Spurs target Ed Davis [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

AusSpursFan

06-15-2010, 07:05 AM

Rumor: Spurs interested in Pacers' 10th pick to draft Ed Davis?
Written by Jeff Garcia
Tuesday, 15 June 2010 04:46
By now most San Antonio Spurs fans have heard the rumor that the team is interested in moving up in the 2010 NBA Draft. One team that has been mentioned in trade rumors with the Spurs is the Indiana Pacers which holds the 10th overall pick in the 2010 NBA Draft. Currently, the Spurs hold the 20th overall pick.

According to journaltimes.com, the reason the Spurs want to move up is because the team is interested in drafting Ed Davis from North Carolina:

A rumor that surfaced at the pre-draft camp continues to percolate: San Antonio, which is picking 20th, is trying to acquire Indiana‘s pick, the 10th overall. The Spurs are believed to be interested in North Carolina forward Ed Davis.

Davis is a 6'9" power-forward who averaged 12.9 points, shot 57.8% from the field, 65.9% from the free-throw line and averaged 9.2 rebounds.

One name which is sure to be involved in any trade would be Spurs' point-guard Tony Parker. Recently Parker has been mentioned in a trade rumor between the Spurs and Pacers for the Pacers' 10th pick in the draft, Troy Murphy and Brandon Rush.

http://projectspurs.com/

ChuckD

06-15-2010, 07:07 AM

If the Spurs trade Tony Parker for Ed Davis, I'll stop being a fan immediately.

DBMethos

06-15-2010, 07:07 AM

Davis is a 6'9" power-forward who averaged 12.9 points, shot 57.8% from the field, 65.9% from the free-throw line and averaged 9.2 rebounds.

Makes sense, then.

Bruno

06-15-2010, 07:10 AM

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/27/spy_hunter_smoke_screen.jpg

silverblackfan

06-15-2010, 07:13 AM

Ah, Summer.

benefactor

06-15-2010, 07:14 AM

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/27/spy_hunter_smoke_screen.jpg
Well played. :tu

lebomb

06-15-2010, 07:15 AM

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Chieflion

06-15-2010, 07:17 AM

ESPN just rehashing the crap and making up a name that could be at the number 10 spot in the draft to rehash that rumor again. Never gets old.

TimDunkem

06-15-2010, 07:20 AM

I'm waiting for the posts from people actually trying to justify such a trade.

tdunk21

06-15-2010, 07:37 AM

nothing but a rumor....i wouldnt pay any attention to these rumors...TP aint goin anywhere

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 08:45 AM

MaNu4Tres

06-15-2010, 08:50 AM

Ed Davis is one of the players in the draft that I think will end up a bust. His athleticism is overrated and he's very passive.

His game is similar to Brandan Wright's to an extent but Wright was the much better player coming out of UNC. IMO

Having said that I really hope Spurs don't use their biggest trading asset to acquire such a player.

I really hope this rumor is just ESPN trying to sell a story.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 08:54 AM

Thomas82

06-15-2010, 09:00 AM

Man, I hope they don't end up with Ed Davis, IMO he would be a reach at 10.

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 09:01 AM

There are any number of reasons that San Antonio may be dead set on trading Tony.

1. Does Manus superior ability to play point make Tony expendable?

Oh look, you again. :lmao

Just stop. Your credibility ends right there.

2. Are the Spurs aware that Tony will be demanding too much on his next contract?

Wow... I'm so totally sorry P2112. What's it like being Tony's best friend? I mean, you are his close companion, I assume, given that you seem to be so privy to information that isn't known at this point.

I.e., it means you're guessing and stating it as fact. This is exactly how you destroy your credibility on a site like Spurstalk.

3. Does our dire need to begin replacing Tim with a few good frontcourt players vs our cap space limits make Tony a luxury we cant afford?

Yeah, let us know when there's another Tim Duncan in the draft waiting to be plucked. Then it will make sense to go big for Tony. Can you name a single big we'd have a legitimate shot at that would be able to be a factor in the playoffs?

4. How about that terrible spat he had last summer when the Spurs brought him back from Europe to have their own doctors look at his ankle? Did that leave a lasting impact on the relationship?

How about the fact that you only seem to come out of the woodwork when there's a thread about trading Tony Parker?

Thomas82

06-15-2010, 09:08 AM

The disbelievers are wearing blinders. Where there is smoke there fire. Tony is on the table.

Then again, the prerequisite for any player to be traded is a suitable deal. So this whole thing might just blow over.

I'm with you on the fact that Tony is on the table, but I think they can do better than a trade with Indiana.

NickiRasgo

06-15-2010, 09:13 AM

Ah k. So our starting five will be:

PG: Tim Duncan
SG: Antonio McDyess
SF: Tiago Splitter
PF: Ed Davis
C: DeJuan Blair

6th: Ian Mahinmi

rjv

06-15-2010, 09:14 AM

this would be even better than the scola deal!!!!

Brazil

06-15-2010, 09:15 AM

66% FTs it makes sense indeed

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 09:16 AM

Oh look, you again. :lmao

Just stop. Your credibility ends right there.

