Kravitz: Pacers must deal their No. 10 pick for point guard

[Blackjack]

Pacers must deal their No. 10 pick for point guard (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100616/SPORTS15/6160353&odyssey=mod_mostview)
by Bob Kravitz

Forget the NBA draft.

The Indiana Pacers can take Xavier Henry, the slashing Kansas shooting guard who worked out for them Tuesday. They can move on Avery Bradley, the Texas combo guard who seriously impressed the Pacers brass this week. They can take 58-year-old Marvin Glickstein of the Jewish Community Center lunchtime pick-up game. Whoever.

Just get me a point guard this summer.

Option One: Get me Darren Collison of the New Orleans Hornets. Put him out there on day one and he's the Pacers' starting point guard for the next five years. He replaced the injured Chris Paul and averaged 18.8 points and 9.1 assists in 37 starts.

Option Two: Get me George Hill of the San Antonio Spurs. That's right, Broad Ripple's and IUPUI's George Hill. Spurs general manager R.C. Buford has stated publicly he's not moving Tony Parker, and Hill has progressed to the point where he needs a lot more minutes. For the right price -- the Pacers' No. 10 pick and another piece -- it's a deal that has a chance of happening.

Option Three: Get me Ty Lawson of the Denver Nuggets. He had a nice season backing up Chauncey Billups, averaging 20 minutes per game, 8.3 points and 52 percent shooting. Lawson averaged 17 points and 5.9 assists in eight starts. I don't see him as the sure-fire starting point guard of the future, not the way Collison or Hill would be, but he would be a serious upgrade on the Pacers' current motley crew.

Here's my fearless prediction of the day: By draft night, the Indiana Pacers will have a new point guard, and he won't come through the draft itself. It might be Collison, might be Hill, might be Lawson, but it's going to be somebody not named Ford, Watson or Price, and feel free to scream "Hallelujah!"

Everybody in the league knows the Pacers are not married to that No. 10 pick and the Pacers need a point guard like the Big 12 needs Texas. So the calls are coming in and going out.

If the Pacers want to put butts in the seats next season, if the Pacers want to be competitive and interesting and worthy of our attention, they must make up for last year's draft-day failure to take a point guard (Lawson, Collison and others were available) and get one this summer.

The rumor most likely to become fact is the deal to trade the No. 10 pick to Denver for Lawson. Nuggets brass has made it clear it's looking for a top-10 pick to round out the team's front line, and there figure to be plenty of big guys out there at that spot: Ekpe Udoh, Ed Davis and others.
The word is, the Nuggets are talking to the Los Angeles Clippers at No. 7, but if nothing works there, it's likely the Lawson deal could get done here. Now, does Lawson fix all the point guard problems for the next five years? The jury is still out whether he's the starter on a playoff-caliber team. Is he a major upgrade on what the Pacers have, assuming Earl Watson bolts in free agency? Absolutely.

The deal I'd love to see is one that brings Collison to Conseco Fieldhouse, but that's going to be a significantly more difficult trade to pull off.

The Hornets absolutely have to move Collison -- there aren't enough minutes for him and Chris Paul to share -- but the organization also is over the luxury tax threshold and desperately needs to shed big contracts. New Orleans would surely insist on having the Pacers take back an onerous deal, something like Emeka Okafor's contract, which has four years remaining at roughly $42 million. And that would run counter to everything the Pacers have been trying to do these past four years.

So the question would be, do you move the No. 10 pick and Troy Murphy in the final year of his deal for Collison and three more years of an overpaid player's deal? I would grit my teeth, try everything to get Hill or Lawson first at a more reasonable price and then . . . do it. The Pacers have finished each of the past five seasons with a different point guard. It's time that stopped.

The Hill possibility is a delicious one, bringing the local kid home. The question is what the Spurs might want in return. Clearly, they need some youth to buttress an aging lineup, and that might mean packaging the No. 10 pick and Brandon Rush. I'd do it in a heartbeat; my opinion of Rush is not as high as the Pacers' view of him.

There won't be a worthy point guard at the No. 10 spot, the primary reason the Pacers are interested in divesting themselves of the pick. After John Wall, the best point is Eric Bledsoe, who figures to go around Nos. 20-25. If the Pacers don't move, they figure to get a shot at Henry, Davis, Udoh, Bradley or Fresno State's Paul George, all nice talents. But none plays the point.

This is the make-or-break summer, the produce-or-perish year for team president Larry Bird and coach Jim O'Brien and just about everybody in that front office. It's time to get to the point. Now.

[Ditty]

if this is too draft ed davis then hell no I would trade george hill

[EricB]

Collison for the 10 and another guy would be smart by new Orleans. Trade from depth get more depth through lottery and fill must needs.

[DesignatedT]

give us granger.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Hell no to trading Hill for a pick. Hill's slowly becoming a large component of the team. If he's being traded, it needs to be for proven value.

[Gooshie]

Hell no to trading Hill for a pick. Hill's slowly becoming a large component of the team. If he's being traded, it needs to be for proven value.

I wouldn't trade Hill for the #10 pick straight up, but Hill for the #10 AND Brandon Rush? I would do it - especially if Elli0t Williams is indeed the Spurs pick at # 20. Williams could theoretically fulfill Hill's spot, and Rush is a 24 year old 6'6 swing man who can shoot the 3 (41%) and can be a solid defender (he averaged 0.8 blocks per game last year).

With the #10 pick you either draft a long SF (if Splitter comes) or a PF/C prospect (if Splitter doesn't come).

In order for the Spurs to vault into the true contender status again, we need to add competent, athletic players who provide depth. Trading one (Hill) for two (possibly Rush and Paul George) is a good start.

Personally, I don't think the Pacers would go for this trade. While Hill has proven his worth, he still isn't (and may never be) a pure point guard.

[DesignatedT]

I wouldn't trade Hill for the #10 pick straight up, but Hill for the #10 AND Brandon Rush? I would do it - especially if Elli0t Williams is indeed the Spurs pick at # 20. Williams could theoretically fulfill Hill's spot, and Rush is a 24 year old 6'6 swing man who can shoot the 3 (41%) and can be a solid defender (he averaged 0.8 blocks per game last year).

With the #10 pick you either draft a long SF (if Splitter comes) or a PF/C prospect (if Splitter doesn't come).

In order for the Spurs to vault into the true contender status again, we need to add competent, athletic players who provide depth. Trading one (Hill) for two (possibly Rush and Paul George) is a good start.

Personally, I don't think the Pacers would go for this trade. While Hill has proven his worth, he still isn't (and may never be) a pure point guard.

brandon rush sucks.

[Blackjack]

The Hill possibility is a delicious one, bringing the local kid home. The question is what the Spurs might want in return. Clearly, they need some youth to buttress an aging lineup, and that might mean packaging the No. 10 pick and Brandon Rush. I'd do it in a heartbeat; my opinion of Rush is not as high as the Pacers' view of him.

You're not gonna find a bigger Hill fan than myself and I'm in no way advocating for his departure. But if what Kori's said in the past is true, that the Spurs view Hill to be a 2 (and I have no reason to believe what she says isn't true), the possibility of acquiring Rush (a guy who's 6-6 in shoes and has nice length) and the 10th pick might be the right move to make, even if unpopular.

Rush could be one of the best potential 'Centerpieces' they could find for next year, as he's a solid defender and just got done shooting 40-percent from three. And if they're high enough on someone like George ... they could have the size and length set on their perimeter for a long time.

DX currently has Davis off the board at 10 and their doesn't seem to be a lot of separation between the prospects in that 10-20 range (DX's current 10-20: Ekpe Udoh, Patrick Patterson, Luke Babbitt, Avery Bradley, Cole Aldrich, Gordon Hayward, Paul George, Damion James, Hassan Whiteside, Daniel Orton, Larry Sanders), but the combination of Rush and one of those prospects could very well address more needs and put them in better position, both short and long-term, than Hill. Could.

I really don't want to see Hill go. He's one of my favorite players. But there's an argument to be made that it'd be best for the team if this deal could be done.

[benefactor]

You people wouldn't trade Hill for the 10 pick and Rush?

lol homers

[Gooshie]

brandon rush sucks.

I agree that he will never be a "star," but we don't need another "star" right now. Rush provides consistent 3 point shooting and size at the 2/3 position, both of which were major issues for us vs. the Suns.

The # 10 pick is where we could potentially get a guy who can contribute right away and at the same time blossom into a "star" in the future.

[Cane]

George Hill would probably see a lot more minutes for the Pacers too. It would be an incredibly unpopular decision but the Spurs have a lot of gaps to fill and considering that Hill is basically a SG (dont' tell the rest of the NBA that he's a project PG)...that spot seems easily replaced in the NBA.

That said I don't see it happening considering all the positive stuff Pop has said about him (being the favorite player, etc)...then again could this have been some CIA masterplan work that not only motivates Hill to become better but also raises his stock across the league because of his high praise? Remember when Pop, Duncan's only NBA coach, called Pau Gasol the most skilled big man in the league? Everyone else from the media to coaches started to quote that this past season as well.

/tinfoil hat

[Gooshie]

The best thing about this hypothetical trade is that we could keep Tony Parker while at the same time add a lottery type talent. Going into the summer I thought we would have to give up Tony to move into the lottery.

If the Pacers are willing to bite on their hometown kid, I'd be thrilled.

[TimmehC]

You people wouldn't trade Hill for the 10 pick and Rush?

lol homers

Udoh sounds pretty friggin good right now. Or if we're confident with Splitter, maybe we go for Paul George. Or maybe a top-5 projected player slips... you never know.

[lefty]

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?

