have been avoiding the situation all together. You can argue that Spurs avoided Ginobili this past season and ended up giving him the max-extension for 3 years. But with Parker the max-level deal is a bigger investment in terms of years. A much greater and complicated risk. IMO



Trading Parker for a pick and a lesser vet player would be a rebuilding move. Given that Spurs have signed an aging Ginobili to a big extension, I don't think they are in rebuilding mode.

I wouldn't say it would be solely a rebuilding move. IMO The move for the #3 pick and Harris would still be benefiting the current state of the Spurs and for the future as well.

[Mel_13]

Trading Parker for a pick and a lesser vet player would be a rebuilding move. Given that Spurs have signed an aging Ginobili to a big extension, I don't think they are in rebuilding mode.

The reason why Spurs talked to Favors is because there is no drawback to do so. It's as simple as that. Now, you can always try to see some CIA behind that...

And Parker wanting a max contract or Spurs not ready to give him a big contract is a wild assumption.

That is true, but saying that Tony would sign a max extension is not a wild assumption nor is saying that the Spurs are not yet ready to offer a max extension. It is entirely reasonable and logical to assume that a max extension, if offered, would be signed. The absence of a signed max extension is clear proof that no such offer has been made.

[Bruno]

That is true, but saying that Tony would sign a max extension is not a wild assumption nor is saying that the Spurs are not yet ready to offer a max extension. It is entirely reasonable and logical to assume that a max extension, if offered, would be signed. The absence of a signed max extension is clear proof that no such offer has been made.

There are CBA rules. If Parker signs an extension now, it can only be a 4 years one. He and Spurs must wait July to talk about a 5 years extension.

Parker said he will start talking about an extension with Spurs in October.

[Bruno]

I wouldn't say it would be solely a rebuilding move. IMO The move for the #3 pick and Harris would still be benefiting the current state of the Spurs and for the future as well.

IMO, that's a bad trade for both sides.

Nets are a young team and a player with Favors upside is great.
Spurs are in win now, Parker is way better than Harris and Favors will be a 19 years old rookie.

[Ditty]

harris & favors for parker would be a steal straight up for the spurs and also keep pick number 20 would be nice but i would give up splitter & parker

[Mel_13]

There are CBA rules. If Parker signs an extension now, it can only be a 4 years one. He and Spurs must wait July to talk about a 5 years extension.

Parker said he will start talking about an extension with Spurs in October.

Understood. If my math is right, a 4yr max extension is around 69M and a 5yr extension would come in at around 90M. Clearly, Tony would sign a 90M deal. Facing the uncertainties of the 2011 CBA, I think it very likely that he would sign a 4yr/69M extension.

I'm convinced that the Spurs won't make any such offer. They will either trade him or wait until the parameters of the new CBA are known and take their chances in free agency.

Tony's situation is, in my view, so much more complicated than Manu's situation. It will be very interesting to see how things play out.

[MaNu4Tres]

Understood. If my math is right, a 4yr max extension is around 69M and a 5yr extension would come in at around 90M. Clearly, Tony would sign a 90M deal. Facing the uncertainties of the 2011 CBA, I think it very likely that he would sign a 4yr/69M extension.

I'm convinced that the Spurs won't make any such offer. They will either trade him or wait until the parameters of the new CBA are known and take their chances in free agency.

Tony's situation is, in my view, so much more complicated than Manu's situation. It will be very interesting to see how things play out.

Couldn't have said it any better.

Agreed :tu

[Bruno]

Understood. If my math is right, a 4yr max extension is around 69M and a 5yr extension would come in at around 90M. Clearly, Tony would sign a 90M deal. Facing the uncertainties of the 2011 CBA, I think it very likely that he would sign a 4yr/69M extension.

I'm convinced that the Spurs won't make any such offer. They will either trade him or wait until the parameters of the new CBA are known and take their chances in free agency.