Wow... I'm so totally sorry P2112. What's it like being Tony's best friend? I mean, you are his close companion, I assume, given that you seem to be so privy to information that isn't known at this point.

I.e., it means you're guessing and stating it as fact. This is exactly how you destroy your credibility on a site like Spurstalk.

Yeah, let us know when there's another Tim Duncan in the draft waiting to be plucked. Then it will make sense to go big for Tony. Can you name a single big we'd have a legitimate shot at that would be able to be a factor in the playoffs?

How about the fact that you only seem to come out of the woodwork when there's a thread about trading Tony Parker?

Manu was our saviour over the regular season. Tony was hurt, but on his best day, he could have never brought what Gino was doing night after night. Thats fucking fact.

On the Big Contract: I'm not saying he is shooting for a huge contract, but answer me this: why wouldn't he be? He is worth more than the Spurs would likely be willing to pay him. Thats common sense.

I'm simply giving reasons as to why we we may be shopping Tony, but one thing I believe is that with Tony's name being kicked around like it is, there is no doubt that he is being shopped. Your part of the blinder crew.

Fact? Those were FUCKING QUESTIONS, DICK, how the hell am I stating them as fact? Your cred is shit because you're reading comp is 4th grade level.

And yet again, you prove you cant read by misconstruing my statement on replacing Duncan, then putting some words in my mouth about the draft.

Read it again...it will take several players to replace tim. Tony's worth helps acquire help in the frontcourt.

I'm not going to re-read every one of my posts to your special ed ass...pick it up or shut the fuck up.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 09:19 AM

Oh look, you again. :lmao

How about the fact that you only seem to come out of the woodwork when there's a thread about trading Tony Parker?

Its always a reaction to jack-ass Tony Parker die hards. Tony as a player works out fine either way. But I, like many, would prefer size and a servicable point to a scoring point and the bigs we have now.

spurs_fan_in_exile

06-15-2010, 09:26 AM

Bruno showing why he's got the gold. All time great game.

Anyways I'm just not seeing the sense in such a trade.

TimDunkem

06-15-2010, 09:44 AM

The Spurs would still need a PG. Manu is not a full-time PG, and at the moment, neither is Hill.

Mel_13

06-15-2010, 09:44 AM

Manu was our saviour over the regular season. Tony was hurt, but on his best day, he could have never brought what Gino was doing night after night.

2008-09 Tony Parker begs to differ

He is worth more than the Spurs would likely be willing to pay him. Thats common sense.

Perhaps to you. I believe that the Spurs may very well be willing to pay him what he his worth. Parker and the Spurs may disagree as to that number, but negotiations haven't started yet.

EVAY

06-15-2010, 09:48 AM

The 66% FT average means he would fit right in immediately with a team that can't shoot free throws.

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 09:50 AM

Thats fucking fact.

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of an opinion, since for the entirety of 2008-2009, Tony blew away Manu's production on a daily basis. Words are fun. You should look them up before using them.

On the Big Contract: I'm not saying he is shooting for a huge contract, but answer me this: why wouldn't he be?

You're right. He's an all-star PG. Shouldn't he shoot for a big salary?

He is worth more than the Spurs would likely be willing to pay him. Thats common sense.

Unless you've suddenly developed some kind of strange relationship with Buford or Holt, who are you to say what's common sense about how much the Spurs organization will be willing to give Tony?

I'm simply giving reasons as to why we we may be shopping Tony, but one thing I believe is that with Tony's name being kicked around like it is, there is no doubt that he is being shopped. Your part of the blinder crew.

Obviously Parker is being shopped. Just like Manu was being shopped last year. Where were you when his production was in the toilet and we were in danger of not even making the playoffs?

Fact? Those were FUCKING QUESTIONS, DICK, how the hell am I stating them as fact? Your cred is shit because you're reading comp is 4th grade level.

"2. Are the Spurs aware that Tony will be demanding too much on his next contract?"

Was your initial comment. This is a statement within a question, since the question is already attempting to assert it as fact that Tony will be seeking too much in his contract.

If I asked, "Is Spurstalk aware that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion?" it would be both a question and a statement, since the question hinges upon the idea that you have problems comprehending the differences between a fact and an opinion as a substantive, verifiable conclusion.

The problem with your question is it contains a fallacy with no ability to assert itself as substantive. This invalidates your question and makes the statement within it subject to criticism. If I asked Spurs_Fan_In_Exile, "Hey, how do you feel about the 400 rabid monkeys in your house?" there is a pretty good chance he would not immediately take it as a question that's answerable, because it contains an assertion with no merit (at least, that's what he thinks :hat ).

In short: Don't phrase things in an extremely poor manner, and then get flustered when people aren't in a rush to agree with what you say. Insulting me doesn't help your case, it just makes it readily apparent that what I'm saying is hitting a nerve and you can't deal with it rationally.

And yet again, you prove you cant read by misconstruing my statement on replacing Duncan, then putting some words in my mouth about the draft.

No, I just asked you to name a big we could get for Tony right now who would actually be worth it. I'm waiting.

Read it again...it will take several players to replace tim. Tony's worth helps acquire help in the frontcourt.

Who would be worth trading for?

I'm not going to re-read every one of my posts to your special ed ass...pick it up or shut the fuck up.