[mingus]

Hill is so overrated by this board it isn't funny. he had huge let-down games on the road this year, and faired okay against the good teams. and he is very, very inconsistent. his stock went up in the Dallas series, but he mostly just hit open shots. it would be an ENTIRELY different story if he met the very high expectations on the defensive end from him.

you trade him for the 10th pick, definitely. you can get a big with nice potential in this draft at that spot, or the needed defensive SF. the PG position is the easiest position to take care of in the NBA.

[admiralsnackbar]

Cripes... I love George and all, but this would be pretty hard to pass up. It also happens to make a lot of sense.

[GabeIsGone]

So a kid that was drafted late first round and who many thought should have been drafted even later 2 years ago is now being thought of as worth more that the #10 pick? Im surprised at all the people overvaluing george and happy that the FO keeps finding these gems.

[admiralsnackbar]

the SG position is the easiest position to take care of in the NBA.

fify

If your thesis were true, this thread wouldn't even list the Spurs as potential trade partners... and this with Hill only a PG in training.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Hill and RJ for the #10 and Granger. The Pacers would have an expiring contract and could rebuild since Granger isn't a guy who single-handedly has made Indiana playoff eligible, and the Spurs would get their missing piece.

Teams love handing over guys like Granger to SA. Pull the f'n trigger Pop!!

[Blackjack]

:lol

[dastrey]

If you can land Paul George for George Hill you have to pull that trigger. It makes even more sense if the Spurs plan on extending Parker.

[pad300]

Hill and RJ for the #10 and Granger. The Pacers would have an expiring contract and could rebuild since Granger isn't a guy who single-handedly has made Indiana playoff eligible, and the Spurs would get their missing piece.

Teams love handing over guys like Granger to SA. Pull the f'n trigger Pop!!

Hell, why be cheap.

Hill and RJ for Granger

Hill and RJ and the #20 for #10 and Granger

Hill and RJ and the #20 for Granger and a protected future 1st

[jcrod]

If you can get the 10th pick and Rush for Hill, pull the damn trigger. The Spurs will get two quality picks to build for the future.

[TD 21]

You're not gonna find a bigger Hill fan than myself and I'm in no way advocating for his departure. But if what Kori's said in the past is true, that the Spurs view Hill to be a 2 (and I have no reason to believe what she says isn't true), the possibility of acquiring Rush (a guy who's 6-6 in shoes and has nice length) and the 10th pick might be the right move to make, even if unpopular.

Rush could be one of the best potential 'Centerpieces' they could find for next year, as he's a solid defender and just got done shooting 40-percent from three. And if they're high enough on someone like George ... they could have the size and length set on their perimeter for a long time.

DX currently has Davis off the board at 10 and their doesn't seem to be a lot of separation between the prospects in that 10-20 range (DX's current 10-20: Ekpe Udoh, Patrick Patterson, Luke Babbitt, Avery Bradley, Cole Aldrich, Gordon Hayward, Paul George, Damion James, Hassan Whiteside, Daniel Orton, Larry Sanders), but the combination of Rush and one of those prospects could very well address more needs and put them in better position, both short and long-term, than Hill. Could.

I really don't want to see Hill go. He's one of my favorite players. But there's an argument to be made that it'd be best for the team if this deal could be done.

Agreed. I can't see the Pacers giving up the tenth pick and Rush for Hill, but if they did, that would be awfully difficult to turn down. To have the ability to add Rush, one of George, Davis, etc. at ten and then another quality player at twenty (if they go with a wing at ten, then they could take a big at twenty or vice versa), that right there, along with signing Splitter, could have this team set going into next season and with a nice nucleus of good young talent to build with going forward. Other options would be to package ten and twenty to either move up even higher or to add an established, good young player.

[Blackjack]

Even if they had to exchange first-rounders and make it essentially Hill for Rush, I think that's probably the prudent move for the Spurs to make if they believe in the player they can get at 10.

Indiana would be getting the best player, probably both short and long-term (as I'm not informed enough to tell you how good those 10-20 players are this year -- I just didn't see enough), but Rush fills a need immediately and would likely be much better than anyone they could get at 20. Then it's down to the 10 and Hill and even if that pick never manages to be as good as Hill, he'd seemingly be a pretty nice player at a position of greater need; or he'd at least have the body to play the position he was deemed of being.

If Paul George is really a player and someone who could eventually turn into a borderline star or even just a starter and they get a proven guy like Rush to go alongside of him, that really could turn out quite well: George envisions himself as a 6-8 shooting guard and Rush's offensive game falls right in line with a Spurs small forward. They could potentially have found the size and skill on the wing for the present and future with one fell swoop.

[TD 21]

Even if they had to exchange first-rounders and make it essentially Hill for Rush, I think that's probably the prudent move for the Spurs to make if they believe in the player they can get at 10.

Indiana would be getting the best player, probably both short and long-term (as I'm not informed enough to tell you how good those 10-20 players are this year -- I just didn't see enough), but Rush fills a need immediately and would likely be much better than anyone they could get at 20. Then it's down to the 10 and Hill and even if that pick never manages to be as good as Hill, he'd seemingly be a pretty nice player at a position of greater need; or he'd at least have the body to play the position he was deemed of being.

If Paul George is really a player and someone who could eventually turn into a borderline star or even just a starter and they get a proven guy like Rush to go alongside of him, that really could turn out quite well: George envisions himself as a 6-8 shooting guard and Rush's offensive game falls right in line with a Spurs small forward. They could potentially have found the size and skill on the wing for the present and future with one fell swoop.

Excellent post. Swapping picks in addition to Hill/Rush makes this more realistic than just Hill for Rush and their pick.

[Blackjack]

Excellent post. Swapping picks in addition to Hill/Rush makes this more realistic than just Hill for Rush and their pick.

That's it. I quit. The interwebs, the prognostication, the analysis ... it's all over.

Blackjack is now retired; you can't go out any better than that. A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?!

I feel like David Robinson, John Elway, Jerome Bettis and about 50 boxers that retired champions (but probably have more in common with the boxers because 99-percent of them fail at retirement).

Farewell, SpursTalk. I've enjoyed the ride! :toast

[Mel_13]

That's it. I quit. The interwebs, the prognostication, the analysis ... it's all over.

Blackjack is now retired; you can't go out any better than that. A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?!

I feel like David Robinson, John Elway, Jerome Bettis and about 50 boxers that retired champions (but probably have more in common with the boxers because 99-percent of them fail at retirement).

Farewell, SpursTalk. I've enjoyed the ride! :toast

Not fooling me, Blackjack. Everybody knows that he's just one of your yes men. :stirpot:

[MaNu4Tres]

:lol

[Blackjack]

How does one respond without compromising one's retirement? :huh

[Mel_13]

How does one respond without compromising one's retirement? :huh

As ST farewells go, that was pretty tame. No vows, no promises, no mention of permanence. Plus, you've got the crew down in the basement waiting for their awards. They're depending on you, Blackjack. You can't ignore their pleas.

[mingus]

fify

If your thesis were true, this thread wouldn't even list the Spurs as potential trade partners... and this with Hill only a PG in training.

no pg is easier. plenty of talented pg's out there as back ups right now. Indiana is one of the feew teams that doesn't have a servicable pg.

[Blackjack]

As ST farewells go, that was pretty tame. No vows, no promises, no mention of permanence. Plus, you've got the crew down in the basement waiting for their awards. They're depending on you, Blackjack. You can't ignore their pleas.

Good point. I'll get everyone in the basement in one place and proceed to gas... uh, award them before leaving the scene. :tu

[Mel_13]

no pg is easier. plenty of talented pg's out there as back ups right now. Indiana is one of the feew teams that doesn't have a servicable pg.

Sadly, they paid about 18M last year to a group of unserviceable PGs.

[TD 21]

That's it. I quit. The interwebs, the prognostication, the analysis ... it's all over.

Blackjack is now retired; you can't go out any better than that. A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?!

I feel like David Robinson, John Elway, Jerome Bettis and about 50 boxers that retired champions (but probably have more in common with the boxers because 99-percent of them fail at retirement).

Farewell, SpursTalk. I've enjoyed the ride! :toast

Right, like I've never had a short reply or been in agreement with anyone. I guess you glossed over all those posts and chose to instead focus on the other ones. It's true though that many of my posts exceed two sentences. Sorry, I like to post something that's thought out and not just an attempt to build up my post count as quickly as possible. Shocking, I know.

A lot of you people on here seem to not understand or have forgotten what a message board is about: it's about debate, opinion and lively chatter. It's not about making foolish, irrelevant threads, making lame jokes or being buddy buddy with everybody.

Since you seem to take issue with debate, disagreement or confrontation (not that you're alone on that on this board), you thought I'd either gloss over the fact that this post is a clear shot at me or not recognize that it is because it's done in an (attempt) at being humorous.

It's funny how when I don't agree with someone, I'm "looking for an argument", but when someone disagrees with me, they just disagree with me. Rule number one of SpursTalk: bow down to anyone with established board relationships, otherwise you're automatically in the wrong.

[Seventyniner]

Since you seem to take issue with debate, disagreement or confrontation (not that you're alone on that on this board), you thought I'd either gloss over the fact that this post is a clear shot at me or not recognize that it is because it's done in an (attempt) at being humorous.

So if you take the "for" position in the case of the existence of debates on forums, noone can take the "against" position without being self-contradictory. I see what you did there...

[tdunk21]

Hill + RJ + future 1st for granger and 10th pick

[E-RockWill]

Cue the music & drop the curtain. This thread is officvially done......

[Blackjack]

Right, like I've never had a short reply or been in agreement with anyone. I guess you glossed over all those posts and chose to instead focus on the other ones. It's true though that many of my posts exceed two sentences. Sorry, I like to post something that's thought out and not just an attempt to build up my post count as quickly as possible. Shocking, I know.

A lot of you people on here seem to not understand or have forgotten what a message board is about: it's about debate, opinion and lively chatter. It's not about making foolish, irrelevant threads, making lame jokes or being buddy buddy with everybody.