I don't get the logic in what you say:
1) "I've been saying for a long time that there won't be an extension signed this year. The only way is happens is if Tony is willing to accept substantially less than the maximum possible deal. I don't see Tony doing that "
2) "Facing the uncertainties of the 2011 CBA, I think it very likely that he would sign a 4yr/69M extension."

So Parker will only sign a max extension but he would have accept this year an extension that was $21M less than the extension he could get next year. :downspin:

[Mel_13]

I don't get the logic in what you say:
1) "I've been saying for a long time that there won't be an extension signed this year. The only way is happens is if Tony is willing to accept substantially less than the maximum possible deal. I don't see Tony doing that "
2) "Facing the uncertainties of the 2011 CBA, I think it very likely that he would sign a 4yr/69M extension."

So Parker will only sign a max extension but he would have accept this year an extension that was $21M less than the extension he could get next year. :downspin:

I never said he would only sign a max extension. My point all along has been that the Spurs are not likely to offer anything approaching a 4yr or a 5yr max extension. For clarity, by substantially less than max I mean a deal that starts at less than the maximum possible starting salary and does not go the max possible years.

Do you believe there is any chance that Spurs offer 4/69 or 5/90? I don't. I also don't think Tony will be interested in discussing deals that have a starting salary below a max raise over his 2010-11 salary. I think those are two very reasonable assumptions and that they combine to create a gulf that will be very difficult to bridge.

Do you disagree? If so, at what point in yrs/dollars do you think the two sides could agree.

[Bruno]

Do you disagree? If so, at what point in yrs/dollars do you think the two sides could agree.

Oh yes, I disagree.

You have a strange way to see things. Parker won't get what he wants, he will get his market value.

Now it's my turn to make two reasonable assumptions:
First, Spurs like Parker.
Second, Parker likes Spurs.

I could be crazy but I find it's a great basis to talk about a new contract. I can see Spurs waiting a little to see if Parker is healthy but I don't see why Spurs wouldn't be fine with giving him a fair contract.

IMO, Parker's market value would be between $65M/5 years and $75M/5 years.

[Mel_13]

You have a strange way to see things.

I think something has been lost in the communication as I'll try to demonstrate.


Parker won't get what he wants, he will get his market value.

I agree. Eventually Tony will sign a new deal that will represent fair market value at the time it is signed.


Now it's my turn to make two reasonable assumptions:
First, Spurs like Parker.
Second, Parker likes Spurs.

I agree. The mutual affection is clear and undeniable.


I could be crazy but I find it's a great basis to talk about a new contract. I can see Spurs waiting a little to see if Parker is healthy but I don't see why Spurs wouldn't be fine with giving him a fair contract.

I agree. The Spurs will be interested in keeping Tony at a fair price.


IMO, Parker's market value would be between $65M/5 years and $75M/5 years.

5/65 and 4/50 are the numbers I had in mind as fair value for Tony and about the upper limit of what the Spurs will offer before knowing the parameters of the new CBA. Let's use 5/70 from this point forward.

So, I completely agree with your assessment up to this point. Where do we appear to diverge?

You appear to believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that Tony would sign a 5/70 extension. I don't see that as likely at all. 5/70 means a salary in 2011-12 that is approximately 2M less than his 2010-11 salary. He wouldn't exceed his 2010-11 salary until the 3rd year of the extension.

I'm convinced that Tony will take his chances in free agency before he accepts a deal that starts with a 2M pay cut. I would hope for a different result, but I can't see one.

I certainly don't think it is strange to believe it unlikely that Tony will accept a pay cut as the starting point for an extension. He may very well have to accept that fact in free agency. Perhaps he will accept that fact in an extension. That would, however, prove my point that a deal is only possible at a level substantially below the max possible deal.

[Blackjack]

My brain.

:smchode:

It just happened . . .

[MaNu4Tres]

Parker won't get what he wants, he will get his market value.



Parker could get what he wants from another desperate team outside of San Antonio.

Like the Knicks for example, who tend to overpay players.

This scenario could leave the Spurs empty handed as I've stated numerous times before.