Meltdown after my first response. Nicely done. :tu

Its always a reaction to jack-ass Tony Parker die hards.

Please show me where a TP "die-hard" posted in the thread before you. All I see is random speculation about what's going on before you come in, full guns blazing about how much TP sucks.

Tony as a player works out fine either way. But I, like many, would prefer size and a servicable point to a scoring point and the bigs we have now.

Who? Or are you taking the approach BP is using to the oil cleanup? "We HAVE to do something... wait... you want ideas? Don't look at me!"

duhoh

06-15-2010, 09:54 AM

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/27/spy_hunter_smoke_screen.jpg

i see what you did there :tu

lol people thinking that tony gets traded for unproven garbage. tony's done way too much for the organization. tell em CH, tell em.

TimDunkem

06-15-2010, 09:56 AM

No one ever comes out and says who'll be replacing Parker at PG if he gets traded. :rolleyes

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 10:04 AM

No one ever comes out and says who'll be replacing Parker at PG if he gets traded. :rolleyes

Or what big we could possibly hope to acquire.

koriwhat

06-15-2010, 10:19 AM

who cares? let the chips fall where they must.

Chieflion

06-15-2010, 10:24 AM

This trade is definitely doable in my opinion. We get super Bonner, Brandon Rush, and supposedly a dinosaur. I love dinosaurs. This is going to be such a steal of a trade.

For our future PG, if Temple could grow another 3 more inches, he would be Magic Johnson with a 3 point shot. This is a good deal, no question.

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 10:29 AM

Chieflion

06-15-2010, 10:35 AM

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Could it be this guy, perhaps?

http://www.tvshowsondvd.net/graphics/news3/DenverLastDino_V2.jpg

Seems quite comparable.

http://www.draftexpress.com/headshots/eddavis.jpg

Yep, a dinosaur.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 10:37 AM

Perhaps to you. I believe that the Spurs may very well be willing to pay him what he his worth. Parker and the Spurs may disagree as to that number, but negotiations haven't started yet.

Honestly, if Parker and the Spurs can agree on a figure, we are a better team for it. We are better with him than without him. But, we are also facing a sharp cliff when Timmy leaves, which may be another reason Parker is traded.

As for 2008-2009 Parker, I honestly still believe he was a good player on a bad team. Looking back, we had Finley starting and he was one year out of retirement. We had RMJ all season, and he was one year from having to scrounge for a spot somewhere in the league. We featured matt bonner, who...well, need I say more...

Without Gino, Parker had tons of opportunity, but for all of Parker's scoring, we were still an inferior team. And to be fair, a Parker led Spurs team traded buckets with teams all season. The Spurs D went in the tank. We couldn't even win two games in the playoffs. Tony Parker on the 2008-2009 Spurs was equivalent to Phoenix Suns brand play, which is why I never bought into the scoring Parker. Give me a facilitating Parker who is still willing to dig in on D any day...

On the other hand, Gino took the guys around him and made them better all season. And if Georgie continues to improve, there is no reason Manu cant play point in my opinion.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 10:41 AM

The Spurs are killers in the draft. If Tony goes for picks, I trust our front office to continue the trend. There is no precedent for assuming we will wind up with unproven garbage.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 10:44 AM

Who is to say that the Spurs dont see Manu transitioning to point as his game slows in this last contract?

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 10:53 AM

Honestly, if Parker and the Spurs can agree on a figure, we are a better team for it. We are better with him than without him. But, we are also facing a sharp cliff when Timmy leaves, which may be another reason Parker is traded.

As for 2008-2009 Parker, I honestly still believe he was a good player on a bad team. Looking back, we had Finley starting and he was one year out of retirement. We had RMJ all season, and he was one year from having to scrounge for a spot somewhere in the league. We featured matt bonner, who...well, need I say more...

Without Gino, Parker had tons of opportunity, but for all of Parker's scoring, we were still an inferior team. And to be fair, a Parker led Spurs team traded buckets with teams all season. The Spurs D went in the tank. We couldn't even win two games in the playoffs. Tony Parker on the 2008-2009 Spurs was equivalent to Phoenix Suns brand play, which is why I never bought into the scoring Parker. Give me a facilitating Parker who is still willing to dig in on D any day...

On the other hand, Gino took the guys around him and made them better all season. And if Georgie continues to improve, there is no reason Manu cant play point in my opinion.

How big will Parker's contract be?

Who are we going to trade him for?

What big is worth getting to replace Duncan?

Who will run point when Manu needs to rest or gets injured again?

You seem to have all the answers without saying anything, P2112. I and several other posters have asked you several questions that you've repeatedly ducked so far. Are you going to answer or just continue to insist that Tony must be moved for "the next Tim Duncan"?

spursballer21

06-15-2010, 10:54 AM

ill rather have ian than him

elbamba

06-15-2010, 10:56 AM

Well the Spurs have always been known to make their intentions clear to the league. Everyone knew we were going to take Parker, Manu, Ian and Hill so it makes sense that they would release this info.

TIMMYD!

06-15-2010, 10:59 AM

Ah hell no!

