Exclusive Interview with RC Buford

[spursdotcom]

http://www.nba.com/spurs/features/100920_buford.html

:toast

[DesignatedT]

:toast

[Blackjack]

Good stuff. :tu

[Bruno]

Nice, thanks.


We wanted to add a big next to Tim Duncan, a wing defender and improve our shooting.

Spurs added a quality big with Splitter, they also added some shooting with Neal and Anderson but nothing at all happened on the wing defender front. Spurs have even send Hairston, whose main quality is the defense, overseas.

Have Spurs still a last trick in their sleeve or have they just failed to fix that need?



Matt Bonner is a big part of program and has been for several seasons. He’s proven to be one of our better shooters and to have lost that would have been pretty impactful.

:lmao

[Solid D]

There is a question that no media member has asked of Pop or RC, yet, to my knowledge. That question is: Who are the candidates for the backup small forward position?

[Blackjack]

Nice, thanks.

Spurs added a quality big with Splitter, they also added some shooting with Neal and Anderson but nothing at all happened on the wing defender front. Spurs have even send Hairston, whose main quality is the defense, overseas.

Have Spurs still a last trick in their sleeve or have they just failed to fix that need?

That was maybe the most telling thing I took. And combined with Pop's mentioning of the backup 3 being their real question mark (not exactly sure if it'll be fulfilled internally with an expanded role or from a rookie/FA in training camp), there's definitely work still to be done with the roster in their view.

At this point, it seems pretty likely that the only way they can get what they want and need is through a trade - internal growth and expansion of a role or two looks to be the better option than what's left in the FA market, IMO.

I believe a trade will most likely have to happen in the end, though.

[Blackjack]

There is a question that no media member has asked of Pop or RC, yet, to my knowledge. That question is: Who are the candidates for the backup small forward position?

Pop addressed that in his media session a few days ago, if you missed: Link (http://www.nba.com/spurs/multimedia/100916_pop.html)

[SpursTillTheEnd]

@ blackjack its obvious tony parker will be gone by mid season....

[DesignatedT]

I liked this


RC – As we try to project what the success of our team will be this year, it’s going to be based on how well those three guys that carry us (Tim, Tony & Manu) play. We hope to be able to limit their early season minutes, but at the same time I think we are going to be more aggressive in our approach to early season play. All three came to Coach Pop at the end of last season and said “It’s good for us to be pointing to the playoffs, but we also have to recognize that there are a lot of really good teams right now and we want to attack early next season.”

[Blackjack]

Yeah, that was the other thing, T.

Very telling, and pleasant to hear.

I've often wondered if the approach Pop's come to take over the years hasn't actually conditioned the players negatively. It's pretty rational logic, keeping an older team fresh enough and healthy enough for the long haul of a season, but the importance and urgency of the season to the individual players has to wane at some point. A team can't help but lose its edge.

Plus, as the years have gone by, the Spurs' dominance has waned while the rest of the league has gained in strength. The formula once used to win championships doesn't have the same makeup and effectiveness, or the ingredients are missing altogether - the championship-caliber supporting cast (i.e., Bowen, Horry, Barry, etc.).

@SpursTillTheEnd, if the Spurs are flailing or completely out of the mix of championship contention, it's a very real possibility. But it's not a forgone conclusion. I do happen to believe Tony is very open to the idea of moving on though, considering the Spurs' championship trajectory. ... And I wonder if the Spurs are willing to pay Tony to be a max player on what will most likely become an average NBA team.

At worst, hopefully Tony decides he wants to get paid the max and will leave via sign-and-trade. I'm not sure there's a deal to be made for Tony during the season - he's in the last year of his contract, which means a team looking to acquire him (say, the Knicks) would have to be able to extend him and have the players to make it work for the Spurs.

Not all that likely.

[jason1301]

RC – As we try to project what the success of our team will be this year, it’s going to be based on how well those three guys that carry us (Tim, Tony & Manu) play. We hope to be able to limit their early season minutes, but at the same time I think we are going to be more aggressive in our approach to early season play. All three came to Coach Pop at the end of last season and said “It’s good for us to be pointing to the playoffs, but we also have to recognize that there are a lot of really good teams right now and we want to attack early next season.”

We are going all out this year, I like it!!!

:lobt2:

[TD 21]

Nice, thanks.



Spurs added a quality big with Splitter, they also added some shooting with Neal and Anderson but nothing at all happened on the wing defender front. Spurs have even send Hairston, whose main quality is the defense, overseas.