[HarlemHeat37]

I can't really see anybody being that interested in Tony TBH..Parker being a Spur is the best scenario for both parties..I don't think any team is going to offer too much for him or sign him to a big contract..the Knicks rumors don't have legs, and a lot of the media personalities and fans here have already loudly expressed their disinterest in acquiring Parker..

[Mel_13]

For the sake of clarity. For the discussion on Parker, I assume he will return to his 2008-09 level of play or very close to it. Another season like 2009-10 leads to a completely different discussion.

[mountainballer]

Georgia Tech's Favors: Spurs are trying to get me
By Jeff McDonald on May 21, 10 08:50 PM

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/courtside/2010/05/georgia-techs-f-1.html


By no means am I advocating trading Parker just to trade him.

Only way I'd trade him is for the right deal.

A Parker, Blair or/and #20 and rights to Colo for Devin Harris and the #3 pick in the draft would be an example.

at least such a deal needs to be considered and discussed.


I can't really see anybody being that interested in Tony TBH..Parker being a Spur is the best scenario for both parties..I don't think any team is going to offer too much for him or sign him to a big contract..the Knicks rumors don't have legs, and a lot of the media personalities and fans here have already loudly expressed their disinterest in acquiring Parker..

first off, I think the chance that the scenario I try to describe in the next sentences has an 1% chance to materialize. however, still enough to play with it for a minute or two.

I want to start with a point that none mentioned till now in the whole Favors/Nets/Parker/Spurs discussion and the why and how.
Mikhail Prokhorov
just stop thinking in traditional reasonings why team A and team B want a deal.
Prokhorov might want Parker. not the player Parker in the first place, he wants the celebrety Parker. and Eva. sounds stupid (agree, it's a wild speculation indeed) but look at this man. France meanwhile is the homebase in his jet set life (summer at his 700 million $ villa the French Riviera and winter at the French Alpine resort of Courchevel), the guy is totally crazy in spending for VIP parties and he's kinda addicted for recognition from the rich and beauty. (one of the reasons he invests that much money in sports)
the couple Parker fits nice into his favored company. (think that Tony is a top celebrety in France)
so, who wants Parker? he might want him.



Trading Parker for a pick and a lesser vet player would be a rebuilding move. Given that Spurs have signed an aging Ginobili to a big extension, I don't think they are in rebuilding mode.

The reason why Spurs talked to Favors is because there is no drawback to do so. It's as simple as that. Now, you can always try to see some CIA behind that...

just a guess. what if Prokhorov just called last week? just asking about Tony?
and the price it takes. wouldn't change this a lot for the Spurs? (compared to when they signed Manu). wouldn't they at least evaluate the options? and see the chance to get a #3 pick and a shot on a franchise player for the post Duncan era, without going thru the typical lose for some years process before you get a top pick and with some luck a top player. I bet they see this potential and not just reject and tell them to call again 2012.
(of course your latter reason is more likely)


IMO, that's a bad trade for both sides.

Nets are a young team and a player with Favors upside is great.
Spurs are in win now, Parker is way better than Harris and Favors will be a 19 years old rookie.

don't agree on this. let's go on with the thought that Prokhorov wants Parker first and 2nd the Nets believe if he is in NJ/NY this could be a strategy to get a premium FA to sign? usually you would think the Nets should take the talent and further develop the team. but what if Prokhorov wants to win immediately? (he wants, bet your farm on it)
as you said, Tony is better than Harris. so maybe that helps to get (dropping just a name) Amare to sign. a Tony-Amare-Lopez core gets you more wins than Harris-Favors-Lopez. and more glamour.

Harris-Favors with the Spurs don't get them more wins. but maybe also not less. but can you pass on such a chance? especially if Spurs think Favors is a potential franchise player of the future. and maybe they also think Tony is on the downside of his career with all the milage on his tires.
(there are a lot of possible deal scenarios that would save the Spurs a lot of lux tax next season either)

[SenorSpur]

The more I think about these possible Parker/Favors trade scenarios, the more I'm starting to buy into it. The more I read up on Favors, the more I'm beginning to understand WHY the Spurs would want this kid. Favors, not Cousins, appears to be the most NBA-ready big in the draft. This kid's profile is outstanding. He has unbelievable talent, seemingly the right mindset, along with a huge upside.