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 11:00 AM

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 11:07 AM

I AM SPECULATING AS TO WHY HE'S ON THE BLOCK. NOTHING MORE. Think, McFly.

Manu was our saviour over the regular season. Tony was hurt, but on his best day, he could have never brought what Gino was doing night after night. Thats fucking fact.

You have an odd method of speculation. :lol

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 11:10 AM

How big will Parker's contract be?

Who are we going to trade him for?

What big is worth getting to replace Duncan?

Who will run point when Manu needs to rest or gets injured again?

You seem to have all the answers without saying anything, P2112. I and several other posters have asked you several questions that you've repeatedly ducked so far. Are you going to answer or just continue to insist that Tony must be moved for "the next Tim Duncan"?

Duncan cant be replaced, dumbass. We need to take the same approach that the two teams currently playing in the finals have taken: an array of players with size and varied skillsets. The way I see it, we have only Blair, Tim and Dice. If Tiago comes, I think that: 1. we start running out of cap to cover Tony's next contract, and 2. we are still one big away from competing for a championship.

And this doesn't even begin to address our roster once Tim and Dice gone (1-2 years for Dice; 3 years or less for Tim).

The Lakers seem to be doing alright with a great frontcourt and a serviceable point. And Rondo has been developed in a short time. If Manu buys some time, I think we can load our frontcourt with no falloff.

Who can we get? I dont think we need a blockbuster, I think we need to keep adding talent on the cheap.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 11:14 AM

You have an odd method of speculation. :lol

I assumed you were just an asshole, which I still think, but now I understand you are an asshole who doesnt adhere to reason...maybe you just dont have any reasoning ability of your own?

These types of assholes are the worst.

Put down the iphone, havoc, someone needs a large order of fries on register two.

Muser

06-15-2010, 11:15 AM

Yeah, another undersized PF is just what we need.

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 11:21 AM

I assumed you were just an asshole, which I still think, but now I understand you are an asshole who doesnt adhere to reason...maybe you just dont have any reasoning ability of your own?

These types of assholes are the worst.

Put down the iphone, havoc, someone needs a large order of fries on register two.

Full meltdown in progress. Hilarious.

Blackjack

06-15-2010, 11:47 AM

duhoh

06-15-2010, 12:00 PM

Full meltdown in progress. Hilarious.

:lmao

parker, QFT. you give your opinions and say they're facts. CH points out that they're opinions, and you try to flame him over it.

come on son. name the PG to replace parker then. you really want two undersized PFs on the team? not enough room in the paint for that. and blair's enough for that.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 12:25 PM

Full meltdown in progress. Hilarious.

You hit my sweet spot trick. That sweet spot being twisting my words and putting words in my mouth. Then I just realized you dont read so good.

jermaine

06-15-2010, 12:26 PM

If the Spurs trade Tony Parker for Ed Davis, I'll stop being a fan immediately.

I know right. Another 6'9 nigga who won't get any playing time!

Ditty

06-15-2010, 12:28 PM

poor man's tyrus thomas

tmtcsc

06-15-2010, 12:34 PM

As everyone knows, ESPN is the first to report accurately on what the Spurs FO is doing. :rolleyes

Seriously folks, how in the hell would someone at ESPN ever get knowledge of the Spurs draft targets this many weeks ahead of the draft ? Hell, they hardly get it right on draft night.

Moving on...

SenorSpur

06-15-2010, 12:53 PM

With the Spurs needs at both SF ad PF, I wish they had 2 first round picks.

I wish they'd pony up the 3 mil and buy one from one of the teams that has multiple picks. I know it's easy to spend Holt's money - it aint mine.

Parker2112

06-15-2010, 12:55 PM

:lmao

parker, QFT. you give your opinions and say they're facts. CH points out that they're opinions, and you try to flame him over it.

come on son. name the PG to replace parker then. you really want two undersized PFs on the team? not enough room in the paint for that. and blair's enough for that.

This whole bullshit "who can we get that's any better" argument doesnt fly. We have fallen flat on our collective asses the last two seasons as currently packaged. Its not as easy as looking at a players individual skillset.

Our greatest need is defense at all 5 positions. Give me 5 guys willing to scrum, with Pop as coach, and enough mobile size to combat the lakers/suns/etc, and I'll take that.

Notice I didnt mention any scoring PG?

Duncan2177

06-15-2010, 12:56 PM

Why do the spurs need another power foward when they have Blair?

Mr Bones

06-15-2010, 01:09 PM

Rumors rumors rumors... it's great that we all love basketball, but I have to laugh because this is one time of year when we all become a little crazy and start debating almost anything-- and worse than that, I'm embarrassed to say, I'd rather turn on the computer and read a rumor that probably has no basis in reality at all than read nothing... that's how bad it is! Manu might be traded for Deron Williams, a family of seagulls, the ghost of George Mikan, and ten cases of Pop's favorite cabernet?? WTF, RC-- we need a defensive minded SF who's long and more shooters!!!

jjktkk

06-15-2010, 01:28 PM

Why do the spurs need another power foward when they have Blair?

