'11 Spurs as '10 Celtics?

[TD 21]

Admittedly, I stole the title from many of Harvey's articles.

I see a lot of similarities between the '10 Celtics and what we hope/expect the '11 Spurs to look like and I don't think it's far fetched to say that the '11 Spurs will actually have more individual talent.

Both have future Hall-of-Fame big men in decline, both have a dynamic wing player, both have a point guard who penetrates at will, both have former All-Star big men who are now role players, both have big three's who have a ton of mileage and need to have their minutes/workload managed (particularly in the regular season), both have at least three good, young rotation players, both have an athletic, defensive-minded wing who can't shoot/handle.

There's a lot of ifs in what I'm about to say, but the vast majority are realistic (and in many cases, likely) ifs, such as...if Splitter signs and can be the solid, legit number two big he's projected to be, if Jefferson can go back to being an adequate-solid three point shooter, if Blair can add a short jumper and play a modicum of better defense, if Hairston can play consistent defense, if the expected veteran wing addition can shoot 40% or better from three, if Hill continues to improve, if Duncan, Ginobili and McDyess can avoid a steep decline and if the team can be as healthy and fresh as possible and playing their best ball down the stretch and into the playoffs, then why can't the '11 Spurs do what the '10 Celtics have done?

The West may consistent of the best team in the league and possess more depth than does the East, but the Celtics had to go through two elite teams just to get to the finals. There is no such thing as a second elite team in the West.

The '10 Suns smacked of a one hit wonder. Even if Stoudemire is re-signed, didn't they in a lot of ways catch lightning in a bottle and max out? I think they did. They also won't be catching anyone off guard next season from the jump. I think they'll still be good, but is there any reason to think they'll have legit (short term, at least) staying power near the top of the West? What makes them vastly different from the '09 Nuggets and to a lesser extent, the '08 Hornets?

Granted, just as the Suns surprisingly rose to become the West's number two team this season, it's highly likely that some other surprise team will rise from the pack to do so next season. If that team is not the Spurs, is there any other team that's likely to be head and shoulders above the Spurs? I don't see it.

The Mavs are determined to be that team, but have a flawed core and lack the assets to acquire the elite-near elite level player they need. The Nuggets are too thin and too combustible a team to be that team. The Jazz, even if Boozer is kept, don't have enough high end talent. The Trail Blazers, for all their depth of talent, have a huge injury question mark in the middle that they can't seem to shake (ditto for the Rockets). The Thunder are too weak on the front line and too young.

You need a very strong core, experience and size to win in the NBA. There's a good chance the Spurs will have all three. None of the other teams around them in the West can say the same.

At this writing, barring something unforeseen from one of the aforementioned teams, there's no reason to think that the Spurs can't at least make the conference finals and give the Lakers their stiffest competition that they've had in the West since acquiring Gasol. Throw in the fact that outside of the Trail Blazers (if they're healthy), the Spurs could be, if not better, at least as well equipped as anybody to deal with the Lakers size and they should have a legitimate chance of beating them.

It may sound far fetched now and there's no question that lots has to go right for this to happen (starting with Splitter signing), but the Spurs should seemingly be capable of this and that's more than most can say.

[Blackjack]

All I manage at the moment is a :tu

I think I got it and agree withit but ...

I'll come back to this when the room stops moving

[MaNu4Tres]

:tu Nice work

As Pop would say... "Our players just have to play better."

[rvman21]

They should have Duncan spread the floor next year and start shooting 3's then he would be like a rasheed wallace but probably better

[mystargtr34]

The major difference between the two teams IMO is Kendrick Perkins vs McDyess/Bonner etc. He gives them a tough inside prescence, rebounding, defense and shot blocking. Things which the Spurs dont have next to Duncan, aside from McDyess' rebounding.

Hopefully the Spurs can address some of that by bringing Splitter over.

[mingus]

Spurs will be right there in the conversation next year if they bring Splitter over and can get a spot up shooter. it would not be a "surprise" at all if they end up winning the championship next year. people who are writing them off are only kidding themselves.

[ShoogarBear]

Actually, the '10 Celtics are doing what the '10 Spurs were supposed to have done.

[dbestpro]

You lost me when you indicated that Hairston would be someone we would have to rely on and Dice is already prepared for his down hill slalom.

[Agloco]

Granted, just as the Suns surprisingly rose to become the West's number two team this season, it's highly likely that some other surprise team will rise from the pack to do so next season. If that team is not the Spurs, is there any other team that's likely to be head and shoulders above the Spurs? I don't see it.

The Mavs are determined to be that team, but have a flawed core and lack the assets to acquire the elite-near elite level player they need. The Nuggets are too thin and too combustible a team to be that team. The Jazz, even if Boozer is kept, don't have enough high end talent. The Trail Blazers, for all their depth of talent, have a huge injury question mark in the middle that they can't seem to shake (ditto for the Rockets). The Thunder are too weak on the front line and too young.



I say OKC and Portland will be there, if not better than SA next year. OKC was dangerous enough this year, and now they've got some playoff experience to go with that young fire. They just scare me with how good they can be.

[manufan10]

Actually, the '10 Celtics are doing what the '10 Spurs were supposed to have done.

I agree.

I think as fans, we expected a lot out of RJ and Dice. If we look at the body of evidence, most free agents or people who are traded to the Spurs struggle in their first year in the Spurs organization. I think we will see better production from these guys next season.

[Ginobili2Duncan]

Actually I think if Portland stays healthy they will be in the WCF next year, and with the increasing mileage on the Lakers' players on the other side of 30, I think Portland can beat them, and they were still one of the better defensive teams in the league even with all of the injuries. They have size, length, athleticism, a go to player,a terrific head coach, a daunting home crowd, and now they have 2 years of playoff experience. I think next year is where we see Portland go from good team to contender.

[TD 21]

The one obvious comparison I missed was that both teams have burly, undersized big men.


:tu Nice work

As Pop would say... "Our players just have to play better."

Yeah, sometimes it really is that simple...when you have the pieces to be capable of winning a championship, that is. The '10 Spurs, for as excited as most were entering the season, were always a pierce or two short. Next season, assuming the team looks how we expect it to look, this team should have the pieces to be capable of winning a championship.


You lost me when you indicated that Hairston would be someone we would have to rely on and Dice is already prepared for his down hill slalom.

Hairston will probably be the tenth man, which means regular season he's in the rotation, at least against mediocre-worse competition. Against good-better competition and in the playoffs, when the rotation is inevitably shortened, he could get squeezed or have his minutes limited. I expect him to play essentially the same role T. Allen plays for the Celtics, only he's slightly higher up their depth chart.

McDyess is a former all-star who's now a role player (similar to Wallace). Pretty straightforward.


I say OKC and Portland will be there, if not better than SA next year. OKC was dangerous enough this year, and now they've got some playoff experience to go with that young fire. They just scare me with how good they can be.

I think the Trail Blazers have a better chance to be than the Thunder, who for all their talent are too young and too weak on the front line. I wouldn't be surprised if they stagnate somewhat next season, unless they make a significant addition to their front line. The Trail Blazers have size, depth and I wouldn't call them experienced, but they've added some veterans and now have two playoff series under their belts.

[Cane]

Tim Duncan hasn't declined anywhere near as much as KG either so I'm pretty optimistic about the Spurs future. Manu is resting, RJ and Dice will have experience in the system, Parker's also resting, and Hill's got plenty of motivation to keep improving after the Nash match-up.

As long as the Spurs can deal with spacing by grabbing reliable 3 point shooters and some help for TD then this team will be a contender.

Kobe's going to have knee surgery this summer and will likely decline. If Bynum's not shipped out there's always his injury proneness to consider. LA didn't have a commanding lead in the Wins department this past season either.

There are two sleeping giants in the West in Houston and Portland but they're injury prone as well.

Dallas will always make big trades but as long as Kidd is logging big minutes they're pretty vulnerable.

OKC's frontcourt needs substantial improvement.

The Jazz and the Suns have a lot of question marks since they're both about to lose their star big.

:flag:

[johnnySpurs]

I guess this means we get Finley back mid-season?

[Blackjack]

Turns out the room wasn't actually moving. ... Weird.

Are there parallels between the Spurs and Celtics? Sure. Could you ascertain whether Boston's success is something that should bolster a Spurs fan's optimism? To a degree; but there is definitely a flaw in drawing a direct parallel and it goes to their construction.

Boston, with the additions of Garnett and Allen, became a mail-ordered team. Ainge and company couldn't have found two more complimentary pieces if they had dreamed them up. They already had a superstar in Pierce -- someone who became considerably underrated because of a youth movement and some poor decisions made by the front office -- and they had the youth in Rondo and Perkins that played complimentary positions to the new Big 3. From there they had the likes of Powe and Big Baby coming off the bench (perfect roles for young players) and they completed the puzzle with great veteran glue -- Posey being the biggest but House, and later on Brown, would prove to be vital, key cogs.

Fast-forward to present day and the mix has changed but only in their 'glue' and periphery. They still fit seamlessly -- their five best players inhabit their best lineup -- and though the Big 3 have diminished (Garnett and Allen, most notably), Rondo now controls the reins and can be argued as their most crucial player.

This Celtics team isn't as good as it was two-years ago but they still fit. They're still a structurally sound basketball team. And because of that sound foundation they were built on and the championship experience and veteran know-how they've acquired before Boston and since forming, they've been able to take down the likes of Orlando and Cleveland; two teams that had significant holes in their leadership, whether it be in their stars actual games or in the overall team mentality -- they've yet to get over the hump and their stars have yet to prove they're capable of doing so. (Dissecting James and Howard's game is another subject for another day but they've got work to do if they're to be the players they're capable of.)

Now, as it pertains to the Spurs.

Look, I don't want to dismiss them and I'm not gonna. TD 21's OP isn't a gross misrepresentation of the facts or something that's all that outlandish. The league pretty much sucks (there's a lot of mediocrity and flawed teams) and if all goes well for the Spurs, there's no reason they couldn't be right back atop the league; or at least competing to be.

But when it comes to a comparison between the Spurs and Celtics, it's more of a superficial comparison in my view: TD and KG; paint-living point guards the likes of Parker and Rondo; both have a shooting guard and small forward that are or were, at one time (yes, at one time RJ was thought to be) All-Star caliber players; Blair and Davis; a defensive-minded philosophy complimented be a team-oriented offense; and, of course, their an older bunch. There's a lot of similarities, surely, but they're of the superficial variety, IMO.

