How many SG's in the NBA, if swapped for Danny Green straight up, would improve us?

[spurraider21]

I was thinking about this after seeing the thread in the NBA forum about ranking the top shooting guards. Green fits the Spurs so flawlessly and was wondering who you guys thought would make the Spurs better if acquired FOR Danny Green.

Klay Thompson for instance is a better scorer, but is that really needed on the Spurs from that position? What you gain in scoring you still lose in defense (although Klay is a solid defender, he can't take guys like Paul or Curry off their game the way Green does).

Dwyane Wade is amazing when healthy, but we'd lose all sorts of spacing by having a guard without a 3 point shot playing besides Tony... things like that got me thinking. So I just wanna get some reactions on which 2 guards would improve us.

[Nero5]

Wade is old and past his prime - future is not up. DG is ideal for what the spurs want, but don't look at numbers only. Dion Waiters has the numbers but not the attitude and the 'fit' into the team. This latter aspect is important to the team performance.

[Em-City]

beal, thompson, but realistically, a lot of SF's could come over here and play SG.. or we could slide kawhi to SG.

[Fireball]

Thompson might be the best spot up SG in the league ... he would be a beast in SA because of the open looks the system creates ... an he plays good defense as well

[Drom John]

Danny Green was third among SG in Real Plus Minus.

Can't trade for #1, Manu Ginobili.

Didn't sign #2 the aging free agent Vince Carter.

24 SG were better on offense.
1 (Tony Allen) was better on defense.

[exstatic]

Danny Green was third among SG in Real Plus Minus.

Can't trade for #1, Manu Ginobili.

Didn't sign #2 the aging free agent Vince Carter.

24 SG were better on offense.
1 (Tony Allen) was better on defense.

/thread

[SpursFan86]

Beal is so damn overrated it's not even funny. He's young and has potential to improve, sure, but some people act like he was already great/very good last year, and he really wasn't. I would definitely take Green over Beal if we're just looking at this season.

Thompson is an interesting one. He's much better at shooting off the dribble and has a better mid-range game than Green, but although he's a good defender, he's still noticeably worse than Green in that aspect. I'd honestly lean towards Green personally.

I don't think people realize how good Korver is. If we could've gotten him instead of Belinelli...wow. I probably wouldn't take Korver over Green, but Korver is closer than people might think. He's elite in every aspect of shooting. Mid-range, 3-point, spot-up, coming off screens, pull-up jumpers...he has it all. He's also an underrated defender. Look at his shooting splits last year:

3-10 feet out: 50%
10-16 feet out: 48.9%
16 feet-3 point line: 45.7%
3-pointers: 47.2%

That's fucking absurd...especially considering he's not strictly a spot-up shooter. Let's look at Thompson's numbers:

3-10 feet out: 37.8%
10-16 feet out: 37.6%
16 feet-3 point line: 44.9%
3-pointers: 41.7%

Obviously part of that has to do with Thompson having much higher volume than Korver, but still. The point is that people don't realize just how crazy Korver is offensively. Makes me mad knowing we were close to getting him until his wife said she's rather stay in ATL.

And FWIW, Korver was 5th among SGs in RPM. Dude is really underrated.

[spursparker9]

Monta Ellis?

Lance Stephenson, if he is sane ?

[spursparker9]

Is Danny the best defensive SG currently in the NBA? :toast

A recap on 2013-2014 NBA defensive 1st team and 2nd team.

1st team: Noah, Paul George, CP3, Iguodala and Ibaka
2nd team: LBJ, Patrick Beverly, Jimmy Butler, Roy Hibbert and Kawhi

no SG in either team??

[SpursFan86]

Is Danny the best defensive SG currently in the NBA? :toast

I'd probably say Tony Allen is a little better. But Green is miles and miles better offensively.

[SpursFan86]

And I'd take Green over Ellis/Stephenson for our team. Between Parker/Manu/Duncan/Kawhi, we really don't need someone who's going to be handling the ball a lot like Ellis or Stephenson. Neither of them are as good of shooters or defenders as Green.

[Kineto]

James Harden
Kobe
Monta Ellis
Joe Johnson
Lance Stephenson
Klay Thompson
Demare DeRozan

+ some player who can play SG like Battum, Iguodala, Dragic, etc...

[spursparker9]

James Harden
Kobe
Monta Ellis
Joe Johnson
Lance Stephenson
Klay Thompson
Demare DeRozan

+ some player who can play SG like Battum, Iguodala, Dragic, etc...

A lot of these players are definitely better than Danny as an individual. But they won't and don't fit in with Spurs.

