Using Blair as a trade chip

[twilo73]

First let me say that I really like Blair, and would like to keep him, but I was wondering given that we have Dyess, Duncan, Booner, and Splitter for the 4/5 spots if it would make sense to use him as a trade chip to get a top of the line SF.

Thoughts?

[TDMVPDPOY]

what

[Drachen]

Because of the value of his contract, we would only be able to get a LLE or lower paid player.

When proposing these trades please remember the contracts have to match.

[Muser]

No.

[Fabbs]

First let me say that I really like Blair, and would like to keep him, but I was wondering given that we have Dyess, Duncan, Booner, and Splitter for the 4/5 spots if it would make sense to use him as a trade chip to get a top of the line SF.

Thoughts?
Why not Bonner instead of Blair?

Surely teams will give up a "top of the line SF" for BonBon.

[Phenomanul]

How about no...


hmmm... if only Blair could be trained by Barkley to play the SF position...

[Xevious]

what

[Whisky Dog]

Top line SF on rookie scale contracts aren't on the block

[Mark in Austin]

hmmm... if only Blair could be trained by Barkley to play the SF position...

??? Barkley was never a SF.

[lefty]

WTF?


Go to Cleveland, where you belong

[dbestpro]

The biggest contract not named Duncan is the best trade chip. That would be Dice. The best option remains to resign RJ and sign a FA SF.

[Obstructed_View]

Booner has more trade value. I say we trade Booner!

[spursfaninla]

The biggest contract not named Duncan is the best trade chip. That would be Dice. The best option remains to resign RJ and sign a FA SF.

Pretty sure TP and Manu have bigger contracts than Dice.

[SenorSpur]

You know we're having a boring summer when folks begin proposing the Spurs trade away a young, second-year player, who was an NBA All-Rookie team selection, and who the Spurs were fortunate enough to have fall to them in the previous year's draft.

The guy even posted 2 20-20 games during his rookie season - and hasn't scratched the surface as far as how good he can be. SFs can be found more easily than a young, rebounding machine like Blair.

Hell-to-the-NO.

[dbestpro]

Pretty sure TP and Manu have bigger contracts than Dice.

The op was referring to big men. Pretty sure Manu and TP don't play PF or C, but you never know with Pop.

[slick'81]

agree no thanks ill keep the beast

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/San+Antonio+Spurs+v+Chicago+Bulls+RL2-eYvp3Rbl.jpg

[elbamba]

If he can form an average jump shot Blair will be a great back up for the Spurs. It would make no sense to get rid of him. Rose survived as an undersized big man and Blair has 10 times the potential.

[TheSpurglar]

Bonner isn't a traditional big, so I also say hell-to-the-naw. Blair should be playing exclusively at the 4, and Bonner is a stretch 4 and can play the 3 in certain instances as well. Duncan is too old (can't play enough minutes now) to have a player as limited as Bonner as his only reserve.

[TDMVPDPOY]

dejuan blair is a fkn steal, u dont trade him

his salary is even less then most of the guys on the team, u wont get equal value for him and what he brings...even though his undersized, he players like his ben hurr

[MannyIsGod]

Blair's role in trades only works as a sweetener due to his really small contract. You're not going to get any quality back unless they're on a similar rookie contract. At this point if any Spurs big man gets traded I think it is likely Antonio McDyess due to his larger contract.

[ducks]

you would maybe package him with rj to get a better replacement for rj

[Trill Clinton]

Blair, Duncan and Splitter are the only bigs I would NOT trade.

[UnWantedTheory]

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/pineapple-express.jpg

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Attached to a higher paid player in a multi-player trade he'd add a lot of value. It would have to be an awesome trade for SA...Blair is a great reserve for this team.

[J_Paco]

No thanks. He holds too much value on this current team. If we had another young, talented big on the roster I be more inclined with his possible departure. Even with his main weakness not being amendable (lack of height), he still holds more value than Bonner.

Or would you actually be okay with Matt starting again?

[Gooshie]

What if the Blazers (hypothetically) offered Batum for Blair straight up???

If our goal is to win another title while Timmy is still here (as it should be), these are the types of deals we just may have to consider. We have 5 bigs who all need playing time, and we haven't had a player like Batum at the SF position since god knows when.

[sananspursfan21]

Because of the value of his contract, we would only be able to get a LLE or lower paid player.

When proposing these trades please remember the contracts have to match.

i'm sure the other team would do it :downspin:

[J_Paco]

What if the Blazers (hypothetically) offered Batum for Blair straight up???

If our goal is to win another title while Timmy is still here (as it should be), these are the types of deals we just may have to consider. We have 5 bigs who all need playing time, and we haven't had a player like Batum at the SF position since god knows when.

That's the thing, Bonner neither deserve nor merits being a consistent rotation player. If the Spurs are stupid enough to play Bonner meaningful minutes then that makes either McDyess or Blair expendable.

[coyotes_geek]

What if the Blazers (hypothetically) offered Batum for Blair straight up???