Because Blair is only 6'7". The Spurs need more size.

ajballer4

06-15-2010, 01:37 PM

6'9" is pretty weak, and I was never really impressed with Davis at UNC. They could do better

SenorSpur

06-15-2010, 01:44 PM

Because Blair is only 6'7". The Spurs need more size.

Amen.

Again, which is why I wanted so much, for the Spurs to have gone after Tyrus Thomas, back in Feb.

TD 21

06-15-2010, 06:22 PM

This is some really good news, IMO; and Bruno nailed it with a spectacular selection of imagery. :tu

There definitely seems to be a fire producing the majority of this smoke but the Ed Davis rumor has to be some additionally manufactured.

Why would the Spurs ever tip their hand about whom they're trying to move up to get? Whom in their organization would ever let slip their true target at such a crucial time? No, this is a smokescreen. The Spurs must simply want others to believe that's who they're targeting so the player they're after will be there at 10; if other teams caught wind of who they were high on it could sway a team ahead to scoop him up and those behind to trade in front.

Everybody and their mother expected the Spurs to target a wing in this draft but all we've heard about are Bigs. Maybe there's some validity to it. Maybe there's a prospect they're really high on to bolster their front court. Maybe. But then again, maybe not . . .

This is the Spurs, people! :smokin

Don't think I'm not cognizant of this, but assuming the Spurs targeting Davis is true...

It makes no sense. If the Spurs intention is to prop open the Duncan window, as we keep hearing, then acquiring a project big man is not the answer. The other potential parts to this deal don't make it any better, from Rush to Murphy, etc.

Even Favors probably wouldn't prop open the Duncan window because I'm not sure how much he can be expected to contribute in the next year or two. Unless they think Favors is ready to contribute something close to what Howard and Stoudemire did as rookies, then short term he doesn't make sense (considering what they'd have to give up and the fact that they're supposedly trying to win a championship next season). Long term, obviously he would.

Granted, neither Splitter nor Blair is a franchise big man, but what's with this teams supposed obsession with acquiring a young big? Aren't they supposedly optimistic about signing Splitter? Wouldn't keeping Parker and signing Splitter have them closer to a championship than a young, raw big?

024

06-15-2010, 07:06 PM

any trade involving tp to the pacers would mean the spurs getting tj ford back. i don't see that happening unless the spurs want to draft a pg.

Blackjack

06-15-2010, 07:42 PM

Don't think I'm not cognizant of this, but assuming the Spurs targeting Davis is true...

It makes no sense. If the Spurs intention is to prop open the Duncan window, as we keep hearing, then acquiring a project big man is not the answer. The other potential parts to this deal don't make it any better, from Rush to Murphy, etc.

Even Favors probably wouldn't prop open the Duncan window because I'm not sure how much he can be expected to contribute in the next year or two. Unless they think Favors is ready to contribute something close to what Howard and Stoudemire did as rookies, then short term he doesn't make sense (considering what they'd have to give up and the fact that they're supposedly trying to win a championship next season). Long term, obviously he would.

Granted, neither Splitter nor Blair is a franchise big man, but what's with this teams supposed obsession with acquiring a young big? Aren't they supposedly optimistic about signing Splitter? Wouldn't keeping Parker and signing Splitter have them closer to a championship than a young, raw big?

If it their target was Favors I couldn't fault them. He could definitely help them in the present and he could potentially be someone to take the reins moving forward. But there really isn't another Big I'd move up to get with a Top-10 pick, unless it was just an absolute no-brainer of a deal.

Having said that, I can definitely see the Spurs liking someone like Ed Davis. I've disagreed more than once or twice with some of their collegiate picks since Pop really took over. And other than their most recent picks, Hill and Blair, their scouting has seemed a bit questionable on the homefront. So it's not out of the realm they like him and there's some truth to this. Some.

But if the Spurs were to be so brazen as to both burn up the lines to get into the lottery and make known who they were after, they wouldn't be the Spurs. They wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that -- there's not some huge differentiation between the prospects in that range and they wouldn't risk their opinion swaying someone to take their guy in front of them or allow someone to trade up in front of them. I just don't buy that their sole target is Davis (I actually have a hard time believing he's a target at 10 unless what they're giving up is minimal -- could it be the hometown kid, Hill?).

So while I won't completely dismiss the possibility Davis is an option, I just can't bring myself to believe he's the option. That they'd just throw caution to the wind and stake their claim to Davis ... it's just counterintuitive and doesn't coincide with the way this team has done things for years; they're looking to manufacture smoke on top of the real smoke to create a little misdirection, IMO. They're looking to get someone, but all the talk of Bigs and Davis doesn't lead me to believe that's necessarily the position or player they're going after.

They've shown what they've wanted to show, as far as I'm concerned (and you only need to look at Pritchard's reported attempts to get ahead of the Spurs in the draft order and their recent draft history to come to a similar conclusion).

024

06-15-2010, 08:06 PM

Why dont you see that happening?
spurs aren't going to bring in tj ford to run the offense. too much of a regression.