Let's go one by one:

TD v KG - Duncan is still clearly a better player and a more dominant force. If his minutes are limited and he can make it to the post-season relatively fresh and healthy, there's no doubt he can have a bigger impact on the game. The difference is, the Spurs need Tim to be closer to his peak than the Celtics need KG to be. KG's flanked by one of the best interior defenders in the game, he has proven scorers in Pierce and Allen who prevent him from ever being the go-to scorer and he's got a pass-first point guard that makes the game easier on everyone -- someone, who again, is arguably now their numero uno (though, it's still Pierce in my view). It's just much easier for KG to fulfill his responsibilities because of who surrounds them, and, once again, because of how they fit.

Parker v Rondo - Two lightning-quick points that make their living in the paint and have championship experience; the similarities essentially end there.

Parker is one of the all-time great scoring point guards and finishes at the rim as well or better than anyone ever has at his size. He's phenomenal. Though he doesn't possess an intuitive feel for the point guard position or the court-vision and passing ability to be prototypical, he runs the offense efficiently and he knows all of the ins and outs -- he knows every counter, every rotation, every option from his penetration and he knows it all from every situation and every kind of pressure. Tony doesn't know the offense as much as he owns it. When he's 'right,' that is.

Rondo plays a better overall floor game and his impact can be felt on both ends. He gets others involved, he controls tempo with his feel and rebounding, he creates extra possessions with his steals and offensive rebounding and if you give him a seam, he'll burn you at the cup. Really ... he's got Hill's build, a Parker mentality in the paint and an overall game reminiscent of Kidd. He's for real.

Ginobili and Jefferson v Pierce and Allen - If a gun's to my head and I'm asked to pick a player to help me win a series, Manu's my pick. If everyone is healthy and I can only pick one, Manu's my guy; but it ain't by much over Pierce. Pierce has long been one of my favorite players and not until Garnett joined him and the theatrics came to the fore, did I ever find myself rooting against him or his team -- the Celtics were always my chick on the side before Garnett and Allen came aboard. So between those two, it's close when they're both healthy. But if one of them is dinged up with a leg injury, I'm taking Pierce with a gun to my head. His game is much more conducive to being effective with injuries to the lower extremities because of his physicality and the fact that his game is mostly predicated below the rim, in the midrange and his size allows him to get by with plenty of 'junk.'

When it comes to RJ and Allen, there's no hesitation, unfortunately. Give me Allen; he's proven to have the requisite mettle to come through when it counts, his skill-set hasn't changed much and is more vital to a team's success, and I just flat-out trust him to be who he's capable of being more. RJ's just not someone I believe you win with unless he's a legitimate bench player getting paid bench player money. I don't begrudge him his check. I begrudge the talent it prevents the Spurs from adding in order for them to get it done. His presence on the team is more detrimental than beneficial in the grand scheme of things and unless there's a treatment for ADD he's yet to discover or a lobotomy he just might try, he's never going to compensate for his physical limitations with his basketball acumen or attention to detail.

And when you look to them as tandems, the Celtics simply have a better combination. While both play to 2 and 3 respectively, Boston's can thrive in both the full and halfcourt and can be played in conjunction with their best lineup; they're going to be in there with the game on the line nine times out of ten. With the Spurs, Jefferson often becomes a wallflower on offense and a liability on defense. Allen's no defensive stopper but he moves decent and you can't leave him on the other end. He's always a threat; the same can't be said for Jefferson.

Blair v Davis - Blair's got a lot of potential and probably a greater upside but Davis is probably the more useful cog when it comes to wins and losses. Now, if it's Blair and Davis each on lesser teams where they're catered two, Blair's role and effectiveness probably become greater. But for the roles they're asked to play and the way in which they're asked to compliment their teammates, Davis just brings more at this point; the guy's got great feet, he's immovable, he's got a solid jumper and a good motor. Defensively is really where he gets the edge over Blair really, as DeJuan's offense is more muted because of a guy like Duncan in front of him -- Blair doesn't compliment the Spurs' front line quite as well as Davis compliments Boston's.

Defensive philosophy and team oriented offense - This really just comes down to the personnel and how their strengths and weaknesses are masked and complimented. The Celtics are just better equipped than the Spurs to do so.

Since 'fit' is really the point I've harped on and my biggest point of contention with the Spurs-Celtics comparison, just do a simple exercise with the individual players: What kind of point guard and Big would you give Duncan if you could manufacture one; what kind of Big and shooting guard would you give Tony; what would be the best combination for Manu; the same for RJ; and what would the results be if you did the same for the Celtics Top-4 or 5?

See, while there are plenty of similarities on the surface, it's how they relate to each other that really matters. And though getting Tiago will help, adding a quality player via the draft and some minor peripheral moves will bolster their chances, I don't think you can say anything other than: If all goes right for the Spurs next year, they'll have a chance to compete for a Finals appearance. But that's if all goes right. They don't have the edge over their competion the Celtics do. At least, they don't anymore.

The Celtics have the corporate knowledge Pop always likes to talk about, the belief throughout their team and, yes, they fit. And when you boil it all down ... that's the biggest difference.

(And if you actually read all of this, jaffies owes you Vbookie Cash.)

[Blackjack]

I clearly need to get back on the sauce. :drunk

[024]

it will be hard. garnett has regressed more than duncan but duncan doesn't have perkins and wallace to back him up. grabbing splitter and having him become a solid player will help.

all three of the spurs' core are injury prone as compared to only garnett on the celtics.

spurs have no rondo. hill is a decent comparison but is more of a shooting guard that defends point guards.

jefferson needs to find his role in the spurs.

i really think the things that held back the spurs the last two years will again be the biggest challenges next year. the lack of a integrated SF and injuries will be the primary problem.

[TD 21]

Turns out the room wasn't actually moving. ... Weird.

Are there parallels between the Spurs and Celtics? Sure. Could you ascertain whether Boston's success is something that should bolster a Spurs fan's optimism? To a degree; but there is definitely a flaw in drawing a direct parallel and it goes to their construction.

Boston, with the additions of Garnett and Allen, became a mail-ordered team. Ainge and company couldn't have found two more complimentary pieces if they had dreamed them up. They already had a superstar in Pierce -- someone who became considerably underrated because of a youth movement and some poor decisions made by the front office -- and they had the youth in Rondo and Perkins that played complimentary positions to the new Big 3. From there they had the likes of Powe and Big Baby coming off the bench (perfect roles for young players) and they completed the puzzle with great veteran glue -- Posey being the biggest but House, and later on Brown, would prove to be vital, key cogs.

Fast-forward to present day and the mix has changed but only in their 'glue' and periphery. They still fit seamlessly -- their five best players inhabit their best lineup -- and though the Big 3 have diminished (Garnett and Allen, most notably), Rondo now controls the reins and can be argued as their most crucial player.

This Celtics team isn't as good as it was two-years ago but they still fit. They're still a structurally sound basketball team. And because of that sound foundation they were built on and the championship experience and veteran know-how they've acquired before Boston and since forming, they've been able to take down the likes of Orlando and Cleveland; two teams that had significant holes in their leadership, whether it be in their stars actual games or in the overall team mentality -- they've yet to get over the hump and their stars have yet to prove they're capable of doing so. (Dissecting James and Howard's game is another subject for another day but they've got work to do if they're to be the players they're capable of.)

Now, as it pertains to the Spurs.

Look, I don't want to dismiss them and I'm not gonna. TD 21's OP isn't a gross misrepresentation of the facts or something that's all that outlandish. The league pretty much sucks (there's a lot of mediocrity and flawed teams) and if all goes well for the Spurs, there's no reason they couldn't be right back atop the league; or at least competing to be.

But when it comes to a comparison between the Spurs and Celtics, it's more of a superficial comparison in my view: TD and KG; paint-living point guards the likes of Parker and Rondo; both have a shooting guard and small forward that are or were, at one time (yes, at one time RJ was thought to be) All-Star caliber players; Blair and Davis; a defensive-minded philosophy complimented be a team-oriented offense; and, of course, their an older bunch. There's a lot of similarities, surely, but they're of the superficial variety, IMO.

Let's go one by one:

TD v KG - Duncan is still clearly a better player and a more dominant force. If his minutes are limited and he can make it to the post-season relatively fresh and healthy, there's no doubt he can have a bigger impact on the game. The difference is, the Spurs need Tim to be closer to his peak than the Celtics need KG to be. KG's flanked by one of the best interior defenders in the game, he has proven scorers in Pierce and Allen who prevent him from ever being the go-to scorer and he's got a pass-first point guard that makes the game easier on everyone -- someone, who again, is arguably now their numero uno (though, it's still Pierce in my view). It's just much easier for KG to fulfill his responsibilities because of who surrounds them, and, once again, because of how they fit.

Parker v Rondo - Two lightning-quick points that make their living in the paint and have championship experience; the similarities essentially end there.

Parker is one of the all-time great scoring point guards and finishes at the rim as well or better than anyone ever has at his size. He's phenomenal. Though he doesn't possess an intuitive feel for the point guard position or the court-vision and passing ability to be prototypical, he runs the offense efficiently and he knows all of the ins and outs -- he knows every counter, every rotation, every option from his penetration and he knows it all from every situation and every kind of pressure. Tony doesn't know the offense as much as he owns it. When he's 'right,' that is.

Rondo plays a better overall floor game and his impact can be felt on both ends. He gets others involved, he controls tempo with his feel and rebounding, he creates extra possessions with his steals and offensive rebounding and if you give him a seam, he'll burn you at the cup. Really ... he's got Hill's build, a Parker mentality in the paint and an overall game reminiscent of Kidd. He's for real.

Ginobili and Jefferson v Pierce and Allen - If a gun's to my head and I'm asked to pick a player to help me win a series, Manu's my pick. If everyone is healthy and I can only pick one, Manu's my guy; but it ain't by much over Pierce. Pierce has long been one of my favorite players and not until Garnett joined him and the theatrics came to the fore, did I ever find myself rooting against him or his team -- the Celtics were always my chick on the side before Garnett and Allen came aboard. So between those two, it's close when they're both healthy. But if one of them is dinged up with a leg injury, I'm taking Pierce with a gun to my head. His game is much more conducive to being effective with injuries to the lower extremities because of his physicality and the fact that his game is mostly predicated below the rim, in the midrange and his size allows him to get by with plenty of 'junk.'