Like everyone else, I love TP and wish for him to remain a Spur as long as possible. However as some others have stated, I simply cannot see the Spurs giving him a max deal in the next year or so. At the same time, watching the frontline further deteriorate into crap status.

When you consider both the short-term and long-term limitations of the roster, factoring in the uncertainty of the Splitter situation, and the prospects of obtaining a very, very, talented young big like Favors, it's pretty clear to me why the Spurs brass would "kick the tires" on this possible trade scenario. It'll be interesting to see what pans out.

[Mel_13]

I want to start with a point that none mentioned till now in the whole Favors/Nets/Parker/Spurs discussion and the why and how.
Mikhail Prokhorov
just stop thinking in traditional reasonings why team A and team B want a deal.
Prokhorov might want Parker. not the player Parker in the first place, he wants the celebrety Parker. and Eva. sounds stupid (agree, it's a wild speculation indeed) but look at this man. France meanwhile is the homebase in his jet set life (summer at his 700 million $ villa the French Riviera and winter at the French Alpine resort of Courchevel), the guy is totally crazy in spending for VIP parties and he's kinda addicted for recognition from the rich and beauty. (one of the reasons he invests that much money in sports)
the couple Parker fits nice into his favored company. (think that Tony is a top celebrety in France)
so, who wants Parker? he might want him.

From the other Derrick Favors thread that became a Tony Parker thread. :toast


Still don't know why NJ makes the deal unless the Russian guy really wants to add Paris and Hollywood to the global brand he wants to create.

[Spursfanfromafar]

As much TP had a down season with all his injuries and missed play; Harris had an even more miserable season. He was quite pathetic as much as his team was. TP will be a major, superstar like upgrade over Harris. Only question is, who else would the Nets new owner want to prise along with TP to give up Favors? I think the Spurs should not give up any more than #20 along with TP to get DH and Favors. That is the best deal in the situation and losing anyone else - Blair for e.g. would not be a feasible idea.

[Bruno]

You appear to believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that Tony would sign a 5/70 extension. I don't see that as likely at all. 5/70 means a salary in 2011-12 that is approximately 2M less than his 2010-11 salary. He wouldn't exceed his 2010-11 salary until the 3rd year of the extension.

I'm convinced that Tony will take his chances in free agency before he accepts a deal that starts with a 2M pay cut. I would hope for a different result, but I can't see one.

I certainly don't think it is strange to believe it unlikely that Tony will accept a pay cut as the starting point for an extension. He may very well have to accept that fact in free agency.

First, If Parker sign a $70M/5 years extension, I can see it being with a flat structure of $14M per year. Giving Parker an extension with a raising structure isn't a that good idea with Parker becoming older and Spurs likely going under the cap to sign FA after Duncan's retire.

Second, I fully disagree with your assumption that Parker will ahve soem childish knee jerk reaction like "I'm a max player" or "I won't sign an extension that starts at a lower salary". Parker is very professional on the business side and he has an agent who belongs to one of the biggest NBA agency. If he doesn't sign a $70M with Spurs, it will be because he has some serious hints he can get more via FA. Parker isn't Latrell Sprewell.

[Mel_13]

First, If Parker sign a $70M/5 years extension, I can see it being with a flat structure of $14M per year. Giving Parker an extension with a raising structure isn't a that good idea with Parker becoming older and Spurs likely going under the cap to sign FA after Duncan's retire.

Second, I fully disagree with your assumption that Parker will ahve soem childish knee jerk reaction like "I'm a max player" or "I won't sign an extension that starts at a lower salary". Parker is very professional on the business side and he has an agent who belongs to one of the biggest NBA agency. If he doesn't sign a $70M with Spurs, it will be because he has some serious hints he can get more via FA. Parker isn't Latrell Sprewell.