Have Spurs still a last trick in their sleeve or have they just failed to fix that need?



:lmao

They should have taken a flier on Bobby Jones. Good size for a three, always a good defender and supposedly an improved three-point shooter.

I know they like Temple defensively, but he can only guard the three in selective match-ups and I know they like Gee's potential defensively, but he's yet to establish a reputation as a defender. Even in the event either could fill that role, at least in stretches, it's highly unlikely either will be in the rotation. In fact, one will be inactive regularly.

At this writing, it looks like Jefferson and Hill will be filling this role.


There is a question that no media member has asked of Pop or RC, yet, to my knowledge. That question is: Who are the candidates for the backup small forward position?

The candidates for backup three are obvious: Anderson, Ginobili, Gee. Gee will be hard pressed to be active, let alone in the rotation, so rotation-wise it's Anderson and Ginobili. As of right now, it looks like Anderson will be playing the three almost exclusively.


That was maybe the most telling thing I took. And combined with Pop's mentioning of the backup 3 being their real question mark (not exactly sure if it'll be fulfilled internally with an expanded role or from a rookie/FA in training camp), there's definitely work still to be done with the roster in their view.

At this point, it seems pretty likely that the only way they can get what they want and need is through a trade - internal growth and expansion of a role or two looks to be the better option than what's left in the FA market, IMO.

I believe a trade will most likely have to happen in the end, though.

Unless they can find a low cost three and all it takes to acquire that player is Gee and Jerrells, I can't see them pulling off a trade.

There is no veterans who makes a decent salary that they're looking to trade. No Mohammed, no Elson, no Barry, etc.


I liked this

Good for the big three to take initiative in terms of this teams approach to the regular season, particularly the early part of it. The reality is this teams margin for error is slim as far as contending goes and it was probably going to be none had they continued to treat the regular season as they had in recent seasons.

Home court does matter and if the goal is to win the championship, they're going to have to have it for at least a round, but really, probably two at minimum. The Celtics had it for one last year and almost pulled it off, but they also had a historic run, the likes of which we're unlikely to see two years in a row.

If this team can get off to a good start and maybe get some separation between them and the rest of the pack (excluding the Lakers), then hopefully that will allow them to not have to kill themselves down the stretch just to get in, or to position themselves, like they've had to do the previous two seasons.

[nbaman99]

RC – As we try to project what the success of our team will be this year, it’s going to be based on how well those three guys that carry us (Tim, Tony & Manu) play. We hope to be able to limit their early season minutes, but at the same time I think we are going to be more aggressive in our approach to early season play. All three came to Coach Pop at the end of last season and said “It’s good for us to be pointing to the playoffs, but we also have to recognize that there are a lot of really good teams right now and we want to attack early next season.”

Hell yeah.

[Bruno]

That was maybe the most telling thing I took. And combined with Pop's mentioning of the backup 3 being their real question mark (not exactly sure if it'll be fulfilled internally with an expanded role or from a rookie/FA in training camp), there's definitely work still to be done with the roster in their view.

At this point, it seems pretty likely that the only way they can get what they want and need is through a trade - internal growth and expansion of a role or two looks to be the better option than what's left in the FA market, IMO.

I believe a trade will most likely have to happen in the end, though.

I would be a little more cautious than you with the idea that it will end with a trade.

First, I don't think there are very few good perimeter defenders. Most of the players called defensive specialist are called like that because they are poor offensive players and not because they are good defensive players. For example, Udoka and Bogans came to SA with the reputation of being good defenders and they were average at best.

Second, I think that if you give minutes to a young players that has enough physical abilities and who has the willingness to play defense, you end up with a player that is as good as 90% of the vet perimeter defenders. Gee could be that guy or maybe other candidates for that role will be in TC.

[benefactor]

Matt Bonner is a big part of program and has been for several seasons. He’s proven to be one of our better shooters and to have lost that would have been pretty impactful.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b126/GingerDragon/facepalmzzzp11.gif

[Fabbs]

Matt Bonner is a big part of program and has been for several seasons. He’s proven to be one of our better shooters and to have lost that would have been pretty impactful.
:lol
Careful with the reality check, Benefactor.

[SenorSpur]

We wanted to add a big next to Tim Duncan, a wing defender and improve our shooting.
I, too, wish he would've commented further on his thoughts regarding the wing defender situation? And what, if any, plans they may have for that backup SF position?