Since you seem to take issue with debate, disagreement or confrontation (not that you're alone on that on this board), you thought I'd either gloss over the fact that this post is a clear shot at me or not recognize that it is because it's done in an (attempt) at being humorous.

It's funny how when I don't agree with someone, I'm "looking for an argument", but when someone disagrees with me, they just disagree with me. Rule number one of SpursTalk: bow down to anyone with established board relationships, otherwise you're automatically in the wrong.

Whoa, there, TD . . .

That was completely tongue-in-cheek. There was nothing about that intended to be a slight. While we usually agree on the endgame, we usually have a different way of arriving at those conclusions. Thus, to receive a two-sentence response from you was a first as far as I recall; I was celebrating an easy consensus, not mocking.

[TD 21]

Whoa, there, TD . . .

That was completely tongue-in-cheek. There was nothing about that intended to be a slight. While we usually agree on the endgame, we usually have a different way of arriving at those conclusions. Thus, to receive a two-sentence response from you was a first as far as I recall; I was celebrating an easy consensus, not mocking.

No, it wasn't. At least man up and admit that it was a shot and that it's not the first time. You're passive-aggressive.

Good thing we reached a consensus, wouldn't want to actually disagree or debate something on a message board.

[Blackjack]

No, it wasn't. At least man up and admit that it was a shot and that it's not the first time. You're passive-aggressive.

Good thing we reached a consensus, wouldn't want to actually disagree or debate something on a message board.

You're really fuckin' serious?

I mean, REALLY!?!

[dbestpro]

Of note is the fact that many in this forum have said that Hill is not a pg, yet Indiana would pony up a number 10 pick for him to play pg. Hmmmm.

[taps]

i guess having Temple makes this decision that much easier if'n it happens

[galvatron3000]

If the Spurs can get the number 10 in this years draft, keep the number 20 for George Hill, who is not a pg but a sg, I say do it. Love Hill but seriously I'd pull this trigger right now.

[TD 21]

You're really fuckin' serious?

I mean, REALLY!?!

Don't play dumb with me. You knew exactly what you were doing, you just didn't get the response you were looking for and that bothers you.

I'm not serious in the sense that I'm legitimately angered over what someone who doesn't know me said to me on a message board, but I am serious in the sense that you clearly took a shot at me. You can (predictably) spin it all you want.

[Blackjack]

Don't play dumb with me. You knew exactly what you were doing, you just didn't get the response you were looking for and that bothers you.

I'm not serious in the sense that I'm legitimately angered over what someone who doesn't know me said to me on a message board, but I am serious in the sense that you clearly took a shot at me. You can (predictably) spin it all you want.

Holy shit . . .

Wow, I'm just going to tie my hands behind my back because the forecast is projecting a good size front of passive aggressive activity in the near future.

You do know there's a lukewarm between hot and cold, right?

Well, shit, I guess I'm no better than the local weather guy.

[benefactor]

TD21...dude...smoke a joint, take a shot of 80 proof or pop a couple of Xanax. Learning to laugh at yourself is essential to proper social function.

[SenorSpur]

Even if they had to exchange first-rounders and make it essentially Hill for Rush, I think that's probably the prudent move for the Spurs to make if they believe in the player they can get at 10.

Indiana would be getting the best player, probably both short and long-term (as I'm not informed enough to tell you how good those 10-20 players are this year -- I just didn't see enough), but Rush fills a need immediately and would likely be much better than anyone they could get at 20. Then it's down to the 10 and Hill and even if that pick never manages to be as good as Hill, he'd seemingly be a pretty nice player at a position of greater need; or he'd at least have the body to play the position he was deemed of being.

If Paul George is really a player and someone who could eventually turn into a borderline star or even just a starter and they get a proven guy like Rush to go alongside of him, that really could turn out quite well: George envisions himself as a 6-8 shooting guard and Rush's offensive game falls right in line with a Spurs small forward. They could potentially have found the size and skill on the wing for the present and future with one fell swoop.

A possible exchange of first-rounders would cause me some hesistation. Although, it would probably still be the prudent thing to do. However if the trade, as originally proposed, is Hill in exchange for Rush & #10 pick, thereby allowing the Spurs to keep their #20, I don't see how the Spurs could turn that down. The Spurs could bolster their SG (Rush), SF (George or Henry), and PF (Udoh, Sanders, or Davis) positions in one fell swoop. Add in Splitter and the Spurs will be ready to roll.

As much as I love Hill, there is simply just too much to gain from this trade scenario, to pass up. The immediate injection of youth and athleticism would make for a fierce roster going into next season and the future.

Of course, it does create a potential hole at backup PG. If the Spurs are really, really high on Garrett Temple's , perhaps he could fill the bill at backup point. If not, any thoughts about swapping out T.J. Ford in place of Rush, in the trade? I would guess the money doesn't match and that Rush for Hill is probably a closer salary match.

[TimDunkem]

Stop arguing guys! :depressed

[TD 21]

Holy shit . . .

Wow, I'm just going to tie my hands behind my back because the forecast is projecting a good size front of passive aggressive activity in the near future.

You do know there's a lukewarm between hot and cold, right?

Well, shit, I guess I'm no better than the local weather guy.

Why did "A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?" sound an awful lot like "you're a disagreeable, argumentative, long winded, opinionated know-it-all"?


TD21...dude...smoke a joint, take a shot of 80 proof or pop a couple of Xanax. Learning to laugh at yourself is essential to proper social function.

I was right. I knew one of the yes-men would jump to his defense and come with a "learn to laugh at yourself" comment. I had you over Mel_13 by a hair.

Why would I laugh at someone who basically said "you're a disagreeable, argumentative, long-winded, opinionated know-it-all"? And why is it that, no matter the topic, if you or any of your little buddies see my name in a thread where there's a debate going on, I'm automatically in the wrong every single time?

[TDMVPDPOY]

i pull the trigger if they get rj of our hands, and give us granger + shitty contract we can absorb

dunno whats there cap situation, maybe they can go after carmelo next season fa

[dbestpro]

Why would I laugh at someone who basically said "you're a disagreeable, argumentative, long-winded, opinionated know-it-all"? And why is it that, no matter the topic, if you or any of your little buddies see my name in a thread where there's a debate going on, I'm automatically in the wrong every single time?

I wouldn't say disagreeable.

[Blackjack]

Why did "A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?" sound an awful lot like "you're a disagreeable, argumentative, long winded, opinionated know-it-all"?

This is just getting really sad. Seriously.

TD 21, do me a favor and just step back from the situation for a sec. Think about all the conversations we've had and how I've interacted with you. What in that fairly recent history would lead you to believe that after we just had a couple of posts in agreement I would just randomly call you out in some malicious fashion? Honestly? What reason would I have to take a shot at you?

I'm all ears.

[TD 21]

This is just getting really sad. Seriously.

TD 21, do me a favor and just step back from the situation for a sec. Think about all the conversations we've had and how I've interacted with you. What in that fairly recent history would lead you to believe that after we just had a couple of posts in agreement I would just randomly call you out in some malicious fashion? Honestly? What reason would I have to take a shot at you?

I'm all ears.

You never answered my question, so why should I answer yours?

You tell me what your reasoning was, you're the one who wrote it.

[Blackjack]

A possible exchange of first-rounders would cause me some hesistation. Although, it would probably still be the prudent thing to do. However if the trade, as originally proposed, is Hill in exchange for Rush & #10 pick, thereby allowing the Spurs to keep their #20, I don't see how the Spurs could turn that down. The Spurs could bolster their SG (Rush), SF (George or Henry), and PF (Udoh, Sanders, or Davis) positions in one fell swoop. Add in Splitter and the Spurs will be ready to roll.

There's always going to be hesitation in a reasonably fair trade, and even more so when someone like Hill's involved (someone I believe has a chance to be a pretty special player -- like I said, he's one of my favorites).

But if the Spurs are high enough on someone like George to take him at 10 (given the size, ability and position), I've got to believe that's a deal that has to be made. It would suck to lose Hill but to find your teams possible 2 and 3 of the future would make it a much easier pill to swallow; and I'd take some solace in the fact that he'd be going home and have a real opportunity to grow and showcase himself in a bigger role.


Of course, it does create a potential hole at backup PG. If the Spurs are really, really high on Garrett Temple's , perhaps he could fill the bill at backup point. If not, any thoughts about swapping out T.J. Ford in place of Rush, in the trade? I would guess the money doesn't match and that Rush for Hill is probably a closer salary match.

I think between Temple, free-agency and the draft they could find something that would leave them better off than they were before the trade. Not at the backup point, but as a team overall; I'd want Rush to come in a play that "centerpiece" role and maybe eventually have George come off the bench as a 6th Man or some such. They need to monitor Manu's minutes, and it's definitely easier said than done with him starting, but I think Pop can manage to get it done. Start Tim, Tiago, Rush, Manu, Parker bring RJ, Blair, 'Dyess and their pick off the bench. I think I could bear that. :D

[Blackjack]

You never answered my question, so why should I answer yours?

You tell me what your reasoning was, you're the one who wrote it.

I told you exactly what happened and you refused to accept it. There was nothing malicious in my comment. If anything, it was a good-natured rib between friends here given our history. You just took it to some extreme out of nowhere, which leads me back to my question: What would lead you to believe that I'd take a shot at you from our prior interactions and the preceding comments?

[TD 21]

I told you exactly what happened and you refused to accept it. There was nothing malicious in my comment. If anything, it was a good-natured rib between friends here given our history. You just took it to some extreme out of nowhere, which leads me back to my question: What would lead you to believe that I'd take a shot at you from our prior interactions and the preceding comments?