Man In Black

06-15-2010, 08:09 PM

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/27/spy_hunter_smoke_screen.jpg

Hell yeah B...Well Played Frenchman!

wildbill2u

06-15-2010, 08:24 PM

I doubt we'll spend the money on a #10 pick unless Pop and the brain trust think they have a budding superstar in their sights that no one else sees. And from everything I've read, Ed Davis ain't the ONE. he Might be good player one day, but not a star.

duhoh

06-15-2010, 10:52 PM

This whole bullshit "who can we get that's any better" argument doesnt fly. We have fallen flat on our collective asses the last two seasons as currently packaged. Its not as easy as looking at a players individual skillset.

Our greatest need is defense at all 5 positions. Give me 5 guys willing to scrum, with Pop as coach, and enough mobile size to combat the lakers/suns/etc, and I'll take that.

Notice I didnt mention any scoring PG?

well actually, seeing how you're RC Buford, it makes sense :king

naw, a trade for a finals MVP for a yet-to-be rookie just seems a tad outrageous. just a tad. good thing fans aren't GMs :lol

TD 21

06-16-2010, 12:14 AM

Getting Davis would help. He can play right now in the NBA. He can give us quality mins so TD can take nights off and keep his mins under 32pg. Dont expect a star right now but someone who can defend away from the basket, block shots rebound and has a solid jumper......Your telling me he cant help.

Anyone who knows anything about basketball know the spurs problem is a lack of size inside, no shot blocking, no offensive rebounding and no big who can defend away from the basket......if we can add splitter and davis or udoh we solve many of those problems.

Im not sure its davis they are after. We wont know till draft night cause no trade is going down involving TP or Hill unless who we want is there at 10.

And for the record, we would have to get a good player at 10, TJ Ford, Rush Murphy and another first rounder before I would say lets do it.

Help what? Help the Spurs win a championship next season? I don't see it. Considering what they'd have to give up to acquire the tenth pick and select him, they wouldn't be contenders.

No offensive rebounding? Duncan, McDyess and Blair are all good offensive rebounders.

I wouldn't do a deal of that kind. You can tweak it however you want, Ford in/out, etc., I just think the overall package isn't good enough to part with Parker for.

If it their target was Favors I couldn't fault them. He could definitely help them in the present and he could potentially be someone to take the reins moving forward. But there really isn't another Big I'd move up to get with a Top-10 pick, unless it was just an absolute no-brainer of a deal.

Having said that, I can definitely see the Spurs liking someone like Ed Davis. I've disagreed more than once or twice with some of their collegiate picks since Pop really took over. And other than their most recent picks, Hill and Blair, their scouting has seemed a bit questionable on the homefront. So it's not out of the realm they like him and there's some truth to this. Some.

But if the Spurs were to be so brazen as to both burn up the lines to get into the lottery and make known who they were after, they wouldn't be the Spurs. They wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that -- there's not some huge differentiation between the prospects in that range and they wouldn't risk their opinion swaying someone to take their guy in front of them or allow someone to trade up in front of them. I just don't buy that their sole target is Davis (I actually have a hard time believing he's a target at 10 unless what they're giving up is minimal -- could it be the hometown kid, Hill?).

So while I won't completely dismiss the possibility Davis is an option, I just can't bring myself to believe he's the option. That they'd just throw caution to the wind and stake their claim to Davis ... it's just counterintuitive and doesn't coincide with the way this team has done things for years; they're looking to manufacture smoke on top of the real smoke to create a little misdirection, IMO. They're looking to get someone, but all the talk of Bigs and Davis doesn't lead me to believe that's necessarily the position or player they're going after.

They've shown what they've wanted to show, as far as I'm concerned (and you only need to look at Pritchard's reported attempts to get ahead of the Spurs in the draft order and their recent draft history to come to a similar conclusion).

I couldn't fault them if it's long term they're looking at, but if they're committed to winning another championship in the Duncan era, I could. Favors could help some next season, but considering what they'd have to give up to acquire him and the role he'd likely have to play, would they be contenders? I don't see it.

I could see what could draw them to Davis too and I wouldn't be surprised if their was some truth to this. But considering that Parker would likely have to go the other way in such a deal, I can't see it happening. By all accounts, Davis has nice potential as a quality role player, maybe a quality second big if he reaches his potential. You don't trade a relatively young star, who can help you contend for a championship (which is their stated supposed goal) for that type of a player. I know there would be other parts, but Rush, Murphy, etc., that wouldn't do it for me, either.

Can't see the Spurs moving Hill for the 10th pick. That wouldn't help them short term in terms of competing for the championship and even long term, is Davis, Udoh, etc. going to be better than Hill? Doubtful. You may prefer a big over a small if it's close, but those guys aren't such good prospects that that deal makes sense to take the chance. The Spurs need Hill to lessen the workload on Ginobili and if he's kept, Parker.

Completely agree with all parts in bold.

Blackjack

06-16-2010, 12:54 AM

Can't see the Spurs moving Hill for the 10th pick. That wouldn't help them short term in terms of competing for the championship and even long term, is Davis, Udoh, etc. going to be better than Hill? Doubtful. You may prefer a big over a small if it's close, but those guys aren't such good prospects that that deal makes sense to take the chance. The Spurs need Hill to lessen the workload on Ginobili and if he's kept, Parker.