Because I respect you and have learned much from your posts over the years, I have resisted the urge to respond in kind to this sort of thing in the current discussion. Enough is enough.

I have plainly stated what my assumptions are and have been careful not to characterize your assumptions, leaving that for you do to for yourself. I have not referred to Tony as childish or suggested that he would reject any offer from the Spurs without careful consideration. I certainly haven't said anything about Tony's character or behavior that puts him in a class with Spreewell. As I have extended you the courtesy of considering your position without mockery or attributing non-existent motivations, I would appreciate the same in return.

I just don't see the Spurs offering much above 4/50 or 5/65 and I don't believe that will be enough to get Tony to sign on the dotted line. I have held to the opinion that an extension is unlikely because of the uncertain economic realities associated with 2011 CBAthat will be faced by both Tony and the Spurs, not because Tony is childish or any such thing. I believe those realities will create a gulf that will be very difficult to bridge even with the best of intentions on both sides.

You have clearly come to similar conclusion as to how far the Spurs may be willing to go, but are more optimistic than I am that Tony may be willing to move that far to make a deal happen. We should be able to part company at that point of disagreement without making unwarranted assumptions as to the basis of the other point of view.

I look forward to many future conversations with you. As I said, they are always educational and I appreciate that.:toast

[Bruno]

If you have taken what I've said as a mockery, I'm sorry. it certainly wasn't my intend. I guess I have too much argued with whottt in the past. :lol

Anyway, as you said, enough is enough. We've both stated our positions and we disagree.

[Mel_13]

If you have taken what I've said as a mockery, I'm sorry. it certainly wasn't my intend. I guess I have too much argued with whottt in the past. :lol

Anyway, as you said, enough is enough. We've both stated our positions and we disagree.

No problem. I know you have had some heated discussions with the TP haters on this board. I certainly don't count myself among them. Just looking at the tea leaves and trying to guess at their meaning.

[kromediablo]

This guy is going #2 in the draft

[DesignatedT]

If a Harris + #3 pick is available to us for Tony I am not sure what my position would be. I love Tony and have stayed behind him through everything when others have thrown him off the bridge but the contract dilemma and the possibility him and the Spurs maybe parting ways at the end of next year makes it interesting. Harris isn't much younger also although he has played way less games factoring in playoffs. Either way I trust the Spurs to make the right decision and if they feel Favors is the guy they want then maybe they try to make this deal. If it is going down I sure would love Terrence Williams from NJ to also come over to us. This guy will be a very good NBA player down the road.

[ducks]

splitter signs or commits to spurs favors to spurs is dead

[spurnash]

splitter signs or commits to spurs favors to spurs is dead

Not necessarily, the spurs are going to have to give a great deal to move up to grab Favors. Blair or Dice could be part of that package that picks Favors up.

[Thomas82]

I feel like there is a silver lining to both options, whether we get Tiago Splitter or Derrick Favors. I would be happy with either one of them. Either way, the Spurs would have another big to pair with Tim Duncan.

Tiago Splitter: If nothing else, we wouldn't be able to say it was a wasted draft pick if he comes over. He would have an immediate impact on the team, giving Tim Duncan the best center he has played with since David Robinson, and the Spurs the much-needed interior presence to go along with TD. No need to go into details about the tools Splitter would bring to the team, because there are enough threads about him on here that already do that.

Derrick Favors: If the Spurs can somehow get Favors, that would also be a huge plus. With me living in Alabama, I got a chance to see a pretty good bit of his games at Georgia Tech, and liked what I saw. He has a nice combination of length, athleticism, quickness, good awareness for somebody as young as he is, and is a pretty good defender and should be one of the best in the league with some polishing. From what I heard from the announcers, he also has a good work ethic, and that's a neccesity for being a Spur. He supposedly fits the profile of what the Spurs have been looking for since David Robinson retired, and could potentially take over for Tim Duncan as the franchise player one day.