When it comes to RJ and Allen, there's no hesitation, unfortunately. Give me Allen; he's proven to have the requisite mettle to come through when it counts, his skill-set hasn't changed much and is more vital to a team's success, and I just flat-out trust him to be who he's capable of being more. RJ's just not someone I believe you win with unless he's a legitimate bench player getting paid bench player money. I don't begrudge him his check. I begrudge the talent it prevents the Spurs from adding in order for them to get it done. His presence on the team is more detrimental than beneficial in the grand scheme of things and unless there's a treatment for ADD he's yet to discover or a lobotomy he just might try, he's never going to compensate for his physical limitations with his basketball acumen or attention to detail.

And when you look to them as tandems, the Celtics simply have a better combination. While both play to 2 and 3 respectively, Boston's can thrive in both the full and halfcourt and can be played in conjunction with their best lineup; they're going to be in there with the game on the line nine times out of ten. With the Spurs, Jefferson often becomes a wallflower on offense and a liability on defense. Allen's no defensive stopper but he moves decent and you can't leave him on the other end. He's always a threat; the same can't be said for Jefferson.

Blair v Davis - Blair's got a lot of potential and probably a greater upside but Davis is probably the more useful cog when it comes to wins and losses. Now, if it's Blair and Davis each on lesser teams where they're catered two, Blair's role and effectiveness probably become greater. But for the roles they're asked to play and the way in which they're asked to compliment their teammates, Davis just brings more at this point; the guy's got great feet, he's immovable, he's got a solid jumper and a good motor. Defensively is really where he gets the edge over Blair really, as DeJuan's offense is more muted because of a guy like Duncan in front of him -- Blair doesn't compliment the Spurs' front line quite as well as Davis compliments Boston's.

Defensive philosophy and team oriented offense - This really just comes down to the personnel and how their strengths and weaknesses are masked and complimented. The Celtics are just better equipped than the Spurs to do so.

Since 'fit' is really the point I've harped on and my biggest point of contention with the Spurs-Celtics comparison, just do a simple exercise with the individual players: What kind of point guard and Big would you give Duncan if you could manufacture one; what kind of Big and shooting guard would you give Tony; what would be the best combination for Manu; the same for RJ; and what would the results be if you did the same for the Celtics Top-4 or 5?

See, while there are plenty of similarities on the surface, it's how they relate to each other that really matters. And though getting Tiago will help, adding a quality player via the draft and some minor peripheral moves will bolster their chances, I don't think you can say anything other than: If all goes right for the Spurs next year, they'll have a chance to compete for a Finals appearance. But that's if all goes right. They don't have the edge over their competion the Celtics do. At least, they don't anymore.

The Celtics have the corporate knowledge Pop always likes to talk about, the belief throughout their team and, yes, they fit. And when you boil it all down ... that's the biggest difference.

(And if you actually read all of this, jaffies owes you Vbookie Cash.)

Wow. Too long to respond to everything, so I'll just randomly, in no particular order touch on some things...

You're forgetting one thing...I never said the two teams were identical, nor that the Spurs pieces fit as seamlessly as the Celtics pieces (though I think they'll close the gap in that regard next season). At the end of the day, talent wins in this league and when you have depth of it, like the Spurs likely will and you can add that to size, experience and commitment, you're going to have a chance to win and win big.

Couldn't agree with you more on Pierce; I'm a huge fan and always have been. He's as complete an offensive player as there is in the game and an extremely underrated defender. The only thing that holds him back from being in the class of James, Bryant and Wade is his athleticism or lack thereof.

If Splitter signs and is what he's supposed to be and Blair improves, then why couldn't Duncan settle more into the Garnett role? Duncan is better and they're different players, but Duncan shouldn't have to carry too heavy a load anymore, either. Particularly with Ginobili and Parker both healthy and fresh entering a season and in the case of Parker, playing to determine the worth of his final big contract. If Ginobili picks back up close to where he was before having his nose broken and Parker picks back up where he did in '09, they could be the first and second options more often than not.

I think you're selling Jefferson short. He may never be a great fit for this team or a championship caliber role player, but he can surely be a better fit for this team next season than he was last season. If he just goes back to being an adequate-solid three-point shooter and plays with better focus, intensity and attention to detail from day one (things he was beginning to do with more consistency as the season wore on), then he can help this team. It also helps that he, like Parker, is playing to determine the worth of his final big contract and unlike Parker, who will still get a very lucrative deal even with another mediocre season, Jefferson's not guaranteed of that. He really needs to repair his value next season. He seems like a smart guy, so I'm sure he's aware of that.

Collectively, the Spurs pieces may not fit as well as the Celtics pieces do, but keep in mind that they've completely re-built a team that was very set in their ways just two seasons ago. Other than the big three, if Bonner goes, no other player will remain from the '07 championship team. With the amount of individual talent around them (something they're not used to, considering the types of minimal players they used to play with), you've got to give them time. Plus, they've had constant injury issues to overcome in that time as well. To me, next season should be the culmination of a three-year, on the fly re-build. Last season was basically an extended training camp and only towards the latter stages of it did we begin to see glimpses of what this team could potentially become.

The Celtics may have corporate knowledge and belief, but let's face facts: They needed everything to go right to make the finals again and it happened for them and they had to go through two elite teams to get their.

[Blackjack]

Wow. Too long to respond to everything, so I'll just randomly, in no particular order touch on some things...

Yeah, I immediately began hittin' the sauce upon finishing that atrocity.


You're forgetting one thing...I never said the two teams were identical, nor that the Spurs pieces fit as seamlessly as the Celtics pieces (though I think they'll close the gap in that regard next season).

Nah, my post wasn't really an attempt to pick apart your OP or to say you were way off base, just that while I see some similarities, I just don't think they're a way of reading the Spurs' tea leaves for next year (which led me to go into agonizing detail -- I think I'm suffering from post deprivation after being wrapped up with All-SpursTalk :downspin:).


At the end of the day, talent wins in this league and when you have depth of it, like the Spurs likely will and you can add that to size, experience and commitment, you're going to have a chance to win and win big.

At the end of the day, the right talent wins, IMO. I know we went into some pretty in-depth discussion over the lineups this year, so you know where I stand. I just don't believe it's as easy as playing your best players simultaneously and living with the results; or that simply being more talented deems one to be on the court when a lesser player compliments the team's flow and chemistry better. Like I said before in my initial post and I just got done saying, I don't disagree with your take all that much. I do believe there's a possibility that the chips fall right and the scenario you suggest comes to fruition. But I don't think the odds are with them at this point (assuming we get the team conventional wisdom puts forth).


If Splitter signs and is what he's supposed to be and Blair improves, then why couldn't Duncan settle more into the Garnett role? Duncan is better and they're different players, but Duncan shouldn't have to carry too heavy a load anymore, either.

Because I'm skeptical just how effective Splitter will be in his first year defensively. He's mobile, not extremely athletic and that, in combination with Tim's newfound centerness (yeah, I make up words), might prevent them from playing together as much as we'd hope. Maybe I'm keeping my expectations low so that I won't be disappointed (should he come) but I could easily see him having some problems with the officiating in the paint and out on the floor where you're not allowed to be as physical and loose when setting picks. Plus, Garnett is the finesse to Perkins power. Duncan and Splitter aren't all that much different a defensive player when you consider Tim historically, in that they're not guys who excel defending out on the floor or at the top of a zone (and I'm only comparing their responsibilities, not abilities -- Tiago could never of held Tim's jock defensively, even a few years ago).


Particularly with Ginobili and Parker both healthy and fresh entering a season and in the case of Parker, playing to determine the worth of his final big contract. If Ginobili picks back up close to where he was before having his nose broken and Parker picks back up where he did in '09, they could be the first and second options more often than not.

I'm not sure how much Manu and Tony's play is going to save Tim. Theoretically it makes sense and I've ascribed to the notion before, but I'm beginning to feel like Tim's condition will only be helped by sitting out games and by the ascension of his front line. I'm not sure that him having to set multiple screens a possession isn't even worse for him than setting up shop in the post. And on the subject of Tony, I'm just not sure what to think at the moment. The conventional wisdom on the board seems to be Tony returning to '09 form and being that dominate player again, but I'm not sure. Will he be better and return to All-Star form? Yeah, I think so; but let's not forget the circumstance that gave way to Tony having that kind of year and how the Spurs were a completely Tony-centric team. A player who's given that much oportunity and leeway, knowing that the team has no other option, finds a rhythm and confidence you wouldn't normally find. It's the certainty of touches and sheer amount of opportunties that breeds that confidence and rhythm. It was what was best for the Spurs in that circumstance but they're not going to win big if they try to do that with their pieces in place. So Tony's contract year could really go either way, IMO. Hopefully it's a blessing but it could be a curse; Tony's not going to sabotage the team or be some kind of malcontent but if he's trying too hard and forcing things ... it's not out of the realm that they struggle again.




I think you're selling Jefferson short. He may never be a great fit for this team or a championship caliber role player, but he can surely be a better fit for this team next season than he was last season.

I agree he can be a better fit. I just don't believe he can be good enough.


If he just goes back to being an adequate-solid three-point shooter and plays with better focus, intensity and attention to detail from day one (things he was beginning to do with more consistency as the season wore on), then he can help this team.

I'm hoping for adequate and that will be part of the "better fit." But the attention to detail thing just isn't going to happen, IMO. Zebras can't change their stripes. Medication, lobotomy ... they're our only hope.


It also helps that he, like Parker, is playing to determine the worth of his final big contract and unlike Parker, who will still get a very lucrative deal even with another mediocre season, Jefferson's not guaranteed of that. He really needs to repair his value next season. He seems like a smart guy, so I'm sure he's aware of that.

When it comes to professional athletes in contract years I almost always side with it being a good thing. But when it comes to the Spurs and their less than ideal fit, individuals trying to do more than what's needed or pressing can be extremely detrimental to a team. RJ's a good guy and seems pretty intelligent off the court, but the former could lead to pressing and the latter doesn't mean jack on the court; there've been plenty of intelligent people to play basketball that looked like they couldn't tie a pair of shoes on the hardcourt and vice-versa.