Probably only Batum, Klay Thompson and Iguodala will complement with the Spurs.

[spursparker9]

I'd probably say Tony Allen is a little better. But Green is miles and miles better offensively.

Oh yeah lol, I forgot about Tony Allen.

I thought he had fallen off a cliff since the last couple of years but his defensive play during the OKC series really surprised me. :toast

[Richie]

A lot of these players are definitely better than Danny as an individual. But they won't and don't fit in with Spurs.

Probably only Batum, Klay Thompson and Iguodala will complement with the Spurs.

Disagree that they don't fit with the Spurs, all of those players listed COULD fit with the Spurs if they were willing to take a role with less ball handling. Just because a player is a ball dominant guard on another team doesn't mean they couldn't play a Green role on the Spurs, it's just that many probably wouldn't want to.

Also, the two wing positions are almost interchangeable these days, many many small forwards could play the 2.

[Brazil]

James Harden
Kobe
Monta Ellis
Joe Johnson
Lance Stephenson
Klay Thompson
Demare DeRozan

+ some player who can play SG like Battum, Iguodala, Dragic, etc...

Kobe ? JJ ? really ? :lol

[Kineto]

Kobe ? JJ ? really ? :lol

with green current salary ? definitely !

[Brazil]

with green current salary ? definitely !

in what op part we are talking about with equal salary ?

Then you have the fact Spurs don't need extra offense, they are doing just fine with actual roster. In that I don't see what would bring kobe or JJ offense boost especially with low % vs. what we would lose on the D end. You add the fact we have no idea what is left in kobe's tank and JJ is already 33.

[Chinook]

It depends on Parker's level of play. If he's still MVParker, then Danny fits the SL like a glove, and no SG in the league would do a better job. If Parker is indeed falling off, it would be nice for someone with a little more play-making to get into the starting lineup, like a Batum or Beal. Though any really strong offensive SG may take away touches from Leonard, so there's a good chance the Spurs would not improve that much over just letting Kawhi get more run.

[KL2]

What do you guys think Green is worth $$$ wise, what kind of money you guys think he can command out there? I'm sure his price has increased a few mill since his last contract.

[Chinook]

What do you guys think Green is worth $$$ wise, what kind of money you guys think he can command out there? I'm sure his price has increased a few mill since his last contract.

Anywhere from $5-8 Million APY. The low end is if he leaves to join a(nother) contender for the full MLE (like the Cavs). The high end is if he goes to a bad team with cap space (like the Knicks). If he stays with the Spurs, he'll get something in between those depending on what the team's plans are with the money. I think he'd take a little less so that the FO could bring in some good free agents, but not just for the heck of it.

I'm more curious about the length of his deal, though. He's young enough to get a four- or even five-year deal. But does the team want to commit passed 2017 (when Splitter and Mills come off the books) or 2018 (when Parker and Diaw come off the books)? It's possible the team doesn't see him as someone to keep past this current Spurs' era (meaning the next few years even if Tim retires). So they may not be able to come to an agreement with Danny in that regard.

[Mel_13]

Anywhere from $5-8 Million APY. The low end is if he leaves to join a(nother) contender for the full MLE (like the Cavs). The high end is if he goes to a bad team with cap space (like the Knicks). If he stays with the Spurs, he'll get something in between those depending on what the team's plans are with the money. I think he'd take a little less so that the FO could bring in some good free agents, but not just for the heck of it.

I'm more curious about the length of his deal, though. He's young enough to get a four- or even five-year deal. But does the team want to commit passed 2017 (when Splitter and Mills come off the books) or 2018 (when Parker and Diaw come off the books)? It's possible the team doesn't see him as someone to keep past this current Spurs' era (meaning the next few years even if Tim retires). So they may not be able to come to an agreement with Danny in that regard.

Good take. I think they'll go 5 years with both Danny and Kawhi, with Danny getting something like the MLE from the previous CBA. Say, 5yrs/30M.

[Chinook]

Good take. I think they'll go 5 years with both Danny and Kawhi, with Danny getting something like the MLE from the previous CBA. Say, 5yrs/30M.

Sounds about right. The thing about giving Green a long-term deal is that it avoids the summer of 2017 for both parties. For the Spurs, it means they have their starting wings already locked up when a bunch of players may be getting overpaid due to the ballooning cap. For Green, he avoids being a free agent in a potential lock-out year. If the Spurs feel like Danny can be their full starting two-guard (meaning that they don't have a starting-quality SG on their bench to sub Danny out for), they'll probably go for five years. Danny's game looks like it will age well.