Maybe because I don't fit the mold of your buddies on the board. I'm not exactly sure why, but you did. It's not like I care about the remark, I was just somewhat surprised by it and am not sure why you're in denial. It's cut and dried to me. Even if it wasn't malicious, as you say, you're honestly going to pretend that you're stunned that I took it that way? You don't see how it could be construed that way?

You still didn't answer my question.

[Big P]

brandon rush sucks.

This.

[Blackjack]

Maybe because I don't fit the mold of your buddies on the board. I'm not exactly sure why, but you did. It's not like I care about the remark, I was just somewhat surprised by it and am not sure why you're in denial.

Why would you be surprised by it? Would it have anything to do with the way I've interacted with you in the past?


It's cut and dried to me. Even if it wasn't malicious, as you say, you're honestly going to pretend that you're stunned that I took it that way? You don't see how it could be construed that way?

When you put it like that, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you took it that way. I just assumed that we'd gotten past that line of thinking -- the defensive, paranoid thinking -- and you wouldn't jump to such a conclusion; I figured I'd at least earned the benefit of a doubt. My bad.


You still didn't answer my question.

So would you like me to answer my question and you to answer yours? Because I haven't a clue what you want from me.

[Blackjack]

Thread marathon. :elephant

[duncan228]

:corn:

[TD 21]

Why would you be surprised by it? Would it have anything to do with the way I've interacted with you in the past?



When you put it like that, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you took it that way. I just assumed that we'd gotten past that line of thinking -- the defensive, paranoid thinking -- and you wouldn't jump to such a conclusion; I figured I'd at least earned the benefit of a doubt. My bad.



So would you like me to answer my question and you to answer yours? Because I haven't a clue what you want from me.

Surprised by the nature of it is all. Like I said, it's not the first time you've taken a shot at me, it's just never been this obvious. Caught me somewhat by surprise, particularly considering that, as you said, we had just agreed in a couple of threads. It didn't add up. I guess you have your reasons, even if you're not willing to disclose them.

The shots keep coming. Now I'm "defensive and paranoid". Let me guess, that was a good-natured rib from a "friend" as well and I'm just being defensive and paranoid for taking it the wrong way? The benefit of what doubt? You took a shot at me, you've since followed it up by taking more at me and you're inexplicably in denial about it. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar so to speak and won't own up to it. Don't worry, man, you're not going to jail over this. It's not that big a deal, though the genesis and timing of it is strange to say the least.

This was the question...

Why did "A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?" sound an awful lot like "you're a disagreeable, argumentative, long winded, opinionated know-it-all"?

[E-RockWill]

:corn:

:dramaquee :violin



:shootme

[benefactor]

Maybe because I don't fit the mold of your buddies on the board.
I think you like it that way and are purposely playing it up. You have had this "me against all of you" attitude since you came here and just as you are starting to become a decent poster someone makes a light hearted comment at you and you flip out like they just punched your mom in the face.

Congrats...you are right back where you were when you were saying stuff like, "You are disrespecting me because of my post count." :rolleyes

[TD 21]

I think you like it that way and are purposely playing it up. You have had this "me against all of you" attitude since you came here and just as you are starting to become a decent poster someone makes a light hearted comment at you and you flip out like they just punched your mom in the face.

Congrats...you are right back where you were when you were saying stuff like, "You are disrespecting me because of my post count." :rolleyes

I don't really care either way, it's just a message board. I don't know any of you people and am not trying to get to know any of you or befriend you, I'm just calling it like I see it.

The arrogance of some of you guys is laughable though and you're a prime example. You honestly believe that I care what you think of me. Does this mean that I'll lose some of my SpursTalk cash or not be voted onto the All-SpursTalk team next year? Say it ain't so!? :depressed

[E-RockWill]

you flip out like they just punched your mom in the face.

Hilarious.....

[benefactor]

I don't really care either way, it's just a message board. I don't know any of you people and am not trying to get to know any of you or befriend you, I'm just calling it like I see it.

The arrogance of some of you guys is laughable though and you're a prime example. You honestly believe that I care what you think of me. Does this mean that I'll lose some of my SpursTalk cash or not be voted onto the All-SpursTalk team next year? Say it ain't so!? :depressed
lol...point proven.

This is my last response. I refuse to be a part of your dick hard fantasy where you masturbate to the thought of everyone hating you.

[TD 21]

lol...point proven.

This is my last response. I refuse to be a part of your dick hard fantasy where you masturbate to the thought of everyone hating you.

Don't worry, Blackjack is a big boy, I think he can do without your help in a message board disagreement/debate, second teamer.

[E-RockWill]

lol...point proven.

This is my last response. I refuse to be a part of your dick hard fantasy where you masturbate to the thought of everyone hating you.

:lmao

Winner

I hate you.....you like that....do ya?!......you dooo like that, you naughty wench.....

[Blackjack]

Surprised by the nature of it is all. Like I said, it's not the first time you've taken a shot at me, it's just never been this obvious. Caught me somewhat by surprise, particularly considering that, as you said, we had just agreed in a couple of threads. It didn't add up. I guess you have your reasons, even if you're not willing to disclose them.

So this isn't the first time I've taken a shot at you, really? Did it ever occur to you that I'm a bit of a smartass and don't take this all too seriously. Because I am and I don't. And for the record, I haven't taken any shots at you. You've drawn some poor conclusions and failed to mention it the past, therefore I was unaware of there being any confusion.


The shots keep coming. Now I'm "defensive and paranoid". Let me guess, that was a good-natured rib from a "friend" as well and I'm just being defensive and paranoid for taking it the wrong way? The benefit of what doubt? You took a shot at me, you've since followed it up by taking more at me and you're inexplicably in denial about it. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar so to speak and won't own up to it. Don't worry, man, you're not going to jail over this. It's not that big a deal, though the genesis and timing of it is strange to say the least.

No, I'm clearly fuckin' with you now. It was never my intent to but you've really left me no choice. What, am I supposed to just kowtow and tell you what you want to hear? Sorry, bro. It's not happenin'. And that's really rich. REAL RICH. I need to admit to some wrong-doing and the fact that I got my hand caught in the cookie jar. Please. Yes, that's what we professional message boarders like to call: defensive and paranoid behavior. I've got a degree. I paid for it and everything.


This was the question...

Why did "A two sentence reply from TD 21 in agreement!?" sound an awful lot like "you're a disagreeable, argumentative, long winded, opinionated know-it-all"?

Let's play word association: you give me a word or phrase and then tell me what I'm supposed to feel or say!

I don't want to have to point to my degree again, but I will. I spent good money for it.

[Seventyniner]

Holy thread hijack, Batman!

I don't have anything of substance to add, though; Hill for Rush + #10 is a no-brainer in my book. We need shooting, and having both the 10th and 20th pick would be awesome.

Hill + #20 for Rush + #10...meh. I don't think moving up 10 spots is worth losing Hill.

[Blackjack]

CAR!

JHolxXWLho8

GAME ON!

[E-RockWill]

Shhhh, Seventyniner.......mira, this is getting gooood.........

[Blackjack]

I'd like to welcome the viewers to our first intermission . . . :smokin

[TD 21]

So this isn't the first time I've taken a shot at you, really? Did it ever occur to you that I'm a bit of a smartass and don't take this all too seriously. Because I am and I don't. And for the record, I haven't taken any shots at you. You've drawn some poor conclusions and failed to mention it the past, therefore I was unaware of there being any confusion.



No, I'm clearly fuckin' with you now. It was never my intent to but you've really left me no choice. What, am I supposed to just kowtow and tell you what you want to hear? Sorry, bro. It's not happenin'. And that's really rich. REAL RICH. I need to admit to some wrong-doing and the fact that I got my hand caught in the cookie jar. Please. Yes, that's what we professional message boarders like to call: defensive and paranoid behavior. I've got a degree. I paid for it and everything.



Let's play word association: you give me a word or phrase and then tell me what I'm supposed to feel or say!

I don't want to have to point to my degree again, but I will. I spent good money for it.

Try as you might, you're not funny.

I realize you're a smartass, but there's a difference between that and taking a shot at someone. That was a classic example of someone attempting to disguise what they really think through humor. You have done it before, even if you inexplicably don't have the balls to admit to it or not. It's just a message board, nothing's going to happen to you if you own up to it.

I already knew you thought that about me. "Professional message boarders", funny, you poke fun at me, but that's exactly how you and your little clique act. I knew before I even called you on this who'd jump to your defense and who'd keep tabs on the thread.

More evading the question and copping out. It sounded an awful lot like that and you can't explain why it (supposedly) didn't.

[Blackjack]

-- One moment please (Raising The Bar in progress). --

[Blackjack]

Try as you might, you're not funny.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I think I'm pretty fuckin' hilarious. I laugh at all of my jokes. I'm batting 1.000.


I realize you're a smartass, but there's a difference between that and taking a shot at someone. That was a classic example of someone attempting to disguise what they really think through humor. You have done it before, even if you inexplicably don't have the balls to admit to it or not. It's just a message board, nothing's going to happen to you if you own up to it.

You know what I'm doing right now? Of course you do, I'm taking my balls out and rubbing them all over your thoughts of my thoughts. It just seemed like it made just as much sense.


I already knew you thought that about me. "Professional message boarders", funny, you poke fun at me, but that's exactly how you and your little clique act. I knew before I even called you on this who'd jump to your defense and who'd keep tabs on the thread.

Yeah, you don't want to mess with my click. We're a mean bunch. We've been waiting for a TD 21 username for a while to single out. I wasn't sure when you'd come but being the leader of this outfit, the Omnipotent one and prophet, I knew you'd find your way here eventually. All of these skirmishes you've had with posters are nothing more than a calculated offensive. WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL YOU'VE BEEN DESTROYED (not violently, of course. We're a message board click. We've got bedtimes and whatnot).