The Celtics may have corporate knowledge and belief, but let's face facts: They needed everything to go right to make the finals again and it happened for them and they had to go through two elite teams to get their.

That's really the point, though, isn't it? They do have a team that works, fits, and all the intangibles the Spurs used to have. Yet they needed a good amount of fail from their counterparts to get where they are. The Celtics deserve to be where they are, don't get me wrong ... they earned it, but the Spurs' Big 3 doesn't have a Rondo, Perkins (maybe Splitter can be an approximation in his first year, we'll see) and all those intangibles I just touched on. Again, I believe the Spurs will be in a better position to get off to a good start this year. They've got a year under their belt and they should add a couple of quality pieces. But I think we're probably going to have to hope to be fortunate with other team's misfortune to have the Spurs back where we want them to be.

[TD 21]

Nah, my post wasn't really an attempt to pick apart your OP or to say you were way off base, just that while I see some similarities, I just don't think they're a way of reading the Spurs' tea leaves for next year (which led me to go into agonizing detail -- I think I'm suffering from post deprivation after being wrapped up with All-SpursTalk :downspin:).

Of course there's no way of reading the Spurs' tear leaves for next year, but that doesn't mean we can't try.


At the end of the day, the right talent wins, IMO. I know we went into some pretty in-depth discussion over the lineups this year, so you know where I stand. I just don't believe it's as easy as playing your best players simultaneously and living with the results; or that simply being more talented deems one to be on the court when a lesser player compliments the team's flow and chemistry better. Like I said before in my initial post and I just got done saying, I don't disagree with your take all that much. I do believe there's a possibility that the chips fall right and the scenario you suggest comes to fruition. But I don't think the odds are with them at this point (assuming we get the team conventional wisdom puts forth).Talent period wins. The most talented team may not always win a championship, but one of the most talented teams always does. You never see a team with mediocre talent winning a championship. I'm not sure we've seen enough of this group to say for certain that they can't win together. I don't believe that, either. I just wanted to see more of a Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan lineup than we saw last season and in the Suns series, I felt it was their best chance. Of course the odds aren't with them. In fact, the odds aren't with any team, but I get your point. That's the way things are when your two best players are the age and have the mileage of Duncan and Ginobili.


Because I'm skeptical just how effective Splitter will be in his first year defensively. He's mobile, not extremely athletic and that, in combination with Tim's newfound centerness (yeah, I make up words), might prevent them from playing together as much as we'd hope. Maybe I'm keeping my expectations low so that I won't be disappointed (should he come) but I could easily see him having some problems with the officiating in the paint and out on the floor where you're not allowed to be as physical and loose when setting picks. Plus, Garnett is the finesse to Perkins power. Duncan and Splitter aren't all that much different a defensive player when you consider Tim historically, in that they're not guys who excel defending out on the floor or at the top of a zone (and I'm only comparing their responsibilities, not abilities -- Tiago could never of held Tim's jock defensively, even a few years ago).I realize every player/situation is different, but if Scola and M. Gasol were any indicator, Splitter should be solid and instantly be the best player Duncan has played next to since Robinson. From what I've seen, Splitter is underrated athletically. Not a freak athlete by any stretch, but he's athletic enough. Similar to young Duncan. Other than Pop's obsession with playing small and having shooting on the floor, nothing else should prevent Duncan from playing with Splitter. Gasol is more mobile than Splitter, but not by a landslide. If he can thrive next to Bynum, there's no reason Splitter can't at least function well next to Duncan. Classic case of worrying about what a player or combination can't do and not focusing on what they can do. In '07, Duncan/Oberto weren't overly mobile and not all that athletic and look how well they played together. Splitter should be comparable to Garnett in terms of moving hit feet out on the floor at this point in their respective careers.


I'm not sure how much Manu and Tony's play is going to save Tim. Theoretically it makes sense and I've ascribed to the notion before, but I'm beginning to feel like Tim's condition will only be helped by sitting out games and by the ascension of his front line. I'm not sure that him having to set multiple screens a possession isn't even worse for him than setting up shop in the post. And on the subject of Tony, I'm just not sure what to think at the moment. The conventional wisdom on the board seems to be Tony returning to '09 form and being that dominate player again, but I'm not sure. Will he be better and return to All-Star form? Yeah, I think so; but let's not forget the circumstance that gave way to Tony having that kind of year and how the Spurs were a completely Tony-centric team. A player who's given that much oportunity and leeway, knowing that the team has no other option, finds a rhythm and confidence you wouldn't normally find. It's the certainty of touches and sheer amount of opportunties that breeds that confidence and rhythm. It was what was best for the Spurs in that circumstance but they're not going to win big if they try to do that with their pieces in place. So Tony's contract year could really go either way, IMO. Hopefully it's a blessing but it could be a curse; Tony's not going to sabotage the team or be some kind of malcontent but if he's trying too hard and forcing things ... it's not out of the realm that they struggle again.It should save him somewhat, in the sense that he can more often than not be the third scorer. Because of how much more talented and deeper this '11 Spurs figure to be compared to the '09 Spurs, Parker almost certainly will not be posting the same gaudy numbers he did in the second half of that season, but I do think his impact can be similar. Honestly, he just looked like he had reached another level then, like he knew he could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted.


I agree he can be a better fit. I just don't believe he can be good enough.Probably not, but then again, if most or all of the other pieces are functioning properly, then how much do the Spurs need from Jefferson? Theoretically, not a whole lot.


I'm hoping for adequate and that will be part of the "better fit." But the attention to detail thing just isn't going to happen, IMO. Zebras can't change their stripes. Medication, lobotomy ... they're our only hope.He's never going to be Bowen in that regard, but didn't you think he improved in this aspect as the season wore on?


When it comes to professional athletes in contract years I almost always side with it being a good thing. But when it comes to the Spurs and their less than ideal fit, individuals trying to do more than what's needed or pressing can be extremely detrimental to a team. RJ's a good guy and seems pretty intelligent off the court, but the former could lead to pressing and the latter doesn't mean jack on the court; there've been plenty of intelligent people to play basketball that looked like they couldn't tie a pair of shoes on the hardcourt and vice-versa.It could go that way or they could just flat out play harder and with more intensity, which is never a bad thing. Particularly with Jefferson and to a lesser extent, Parker.


That's really the point, though, isn't it? They do have a team that works, fits, and all the intangibles the Spurs used to have. Yet they needed a good amount of fail from their counterparts to get where they are. The Celtics deserve to be where they are, don't get me wrong ... they earned it, but the Spurs' Big 3 doesn't have a Rondo, Perkins (maybe Splitter can be an approximation in his first year, we'll see) and all those intangibles I just touched on. Again, I believe the Spurs will be in a better position to get off to a good start this year. They've got a year under their belt and they should add a couple of quality pieces. But I think we're probably going to have to hope to be fortunate with other team's misfortune to have the Spurs back where we want them to be.No, the point is despite that, they still needed everything to go right to make the finals. Really, outside of the Lakers, every other team in the league needs for virtually everything to go right to make the finals. Maybe the Spurs' big three doesn't have a Rondo, but Parker and Hill both provide some of what Rondo does. We are going to have to hope to be fortunate just as other teams are.

[spurs1990]

Admittedly, I stole the title from many of Harvey's articles.

I see a lot of similarities between the '10 Celtics and what we hope/expect the '11 Spurs to look like and I don't think it's far fetched to say that the '11 Spurs will actually have more individual talent.

Both have future Hall-of-Fame big men in decline, both have a dynamic wing player, both have a point guard who penetrates at will, both have former All-Star big men who are now role players, both have big three's who have a ton of mileage and need to have their minutes/workload managed (particularly in the regular season), both have at least three good, young rotation players, both have an athletic, defensive-minded wing who can't shoot/handle.

There's a lot of ifs in what I'm about to say, but the vast majority are realistic (and in many cases, likely) ifs, such as...if Splitter signs and can be the solid, legit number two big he's projected to be, if Jefferson can go back to being an adequate-solid three point shooter, if Blair can add a short jumper and play a modicum of better defense, if Hairston can play consistent defense, if the expected veteran wing addition can shoot 40% or better from three, if Hill continues to improve, if Duncan, Ginobili and McDyess can avoid a steep decline and if the team can be as healthy and fresh as possible and playing their best ball down the stretch and into the playoffs, then why can't the '11 Spurs do what the '10 Celtics have done?

The West may consistent of the best team in the league and possess more depth than does the East, but the Celtics had to go through two elite teams just to get to the finals. There is no such thing as a second elite team in the West.

The '10 Suns smacked of a one hit wonder. Even if Stoudemire is re-signed, didn't they in a lot of ways catch lightning in a bottle and max out? I think they did. They also won't be catching anyone off guard next season from the jump. I think they'll still be good, but is there any reason to think they'll have legit (short term, at least) staying power near the top of the West? What makes them vastly different from the '09 Nuggets and to a lesser extent, the '08 Hornets?

Granted, just as the Suns surprisingly rose to become the West's number two team this season, it's highly likely that some other surprise team will rise from the pack to do so next season. If that team is not the Spurs, is there any other team that's likely to be head and shoulders above the Spurs? I don't see it.

The Mavs are determined to be that team, but have a flawed core and lack the assets to acquire the elite-near elite level player they need. The Nuggets are too thin and too combustible a team to be that team. The Jazz, even if Boozer is kept, don't have enough high end talent. The Trail Blazers, for all their depth of talent, have a huge injury question mark in the middle that they can't seem to shake (ditto for the Rockets). The Thunder are too weak on the front line and too young.

You need a very strong core, experience and size to win in the NBA. There's a good chance the Spurs will have all three. None of the other teams around them in the West can say the same.

At this writing, barring something unforeseen from one of the aforementioned teams, there's no reason to think that the Spurs can't at least make the conference finals and give the Lakers their stiffest competition that they've had in the West since acquiring Gasol. Throw in the fact that outside of the Trail Blazers (if they're healthy), the Spurs could be, if not better, at least as well equipped as anybody to deal with the Lakers size and they should have a legitimate chance of beating them.

It may sound far fetched now and there's no question that lots has to go right for this to happen (starting with Splitter signing), but the Spurs should seemingly be capable of this and that's more than most can say.