I don't want them to move Hill and I've seen no indication they're looking to, but none of these proposals involving Indiana and Parker pass the smell test. They're quite ridiculous, really. But it definitely seems the Spurs are knocking on that door and dangling something. So who or what could it be? I know Larry Bird's high on Nando and maybe Blair might interest them, but I can't help but think the hometown kid might not be an appealing prospect for them; especially if they're not comfortable with picking Hayward and they want to appease the fans.

TDMVPDPOY

06-16-2010, 01:04 AM

we must get tjford + granger....no one else on the pacers we need...

we can throw RJ expiring + tp or ghill3 + 20th + draft picks/rights + cash + hoes and drugs

TheSpursFNRule

06-16-2010, 01:06 AM

LOL at anyone who thinks trading for Ed Davis is a good idea.

tuncaboylu

06-16-2010, 01:18 AM

If we're going to trade Parker, we may draft up to 5 i guess, why do we send Parker to raise to 10th pick from 20? Ridiciculous.

tuncaboylu

06-16-2010, 01:20 AM

Because Blair is only 6'7". The Spurs need more size.
So bring the Splitter.

TD 21

06-16-2010, 01:38 AM

I don't want them to move Hill and I've seen no indication they're looking to, but none of these proposals involving Indiana and Parker pass the smell test. They're quite ridiculous, really. But it definitely seems the Spurs are knocking on that door and dangling something. So who or what could it be? I know Larry Bird's high on Nando and maybe Blair might interest them, but I can't help but think the hometown kid might not be an appealing prospect for them; especially if they're not comfortable with picking Hayward and they want to appease the fans.

Probably the 20th pick plus the 1st round pick in '11 and maybe De Colo. Hill would probably be an appealing prospect for the Pacers, but I don't see the Spurs parting with him, at least not with what they have to offer.

As for Hayward, let's face it, deep down the Pacers probably want to draft him, but the last thing they need is an SF, 10th would be high for him and the fact that he's a clean cut looking white guy from Indiana would only perpetuate the notion that they specifically target white players. To pick him on the heels of picking Hansbrough last year (despite the fact that their were better players on the board) would only cement their reputation, a reputation which they've been attempting to dispel.

Because of their need for a long term successor at PF and the fact that there's a good chance that the highest ranked players available at 10 will be PF's, it'll be tough for them to pass on Davis, Udoh and Patterson and at least two of the three should be available at 10.

Not to veer too far off topic, but in a related note, can the Jazz resist the urge to draft Aldrich? You know they want to. :lol

Blackjack

06-16-2010, 02:08 AM

Probably the 20th pick plus the 1st round pick in '11 and maybe De Colo. Hill would probably be an appealing prospect for the Pacers, but I don't see the Spurs parting with him, at least not with what they have to offer.

I just get the feeling they'd want a proven player. But if not, I'd be fine with something like that. I just hope the Spurs aren't really looking at Davis if that's the case.

As for Hayward, let's face it, deep down the Pacers probably want to draft him, but the last thing they need is an SF, 10th would be high for him and the fact that he's a clean cut looking white guy from Indiana would only perpetuate the notion that they specifically target white players. To pick him on the heels of picking Hansbrough last year (despite the fact that their were better players on the board) would only cement their reputation, a reputation which they've been attempting to dispel.

No, I agree. I was just screwin' around with the new GM of the Pacers, objective. :lol

But if they weren't as high on him as they would be the prospect of Hill as a Pacer, that might be something to consider. I love Hill and have been a big proponent of his, but the Spurs could improve their chances in the short-term by getting his talent at a different position and skill set. Not a knock on him, he just happens to be playing on a team where two of it's best three players play his position and if it's all about maximizing the Duncan window, there's definitely an argument to be made for the right move involving Hill (or Blair). I just don't think it's all that likely the Spurs would find the right kind of deal.

Because of their need for a long term successor at PF and the fact that there's a good chance that the best players available at 10 will be PF's, it'll be tough for them to pass on Davis, Udoh and Patterson and at least two of the three should be available at 10.

Maybe Blair's in the equation, who knows? It doesn't sound like it, as the Spurs have him working on individual development over the Summer and you know they love him, but I guess it just depends on whats out there. Blair's long but he's still 6-6. At some point you've got to ask where his ceiling is and if the talent he brings is both what's best for the here-and-now and/or the long-term (which is a dicey proposition given his knees).

It'd be a sad day to see either one of them go but I'm just trying to be a realist. I don't expect that we'll see either of them getting shipped out but I think it'd be foolish to just outright dismiss it if their intentions are what we believe them to be: Duncan with a fifth.

Not to veer too far off topic, but in a related note, can the Jazz resist the urge to draft Aldrich? You know they want to. :lol

Well, they've got Fesenko and Koufos capable of playing the 4 and 5 and AK-47 at the 3, but they just might lose Korver at the 2. Deron's at least light-skinned ... so maybe they just go Vazquez at the 2? What I'm saying is, they need to worry about acquiring the requisite whiteness at the 2. :hat

Dalamar_the_Dark

06-16-2010, 02:11 AM

Somehow I believe that the Spurs are targeting someone else with the 10th pick. Or they are trying to send a message out to teams interested in Parker to up the ante.

UnWantedTheory

06-16-2010, 02:25 AM

^^^I was a fan of Raistlin myself...