More evading the question and copping out. It sounded an awful lot like that and you can't explain why it (supposedly) didn't.

I'd much rather you explain what I said so you can tell me what I meant.

[TimDunkem]

You have your opinion and I have mine. I think I'm pretty fuckin' hilarious. I laugh at all of my jokes. I'm batting 1.000.


Your posts are hit or miss with me personally, but that was funny. :lol

[Blackjack]

Thanks, TimDunkem, whoever the fuck you are!


I keed, I keed. ;)

[TimDunkem]

Did you just take a shot at me?

[L.I.T]

Add me to the lotto pick + Rush and all I have to give up is Hill? Where do I sign up corner.

[E-RockWill]

I'm taking my balls out and rubbing them all over your thoughts of my thoughts. It just seemed like it made just as much sense.

:wow

Fucking priceless.........

[TD 21]

What else should I call them, yes-men? Because I've been around long enough now and can't ever remember seeing one of you disagree about anything. A bunch of random people too scared to disagree with one another on a message board, it's pathetic. Then I came along with an opinion all my own and that ruffled feathers. Deal with it.

I must say, I'm verging on stunned that Mel_13 hasn't chimed in on this, this is a real upset.

[Blackjack]

Did you just take a shot at me?

Well played. :tu

[Spursfanfromafar]

Losing Hill would be really sad. It would be heartbreaking to repeat that cliche, "Its only a business". But in my sincere opinion, the Spurs would have to swing for more fences than merely #10 and Rush. Rush may have some upside and some tools, but he is playoff-untested and Pop is eagerly wanting for some. I agree that the Spurs should push for Granger for RJ (no way its going to happen) or atleast try getting Troy Murphy for RJ (possible). That could fill up Matt Bonner's void.

[The Truth #6]

If Hill's stock is high, then hell yes trade him. If he can get big minutes somewhere else then it's a good move for him as well. In my mind either Parker or Hill needs to go. With our glaring needs, having two short SGs playing PG is not efficient.

If the trade gives us the 10 and Rush, and we bring over Splitter, and we draft Williams, I'd call it a very successful off-season.

[E-RockWill]

Wait for it.....wwwwaaaaaiiiiit for it.........

[benefactor]

C'mon Mel...you better get in here. TD21's boner depends on it.

[benefactor]

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

[Blackjack]

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/zelda.jpg

The spirits have found harmony. ... This thread is clear . . .

[TimDunkem]

Harmony? I'm pretty sure TD 21 just logged off to go strike somebody.

[Blackjack]

Harmony comes in many forms.

[E-RockWill]

That was some good interwebbin' right there....

[edgar]

U guys are retards! Especially benefactor n company.

I don't kid.

Logging off now so your thoughts wont be read by me.

[Blackjack]

That was some good interwebbin' right there....

I'm a gambler as well. :hat

[ynh]

Don't kid yourself. The Pacer's would never give you guys Granger.

The article is trash... Damn writer can't even get who has the #7 pick right.

[TimDunkem]

Don't kid yourself. The Pacer's would never give you guys Granger.

Who said that and meant it?

[Kori Ellis]

:lol 1 page of basketball talk, 3 pages of emotalk

[ynh]

Second page it is mentioned a couple of times. You can find the posts yourself.

[TimDunkem]

Second page it is mentioned a couple of times. You can find the posts yourself.
I've read it in other threads too but the posts are all the same. That's who people would give Hill for in a trade with the Pacers, but everyone with a brain knows the Pacers wouldn't do it.

[iManu]

Rush's FT% .629 (Which is ironically Timmy's FT% from the 2005-6 season.)

As I see it, he fits right in.

However, there's no way that this is going to happen, now, that it's jinxed.

Not now, now that we've talked about it too much....

:guin


That being said (and a Hill fan) I would pull the trigger with Splitter and even swap the 20 to pick up (possibly) Paul George or another SF. Then, I would trade RJ at the trade deadline for peas and a diddle from your Grandma.

(UNLESS, they'll start giving RJ ADD medicine.)

If no Splitter, I imagine we would swing for a big man at 10.

Either way, this is jinxed, now. (Which means it will not happen.)

If the trade overcomes this jinx, the doors of hell will release Jesus and the Angels will take the mutes off their trumpets and play "Knock On Wood."

:grim:

[Blackjack]

:lol 1 page of basketball talk, 3 pages of emotalk

But I contributed on both ends, and at some times, simultaneously (and that's one of those sentences that could come across questionably ...)!

[ynh]

lol there are many people without a brain.

Rush isn't that bad of a player btw. Marginal starter... will more than likely end up being a very good role player.

I can see the pacers doing something like this though.. but it wouldn't get the fans to come as the columist is trying to say. People here don't care about the pacers because it really isn't a huge basketball (NBA basketball) town. Even when the Pacers made it to the finals this place didn't really go crazy for them and they had trouble selling out the arena.

Since Reggie left people really can careless about the Pacers.. I've mentioned it before in these threads but they can't even give away Pacer tickets at my work. But I can see the FO trying to do that trade.. But honestly more than likely I see them bringing in another local kid and going after Conley and drafting Haywood.. Hill is from here yeah.. but he isn't going to sell tickets.. Never sold tickets when he was with IUPUI so I really doubt people would care much more with him in a Pacers uni.

The writer is trash though.. his colums suck ass.. Indystar doesn't have many good sport writers.. at least any good ones that aren't working with the Colts. Like I said great example is the simple fact the guy didn't even take the time to see what pick the Clippers have.

[HankChinaski]

It stills feels a like a gamble at times in my head with sending off Hill to Indiana. Talk about adding a new set of players to a complicated system. You guys are talking about

Sending off Hill, a guy that has proven himself in this system yet still needs polish.

Then adding Rush, the #10 and #20, then if we acquire Splitter as well that is a lot of Pop tinkering I will loathe sitting through with his typical rotation experimentation he fiddles with that drive me insane in the regular season. Not to mention the chemistry that was built with our vets with this last season...I'm not saying they looked whole as team but they were beginning to show a sense of playing as a team nearing the end of the season.

I've liked the thoughts in here in regards of bringing Rush in and the thought of adding another 1st round pick in that gives the S.A.F.O. room to bring in the guys they want with their picks.

It's hopeful thinking but involves the pacer jumping on this trade and then the Spurs thinking like its fans.

[ynh]

If you can get the 10th pick in a deep draft and Brandon Rush (a servicable young role player) for Hill you do it. I have a hard time believing you would get anything more.. the only reason I think it is believable that you would get that much is because the Pacers are desperate to try anything to put fans into the seats and the guy in charge is Larry Bird.

[ynh]

Hell.. Rush and either Udok or Cole for Hill.. that would be a pretty damn good haul.

[Blackjack]

I'm pretty sure you'd have to swap first-rounders or involve De Colo to get it done.

[HankChinaski]

I'd have to agree with you blackjack.

and if they threw in De Colo then well they plays into hand if win now mode for this next season if they went that route with either item along with Hill

Second thought, unsure about that how well that plays into win now mode but whatever.

[Chieflion]

You see now we need to figure something out. I am very sarcastic, you are very sarcastic. So how about we do something to let people know when we are being sarcastic?

Maybe a color for sarcasim like blue: You asshole.

Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blackjack]

You see now we need to figure something out. I am very sarcastic, you are very sarcastic. So how about we do something to let people know when we are being sarcastic?

Maybe a color for sarcasim like blue: You asshole.

:lol

In all seriousness, if they want to get the 10 and Rush, I believe they'd need to send Hill and swap their first-rounders. There could be some additional players or assets added, I've listened to Bird talk pretty highly of Nando, so he could be in the equation when it's all said and done.

I highly doubt the Pacers would give up both Rush and the 10 for only Hill. That'd be a no-brainer for the Spurs (as much as I love him and I know the Spurs love him), which leads one to believe the Spurs aren't giving up enough.

Like I mentioned earlier, prior to my cohort in hijacking, getting Rush into the infamous "centerpiece" role and drafting George (if he's legit in the Spurs' eyes) would conceivably be a great fitting tandem for the future and probably help them more in the short-term than even Hill could -- the Spurs would all of a sudden have plenty of size, youth, athleticism and skill on the perimeter.

But the Spurs are going to have to swap picks and/or involve De Colo to get the Pacers to bite, IMO.

[Blackjack]

Oh, and . . .

FUCK OFF, Phila_!

[Ginobili2Duncan]

If you can get the 10th pick in a deep draft and Brandon Rush (a servicable young role player) for Hill you do it. I have a hard time believing you would get anything more.. the only reason I think it is believable that you would get that much is because the Pacers are desperate to try anything to put fans into the seats and the guy in charge is Larry Bird.



They should just draft some more white players. Hayward has Pacers written all over him.

[Kori Ellis]

But I contributed on both ends, and at some times, simultaneously (and that's one of those sentences that could come across questionably ...)!

It's okay... I'm really out of the loop because I thought TD 21 was in your clique. :lol

[Blackjack]

It's okay... I'm really out of the loop because I thought TD 21 was in your clique. :lol

My clique is ever-evolving, extremely convoluted and possibly non-existent. But the awards keep 'em around. :lol

[Chieflion]

It's okay... I'm really out of the loop because I thought TD 21 was in your clique. :lol

Hey, Kori, just wanted to ask, has stretch been unbanned from the Spurs forum yet? He wants to take part in the game, but can't do it cause he said he was still banned.

[Man In Black]

I can see Hill going away, hell even my boy Sean wasn't a Spur his entire career.
DeColo, provided his skill level picks up, makes Hill...slightly expendable.

When it gets down to it, this is about giving Tim a championship level send off. So if George has to go for that to happen, then it happens. If that's what the Spurs think.

And now for your musical enjoyment:
pc7SFSnnwIo

[ynh]

They should just draft some more white players. Hayward has Pacers written all over him.