[Blackjack]

Of course there's no way of reading the Spurs' tear leaves for next year, but that doesn't mean we can't try.

I agree. I just don't think you can make as direct a correlation with the Celtics on the basis of some similarities. Similarities I believe to be of the superficial variety because the equation's different. The Celtics have the right pieces or data for their equation, while the Spurs are trying to figure it out and make the numbers work.


Talent period wins. The most talented team may not always win a championship, but one of the most talented teams always does. You never see a team with mediocre talent winning a championship.

Yes, talent wins. But we're talking about championships here and even having an overwhelming collection of talent doesn't make you a champion. We've seen the Lakers before Phil, the Blazers, Kings, Mavs, Suns, etc. all have great talent and come up short. Hell, some of them came up short to the Spurs whom they were more talented than. So while talent can get you 50 wins and a nice seed ... it don't mean shit if it don't fit (or can't coexist).


I'm not sure we've seen enough of this group to say for certain that they can't win together.

Again, we're talking championship, not win. I fully expect this team to be in the hunt for 55-60 wins next year, if healthy.


Of course the odds aren't with them. In fact, the odds aren't with any team, but I get your point. That's the way things are when your two best players are the age and have the mileage of Duncan and Ginobili.

You know what I mean when I say the odds aren't with them. I wasn't alluding to a percentage. Fact is, how many people, when pressed, would've told you the Lakers would be in the Finals at the end of the year? In the NBA, there's usually three to four teams before the year that you can just about guarantee will be there at the end. Pundits, fans and alike will try to find a way to buck conventional wisdom and poke holes in the superior team (as long as it's not the Lakers) until their blue in the face. But it inevitably comes down to those "flawed" teams that were so "vulnerable" for most of the year and how they managed to overcome. We all do it. We try to talk ourselves out of things to make the season more enjoyable, entertaining or hold on to some hope. What I'm saying is, the Spurs aren't one of those teams at the moment. They'd have to upset the applecart. They have to be the Orlando Magic of last year next year.


I realize every player/situation is different, but if Scola and M. Gasol were any indicator, Splitter should be solid and instantly be the best player Duncan has played next to since Robinson.

I don't disagree with that. I might not expect him to be the best player he's had since his first few years with Dave, but he'll be close.


From what I've seen, Splitter is underrated athletically. Not a freak athlete by any stretch, but he's athletic enough. Similar to young Duncan.

That's what I was alluding to by saying they defend in a similar fashion, at least when you look at Duncan historically; the same type of athleticism and defensive capabilities assignment-wise (but Splitter isn't as long, talented or capable of holding Tim's jock defensively from back in the day -- not that many could).


Other than Pop's obsession with playing small and having shooting on the floor, nothing else should prevent Duncan from playing with Splitter.

Foul trouble could and that was my point; but there'll be times that Tim's lack of mobility and Splitter being an interior defender with good mobility (not a Garnett who's got the length and agility to play out on the floor against quickness) will force Pop's hand. I'm a firm believer in staying big and not compromising the interior defense but there are extenuating circumstances that you have to contend with. If Tiago has some trouble with making contact out on the perimeter defensively (something you're allowed to do more overseas) and has some trouble making the adjustment to the athletes on the interior, he could have some growing pains. This isn't actually a huge concern of mine but it's something you've got to take into consideration and one of handful of things that prevents one from thinking he's going to be a comparable defensive player to Tim that Perkins is for Garnett.


Gasol is more mobile than Splitter, but not by a landslide. If he can thrive next to Bynum, there's no reason Splitter can't at least function well next to Duncan. Classic case of worrying about what a player or combination can't do and not focusing on what they can do. In '07, Duncan/Oberto weren't overly mobile and not all that athletic and look how well they played together.

You just misunderstood what I was saying. They'll be fine together if Splitter doesn't have much of a problem with the rules transition and he's not asked to guard the Jeff Green's of the world consistently (the 3/4 tweeners, to be more specific). I'm just not ready to say one way or the other how good he'll be, in his first year, until I see him on the court and how he reacts to the whole environment.


Splitter should be comparable to Garnett in terms of moving hit feet out on the floor at this point in their respective careers.

Nope. Just different players. Even with Garnett's athleticism in decline he still moves his feet, sits in his stance and uses his length extremely well. Garnett moves on the perimeter like an older perimeter player (who happens to be 7-foot and extremely long) while Splitter moves like a youthful Big. It's just different.


Probably not, but then again, if most or all of the other pieces are functioning properly, then how much do the Spurs need from Jefferson? Theoretically, not a whole lot.

Jefferson needs to be capable of being put on the bench to end games. Period. They have to have someone that genuinely deserves to play ahead of him and that makes the team better with his presence. Not just some one-dimensional player that leaves the team playing 4 on 5 on either end but his pros outweigh the cons in comparison to RJ.


He's never going to be Bowen in that regard, but didn't you think he improved in this aspect as the season wore on?

Improved? Yes. Enough? No. He was so disappointing that we started to find satisfaction with his mediocrity. If the game's on the line and the Spurs need a score or a stop ... I'd simply rather not have to rely on him. His mental-lapses often come at the most inopportune times.


No, the point is despite that, they still needed everything to go right to make the finals.

Yeah. And what I'm saying is that the Celtics aren't the Spurs equal -- they're on better footing -- and they needed those breaks to find their way to the Finals. That means the Spurs would likely need even more to break their way to get there; and with each year the obstacles only mount with Tim and Manu.


Really, outside of the Lakers, every other team in the league needs for virtually everything to go right to make the finals.

Everything seems to line up a little better when your franchise player is in his prime or playing close to that level. You can get by when you've got talent across the board but you have to have the right mix. I'm skeptical the Spurs have the right mix, should we see what we expect.


Maybe the Spurs' big three doesn't have a Rondo, but Parker and Hill both provide some of what Rondo does.

That's a bit of a reach. I mean, there's no guarantee the Spurs can even play Parker and Hill together when it counts. And I'm not knocking Tony and George or trying to tell you Rondo's an MVP-type of player, but it's relative to the contributions and impact they have on their respective teams. Rondo's been arguably their best player even though we both know how good Pierce is. Allen just set a Finals record for threes and Garnett's still a quality player and a damn good glue guy. They've got a legitimate Big 4; the Spurs are still a big 3.


We are going to have to hope to be fortunate just as other teams are.

I agree one-hundred percent that the Spurs are going to have to be fortunate and that any team winning a title has to be. I just happen to believe the Spurs are going to have to be moreso.

[TD 21]

I agree. I just don't think you can make as direct a correlation with the Celtics on the basis of some similarities. Similarities I believe to be of the superficial variety because the equation's different. The Celtics have the right pieces or data for their equation, while the Spurs are trying to figure it out and make the numbers work.

Fair enough, but I still say you can't say for certain that this group can't work together. If they come up short next season, absolutely.


Yes, talent wins. But we're talking about championships here and even having an overwhelming collection of talent doesn't make you a champion. We've seen the Lakers before Phil, the Blazers, Kings, Mavs, Suns, etc. all have great talent and come up short. Hell, some of them came up short to the Spurs whom they were more talented than. So while talent can get you 50 wins and a nice seed ... it don't mean shit if it don't fit (or can't coexist).
An overwhelming collection of talent in and of itself doesn't single-handedly make you a champion, but it gives you a chance. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the Spurs talent is an overwhelming collection, but it's certainly whelming.



Again, we're talking championship, not win. I fully expect this team to be in the hunt for 55-60 wins next year, if healthy.When I say 'win', I mean championship or at least get to the finals. I stand by what I said. You may well be right that the pieces don't fit well enough together, I just think you've got to give it more time before being so certain of that.


You know what I mean when I say the odds aren't with them. I wasn't alluding to a percentage. Fact is, how many people, when pressed, would've told you the Lakers would be in the Finals at the end of the year? In the NBA, there's usually three to four teams before the year that you can just about guarantee will be there at the end. Pundits, fans and alike will try to find a way to buck conventional wisdom and poke holes in the superior team (as long as it's not the Lakers) until their blue in the face. But it inevitably comes down to those "flawed" teams that were so "vulnerable" for most of the year and how they managed to overcome. We all do it. We try to talk ourselves out of things to make the season more enjoyable, entertaining or hold on to some hope. What I'm saying is, the Spurs aren't one of those teams at the moment. They'd have to upset the applecart. They have to be the Orlando Magic of last year next year.You know how you should know that I know what you mean? Because I specifically said, "but I get your point". They're close enough to being in that discussion and they will be if they play up to their capabilities. They won't be favored, but they'll be amongst the top five teams.


Foul trouble could and that was my point; but there'll be times that Tim's lack of mobility and Splitter being an interior defender with good mobility (not a Garnett who's got the length and agility to play out on the floor against quickness) will force Pop's hand. I'm a firm believer in staying big and not compromising the interior defense but there are extenuating circumstances that you have to contend with. If Tiago has some trouble with making contact out on the perimeter defensively (something you're allowed to do more overseas) and has some trouble making the adjustment to the athletes on the interior, he could have some growing pains. This isn't actually a huge concern of mine but it's something you've got to take into consideration and one of handful of things that prevents one from thinking he's going to be a comparable defensive player to Tim that Perkins is for Garnett.I think you're over thinking things.



You just misunderstood what I was saying. They'll be fine together if Splitter doesn't have much of a problem with the rules transition and he's not asked to guard the Jeff Green's of the world consistently (the 3/4 tweeners, to be more specific). I'm just not ready to say one way or the other how good he'll be, in his first year, until I see him on the court and how he reacts to the whole environment.

Why would he have a major problem with the rules transition? He's not the first player to come from Europe to the NBA and I don't recall it being a major issue for the others. Even if it is, if he has half a brain he'll figure it out fast. I'm not going to make a definitive proclamation about Splitter, but his mere presence, even if he struggles in certain aspects, should make this team better.



Nope. Just different players. Even with Garnett's athleticism in decline he still moves his feet, sits in his stance and uses his length extremely well. Garnett moves on the perimeter like an older perimeter player (who happens to be 7-foot and extremely long) while Splitter moves like a youthful Big. It's just different.Have you watched Garnett recently? He get's blown past, I wouldn't say frequently, but it's not uncommon to see. I think he moves his feet better than Splitter, but not by a wide margin at this point. Are you just not a fan of Splitter or something? Because I think you're underselling him.