UnWantedTheory

06-16-2010, 02:27 AM

He was one dark dude...who eventually got over his jealousy and found his inner "soulmage"....or whatnot.

Agloco

06-16-2010, 09:14 AM

There are any number of reasons that San Antonio may be dead set on trading Tony.

1. Does Manus superior ability to play point make Tony expendable?

2. Are the Spurs aware that Tony will be demanding too much on his next contract?

3. Does our dire need to begin replacing Tim with a few good frontcourt players vs our cap space limits make Tony a luxury we cant afford?

4. How about that terrible spat he had last summer when the Spurs brought him back from Europe to have their own doctors look at his ankle? Did that leave a lasting impact on the relationship?

#1 - You can't play Manu at point for 25-30 per game, he won't make it to the playoffs. Hill can't/won't do this either as he's an SG.

#2 - Are the Spurs aware? Does the sun come up each day?

#3 - Good point here. Do the Spurs want a guard oriented team, or a big oriented team. We've seen the results of both.....

4# - The Spurs pay Parker eight figures per year and are the reason that he has the lifestyle that he has today. It's the least Parker could do to humor them. If he's still butthurt over that, it's quite childish of him.

Agloco

06-16-2010, 09:17 AM

^^^I was a fan of Raistlin myself...

Ahhh, memories. I remember a friend correcting me on the pronunciation of his name: "No, his name rhymes with waist not mast......". It shattered my world. :lol

lefty

06-16-2010, 09:20 AM

Parker for 10th pick+Granger

Sorry :D

Chomag

06-16-2010, 09:24 AM

Another 6'9" big? Geeze, what the hell do the Spurs FO have against players with size! No more small bigs please we have enough of those, pass.

lotr1trekkie

06-16-2010, 10:25 AM

TP for another All-Star or not a all. Williams or Paul would do.

Ditty

06-16-2010, 11:58 AM

Parker for 10th pick+Granger

Sorry :D

in a heart beat and trade jefferson for a point guard

Sofaking

06-16-2010, 12:55 PM

Davis is the same height as Dwight Howard and has a higher vertical leap. He's just frail at 227 lbs. If he can put on a extra 15 lbs, then he would be a steal. The spurs need a shakeup and Duncan is 99.9% sure to be a spurs for life. manu just resigned....Sooooo

lefty

06-16-2010, 01:42 PM

What's wrong with that pick?

Is it cursed?

That shows how much the Pacer's FO sucks; the Spurs have drafted very good players with lower picks, and Indy wants to deal #10?

TD 21

06-16-2010, 03:41 PM

I just get the feeling they'd want a proven player. But if not, I'd be fine with something like that. I just hope the Spurs aren't really looking at Davis if that's the case.

I get the same feeling. I can't see the Spurs offering Parker, Hill, Blair or Splitter, so short of that, the best they can probably do is 20, next year's 1st and De Colo.

No, I agree. I was just screwin' around with the new GM of the Pacers, objective. :lol

But if they weren't as high on him as they would be the prospect of Hill as a Pacer, that might be something to consider. I love Hill and have been a big proponent of his, but the Spurs could improve their chances in the short-term by getting his talent at a different position and skill set. Not a knock on him, he just happens to be playing on a team where two of it's best three players play his position and if it's all about maximizing the Duncan window, there's definitely an argument to be made for the right move involving Hill (or Blair). I just don't think it's all that likely the Spurs would find the right kind of deal.My guess is they'd prefer Hill over Hayward (because their one star and best building block plays the same position as Hayward), though if they had their druthers they'd probably go with Collison or Lawson over Hill. They need a true PG, not a combo guard, even if it is a local kid. I agree with the bold part.

Maybe Blair's in the equation, who knows? It doesn't sound like it, as the Spurs have him working on individual development over the Summer and you know they love him, but I guess it just depends on whats out there. Blair's long but he's still 6-6. At some point you've got to ask where his ceiling is and if the talent he brings is both what's best for the here-and-now and/or the long-term (which is a dicey proposition given his knees).

It'd be a sad day to see either one of them go but I'm just trying to be a realist. I don't expect that we'll see either of them getting shipped out but I think it'd be foolish to just outright dismiss it if their intentions are what we believe them to be: Duncan with a fifth.Blair could be in the equation, but Buford claimed last year that the number one thing they felt they needed going into last off season was an "ass kicking big man" and they felt Blair fit the bill. A year later, I can't see them trading him unless it was in a no-brainer type deal. By the way, I was talking about the Pacers when I said "they need a long term successor at PF". Again, I agree with the bold part.

Well, they've got Fesenko and Koufos capable of playing the 4 and 5 and AK-47 at the 3, but they just might lose Korver at the 2. Deron's at least light-skinned ... so maybe they just go Vazquez at the 2? What I'm saying is, they need to worry about acquiring the requisite whiteness at the 2. :hatNah, Fesenko and Koufas are strictly 5's, so there's a void at the 4. I just read today that apparently they're high on Babbitt, Henry and Hayward and would be comfortable with all of them if, as expected, Monroe is gone by 9. Ford's got them picking Babbitt as of right now. Shocking!