Matt Bonner is a big part of program and has been for several seasons. He’s proven to be one of our better shooters and to have lost that would have been pretty impactful.

:lmao

What the hell is he thinking?

[Solid D]

Pop addressed that in his media session a few days ago, if you missed: Link (http://www.nba.com/spurs/multimedia/100916_pop.html)

I heard Pop's media session. In fact I made a comment in that thread, if you will remember.

My question is "Who are the candidates for the backup small forward position?" I'm wondering who he is seriously considering.

The question asked in the media gathering was something like...are you satisfied with the number of bodies you have at the 3 position or are you still wanting to add some players?

Pop didn't say anything specificother than the backup 3 was the most intriguing situation for them. He just basically said they were wide open in their evalution and weren't sure if would be a rookie or someone they have already or someone that walks in the door. Very generic and there were no names mentioned.

[Solid D]

The candidates for backup three are obvious: Anderson, Ginobili, Gee. Gee will be hard pressed to be active, let alone in the rotation, so rotation-wise it's Anderson and Ginobili. As of right now, it looks like Anderson will be playing the three almost exclusively.

It's a limited view speculation, just as I was speculating in the Pop Media Session thread http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4631262&postcount=27

Pop doesn't even know what Anderson can do for the Spurs at guard, yet, much less defending opposing 3s. It doesn't appear to be obvious to Pop, so why is it obviouos to you?

[TD 21]

It's a limited view speculation, just as I was speculating in the Pop Media Session thread http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4631262&postcount=27

Pop doesn't even know what Anderson can do for the Spurs at guard, yet, much less defending opposing 3s. It doesn't appear to be obvious to Pop, so why is it obviouos to you?

Oh, you meant considering options not currently on the team.

If you look at the current roster, though, it's not hard to conclude what the backup three options are.

[SenorSpur]

The candidates for backup three are obvious: Anderson, Ginobili, Gee. Gee will be hard pressed to be active, let alone in the rotation, so rotation-wise it's Anderson and Ginobili. As of right now, it looks like Anderson will be playing the three almost exclusively.

Disagree. As I've stated in other threads, Anderson simply appears too small to be able to adequately defend even the backup 3's in this league. We know the kid can score. However his defensive capabilities is the one big, if not only, unknown with him. And asking him to guard NBA 3-men, would be an immediate matchup disadvantage for him. Obviously, I could be wrong, but I guess we'll have to see what shakes out during training camp. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Since Gee has NBA experience, I'm actually hoping that, barring a trade for a better player, he can assume this role.

[TD 21]

Disagree. As I've stated in other threads, Anderson simply appears too small to be able to adequately defend even the backup 3's in this league. We know the kid can score. However his defensive capabilities is the one big, if not only, unknown with him. And asking him to guard NBA 3-men, would be an immediate matchup disadvantage for him. Obviously, I could be wrong, but I guess we'll have to see what shakes out during training camp. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Since Gee has NBA experience, I'm actually hoping that, barring a trade for a better player, he can assume this role.

I agree. He's truly a two, but he should be able to play there some and guard certain three's. However, three of the four best players on this team are guards and as such, they're going to play a lot of the available back court minutes. Also, at this writing, this team doesn't appear to have a better backup three option, therefore it makes sense for Anderson to play a lot of three. It may not be ideal, but it's not like he's any more undersized than Bogans.

Barely. And I'm not just talking about the small sample size, but also the team he played on and the situation they were in. He was on a bottom feeder that was playing out the string in a lost season.

The reality is Anderson is a better prospect, of similar size and has a skill that this team could use.

[ohmwrecker]

Uh . . . Anderson and Gee are pretty much the same size . . .

[Blackjack]

I would be a little more cautious than you with the idea that it will end with a trade.


Unless they can find a low cost three and all it takes to acquire that player is Gee and Jerrells, I can't see them pulling off a trade.

There is no veterans who makes a decent salary that they're looking to trade. No Mohammed, no Elson, no Barry, etc.

I wasn't stating that they will make a trade, I was simply suggesting that would be the only thing they could do at this point to accomplish their objective - I don't see the players in tow or on the periphery (free-agents/rookies to be brought in cheap) to come in and fill what they need.

They've really got two options at this point: expand the roles of a couple of their 2s; or hope taking a flier on a low-cost vet or rookie free-agent pans out.