Deal.

[Gooshie]

That's the thing, Bonner neither deserve nor merits being a consistent rotation player. If the Spurs are stupid enough to play Bonner meaningful minutes then that makes either McDyess or Blair expendable.

True. However, against the Lakers, I doubt Blair gets much PT. Even last year, with no Splitter on the roster, Blair didn't play much against LA. Now, I would assume he would play even less. It's just a bad match-up for him.

On the other hand, if we were to get a SF in a trade for him like Batum, this SF would be probably be playing 40 minutes a night against LA, guarding the likes of Kobe, Odom, and/or Artest.

If, before the season or during, a legit, defensive minded, long, athletic SF becomes available, the Spurs at least have to consider dealing Blair to get him.

[angelbelow]

wah

[J_Paco]

True. However, against the Lakers, I doubt Blair gets much PT. Even last year, with no Splitter on the roster, Blair didn't play much against LA. Now, I would assume he would play even less. It's just a bad match-up for him.

On the other hand, if we were to get a SF in a trade for him like Batum, this SF would be probably be playing 40 minutes a night against LA, guarding the likes of Kobe, Odom, and/or Artest.

If, before the season or during, a legit, defensive minded, long, athletic SF becomes available, the Spurs at least have to consider dealing Blair to get him.

If he improves his game enough that he can somewhat defend Odom, well then I see him earning minutes against the Lakers. Or if Phil Jackson goes small with Artest at the 4, then Blair could conceivably defend him.

[Warlord23]

Blair needs to stay, as does Dice. We need 4 legit bigs to ensure that Bonner keeps the bench warm in the postseason.

[UnWantedTheory]

Eh....

[UnWantedTheory]

Legit is probably the wrong word to use....^^^

[Warlord23]

Legit is probably the wrong word to use....^^^

??

[BlairForceDejuan]

First let me say that I really like Blair, and would like to keep him, but I was wondering given that we have Dyess, Duncan, Booner, and Splitter for the 4/5 spots if it would make sense to use him as a trade chip to get a top of the line SF.

Thoughts?


Blasphemy!

[smrattler]

We... Need... Blair!!!

[ChuckD]

Legit is probably the wrong word to use....^^^

How is a rookie big who dropped 20/20s on two WC playoff teams not a "legit" big?

[doobs]

Blair is a good value at his contract price. He could be a delicious sweetener in a larger trade.

[UnWantedTheory]

How is a rookie big who dropped 20/20s on two WC playoff teams not a "legit" big?

I was not doubting his talent as a player, but as a "legit" big man. I was referring to his size. Also, it wasnt just in reference to him...we really dont have a true big outside of Duncan and Splitter. Blair is undersized, Dice is undersized and old, and than there is Bonner....who is who he is.
I love Blair, and his 2 20/20 games, but it doesnt change how short he is. We can not rely on him to defend true bigs just yet, if ever. Also, to the poster that said keeping Blair and Dice would keep Bonner on the bench in the PO's...you were kidding right? We would not have signed him to a deal like that to be a bench warmer. Pop is in love with him too much...which sucks...but he can still be a valuable bench player when his minutes are limited. Truth be told, Blair, Bonner, & Dice all have noticable limitations when compared to "legit" or "true" bigs.

[lotr1trekkie]

Y wood Port. agree to it??

[TD 21]

It makes no sense. As someone already mentioned, because of his contract, it would be difficult to get anything close to equal value in return.

The Spurs have five rotation bigs, but it will only be for one season, because McDyess is more than likely retiring after next season. In the meantime, having five rotation bigs is good for depth purposes, particularly when you consider the age/mileage of Duncan and McDyess and the limitations of Bonner and Blair.

My only issue with having all five is Pop playing mad scientist with the rotation, playing Bonner more than he should, subsequently playing probably Splitter and Blair less than he should, not allowing players to get into or stay in a rhythm, potentially alienating one or two of them, etc.

[024]

if blair + filler can net a solid defensive wing that can make 3's, i would go for it. no question. blair is a nice backup PF but the spurs need a reliable perimeter defender that isn't useless on offense.

[UnWantedTheory]

Y wood Port. agree to it??

[UnWantedTheory]

It makes no sense. As someone already mentioned, because of his contract, it would be difficult to get anything close to equal value in return.

The Spurs have five rotation bigs, but it will only be for one season, because McDyess is more than likely retiring after next season. In the meantime, having five rotation bigs is good for depth purposes, particularly when you consider the age/mileage of Duncan and McDyess and the limitations of Bonner and Blair.

My only issue with having all five is Pop playing mad scientist with the rotation, playing Bonner more than he should, subsequently playing probably Splitter and Blair less than he should, not allowing players to get into or stay in a rhythm, potentially alienating one or two of them, etc.


Hammer. Nail. Head. Good take.

[barbacoataco]

I wouldn't consider trading Blair, but I am worried about him getting minutes with Duncan, Splitter, Bonner and McDyess ahead of him in the rotation.