I'm well aware that Derrick Favors is a project, but I like his chances of becoming a dominant big man one day if he comes to the Spurs mainly for 2 reasons:

1.) He would be mentored by the G.O.A.T. power forward; a top 10 all-time great regardless of position.

2.) Since he wouldn't be going to a losing team, there wouldn't be any ridiculous expectations for him. He could be a difference maker without the pressure of carrying the team. I believe that's a major factor in why the success rate for high draft picks is so low.


Like I said, I would be happy with either move if for no other reason than Tim Duncan having a legit big man next to him. But the more I read and hear about the possibilty of the Spurs trading up to get Derrick Favors, no matter how big or small that possibility might be, the more I'm in favor of that happening. The big question, and the key to making that happen obviously is what they would have to give up to make that happen. I do rememember several years back either Peter Holt or R.C. Buford saying that the Spurs planned on using TD in the David Robinson role toward the end of his career.

I strongly believe that if you have any kind of chance to get a potential franchise big man, you at least have to look into it. The more things change, the more they stay the same. In other words, as much as the game has changed over the years, one thing has remained constant: The way to build your team is from the inside out. The league might be a guard-driven league and all that, but you won't win a championship without a dominant (or highly skilled) big man. Here are a couple of stats as proof:

-56 out of the 64 NBA champions (including the current NBA Finals teams) have had a dominant/high skill big man- either a center or power forward.

-35 out the 55 league MVPs have went to either a center or power forward.


One other thing, I know I'm preaching to the chior on this one, but obviously the workload on Tim Duncan is way to much. It's making him look older than what he is. I feel like even at 34 years old, with a dependable center next to him, he could still be dominant. Here is the way I see it:

The lack of another dependable big has led to TD playing most of the game these days as the sole big on the floor. Which means that in addition to the normal 20/10 he puts up, he also has to help make up for the 10 rebounds a game they lose from not having that other big next to him. He also has to guard the best big on the floor for the other team, and block all the shots.

With him being the only big on the floor most of the time, that means the Spurs are going small. When they go small, that means Richard Jefferson moves over to power forward. As a result, you are asking him not only to get the normal 6 rebounds expected from a small forward, but split the center's rebounds with Tim Duncan. It's unrealistic to expect that to happen every night. So in essence, TD is having to give production for both post positions which again, at his age and miles he has, is too much for him, and that's why he wears down after the All-Star break.


The Spurs need to go back to the Twin Tower approach, that's what got them the championships in the first place. Whether they get Tiago Splitter or Derrick Favors, they need another big in there with TD in the worst way, along with a peremeter defender. This is just how I see it.

[TD 21]

Who knows, maybe the Parker trade rumors are true? Maybe they trade him, the 20th pick and Blair (throw in probably a future 1st or other draft considerations, such as the rights to swap future picks, etc.) to the Nets in a deal for Harris and the 3rd pick.

Here's the thing about Harris: he's essentially a lesser version of Parker, only he's signed through '13 at an affordable rate. He'll make $8,981,000 in 10-11, $9,319,000 in 11-12 and $8,500,000.

As much as I'd hate to see Parker go and to lose Blair in the process, if the Spurs could make this type of a trade, then I don't see how they could turn it down. It would help the team term short term and long term.

That being said, I can't see the Nets doing it. Favors is seemingly a perfect fit next to Lopez and you just don't see many top three picks traded in a deal involving established veterans. Even if they were intrigued by this, they'd probably get cold feet, because if Favors becomes, say, a more well rounded (though probably lesser scoring) version of Stoudemire, they'd face backlash for years.

The thing about the players that are expected to make up the front line next season is, for as talented as they are, they may not be the greatest fit together. Maybe an entire reconstruction of the front line is in order? Maybe the Spurs are determined to get a potential franchise big and aren't just satisfied with two good, young bigs? Maybe they want to have a stretch four in their rotation still? Maybe all the talk about the Spurs being interested in doing something big is true?

As far fetched as it may sound, I could see a scenario where Duncan, Favors, Splitter and Bonner make up the front line next season.