I'd promote from within, at this point. ... Hope that something better comes about later on during the season, whether it's getting in on a trade or finding a nice buyout option.


I heard Pop's media session. In fact I made a comment in that thread, if you will remember.

Haven't been on much recently, Solid. I saw the interview but I'm not up to speed with the board as much as usual - was just trying to help a brother out. :toast


My question is "Who are the candidates for the backup small forward position?" I'm wondering who he is seriously considering.

The question asked in the media gathering was something like...are you satisfied with the number of bodies you have at the 3 position or are you still wanting to add some players?

Pop didn't say anything specificother than the backup 3 was the most intriguing situation for them. He just basically said they were wide open in their evalution and weren't sure if would be a rookie or someone they have already or someone that walks in the door. Very generic and there were no names mentioned.

I think it's very much up in the air.

You've gotta believe he knows the free-agent options are scarce and none-too-promising, so they're just waiting to see if they can get lucky with an undrafted player or vet free agent - they're searching for Wesley Matthews, so to speak. I'm not sure there's a name to be told until that name makes itself known.

When you look at their perimeter defenders, it's really Hill and Temple that have the most promise. Gee's got some great tools and Anderson might surprise now that he'll be tasked with defending to get on the court, but it's a big ol' fat question mark all the way around.

I expect Jefferson to be better, lighter, and a decent play against some of the legit small forwards with more size than quickness. But he'll never be a player expected to get stops on demand or take someone out of a game.

Having said that, barring a Wesley Matthews coming to fruition, I believe their best bet is to go with what they've got; find out and develop what they've got; and then see if they can improve themselves down the line after they know exactly what they need.

I believe a trade will have to take place at some point for them to be the team they want to be. ... Whether they can make that trade remains to be seen.

[TD 21]

I didn't say you "stated that they will make a trade".

Outside of offering their '11 first-round pick, I can't see them getting what they need via trade, which is why they should bring in a mediocre veteran now for depth/insurance purposes. Hopefully between that veteran, Anderson, Ginobili and Gee, they're able to cobble together decent production out of the backup three spot, or better yet, one emerges from the pack.

I'm not in favor or burying Gee at the expense of a minimal vet, but I'm also not in favor of standing pat. Instead of handing the vet playing time over younger players just because of their vet status, it should be an ongoing competition throughout training camp/preseason for playing time and a constant battle throughout the season, unless one player emerges as the unequivocal, clear cut better option.

If you have a hole, the best thing to do is have options. Something this team doesn't have enough of at the three.

[Blackjack]

If you have a hole, the best thing to do is have options. Something this team doesn't have enough of at the three.

I agree. But if you have a hole and the options outside your program aren't better than what you have, I'd just assume they go with what they've got; find out exactly what the likes of Temple, Anderson and Gee can give em defensively on the wing - allow them the minutes early to develop instead of playing another Bogans.

In my view, this team doesn't need another skill player on the wing, they need a good-sized defender; preferably with a 3-point shot (which ain't all that easy to find).

If there's a player that proves to be appreciably better than what they've currently got in tow at the wing defensively during camp, then by all means. ... I'm all for it. There's just no one that comes to mind and the Spurs would have to be pretty damn fortunate to land a rotation player via free agency at this stage of the game.

It's very possible the Spurs will need a trade and not be able to pull one off, at least not one sufficient enough.

It is what it is. ... It's just reality, not any kind of indictment.

[TD 21]

I agree. But if you have a hole and the options outside your program aren't better than what you have, I'd just assume they go with what they've got; find out exactly what the likes of Temple, Anderson and Gee can give em defensively on the wing - allow them the minutes early to develop instead of playing another Bogans.


Instead of handing the vet playing time over younger players just because of their vet status, it should be an ongoing competition throughout training camp/preseason for playing time and a constant battle throughout the season, unless one player emerges as the unequivocal, clear cut better option.


In my view, this team doesn't need another skill player on the wing, they need a good-sized defender; preferably with a 3-point shot (which ain't all that easy to find).

If there's a player that proves to be appreciably better than what they've currently got in tow at the wing defensively during camp, then by all means. ... I'm all for it. There's just no one that comes to mind and the Spurs would have to be pretty damn fortunate to land a rotation player via free agency at this stage of the game.

It's very possible the Spurs will need a trade and not be able to pull one off, at least not one sufficient enough.