Trust me.. Hayward is there he will be their pick.. there is no doubt in my mind. Bird has this fasination with finding the next great white hype.

[Chieflion]

Trust me.. Hayward is there he will be their pick.. there is no doubt in my mind. Bird has this fasination with finding the next great white hype.

Larry Bird told Magic Johnson there will be another Larry Bird. He is grasping to that tiny little hope that there will be. So he keeps searching.

[024]

i don't know how rush got thrown in to the conversation. obviously, hill + pick 20 for rush and pick 10 is a no brainer. the pacers will likely spurn the offer. sure the spurs can throw in de colo but de colo isn't anything special and still in europe.

the deal with the nuggets sounds much more plausible. if his information is correct, then a straight up #10 for lawson seems like a fair deal. i don't know why the nuggets want to trade their backup/future starting pg though. maybe they are not confident in lawson but billups is getting up there in age.

i too would like to see a return of rush and the 10th pick for hill, de colo, and the 20th. it would leave the spurs without a backup pg but hill isn't really a pg anyways. hill returning to indiana as a hero would be a pretty nice story. maybe that will convince the pacers to make the trade

[ynh]

Really? That's the trade I think is farthest from happening. Larry Bird giving Denver the 10th pick in this years draft for Lawson is Bird saying "Wow I really messed up by not taking Lawson last year when I could of." REALLY don't see that trade happening for that simple reason.

[024]

i've read rumors about the pacers contacting the nuggets and pacers, not the spurs. there has been no talk, other than the reporter's thoughts that the pacers should be interested in hill, let alone enough interest to deal rush and the 10th pick. also, the nuggets seem to be actively shopping lawson for a high draft pick. the number 10 for lawson wouldn't be that high of a price.

[ynh]

It would be a GM on the hot seat giving away a lotto pick for someone that he should of drafted and admitting that he shouldn't of drafted Tyler.. Totally not happening.

[024]

meh, it's not like he's swapping tyler plus the 10th pick for lawson. using the 10th to draft another big after hibbert and tyler would be the more awful option.

[ynh]

Not really.. Hibbert is a foul a min and Tyler.. well hell who knows what is going to be left of his career with his inner ear problem. But I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I will say that would be damn disapointing to have the season they had and get Ty Lawson out of it.

[benefactor]

It's okay... I'm really out of the loop because I thought TD 21 was in your clique. :lol
TD21 had actually toned down quite a bit...then in one fail swoop he went right back to being "Mr. Anti-Establishment." I think he's a little bit like Parker2112 in that he needs the occasional extra attention to feel validated.

Personality disorders are one of the most common mental illnesses.

[E-RockWill]

Can I be in your clique.........

[lotr1trekkie]

When has a draft pick, besides the #1, ever impacted the Spurs. We get a guy named George, and Rush. A no impact rookie and and RJ clone.

[lebomb]

When has a draft pick, besides the #1, ever impacted the Spurs. We get a guy named George, and Rush. A no impact rookie and and RJ clone.

Tony Parker, Sean Elliott and Manu didnt impact the Spurs? What about Larry Kenon?

[Agloco]

give us granger.

Except for the salary considerations.....

This.

[Agloco]

When has a draft pick, besides the #1, ever impacted the Spurs. We get a guy named George, and Rush. A no impact rookie and and RJ clone.

Heh, I wanna believe that you're being sarcastic, but you didn't post it in blue.....

:lol

[Chieflion]

Heh, I wanna believe that you're being sarcastic, but you didn't post it in blue.....

:lol

Phila, where the hell are you? I want to call you out for starting this blue thing.

[SenorSpur]

:lol

But the Spurs are going to have to swap picks and/or involve De Colo to get the Pacers to bite, IMO.

I really don't think the Spurs should swap picks. Can anyone ever remember a time where the Spurs had two 1st round picks? I surely cannot.

IMO, the Spurs NEED both those first round picks to help immediately transform this roster. If they have to give up De Colo to sweeten the deal, and if Bird is indeed especially high on him, so be it. However, the Spurs should do everything in their power to get that #10 pick, without having to sacrifice their own.

[jcrod]

Why in the hell do people keep posting that they would want Granger in return. Tell me why would the Pacers give up the 10th and Granger for Hill and RJ???? Granger is their best player.

I get real sick and tired of people not thinking rationally and posting stupid shit, do you people really think that would be possible?

[manufan10]

I would do the deal in a heartbeat. I was sold on Garrett Temple's abilities when he started during the season. It's not like they would be asking him to fill Tony Parker's shoes. He would just be the backup PG to fill in when Tony needs a break.

I also agree with SenorSpur that the Spurs should do everything in their power not to get rid of the #20 pick. If the Spurs are going to be in contention in the years after Duncan decides to hang them up, then they need to start now. 2 draft picks this year can help in that area.

How come I'm not in anyone's clique. :depressed


:lol

[Blackjack]

i don't know how rush got thrown in to the conversation.

The OP is where this all started. It's the opinion and wish of Bob Kravitz, not some substantiated or reported rumor from a supposed inside source. It's just us specualtin' on speculatin':


Option Two: Get me George Hill of the San Antonio Spurs. That's right, Broad Ripple's and IUPUI's George Hill. Spurs general manager R.C. Buford has stated publicly he's not moving Tony Parker, and Hill has progressed to the point where he needs a lot more minutes. For the right price -- the Pacers' No. 10 pick and another piece -- it's a deal that has a chance of happening.

The Hill possibility is a delicious one, bringing the local kid home. The question is what the Spurs might want in return. Clearly, they need some youth to buttress an aging lineup, and that might mean packaging the No. 10 pick and Brandon Rush. I'd do it in a heartbeat; my opinion of Rush is not as high as the Pacers' view of him.


I really don't think the Spurs should swap picks. Can anyone ever remember a time where the Spurs had two 1st round picks? I surely cannot.

IMO, the Spurs NEED both those first round picks to help immediately transform this roster. If they have to give up De Colo to sweeten the deal, and if Bird is indeed especially high on him, so be it. However, the Spurs should do everything in their power to get that #10 pick, without having to sacrifice their own.


I also agree with SenorSpur that the Spurs should do everything in their power not to get rid of the #20 pick. If the Spurs are going to be in contention in the years after Duncan decides to hang them up, then they need to start now. 2 draft picks this year can help in that area.

Of course you'd prefer and hope to keep both your first-rounders but you've got to look at this from their side and what the Spurs would be getting.

If the Spurs were actually offered this opportunity and were to use that 10 pick on Paul George, meaning they believe he's worthy of the pick and capable of harnessing all that size and talent, then you're giving up the 20 for Brandon Rush -- a player 2-years removed from being the 13th pick and other than a few pipe dreams and a guy like Martell Webster, maybe the best possible "centerpiece" player the Spurs could acquire. This would give the Spurs plenty of youth, size, ability and talent on the perimeter for both their win-now needs and life after Duncan.

So if it comes down to a swap of first-rounders and Hill to get Rush and George (again, assuming the Spurs believe George to be worthy), it's really a deal I think you've got to do.

Now, if they can save the pick by giving them Nando instead? You obviously do it. But let's not forget that we're talking about the Spurs acquiring two lottery picks for two late first-rounders or a late first and a second-rounder when you boil it all down (even if Hill's the best player involved, In my view).


Can I be in your clique.........



How come I'm not in anyone's clique. :depressed



The Omnipotent, Blackjack, is not amused.

[E-RockWill]

The Omnipotent, Blackjack, is not amused.


When are you gonna answer my question?


:blah @ "...speculatin' on speculatin'.... "

[Blackjack]

Ya know, the re-implementation of the blue should probably be helpful. Why we abandoned it in the first place? Complacency. We assumed that every one had caught on and forgot there are new members joining every day.

Incompetence really. BP ain't got nothing on us sarcastic, negligent assholes . . .

[TD 21]

TD21 had actually toned down quite a bit...then in one fail swoop he went right back to being "Mr. Anti-Establishment." I think he's a little bit like Parker2112 in that he needs the occasional extra attention to feel validated.

Personality disorders are one of the most common mental illnesses.

I'm guessing not, but I'll ask anyway: Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

[ajh18]

When is the last time any team won a title with two rookies playing significant minutes? How about two rookies, a "rookie" from Europe, and a second year player?

And many of you also want Temple and Hairston getting increased playing time? So now we're talking about a team with 6 players of two years experience or less expected to play fairly significant roles... and you expect to really compete?

There is a REASON teams that win titles tend to be older. Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Heat... all mid-aged or old teams, with heavy reliance on veterans.

[Blackjack]

So you're saying potentially starting two 25-year-old players with a high-level of experience (Splitter and Rush) equates to having legitimate rookies?

[ajh18]

Well, we'd have Splitter (who would be an "experienced" rookie in his first year with the Spurs), as well as pick #10 (rookie, year 1 with the Spurs), pick #20 (rookie, if we could keep it, year 1 with the Spurs), Blair (year 2), Hairston (year 2), Temple (year 2), and Rush (year 3, year 1 with Spurs).

That's as many as 7 rotation players of whom the most experienced (in the NBA) is in just his third year, and who have no more than 2 years in the Spurs system tops (which everyone knows is complicated and takes time to adjust to).

Or, to put it another way: 7 players with a combined seven years NBA experience and just 171 total GAMES in the Spurs system.

I have little faith in our ability to compete with veteran playoff teams and establish the right chemistry with that kind of lineup. With Tim and Manu's time remaining at an elite level, I don't value the second draft pick nearly as much as some on here. We ARE getting younger... I think this kind of trade might be a good one if our window wasnt so limited, but given the time we have left, I want people with "corporate knowledge" and not ones who pull an RJ (or any other of the myriad of players who come in and initially struggle with our schemes).