Jefferson needs to be capable of being put on the bench to end games. Period. They have to have someone that genuinely deserves to play ahead of him and that makes the team better with his presence. Not just some one-dimensional player that leaves the team playing 4 on 5 on either end but his pros outweigh the cons in comparison to RJ.In certain matchups/depending on how he's playing, he can finish games. Other times, if matchups allow for it, Hill can. If they can bring in a veteran wing who can shoot the three at a high clip and defend at least relatively well, then there's another candidate.


Improved? Yes. Enough? No. He was so disappointing that we started to find satisfaction with his mediocrity. If the game's on the line and the Spurs need a score or a stop ... I'd simply rather not have to rely on him. His mental-lapses often come at the most inopportune times.I agree. I've never been a Jefferson fan, but there's no question who dislikes him more between us two.


Yeah. And what I'm saying is that the Celtics aren't the Spurs equal -- they're on better footing -- and they needed those breaks to find their way to the Finals. That means the Spurs would likely need even more to break their way to get there; and with each year the obstacles only mount with Tim and Manu. You're getting caught up in comparing the '10 Spurs to the '10 Celtics. The whole point of this was to project what the '11 Spurs might look like and the level they might play at. Even more? I don't think so. About the same is more like it.


That's a bit of a reach. I mean, there's no guarantee the Spurs can even play Parker and Hill together when it counts. And I'm not knocking Tony and George or trying to tell you Rondo's an MVP-type of player, but it's relative to the contributions and impact they have on their respective teams. Rondo's been arguably their best player even though we both know how good Pierce is. Allen just set a Finals record for threes and Garnett's still a quality player and a damn good glue guy. They've got a legitimate Big 4; the Spurs are still a big 3.
How is it a reach? They both provide some of what Rondo provides, particularly Parker.


I agree one-hundred percent that the Spurs are going to have to be fortunate and that any team winning a title has to be. I just happen to believe the Spurs are going to have to be moreso.

We'll see. Just remember that I was bang on about the Mavericks. I remember you months ago saying something along the lines of "you're just saying that because you hate them".

Also, to repeat, I'm not making any predictions at this time. It's too far in advance to do that obviously.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Actually, the '10 Celtics are doing what the '10 Spurs were supposed to have done.

:tu

The '11 Spurs will be the 2000 Utah Jazz.

TD just isn't going to be able to have a great series night in and night out. The season is just too long for him. Ginobili showed signs of life but he always seems to have bad luck at the least opportune times (ie broken nose).

Hill and Blair should be better, but I think the Spurs getting past 2nd round won't happen unless they can get more size. They had to battle just to avoid the 8th seed, and while we hope the chemistry will improve next year, these guys simply aren't getting any younger.

[Blackjack]

An overwhelming collection of talent in and of itself doesn't single-handedly make you a champion, but it gives you a chance. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the Spurs talent is an overwhelming collection, but it's certainly whelming.

Let's make something clear, I'm not trying to imply the Spurs won't be amongst the best handful of teams next year. As it stands now, I'd say a Western Conference final would be their ceiling but they'd likely find themselves ousted in the second-round -- as it stands now.


I think you're over thinking things.

I think you're assuming a bit. :hat


Why would he have a major problem with the rules transition? He's not the first player to come from Europe to the NBA and I don't recall it being a major issue for the others. Even if it is, if he has half a brain he'll figure it out fast. I'm not going to make a definitive proclamation about Splitter, but his mere presence, even if he struggles in certain aspects, should make this team better.

I said it wouldn't be a huge concern of mine. I do think it's something that has to be taken into consideration, along with a handful of other factors that will bear some watching (both on and off the court).


Have you watched Garnett recently? He get's blown past, I wouldn't say frequently, but it's not uncommon to see. I think he moves his feet better than Splitter, but not by a wide margin at this point. Are you just not a fan of Splitter or something? Because I think you're underselling him.

Yes, I said he moves like and old perimeter player and that Splitter moves like a youthful big. I don't feel much like going into full detail or unloading another post that would rival a War and Peace word count, so that's the best I can explain it without doing so. Garnett's still better on the perimeter even with his diminished athleticism. He's just a different kind of player with a different type of skill set out on the floor. They're just different, plain and simple.


In certain matchups/depending on how he's playing, he can finish games. Other times, if matchups allow for it, Hill can. If they can bring in a veteran wing who can shoot the three at a high clip and defend at least relatively well, then there's another candidate.

I just don't see too many matchups where it's best to have RJ out on the floor at a critical time in the midst of a deep playoff run. Sounds pretty cold, maybe brutal or unfair ... I'm just being honest; I didn't see him working when he got here and I've seen no indication that he'll work the way needed to get a title unless there's someone worthy of replacing him when it counts.


I agree. I've never been a Jefferson fan, but there's no question who dislikes him more between us two.

:lol

It's not a question of liking him, I just don't believe in him or his ability to be what they need him to be. The more he becomes someone on the periphery and someone not crucial to their cause the better. They can win with him on the team and contributing, they just can't win if they're having to rely on him to come through significantly.


You're getting caught up in comparing the '10 Spurs to the '10 Celtics. The whole point of this was to project what the '11 Spurs might look like and the level they might play at.

Nah, I'm saying the Spurs aren't going to be the '10 Celtics in '11 unless there's a real change to the mix. Get rid of Jefferson and replace him with defensive length on the perimeter and some trustworthy three-point shooting on the roster? Now we're talking.


How is it a reach? They both provide some of what Rondo provides, particularly Parker.

Because there's no guarantee they can play on the court to finish games. That's the equivalent to saying: I've got two solid players that combined give me what this star player does but they play the same position. It may be true but it don't mean a whole lot if one of them's sitting on the bench. But you're right that Rondo and Parker are close together. But it's not about the one-for-one comparison. The Celtics "Big 3" didn't include Rondo. The Spurs' Big 3 includes Parker. Rondo is the Celtics' Hill, only now he's arguably their MVP; and the Celtics have two of the best interior defenders in the league in Perkins and Wallace, and they've got their own bigger version of Blair (Davis) that's battle-tested. The Spurs have some work to do if they want to be the '10 Celtics in '11.




We'll see. Just remember that I was bang on about the Mavericks. I remember you months ago saying something along the lines of "you're just saying that because you hate them".

:lol

No, it was about the degree to which you were dismissing them. Like they didn't worry you one bit. I din't have a problem with you not thinking they were championship-caliber, just how easily you dismissed them; and who's to say another matchup doesn't allow them to make considerably more noise in the postseason? Like I mentioned before, the league pretty much sucks these days and is more dependent on matchups. But, having said that, there's a threshold of greatness or quality that every team has to have to win a title. There's a certain mix you have to have. The pieces have to be there for it all to fall into place. The Spurs could advance and make some noise, but I don't see them making that final step unless we see something change with the roster. I'm not hoping or rooting for failure, just calling it as I see it at the moment (and I'd love to be proven wrong or have the ability to change my view once we see what the roster really is going to be).

[TD 21]

I think you're assuming a bit. :hat

How so?


I said it wouldn't be a huge concern of mine. I do think it's something that has to be taken into consideration, along with a handful of other factors that will bear some watching (both on and off the court).This is a brief synopsis/summary of your previous take on this, but you neglected to answer my question: Why would he have a major problem with the rules transition? It's not like there's a known precedent for this.


:lol

It's not a question of liking him, I just don't believe in him or his ability to be what they need him to be. The more he becomes someone on the periphery and someone not crucial to their cause the better. They can win with him on the team and contributing, they just can't win if they're having to rely on him to come through significantly.
Disliking his game and how it fits on this team, I meant. Let's just say you're less than enthusiastic about it. I don't think they have to rely on him to come through significantly, but we'll see. I don't think he's quite as bad a fit as you're making him out to be, either. Law of averages says he goes back to being a decent threat from three next season. He's far from a lock down defender, but so was Finley when the Spurs won the title with him playing a relatively significant role. I know, different time, different team, but still.



Nah, I'm saying the Spurs aren't going to be the '10 Celtics in '11 unless there's a real change to the mix. Get rid of Jefferson and replace him with defensive length on the perimeter and some trustworthy three-point shooting on the roster? Now we're talking.Define "real change"? Assuming the changes are Splitter, a 1st round pick, a veteran wing and a depth big, that doesn't qualify as a "real change"? When you say "unless there's a real change", you're really saying "unless Jefferson is traded", aren't you?


Because there's no guarantee they can play on the court to finish games. That's the equivalent to saying: I've got two solid players that combined give me what this star player does but they play the same position. It may be true but it don't mean a whole lot if one of them's sitting on the bench. But you're right that Rondo and Parker are close together. But it's not about the one-for-one comparison. The Celtics "Big 3" didn't include Rondo. The Spurs' Big 3 includes Parker. Rondo is the Celtics' Hill, only now he's arguably their MVP; and the Celtics have two of the best interior defenders in the league in Perkins and Wallace, and they've got their own bigger version of Blair (Davis) that's battle-tested. The Spurs have some work to do if they want to be the '10 Celtics in '11.Never mind finishing games. I'm talking about if you brake down all of their games, are there not similarities between them? See, you're making more of this than what it is. All I'm saying is Parker and Hill provide some of what Rondo does. I get that Rondo is outside of the Celtics "Big 3", but if you want to look at it just purely in terms of weaponry, the Celtcis have four; the Spurs have five. Of course they have work to do, no one's disputing that.


:lol

No, it was about the degree to which you were dismissing them. Like they didn't worry you one bit. I din't have a problem with you not thinking they were championship-caliber, just how easily you dismissed them; and who's to say another matchup doesn't allow them to make considerably more noise in the postseason? Like I mentioned before, the league pretty much sucks these days and is more dependent on matchups. But, having said that, there's a threshold of greatness or quality that every team has to have to win a title. There's a certain mix you have to have. The pieces have to be there for it all to fall into place. The Spurs could advance and make some noise, but I don't see them making that final step unless we see something change with the roster. I'm not hoping or rooting for failure, just calling it as I see it at the moment (and I'd love to be proven wrong or have the ability to change my view once we see what the roster really is going to be.They didn't worry me one bit. Why, was I supposed to be worried because it was popular opinion to be? "Who's to say another matchup doesn't allow them to make considerably more noise in the postseason"? Well then, let's say the same for the Spurs. Don't make excuses for them. The reality is they were a vastly overrated team with glaring flaws that I had pegged well in advance of their first round demise. Meanwhile, media and fans alike had them pegged as the biggest threat to the Lakers in the West. Of all my proclamations/predictions this past season, I can honestly say with 100% sincerity that I was most confident in what I said about the Mavs.