It is what it is. ... It's just reality, not any kind of indictment.Hayes is the best option available. Sure, he's mediocre, but he's got good size for a three, is a decent three-point shooter and at times throughout his career has been considered a decent defender.

Like I said, I'm not advocating playing him over Anderson and Gee just because he's a veteran, I'm simply saying he'd provide another option, in case those guys aren't ready, aren't good enough, or injury strikes. Right now, there is no fallback in case any of those issues arise.

[Solid D]

I'm not a Jarvis Hayes fan. He's never played much defense in any game I've seen him play. Matador.

[Blackjack]

Hayes is the best option available. Sure, he's mediocre, but he's got good size for a three, is a decent three-point shooter and at times throughout his career has been considered a decent defender.

Like I said, I'm not advocating playing him over Anderson and Gee just because he's a veteran, I'm simply saying he'd provide another option, in case those guys aren't ready, aren't good enough, or injury strikes. Right now, there is no fallback in case any of those issues arise.

But what's the other option, honestly?

I understand what you're getting at as far as another body and vet to add but Hayes is an offensive player that's never shown the ability to defend. If the Spurs are going to add someone on the wing, that player needs to be able to defend. Hayes just ain't that guy - good size and a nice jumper but he only takes up a roster spot, he doesn't address a need.

Unless the Spurs can find someone who can really get into people -- preferably in a 6-6 or up frame -- I just don't see the wisdom in bringing a player like Hayes in, to say nothing of the potential LT implications if you believe the guy's more than a flier and someone you'd intend on keeping for the duration of the season.

[ElNono]

Hayes is the best option available. Sure, he's mediocre

Do I really need to read past this? :lol

[Solid D]

Haven't been on much recently, Solid. I saw the interview but I'm not up to speed with the board as much as usual - was just trying to help a brother out. :toast

In retrospect, I was perhaps a bit grouchy at that point in the day and less clear than I should have been regarding the question to be asked, so I apologize.

We'd all like to know what's going on inside Pop's head because the backup SF picture is...well...almost a blank canvass.

[dbestpro]

Would love some kind of trade for Luc Mbah a Moute.

[Solid D]

I believe a key game early in the season will be @ PHX on Wednesday, Nov. 3rd. The Suns won't have Amare...and that's big...but the Suns just added, yet, another long SF in Hedo. The Spurs won 1 of 7 meetings with the Suns last year and if Jason Richardson hadn't missed a wide open dunk in the last minute (to tie), the Spurs may have gone 0-fer against the Suns.

Can the Spurs defend the size and outside shooting of the Suns wing players? Can the Spurs switch and rotate quickly enough to keep the Suns from killing them yet again.

[duncan228]

The Spurs’ unfinished offseason (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/)
by Timothy Varner
48 Minutes of Hell

Consider this your morning twofer (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/21/the-spurs-signal-a-change-in-philosophy/). R.C. Buford recently told the world the Spurs want to secure home court advantage for the postseason (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/21/the-spurs-signal-a-change-in-philosophy/). In the same interview, Buford rehearsed San Antonio’s stipulated goals for the offseason that is nearly behind us.


We wanted to do what we could to keep together a group that had a lot of transition last year and to have a great deal of internal improvement. We wanted to add a big next to Tim Duncan, a wing defender and improve our shooting.

Keep reading → (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/21/the-spurs-unfinished-offseason/#more-9743)

*********************

The Spurs signal a change in philosophy (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/)
by Timothy Varner
48 Minutes of Hell

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/21/the-spurs-signal-a-change-in-philosophy/#more-9739

[lefty]

R.C is a funny guy :pctoss

[ohmwrecker]

I believe a key game early in the season will be @ PHX on Wednesday, Nov. 3rd. The Suns won't have Amare...and that's big...but the Suns just added, yet, another long SF in Hedo. The Spurs won 1 of 7 meetings with the Suns last year and if Jason Richardson hadn't missed a wide open dunk in the last minute (to tie), the Spurs may have gone 0-fer against the Suns.

Can the Spurs defend the size and outside shooting of the Suns wing players? Can the Spurs switch and rotate quickly enough to keep the Suns from killing them yet again.

Run, run, run . . . Phoenix may be weakened as a playoff team with Amare's departure, but they are going to be a pretty good regular season team. They are going to outscore a lot of teams who can't run the floor or play excellent perimeter D. The Spurs have to improve their perimeter, rotation and help defense and try to limit fast break opportunities (high % shooting, limited turnovers, and good transition). Phoenix will be a good barometer for the Spurs who will need to improve in these areas to make a deep playoff run.