[Ditty]

i think if the spurs somehow trade hill for the 10th pick i would think the spurs would try trading the 10th and 20th pick for the 3rd pick

[E-RockWill]

Day 2 of the "Butthurt Saga"

The legend continues.................

[TDMVPDPOY]

if you going to want a big, u look for one thats already got nba experience, not one in the draft unless they are onces in a decade type of player

[benefactor]

I'm guessing not, but I'll ask anyway: Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?
Is this in reference to what I said about you in this thread? What you did and what I did are nothing alike.

In your own words "this is a message board." Part of being on a message board is getting flamed when you do something stupid. It has nothing to do with attention seeking on my part. It's an unspoken code that pretty much everyone that posts on this board follows at some point or another. You decided to take an innocent comment made about you and get all butthurt so you could continue to portray yourself as some sort of fake message board renegade.

Hell, your attention seeking even went as far as you sending me a PM trying to continue to get a rise out of me after I got bored and moved on. I'm sorry that I left you with your boner in your hand by not responding to you.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q45/gospelrapper/TD21message.jpg

You should buy a dog or something.

[TimmehC]

Chrome :tu

[TD 21]

Is this in reference to what I said about you in this thread? What you did and what I did are nothing alike.

In your own words "this is a message board." Part of being on a message board is getting flamed when you do something stupid. It has nothing to do with attention seeking on my part. It's an unspoken code that pretty much everyone that posts on this board follows at some point or another. You decided to take an innocent comment made about you and get all butthurt so you could continue to portray yourself as some sort of fake message board renegade.

Hell, your attention seeking even went as far as you sending me a PM trying to continue to get a rise out of me after I got bored and moved on. I'm sorry that I left you with your boner in your hand by not responding to you.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q45/gospelrapper/TD21message.jpg

You should buy a dog or something.

You just proved my point.

You talk about me needing to lighten up, then you take that PM, which was obviously a joke (I thought you'd send one back in a similar manner and we'd be done with this back and forth) and take it seriously.

I actually thought about not sending that for a minute. Then I thought, "nah, there's no way he can take this as anything other than a joke". I stand corrected.

[Blackjack]

Well, we'd have Splitter (who would be an "experienced" rookie in his first year with the Spurs), as well as pick #10 (rookie, year 1 with the Spurs), pick #20 (rookie, if we could keep it, year 1 with the Spurs), Blair (year 2), Hairston (year 2), Temple (year 2), and Rush (year 3, year 1 with Spurs).

That's as many as 7 rotation players of whom the most experienced (in the NBA) is in just his third year, and who have no more than 2 years in the Spurs system tops (which everyone knows is complicated and takes time to adjust to).

Or, to put it another way: 7 players with a combined seven years NBA experience and just 171 total GAMES in the Spurs system.

I have little faith in our ability to compete with veteran playoff teams and establish the right chemistry with that kind of lineup. With Tim and Manu's time remaining at an elite level, I don't value the second draft pick nearly as much as some on here. We ARE getting younger... I think this kind of trade might be a good one if our window wasnt so limited, but given the time we have left, I want people with "corporate knowledge" and not ones who pull an RJ (or any other of the myriad of players who come in and initially struggle with our schemes).

But you're simply not addressing one huge issue: what's the alternative?

The Spurs' veteran presence is now in its core, the Big 3. And though your premise isn't off base (i.e. corporate knowledge and veteran knowhow), I just can't come to the same conclusion: the Spurs are lacking in the requisite talent at key positions to just add a couple of vets and be done with it, IMO.

The Spurs shouldn't look to get rid of Hill. He's got a bright future and he's really a hell of a player, one that's become undervalued and nitpicked to death because of a perceived overvaluing. But the fact remains that his talent lies in an area of strength for the Spurs and he's not going to make his best contributions in this league solely at the 2; he's actually gonna end up playing the point position when it's all said and done (even if people dismiss him playing the position because he's not the prototypical or quintessential point guard -- as if those are what we see winning titles).

So if the Spurs could get a guy like Rush to play the now infamous "centerpiece" role and a player at 10 that should be able to contribute off the bench in his first year and potentially grow into a star at the 2/3 in the future, it's hard to see much downside in it. They'd now have the requisite talent and size across the board to get the job done and, really, that's all you can really hope for. I'd much rather have the arsenal to get it done anchored by warhorses like Tim, Manu and Parker, than a team consisting of little-to-no margin of error that's in need of extenuating circumstances or outside factors to get the job done.

If the Spurs were able to roll out: Duncan, Splitter, Rush, Ginobili, Parker in their starting lineup and have a bench that consisted of RJ, 'Dyess, Blair, the #10 pick (George for arguments sake) and whomever makes it from THG (Temple, Hairston and Gee), Mahinmi and a possible vet minimum or two?

I think I could roll with that. I'd take my chances with the youth; and it's not like the team you start the season with is necessarily the team you finish with.

[Gagnrath]

Hill is a player with brains and heart but a limited ammount of athletic talent. He's got a pretty good skill set and is learning to compensate some for being shorter and slightly slower than average for an nba 2 guard. Is he going to be a decent starter yes, is he anything more than a starting caliber role-player? I don't really think so. Like the guys heart alot, but he's definitely got an nba ceiling that we are getting close to in my opinion.

[benefactor]

You just proved my point.

You talk about me needing to lighten up, then you take that PM, which was obviously a joke (I thought you'd send one back in a similar manner and we'd be done with this back and forth) and take it seriously.

I actually thought about not sending that for a minute. Then I thought, "nah, there's no way he can take this as anything other than a joke". I stand corrected.
So now you are trying to joke around with others after pages of butthurt, emofag posts because someone joked around with you? You should probably stay away from the internets on days that you skip your bipolar meds.

[ajh18]

But you're simply not addressing one huge issue: what's the alternative?

The Spurs' veteran presence is now in its core, the Big 3. And though your premise isn't off base (i.e. corporate knowledge and veteran knowhow), I just can't come to the same conclusion: the Spurs are lacking in the requisite talent at key positions to just add a couple of vets and be done with it, IMO.

The Spurs shouldn't look to get rid of Hill. He's got a bright future and he's really a hell of a player, one that's become undervalued and nitpicked to death because of a perceived overvaluing. But the fact remains that his talent lies in an area of strength for the Spurs and he's not going to make his best contributions in this league solely at the 2; he's actually gonna end up playing the point position when it's all said and done (even if people dismiss him playing the position because he's not the prototypical or quintessential point guard -- as if those are what we see winning titles).

So if the Spurs could get a guy like Rush to play the now infamous "centerpiece" role and a player at 10 that should be able to contribute off the bench in his first year and potentially grow into a star at the 2/3 in the future, it's hard to see much downside in it. They'd now have the requisite talent and size across the board to get the job done and, really, that's all you can really hope for. I'd much rather have the arsenal to get it done anchored by warhorses like Tim, Manu and Parker, than a team consisting of little-to-no margin of error that's in need of extenuating circumstances or outside factors to get the job done.

If the Spurs were able to roll out: Duncan, Splitter, Rush, Ginobili, Parker in their starting lineup and have a bench that consisted of RJ, 'Dyess, Blair, the #10 pick (George for arguments sake) and whomever makes it from THG (Temple, Hairston and Gee), Mahinmi and a possible vet minimum or two?

I think I could roll with that. I'd take my chances with the youth; and it's not like the team you start the season with is necessarily the team you finish with.


Looking at your proposed lineup, I guess the question really comes down to whether over the next two years, which combination of Hill and pick 20 or Rush and pick 10 has the greater net positive impact on the Spurs. My argument is that in the short-term (Tim and Manu's window), particularly given the amount of time it takes to learn the Spurs' system and the fact that we'll likely not use a full 10-man rotation come playoff time, the former is the better option.

Come playoff time, I want to see a 3-man backcourt of Manu, Parker, and Hill. I want to see Duncan, Splitter, Blair, and 'Dyess taking up the available minutes at the 4 and 5 spots. I think those 7, plus RJ, take up most of the post-season minutes. I'd draft the best SF available and let them compete with Hairson for the backup small forward spot. Then have the loser of that pair, as well as Temple and a vet or two, eat minutes during the year to rest the top 8. Under that scenario we'd be integrating just one new player into the system (in Splitter) who'd be getting significant minutes, two at most if our draft pick could beat out Hairston for the backup forward slot.

[ducks]

Pacers may take Orton at No. 10

By Mark J. Miller

Daniel OrtonIf the Indiana Pacers don't trade its No. 10 pick in next week's NBA draft, they might take Kentucky center Daniel Orton with the selection, the Indianapolis Star reports.

The 19-year-old who declared himself ready for the NBA after his freshman year worked out for the team on June 1. The team is setting up a second workout, according to the paper.

The 6-10, 260-pound Oklahoma native averaged 3.4 points, 3.3 rebounds and 1.4 blocks for Kentucky.

[ducks]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Pacers-may-take-Orton-at-No-10;_ylt=AvTHL9mz0CeehqtUb7ngxEeLvLYF?urn=nba,24947 5

[Blackjack]

Seems a pretty big reach, quite literally, but that would make sense why he canceled all of his workouts.

He just seem too black, though.

[MateoNeygro]

I'd do it for Granger although he has injury issues.

[lurker23]

For the record, the blue text for sarcasm has been around quite a while. I've used it several times the past couple years, but I certainly didn't invent it. Via Google, the oldest reference I could find to it was in July 2006:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46239&page=3


Then, I offer my sincere apologies - as we all know, it is hard to pick up on sarcasm sometimes!

:)


That's why the blue text can be your friend.


Blue text denotes sarcasm? Didn't know that but sarcasm loses some of it's luster if you have to broadcast it as such.

I've read lots of sarcasm here but haven't seen it blued.