[Blackjack]

Rather than get lost in the minutia, TD, let's just look at this big picture. We differ on the Celtics comparison and you seem a little more optimistic about the addition of Splitter, a draft pick and maybe a veteran-minimum player being enough to get 'em over the top; conceivably a decent proposition at least. So let's look at this as pragmatically as possible.

When I look at this team, they're both too young and too old. Their warhorses are past their prime, injury-prone and their supporting cast, their 'glue', is too green and inexperienced. That's just the way I see it.

Now if you look at past champions, you often find that their best players are at or near their prime; they're composed with a veteran-laden supporting casts or trustworthy shooters; and/or they're an extremely balanced team that's construction is both and versatile and a greater-than-their-sum group (i.e. the Pistons).

When you look at the Spurs, Duncan and Ginobili are still capable but their not at or near their prime. Ginobili can have stretches, as can Duncan, but they can't summon those performances on cue anymore and their health is a bigger concern than normal. Tony's in his prime and has the ability to dominate a game but I don't believe this team's going to thrive as a collective with him playing in a '09 fashion. That's not a slight to Tony or his ability, just the nature of his game and how him trying to be Wade won't make this team championship-caliber, IMO. He's just not that type of a player and the team's not constructed for him to be that type of player. Really, other than Isiah Thomas (who had a much different team in a different time), guys like Tony don't win championships as the team's best and most dominant player. Hill, in his third year, is actually a good piece for a championship team's supporting cast. RJ. ... You know how I feel about RJ, regardless of age.

So what about their supporting cast? Splitter's a great piece and I believe he's going to be good, but it's his first year. Normally not a terrible prospect, given the type of player and talent he is, but normally you don't count on someone like that to put you over the top. Where's their trustworthy shooting? I love me some Hairston and I believe he can and should have a spot in the rotation next year, but is he supposed to come in and be a marksman in the postseason? Temple maybe? How 'bout Gee, or even their draft pick? Forget marksman, are these guys supposed to be well-rounded enough players to depend upon them the chips are down in their first meaningful NBA minutes?

I expect them to bring in a veteran, the likes of Bell, Jones, or someone of that ilk, but these guys are pretty big question marks and would be in their first year with the Spurs (even if Bell has some familiarity and he'd probably have the best chance to give what I'm looking for -- which isn't saying much). The only guy that's really piqued my interest and that is in the right place in terms of his game, is Sato. Stiil, he less than ideal (even if he's who I'd go with, given the free-agent options). There's just no doubt in my mind that the Spurs need one or two of these type of players to win big; which probably means trade.

They're just missing the requisite 'glue', not constructed all that well and their most crucial championship pieces are at best iffy, health-wise; they need more than good fortune, they need pieces (trustworthy and/or proven pieces).

[Agloco]

When I look at this team, they're both too young and too old. Their warhorses are past their prime, injury-prone and their supporting cast, their 'glue', is too green and inexperienced. That's just the way I see it.

When you look at the Spurs, Duncan and Ginobili are still capable but their not at or near their prime. Ginobili can have stretches, as can Duncan, but they can't summon those performances on cue anymore and their health is a bigger concern than normal. Tony's in his prime and has the ability to dominate a game but I don't believe this team's going to thrive as a collective with him playing in a '09 fashion. That's not a slight to Tony or his ability, just the nature of his game and how him trying to be Wade won't make this team championship-caliber, IMO. He's just not that type of a player and the team's not constructed for him to be that type of player. Really, other than Isiah Thomas (who had a much different team in a different time), guys like Tony don't win championships as the team's best and most dominant player. Hill, in his third year, is actually a good piece for a championship team's supporting cast. RJ. ... You know how I feel about RJ, regardless of age.



Well put. 100% agreed.

[TD 21]

Rather than get lost in the minutia, TD, let's just look at this big picture. We differ on the Celtics comparison and you seem a little more optimistic about the addition of Splitter, a draft pick and maybe a veteran-minimum player being enough to get 'em over the top; conceivably a decent proposition at least. So let's look at this as pragmatically as possible.

I'm not convinced that that get's them over the top, but I believe it gives them a chance.


When I look at this team, they're both too young and too old. Their warhorses are past their prime, injury-prone and their supporting cast, their 'glue', is too green and inexperienced. That's just the way I see it. You may be right about that. I'm not convinced that this team is going to win another championship or get to another finals or even conference finals, but I'm also not convinced that they're not going to do any of those things.


Now if you look at past champions, you often find that their best players are at or near their prime; they're composed with a veteran-laden supporting casts or trustworthy shooters; and/or they're an extremely balanced team that's construction is both and versatile and a greater-than-their-sum group (i.e. the Pistons). I'd argue that Ginobili, if he's not at his exact peak, is perilously close to it. Would you agree that if healthy, the Spurs have three of the twenty - twenty-five best players in the world? I'd say one is top ten and generally, one is always playing at a level that's right around that.


When you look at the Spurs, Duncan and Ginobili are still capable but their not at or near their prime. Ginobili can have stretches, as can Duncan, but they can't summon those performances on cue anymore and their health is a bigger concern than normal. Tony's in his prime and has the ability to dominate a game but I don't believe this team's going to thrive as a collective with him playing in a '09 fashion. That's not a slight to Tony or his ability, just the nature of his game and how him trying to be Wade won't make this team championship-caliber, IMO. He's just not that type of a player and the team's not constructed for him to be that type of player. Really, other than Isiah Thomas (who had a much different team in a different time), guys like Tony don't win championships as the team's best and most dominant player. Hill, in his third year, is actually a good piece for a championship team's supporting cast. RJ. ... You know how I feel about RJ, regardless of age.Maybe they can't summon performances on cue anymore, but neither can the Celtics big three. Here's the part where you bring up Rondo, to which I'd counter that and say, if you're just talking scoring/creating wise, Parker and Hill can more than makeup for what Rondo brings. Generally, teams may not win with Parker as their best player, but like I said, this team is unique. They have three players who at varying times can be their best player. He doesn't have to be far and away the clear cut best player and carry them game after game.



So what about their supporting cast? Splitter's a great piece and I believe he's going to be good, but it's his first year. Normally not a terrible prospect, given the type of player and talent he is, but normally you don't count on someone like that to put you over the top. Where's their trustworthy shooting? I love me some Hairston and I believe he can and should have a spot in the rotation next year, but is he supposed to come in and be a marksman in the postseason? Temple maybe? How 'bout Gee, or even their draft pick? Forget marksman, are these guys supposed to be well-rounded enough players to depend upon them the chips are down in their first meaningful NBA minutes? But didn't, in some ways, the Spurs count on Ginobili to do just that in '03? Obviously, it wasn't him single-handedly, but he helped. I'm not expecting Splitter to eventually become a top fifteen player in the world like Ginobili, but similar to the '03 team, that needed a wing like Ginobili, the '11 team needs a big like Splitter. He's sufficiently talented/experienced enough to theoretically make the impact this team needs.

The lack of trustworthy shooting is a big concern of mine as well. It'll have to come in a free agent addition, but also internally from Jefferson. He has to get back to shooting how he did the previous bunch of seasons. The D-Leaguers are not supposed to be well-rounded enough, which is why with the possible exception of Hairston, it's highly likely that none will be in the playoff rotation.


I expect them to bring in a veteran, the likes of Bell, Jones, or someone of that ilk, but these guys are pretty big question marks and would be in their first year with the Spurs (even if Bell has some familiarity and he'd probably have the best chance to give what I'm looking for -- which isn't saying much). The only guy that's really piqued my interest and that is in the right place in terms of his game, is Sato. Stiil, he less than ideal (even if he's who I'd go with, given the free-agent options). There's just no doubt in my mind that the Spurs need one or two of these type of players to win big; which probably means trade.They're not question marks when it comes to three-point shooting. Defensively, we can't be sure of where they're at; shooting-wise, they've been consistent throughout the majority of their careers. All you can do is go on track record and project for the up coming season. Maybe eventually it does mean trade. Asset-wise, the Spurs should have enough to acquire the type of wing they need.


They're just missing the requisite 'glue', not constructed all that well and their most crucial championship pieces are at best iffy, health-wise; they need more than good fortune, they need pieces (trustworthy and/or proven pieces).You talk about me assuming, but that's an assumption on your part, to say that with such certainty.

[Blackjack]

I'd argue that Ginobili, if he's not at his exact peak, is perilously close to it. Would you agree that if healthy, the Spurs have three of the twenty - twenty-five best players in the world? I'd say one is top ten and generally, one is always playing at a level that's right around that.

If you're telling me he's perilously close to being able to play at peak capacity, I'd agree. But perilously close to his peak would fall in lines with sustainability and a less reliant three-point shot. Like I said, he's plenty capable of being a dominant player for a good stretch, the way he ended the year before tapering off by playoffs end (whether that was solely the nose or not -- I tend to believe it was both), so I wouldn't argue that. But he, along with Tim, are only going to sustain that level for a good stretch, IMO, and the Spurs have to hope to keep them upright and that that time comes from April to June.


Maybe they can't summon performances on cue anymore, but neither can the Celtics big three. Here's the part where you bring up Rondo, to which I'd counter that and say, if you're just talking scoring/creating wise, Parker and Hill can more than makeup for what Rondo brings.

But this is where it comes down to the composition and fit to me.

If we're working from a hypothetical standpoint that the team is, for all intents and purposes, healthy, then it comes down to how those pieces come together. Technically you can say players x and y can account for z's productivity but it's how that productivity translates to the court and their teammates. So when you compare the Celtics at full-bore and the Spurs at the same, even if you could make an argument for the individual productivity comparison, it doesn't translate the same; the Celtics have a pass-first point guard whose M.O. is to get in the paint and he's complimented by plenty of shooting with three perimeter-oriented stars and his two Bigs might as well be lead blockers. Players get the ball in their spots at the right time and the sum of the group is greater than the individual because each of their jobs compliments and enhances the other on both ends of the court.