[TD 21]

The only thing is that if the 76ers draft Favors (which is very possible) then what will the Nets have? Turner is a very good player, but CDR and Terrence Williams are on the Nets already.

I'd be surprised if the 76ers go with Favors over Turner. They need a go-to scorer and Turner is more likely to be that guy than Favors. Also, Collins supposedly sees Young as a better 4 than 3 and Iguodala as a better 3 than 2, which is telling.

If by some chance the 76ers passed on Turners, the Nets would jump at the chance to draft him. He's a far superior prospect to Douglas-Roberts (who, on a good team is an off the bench scorer) and Williams (who has stopper potential, but not star potential).

[Ditty]

maybe the spurs are looking to this guy as a future prospect to land him in free agency in the future and show they like him and have a good relationship he will probably test the market when he's 23 spurs should be rebuilding at that time with young players and they land this guy would be nice

[Thomas82]

maybe the spurs are looking to this guy as a future prospect to land him in free agency in the future and show they like him and have a good relationship he will probably test the market when he's 23 spurs should be rebuilding at that time with young players and they land this guy would be nice

That's always a possibility. Good point.

[SenorSpur]

maybe the spurs are looking to this guy as a future prospect to land him in free agency in the future and show they like him and have a good relationship he will probably test the market when he's 23 spurs should be rebuilding at that time with young players and they land this guy would be nice

I see your point, but if he turns out the be the potential franchise player he's thought to be, he'll never see the light of "free agent" day. Also, most teams will not allow their good, young, star players to get to UFA. Remember, the system is setup where it home team has every possible advantage of retaining their players, once they are drafted.

If the Spurs aren't fortunate enough to be in a position where they can draft him, the only possible way they could get him is via a very, lucrative trade package.

All that said, as long as Favors doesn't turn out to be a bust, I don't see the Spurs ever being in a position to get him.

[DesignatedT]

Im not sure what the deal is with interviewing Favors and trying to interview Cousins but something is definitely weird. I would have to think the Spurs are going to try or have been offered a chance to move up to a top 5 pick.

[Thomas82]

Im not sure what the deal is with interviewing Favors and trying to interview Cousins but something is definitely weird. I would have to think the Spurs are going to try or have been offered a chance to move up to a top 5 pick.

I sure hope they have the chance to do it, because Tim Duncan needs a big man to pass the torch to.

[TD 21]

At this point Favors and Turner will most likely be 2 and 3. But I just get the feeling that with Dalembert's contract expiring and the hopeful movement of Brand's contract, a big is needed more in that system. And on top of it all Favors is by far the youngest player in the draft. Turner is older. Also every player in this draft is unproven so if I were the 76ers GM I would see that Favors can run the floor, possibly become a great forward in the NBA and the best player out of this draft and the fact that the new coach was a very good forward/center and Elton Brand is there as a mentor as well, Favors seems like a very solid pick.

It can go either way though. Just one last thought on the 76ers depth chart though(Base on players under contract:

PG Holliday Green
SG Iggy Williams Meeks
SF Young Kapono
PF Brand Speights
C Dalembert Smith

Basically I think their perimeter players have a better future and is more solid than their front line of big men (Hell Jason Smith makes Matt Bonner look like Dirk). The 2/3 in that system doesn't really make a difference since it is a run and gun. But bringing Brand off the bench is an interesting idea, which was tired last season and (in my opinion) worked very well.

The only way Brand's contract can be moved is if it's packaged with the second pick and even then, it's a long shot. Look for the 76ers to draft Turner and return to their ways of two and three seasons ago, when they played small (Young at the four, Iguodala at the three), pressured the ball, forced turnovers and got out and ran.

Favors isn't a five, he's a four and they have Young who can play their and Speights. Whereas you look at the two and they don't really have a starter their. Iguodala is more three than two and Williams is a combo guard, more two than one but too small to be a full-time two. So in actuality, even in the event that they were picking more for need, it would be two more so than four.

Green and Williams should be swapped on your depth chart.