It's actually an older reference arising, I think, out of a discussion in the Spurs forum. I agree with you that sarcasm is less effective if it has to be illustrated to be sarcasm.

In a written medium like this one, though, resorting to sarcasm always brings with it a terrific risk that your point will be lost in sarchasm.

[Blackjack]

For the record, the blue text for sarcasm has been around quite a while. I've used it several times the past couple years, but I certainly didn't invent it. Via Google, the oldest reference I could find to it was in July 2006:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46239&page=3

Yeah, I'm aware of it. I made mention of it a few times, even in the last page:


Ya know, the re-implementation of the blue should probably be helpful. Why we abandoned it in the first place? Complacency. We assumed that every one had caught on and forgot there are new members joining every day.

I take great shame in our collective incompetence.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Pacers-may-take-Orton-at-No-10;_ylt=AvTHL9mz0CeehqtUb7ngxEeLvLYF?urn=nba,24947 5

How is a big that averaged 3.4 and 3.3 going in the lottery?

[Muser]

How is a big that averaged 3.4 and 3.3 going in the lottery?

If Kwame Brown can go 1st anything can happen.

[dbestpro]

How is a big that averaged 3.4 and 3.3 going in the lottery?

There was a former Spur who was a first round draft pick of Milwaukee (number 16) who never started a college game for the 4 years he was in college. He almost averaged a double double for his NBA career and was an allstar twice. He name is Swen Nater.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

There was a former Spur who was a first round draft pick of Milwaukee (number 16) who never started a college game for the 4 years he was in college. He almost averaged a double double for his NBA career and was an allstar twice. He name is Swen Nater.

Did he put up 3 & 3?

[Blackjack]

Did he put up 3 & 3?

Not sure.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d3/20070809201358!Chuck_Woolery_2004.jpg

But he'll give you 2 and 2.

[E-RockWill]

Wow, this thread is simply amazing.

It will not die......

[Blackjack]

Of all my started threads ...

I consider this my masterpiece.

[DynastyBuilder]

Fify :)


Of all my started threads ...

I consider this my centerpiece.

[Seventyniner]

Fify :)


Of all my started threads ...

I consider this my centerpiece.

Yeah, and when the centerpiece sees more than 4 minutes of playing time, we're screwed.....wait, what thread is this again?

[Blackjack]

Yes, this is the thread which all my other threads are dependent on. I agree; this thread gave ST the ability to reach it's best potential on my behalf.

[Mel_13]

You just keep raising the bar, Bluejack, just keep raising that bar.

[Blackjack]

That's what Black/Bluejack does. He raises the bar.

His Omnipotence's blueman groupies are well aware.

[DPG21920]

I just don't see them as a trade partner if the Spurs want to move up. I can't really see the Spurs moving up in this draft.

[lurker23]

I just don't see them as a trade partner if the Spurs want to move up. I can't really see the Spurs moving up in this draft.

I believe the reports that the Spurs like the idea of moving up. However, a couple questions remain:

a.) What pieces exactly will the Spurs be using to move up?
b.) Is the scouting in this draft good enough that what you find at #10-15 is really all that better than a guy that drops to #20?

[Blackjack]

I actually don't see a lot of separation in the 10-20 range, so it'd be more about need and position than talent. And that would make sense given the immediacy of the times for the Spurs to get it done and the draft being one of their few tools to acquire a piece or two to get it done.

There has to be a player they've really targeted as being a real help for their particular needs if they're as adamant about moving up into that 10-20 range as we've been made to believe, IMO. The talent discrepancy just isn't all that great -- I've got to believe it's someone like Henry, Babbit or George.

[DirkISaCocLuvinPuSSy]

Hey I would mos def trade G Hill for the Pacers 10th pick and Brandon Rush, and with the 10th pick get Hassan Whiteside to play along Timmy.

Timmy
Whiteside
Rush
Manu
Parker

would be nice to me

[MaNu4Tres]

Babbitt!!!

[jimo2305]

i swear theres ppl that dont wanna change a thing on the team lol.. listen i love george hill... but even i would pull the trigger on this one..

[DPG21920]

I believe the reports that the Spurs like the idea of moving up. However, a couple questions remain:

a.) What pieces exactly will the Spurs be using to move up?
b.) Is the scouting in this draft good enough that what you find at #10-15 is really all that better than a guy that drops to #20?

I just don't believe the reports, because of option A. I don't see what the Spurs would be willing to part with in order to move up when there is probably (as things stand today without the benefit of the hindsight that will follow the draft) very little difference in picks 10-20.

I don't believe the Spurs part with Hill/Blair in order to move up and what else would a team want? Spurs aren't moving TP unless it is a no brainer and we have heard nothing on a major scale involving a blockbuster.

All the reports say the Spurs are interested in moving up, but none of them say to what degree and what is being offered.

[TD 21]

So now you are trying to joke around with others after pages of butthurt, emofag posts because someone joked around with you? You should probably stay away from the internets on days that you skip your bipolar meds.

So let me get this straight: when I don't joke around, I'm in the wrong and when I do joke around, I'm in the wrong?

I was playing along with this notion you have that I have this "me against the world" mentality. Thought it might lighten the mood, since you were inexplicably enraged by me, even though you had nothing to do with Blackjack's and my discussion. You know you have a serious problem when you hold a grudge going back, what, three quarters of a year or so over one or two disagreements/debates on a message board.

[TimDunkem]

Wow, holy fuck. We get it. Just drop it already..:lol

[TD 21]

This was my first chance to respond, genius. It's not like I was on for a few days and intentionally didn't respond and just decided out of the blue to do it now and even if that were the case, why would you care? If you don't like it, don't read it.

[TimDunkem]

Leave it to you to continue to derail threads. How about you stop posting altogether so nobody has to read your posts at all?

[TD 21]

Continue to? Like I said genius, this was my first chance to respond. That's the thing though, nobody has to read anyone's posts. If you don't like mine, don't read them.

[TimDunkem]

Then why respond in the first place? The thread almost reached two pages without your nonsense yet you continue to argue with Benefactor.


Just shut the fuck up already. It's that simple.

[TD 21]

Why would I not respond? Take off your rose colored glasses and realize that he inexplicably started arguing with me. If the shoe were on the other foot (if he wasn't on for a couple of days and didn't have a chance to respond), would you be telling him this? I doubt it, since you're an obvious brown-noser desperately seeking his approval.

Don't read it if you don't like it, retard. You're as big a joke as him, commenting on something not directed at you and attempting to start something out of it.

Let me clear something up about my back and forth with Blackjack. I wasn't "butthurt" or whatever you want to call it (funny, you're making me out to be childish, then using words like "butthurt" and "emofag") about the remarks and I understood how most would perceive them, what I was annoyed with was what I perceived to be him disguising his true feelings of my posts through humor. I could care less if someone doesn't like my posts on a message board, I just prefer they be up front and not beat around the bush. We cleared it up that same day, yet inexplicably people not involved in the disagreement/argument still can't get over it.

[rayray2k8]

...
So, who the spurs trading for?

[TimDunkem]

Why would I not respond? Take off your rose colored glasses and realize that he inexplicably started arguing with me. If the shoe were on the other foot (if he wasn't on for a couple of days and didn't have a chance to respond), would you be telling him this? I doubt it, since you're an obvious brown-noser desperately seeking his approval.
Your full of shit. Just like you, I haven't posted in this thread in awhile, but if he were to continue to take shots at you after the thread got back on-topic then I would've said the same thing.


Don't read it if you don't like it, retard. You're as big a joke as him, commenting on something not directed at you and attempting to start something out of it.

Oh yes, I'm the retard who is trying to start something by telling you to quit going off-topic, and drop it.

What's the point anyway? You seem to have this fixation with being a "disagreeable, argumentative, long-winded" jackass.

[UnWantedTheory]

You just proved my point.

You talk about me needing to lighten up, then you take that PM, which was obviously a joke (I thought you'd send one back in a similar manner and we'd be done with this back and forth) and take it seriously.

I actually thought about not sending that for a minute. Then I thought, "nah, there's no way he can take this as anything other than a joke". I stand corrected.

Talk about hypocrasy. I am not apart of any clique(hell I dont really know anyone), but you are one weird and twisted person. If you are not an attention whore, than you are certainly the most sensitive and defensive nut I have ever come across. Too many swirlies in high school perhaps? You completely blew it all up bro, and definately for no reason. Seek help...and quickly. SpursTalk will not be the same without a sane version of yourself. :flag:

[UnWantedTheory]

Why would I not respond? Take off your rose colored glasses and realize that he inexplicably started arguing with me. If the shoe were on the other foot (if he wasn't on for a couple of days and didn't have a chance to respond), would you be telling him this? I doubt it, since you're an obvious brown-noser desperately seeking his approval.

Don't read it if you don't like it, retard. You're as big a joke as him, commenting on something not directed at you and attempting to start something out of it.

Let me clear something up about my back and forth with Blackjack. I wasn't "butthurt" or whatever you want to call it (funny, you're making me out to be childish, then using words like "butthurt" and "emofag") about the remarks and I understood how most would perceive them, what I was annoyed with was what I perceived to be him disguising his true feelings of my posts through humor. I could care less if someone doesn't like my posts on a message board, I just prefer they be up front and not beat around the bush. We cleared it up that same day, yet inexplicably people not involved in the disagreement/argument still can't get over it.

You mean the bullshit argument you created in the first place? Well excuse the hell out of us for finding it difficult not to get involved with your blatant "poor me" act that is paraded right in front of us. Quit jacking the thread and move along doggy.

[E-RockWill]

TD 21 vs. Spurstalk.......a classic in the making......a battle of the ages.....messageboard mania......:lmao

:toast Cheers, mates!

My 2 cents: Wouldn't trade Hill & the 20th for the 10th & Rush. Hill straight up for the 10th &/or Rush, you betcha.....