Now if you look a the Spurs' Top-5 (assuming Splitter's in it), you've got a slashing, score-first point; a slashing, playmaker at the 2-guard; a slashing, open-court player at the three; and their front court consists of two pretty conventional post players. But I'd actually contend that Hill is in their Top-5, so that'd give them one spot-up shooter (which would help the cause offensively) but most often leave them at a defensive disadvantage (which they'll often have whether it's Hill or Jefferson). You could say Duncan and McDyess could very well both be perimeter-oriented Bigs this year (that is what 'Dyess is and there's always the talk of easing Tim's burden by keeping him at the high post more often) but the spacing is still not all that conducive to the slashing nature of their perimeter (and I'll believe Duncan playing more like Garnett when I see it -- Tim is what he is and talk of him playing almost exclusively as a high post 4/5 is just that. Talk).

So whereas the Celtics have the size and positional balance on both ends of the court from their Top-5, the Spurs have some fundamental flaws. It's not a fatal flaw if they can find a couple of players to put the pieces in the right place and find that positional balance, but it could be if they can't manage to do so.


Generally, teams may not win with Parker as their best player, but like I said, this team is unique. They have three players who at varying times can be their best player. He doesn't have to be far and away the clear cut best player and carry them game after game.

I just don't see the uniqueness to overcome what just I alluded to.


But didn't, in some ways, the Spurs count on Ginobili to do just that in '03? Obviously, it wasn't him single-handedly, but he helped. I'm not expecting Splitter to eventually become a top fifteen player in the world like Ginobili, but similar to the '03 team, that needed a wing like Ginobili, the '11 team needs a big like Splitter. He's sufficiently talented/experienced enough to theoretically make the impact this team needs.

In '03, the Spurs had an in-prime Duncan, a strong veteran presence in their glue and they weren't asking Manu to be something he wasn't, so it worked. He was an X-Factor and after getting over his injury and getting the better part of a season under his belt, he proved crucial. I don't dismiss Splitter's ability to have a similar impact when put in the same position but, as I've mentioned, they need a couple of pieces for him to have the chance to do just that.


The lack of trustworthy shooting is a big concern of mine as well. It'll have to come in a free agent addition, but also internally from Jefferson. He has to get back to shooting how he did the previous bunch of seasons. The D-Leaguers are not supposed to be well-rounded enough, which is why with the possible exception of Hairston, it's highly likely that none will be in the playoff rotation.

We definitely agree on the concern, I just don't believe in Jefferson's ability to allay those concerns -- '04 immediately comes to mind when I'm given the argument that shooters will become trustworthy marksman.


They're not question marks when it comes to three-point shooting. Defensively, we can't be sure of where they're at; shooting-wise, they've been consistent throughout the majority of their careers. All you can do is go on track record and project for the up coming season.

If you're talking Bell, I can see that argument. He does have the potential to fill much of the Spurs' need for a veteran presence and a proven shooter. But he is a question mark coming off a surgery that wrecked almost his entire season and being that he's at the tail-end of his career. He doesn't have the size and length to weatherr any further erosion in athleticism since the last time we really saw him defensively, but he might be the best free-agent option available. Might; I'd personally take my chances on Sato but that's both an endorsement of him and an indictment on the pickings.


Maybe eventually it does mean trade. Asset-wise, the Spurs should have enough to acquire the type of wing they need.

They just might, and I believe they'll have to do so.


You talk about me assuming, but that's an assumption on your part, to say that with such certainty.

First off, I was screwing with you on the "assuming," thus the :hat. But it is my belief and I've made my argument. We'll see if I'm off-base eventually. And, again, the prospect of being proven wrong by one's favorite team pulling a rabbit out of the hat ain't something I'm losing sleep over. In the end, I just want the W. This is definitely one of those few cases where being proven wrong feels a lot better than being proven right.

[TD 21]

If you're telling me he's perilously close to being able to play at peak capacity, I'd agree. But perilously close to his peak would fall in lines with sustainability and a less reliant three-point shot. Like I said, he's plenty capable of being a dominant player for a good stretch, the way he ended the year before tapering off by playoffs end (whether that was solely the nose or not -- I tend to believe it was both), so I wouldn't argue that. But he, along with Tim, are only going to sustain that level for a good stretch, IMO, and the Spurs have to hope to keep them upright and that that time comes from April to June.

I think his three-point shot will become more reliable next season. He had become an excellent three-point shooter the last time he was fully healthy and in rhythm, back in 07-08. We started to see that when he went on a tear down the stretch of this past regular season. Next season, he won't come in rusty, he'll have worked on his game throughout the summer, so I expect a return to form in that area. As for sustainability, other than 07-08, he's never really had that, he's always been extremely streaky.

But that's where the value of having three guys who can carry a team for a stretch comes in. The times they're off, hopefully Parker is on. Look at the Celtics this post season, I believe they've never had the same player lead them in scoring in consecutive games.


But this is where it comes down to the composition and fit to me.

If we're working from a hypothetical standpoint that the team is, for all intents and purposes, healthy, then it comes down to how those pieces come together. Technically you can say players x and y can account for z's productivity but it's how that productivity translates to the court and their teammates. So when you compare the Celtics at full-bore and the Spurs at the same, even if you could make an argument for the individual productivity comparison, it doesn't translate the same; the Celtics have a pass-first point guard whose M.O. is to get in the paint and he's complimented by plenty of shooting with three perimeter-oriented stars and his two Bigs might as well be lead blockers. Players get the ball in their spots at the right time and the sum of the group is greater than the individual because each of their jobs compliments and enhances the other on both ends of the court.

Now if you look a the Spurs' Top-5 (assuming Splitter's in it), you've got a slashing, score-first point; a slashing, playmaker at the 2-guard; a slashing, open-court player at the three; and their front court consists of two pretty conventional post players. But I'd actually contend that Hill is in their Top-5, so that'd give them one spot-up shooter (which would help the cause offensively) but most often leave them at a defensive disadvantage (which they'll often have whether it's Hill or Jefferson). You could say Duncan and McDyess could very well both be perimeter-oriented Bigs this year (that is what 'Dyess is and there's always the talk of easing Tim's burden by keeping him at the high post more often) but the spacing is still not all that conducive to the slashing nature of their perimeter (and I'll believe Duncan playing more like Garnett when I see it -- Tim is what he is and talk of him playing almost exclusively as a high post 4/5 is just that. Talk).

So whereas the Celtics have the size and positional balance on both ends of the court from their Top-5, the Spurs have some fundamental flaws. It's not a fatal flaw if they can find a couple of players to put the pieces in the right place and find that positional balance, but it could be if they can't manage to do so.This is also where it comes down to you making assumptions. We don't know that Jefferson won't be a better fit next season, we don't know that Splitter won't make a seamless transition, etc. They could. Maybe they don't fit perfectly, but they fit just well enough for it to work; who knows?

It's fair to wonder about all of this and this is good analysis on your part, but at the same time, this could work. This isn't like a Curry-Randolph or Jefferson-Love front line pairing which has no chance to be successful defensively.


In '03, the Spurs had an in-prime Duncan, a strong veteran presence in their glue and they weren't asking Manu to be something he wasn't, so it worked. He was an X-Factor and after getting over his injury and getting the better part of a season under his belt, he proved crucial. I don't dismiss Splitter's ability to have a similar impact when put in the same position but, as I've mentioned, they need a couple of pieces for him to have the chance to do just that.
I know what that '03 team had that the '11 team won't. You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that team needed an athletic, creative wing player like Ginobili to get over the hump and this team needs a long, mobile big man like Splitter to have a chance to win another championship. I don't see the Spurs asking Splitter to be something he isn't, either.


If you're talking Bell, I can see that argument. He does have the potential to fill much of the Spurs' need for a veteran presence and a proven shooter. But he is a question mark coming off a surgery that wrecked almost his entire season and being that he's at the tail-end of his career. He doesn't have the size and length to weatherr any further erosion in athleticism since the last time we really saw him defensively, but he might be the best free-agent option available. Might; I'd personally take my chances on Sato but that's both an endorsement of him and an indictment on the pickings.
I'm talking Bell or Jones. Jones has had one bad season from three in the past six and it came during a season where he battled injury. These two are consistent marksmen from three. As I said, because of their respective ages, the fact that they're coming off injury plagued seasons and the fact that neither were overly athletic even when they were young, defensively they're a question mark.

I think I'd go Jones over Bell at this point. Significantly longer (which equals versatility defensively; he might be able to play small ball four in selective matchups), younger, cheaper, not as much stature league-wide, so if he were passed by, say, Hairston in the rotation, I doubt he'd ruffle feathers. Not saying Bell would, but my guess is he'd be more likely to. I'd be happy with Bell though, considering the options (or lack thereof) available.


They just might, and I believe they'll have to do so.They very well might. Both the assets and motivation should be there to secure that piece. They may not get someone entirely ideal, but they should be able to get someone to do the job.


First off, I was screwing with you on the "assuming," thus the :hat. But it is my belief and I've made my argument. We'll see if I'm off-base eventually. And, again, the prospect of being proven wrong by one's favorite team pulling a rabbit out of the hat ain't something I'm losing sleep over. In the end, I just want the W. This is definitely one of those few cases where being proven wrong feels a lot better than being proven right.Remember, I'm not saying (at least not at this point) they will do this, that or the other next season, I'm just saying if the off season goes similar to how I think it will go, then they should have a chance to win a championship next season.

[Bob Lanier]

The difficulty in the comparison is that Garnett is a 4 and Duncan a 5, and as they've aged their skillsets have become more fixed in the roles. So Garnett's diminishing defensive impact is that of a 4, which can be covered by relying more on a center like Perkins to anchor the defense without drastically diminishing the offense. Duncan is a center who is having great difficulty anchoring a defense anymore, and unless you can find a player who can do that from the power forward position you're forced to play Duncan at the 4 with a second traditional center, clogging up the paint and negatively impacting your offense.

You needed Josh Smith, or Andrei Kirilenko, not Richard Jefferson. I realize that getting a player who can anchor the defense from the forward position is difficult and something the Spurs have not been able to do for years, but the need is becoming more urgent if you still want to build around Duncan.