[TD 21]

I'm not a Jarvis Hayes fan. He's never played much defense in any game I've seen him play. Matador.

I'm not a fan, either. I just think he's the best fit out of what's left and I think it makes sense to add another body and one that has some experience in the league.


But what's the other option, honestly?

I understand what you're getting at as far as another body and vet to add but Hayes is an offensive player that's never shown the ability to defend. If the Spurs are going to add someone on the wing, that player needs to be able to defend. Hayes just ain't that guy - good size and a nice jumper but he only takes up a roster spot, he doesn't address a need.

Unless the Spurs can find someone who can really get into people -- preferably in a 6-6 or up frame -- I just don't see the wisdom in bringing a player like Hayes in, to say nothing of the potential LT implications if you believe the guy's more than a flier and someone you'd intend on keeping for the duration of the season.

What do you mean, "what's the other option"?

He's had spurts where he's been an adequate defender (mainly, when he was on the Pistons). He's far from a stopper obviously, but he's big and strong enough to at least not be physically overpowered or overwhelmed by bigger SF's.

Adding an experienced, prototypical SF sized body is filling a need, even if that player isn't all that good. See, right now, if Anderson isn't ready or can't defend SF's and/or Gee shows he's not an NBA player, then what? There's no one else to turn to.

What's the cost, really? More than likely the veteran's minimum and who knows, they may even be able to get him on a non-guaranteed contract at this point (I doubt it, though).


Do I really need to read past this? :lol

I realize this is a rhetorical question, but my reasoning does makes sense, even if you don't agree with it.

[phxspurfan]

We're gonna get torched from the perimeter again. But at least Tim has a young, capable C playing next to him.

[Blackjack]

What do you mean, "what's the other option"?

Exactly that, what other option does he give you?

Hayes is essentially a poor man's Jefferson. Better shooter, but similar build and an offensive player. Difference is, Jefferson is a superior athlete and talent who will put the effort in on the defensive end, even if he's unsuccessful - and I believe we'll see a much better effort from RJ this year, as I believe the guy has some pride (last year had to be embarrassing).

The question I have is this: Who does Hayes take minutes from and who can he really play alongside? We saw how difficult it was for the Spurs to succeed last year defensively with their best talent on the floor because of an ill-fit. Hayes isn't a better defender than RJ, which means he'll need to play alongside better defenders. Problem is, the backup small forward needs to be one of those better defenders because of the way the team's constructed.

They don't need simply another option as in a body or proven NBA player, they need a particular skill: defense.

As far as the financial cost, the Spurs will only remain below the tax if they go with 13 players at this point. They could go with 14 or 15 to start and cut 1 or 2 before they had to suffer tax implications, but I don't see how exactly Hayes would be one of those players worth keeping - Temple's on the team as far as I'm concerned and Hayes would have to warrant being kept above Gee or another potential player, which would mean the Spurs viewed him as filling their defensive need on the perimeter.

Just don't see it.

[Mel_13]

Former Memphis Grizzlies F Trey Gilder worked out with San Antonio today.

http://twitter.com/scottschroeder

April, 2009 profile of Gilder's 2009 D-League season.

http://www.ridiculousupside.com/2009/4/29/858845/summer-league-profiles-trey-gilder

[Blackjack]

Good training camp-type.

He's definitely long, I'd just like to see someone whose mindset wouldn't have to be tweaked or altogether changed to excel on the defensive end.

But at least he's not 6-5.

[ohmwrecker]

Gilder is an interesting prospect. Looooong, good scorer, rebounder . . . get him to commit to playing D, turn him into a shot blocker and you're in business.

[TD 21]

Exactly that, what other option does he give you?

Hayes is essentially a poor man's Jefferson. Better shooter, but similar build and an offensive player. Difference is, Jefferson is a superior athlete and talent who will put the effort in on the defensive end, even if he's unsuccessful - and I believe we'll see a much better effort from RJ this year, as I believe the guy has some pride (last year had to be embarrassing).

The question I have is this: Who does Hayes take minutes from and who can he really play alongside? We saw how difficult it was for the Spurs to succeed last year defensively with their best talent on the floor because of an ill-fit. Hayes isn't a better defender than RJ, which means he'll need to play alongside better defenders. Problem is, the backup small forward needs to be one of those better defenders because of the way the team's constructed.