I get the sense that Brand will come off the bench more regularly next season. Collins basically said as much when he said he see's Young as a better fit at the four than the three and Iguodala at the three than the two.

[ace3g]

chadfordinsider

Favors workout in Sacramento on Sat is against DeMarcus Cousins. Workout of the year so far ...

[mountainballer]

The only way Brand's contract can be moved is if it's packaged with the second pick and even then, it's a long shot. Look for the 76ers to draft Turner and return to their ways of two and three seasons ago, when they played small (Young at the four, Iguodala at the three), pressured the ball, forced turnovers and got out and ran.

Favors isn't a five, he's a four and they have Young who can play their and Speights. Whereas you look at the two and they don't really have a starter their. Iguodala is more three than two and Williams is a combo guard, more two than one but too small to be a full-time two. So in actuality, even in the event that they were picking more for need, it would be two more so than four.

Green and Williams should be swapped on your depth chart.

I get the sense that Brand will come off the bench more regularly next season. Collins basically said as much when he said he see's Young as a better fit at the four than the three and Iguodala at the three than the two.

I don't know if the Sixers owners face a lot of pressure to cut costs, but in general I would think the needs and financial aspects are secondary if you've got a #2 pick. Sixers don't have a franchise player. (it's nice to have a player like Iguodala, but if he's your best player, you are really bad)
they have a core of players, who are or MIGHT become good NBA players (Holiday, Young, Speights, Williams), but none of them will make this team a contender. (not even a PO team).
they won't find a franchise player via free agency. (last time they tried they got Brand. ouch)
the ONLY chance they have is the draft. no guarantee that either Turner or Favors become this player, but at least there is a chance they will.
they should pick the one player on the board they think can grow into the cornerstone of the franchise. period. no matter what other players already play what position.

[ChuckD]

I don't know if the Sixers owners face a lot of pressure to cut costs, but in general I would think the needs and financial aspects are secondary if you've got a #2 pick. Sixers don't have a franchise player. (it's nice to have a player like Iguodala, but if he's your best player, you are really bad)
they have a core of players, who are or MIGHT become good NBA players (Holiday, Young, Speights, Williams), but none of them will make this team a contender. (not even a PO team).
they won't find a franchise player via free agency. (last time they tried they got Brand. ouch)
the ONLY chance they have is the draft. no guarantee that either Turner or Favors become this player, but at least there is a chance they will.
they should pick the one player on the board they think can grow into the cornerstone of the franchise. period. no matter what other players already play what position.

There are good young players available every year. What there aren't every year are teams that would be willing to take a stinking pile of shit contract like Brand's, especially as we edge towards the hard cap in 2011. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the state of the NBA in the last couple of seasons, but let me point out a few things. Memphis gave Pau Gasol to LA for a bag of chips. Milwaukee gave us a 20 point scorer (who admittedly, didn't pan out like Gasol) for a bag of chips. Teams are in trouble, and if they have a chance to shed $35M for a high draft pick, they'll damn well do it if it's going to keep them solvent and keep them meeting payroll.

[Thomas82]

Here is an interesting write-up on Derrick Favors and DeMarcus Cousins:

http://netsarescorching.com/2010/06/01/demarcus-cousins-vs-derrick-favors/

[DesignatedT]

I think this guy is going #2 to Phili. I really believe this kid is going to be a stud in the NBA, and definitely better than Turner.

[DesignatedT]

Nah, Evan Turner is their pick. It's fairly oibvious that the 76ers really like him. They traded one front court player for two so I think they're going to thicken up their back court a bit more.

I have no problem with Turner. He is a sure thing pick if you ask me. Favors is a high risk-high reward player. He could easily become Amare just as easily as he could become Tyrus Thomas.

I just have a hard time getting sold on Turner. He has great numbers but I was never overly impressed when watching him play. His shooting is average at best but can obviously be improved over time. People talk about his PG skills but I always remembered his ball handling being pretty bad overall. I do think he is a bright guy and very unselfish player though. Who knows. I'm also high on Wesley Johnson even more so than Turner lol. Cousins I don't like.