They don't need simply another option as in a body or proven NBA player, they need a particular skill: defense.

As far as the financial cost, the Spurs will only remain below the tax if they go with 13 players at this point. They could go with 14 or 15 to start and cut 1 or 2 before they had to suffer tax implications, but I don't see how exactly Hayes would be one of those players worth keeping - Temple's on the team as far as I'm concerned and Hayes would have to warrant being kept above Gee or another potential player, which would mean the Spurs viewed him as filling their defensive need on the perimeter.

Just don't see it.

He'd provide another proven player, who's in his prime and has ideal size for his position, at a position where this team lacks depth.

He wouldn't necessarily have to take minutes away from anyone, he'd just be another option, so that they're not completely dependent on two unproven players who'd be playing out of their natural position.

Why would he need to play alongside better defenders? That might be ideal, but it's not like Hayes is Morrison defensively and at this juncture, I don't see how anyone could say with any certainty that he's not at least in Anderson's and Gee's class defensively.

Obviously, Hayes is not ideal, far from it, but the Spurs aren't going to be able to acquire an ideal fit without parting with one of their key, young assets, which they're highly unlikely to do. The main thing is to add a proven player, for cheap, so that there's an alternative option in place.

How could they not need "simply another option as in a body or an NBA player"? They have one at the position.

They could start the year with Gee on the team, see how it goes with Hayes and Gee throughout the first half or so of the season (I agree, Temple is on the team), then make a decision by January 10th, when they'll have to decide whether to guarantee Gee for the season or not. If he's shown enough promise or outplayed Hayes, then they could either essentially give away Hayes like they did Ratliff last season or, if worst came to worst, cut him. It's not like they'd be paying him a lot to not play for them.

At this point, I don't see it either. Not after hearing Pop speak last week.


Good training camp-type.

He's definitely long, I'd just like to see someone whose mindset wouldn't have to be tweaked or altogether changed to excel on the defensive end.

But at least he's not 6-5.

Agreed. That's why I preferred Hairston to Gee. I thought he was a better fit, if not necessarily a better talent.

I hope Gee can surprise. He's certainly an intriguing talent, but I can't say I'm confident in him, which is why they should bring in a proven player at the three and not be entirely dependent on young, unproven players, who would both be playing out of position (though, ultimately, with his build and lack of ball handling skills, I see Gee as a three).

[mountainballer]

agree with all, who think a trade is the only chance to improve the perimeter defense.
if they sign Hayes, that's ok, brings some more depth and experience, but it does not make us significantely better. (Hayes would be more or less Finley of last season. don't know if we want this back)

trade for who? don't know.
I would be interested in Bill Waker from the Knicks. not that he was on the block, he played pretty impressive in his few games for the Knicks at the end of last season. but the Knicks brought in Azubuike and Mason and at SF they have Gallinari and Chandler. depends also if the Knicks make some more moves (Fernandez?). so he might be expendable.
why Walker? he doesn't have ideal size, but I think he has the potential to become a very good perimeter defender. and I somewhere read he has lost more than 20 lbs this summer, so he should be even quicker. (and I like him as a person. smart and funny guy. so maybe that's where the whole idea comes from)

[Bruno]

IIRC, CD liked Gilder upside.

What is a little worrying is that Spurs are still working out some long SF. Is it the usual "due diligence" workout or is it because Spurs still haven't find a SF they would like to have at their trainign camp?

[EricD]

IIRC, CD liked Gilder upside.

What is a little worrying is that Spurs are still working out some long SF. Is it the usual "due diligence" workout or is it because Spurs still haven't find a SF they would like to have at their trainign camp?


If they didn't think Anderson, Manu and Gee can contribute 13-18 minutes a night at the back up SF position, I'm pretty sure they would have addressed the "need" in July when there was better options.

[Mel_13]

If they didn't think Anderson, Manu and Gee can contribute 13-18 minutes a night at the back up SF position, I'm pretty sure they would have addressed the "need" in July when there was better options.

Sept. 23, 2009
Spurs Sign Keith Bogans

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/keith_bogans_090923.html

[mountainballer]

If they didn't think Anderson, Manu and Gee can contribute 13-18 minutes a night at the back up SF position, I'm pretty sure they would have addressed the "need" in July when there was better options.

they reportedly tried to sign James Jones. so they tried to adress the need back then as well as today. you still need the player you want to agree to your offer.