One draw-back for Green is that if he gets a five-year deal, it will probably be his last lucrative contract. He'd be 33 when the contract ended, and would probably be looking at room-exception level deals until he retired. If he takes a short deal, he would be 30 or 31 at the end of the contract, and he could probably still get full-MLE money. The Spurs may need to boost the APY up a little to make both sides happy. Something like a $34M/5 deal works well for both sides, and it allows the Spurs to use cap space next off-season.

[TD 21]

Anywhere from $5-8 Million APY. The low end is if he leaves to join a(nother) contender for the full MLE (like the Cavs). The high end is if he goes to a bad team with cap space (like the Knicks). If he stays with the Spurs, he'll get something in between those depending on what the team's plans are with the money. I think he'd take a little less so that the FO could bring in some good free agents, but not just for the heck of it.

I'm more curious about the length of his deal, though. He's young enough to get a four- or even five-year deal. But does the team want to commit passed 2017 (when Splitter and Mills come off the books) or 2018 (when Parker and Diaw come off the books)? It's possible the team doesn't see him as someone to keep past this current Spurs' era (meaning the next few years even if Tim retires). So they may not be able to come to an agreement with Danny in that regard.

Agreed on the money. I'd be shocked if he doesn't re-sign with the Spurs, though.

As far as the length, I'd be surprised if he get's five. Five is rare and is generally reserved for foundational pieces. I don't think they'll care much about the fact that he could remain for a season past this current era, nor should they. He'll only be 31, probably making $6-7M (which is fine now and will only look better with where the cap is projected to be by then) and expiring, plus he'll be one of the most experienced, accomplished role players in the league. In other words, he shouldn't be difficult to move at all.

[Chinook]

Agreed on the money. I'd be shocked if he doesn't re-sign with the Spurs, though.

As far as the length, I'd be surprised if he get's five. Five is rare and is generally reserved for foundational pieces. I don't think they'll care much about the fact that he could remain for a season past this current era, nor should they. He'll only be 31, probably making $6-7M (which is fine now and will only look better with where the cap is projected to be by then) and expiring, plus he'll be one of the most experienced, accomplished role players in the league. In other words, he shouldn't be difficult to move at all.

So you're thinking a four-year deal somewhere between $24-28 Million? Sounds very possible as well. I think we'll see more five-year deals in the upcoming off-seasons because teams will want to lock in talent as cheaply as possible ahead of 2017. As I said in another post, Green should still be a pretty good player in five years (probably better than he is now). I think the team will hand him a five-year deal no problem if they land a star free agent who projects to keep them contenders for the foreseeable future. But if Duncan reups, I think they'll hesitate on paying Green in 2017 and beyond (only Parker and Anderson are under contract at that point). Who knows, though? The Spurs would probably re-sign everyone to give Tim the best chance of winning, even with an uncertain future looming.

I don't think Green's going to leave next off-season. But I could see some scenarios where that may happen. If the Spurs only value Green at around the MLE, then a Cleveland offer could be tempting. Danny would start there next to his friend on a stacked roster that is desperate for his particular skill-set. That's pretty much a dream job. Or the Knicks might go hard at him for a big deal, since they also need his skill-set. Green would get to go back home and get semi-star treatment under the biggest spotlights while getting a mess of money. Danny already has a ring, so that may be really appealing to him. Even so, having Phil Jackson in charge of the team may encourage him even if he still values winning so much.

[Baam]

There's no way Green is taking a pay-cut this time around, he's gonna get the biggest deal of his career and unlike TP/Manu/Kawhi he wont ever risk his health with his national team...

[TD 21]

So you're thinking a four-year deal somewhere between $24-28 Million?

Yeah, I've thought that for a while.


I think we'll see more five-year deals in the upcoming off-seasons because teams will want to lock in talent as cheaply as possible ahead of 2017.

Agents/players are aware of this though, so the perfect storm is probably going to be required for this to occur (think the Grizzlies and Pondexter). Think about it: The good - great players aren't locking themselves in and costing themselves more in a few years time and the average - worse players, in most cases, teams won't want them for that long, even if it is at a reasonable number.


But if Duncan reups, I think they'll hesitate on paying Green in 2017 and beyond (only Parker and Anderson are under contract at that point).

I don't follow your logic here.


I don't think Green's going to leave next off-season. But I could see some scenarios where that may happen.

If he did leave, those definitely seem like the most plausible scenarios.

[Chinook]

Agents/players are aware of this though, so the perfect storm is probably going to be required for this to occur (think the Grizzlies and Pondexter). Think about it: The good - great players aren't locking themselves in and costing themselves more in a few years time and the average - worse players, in most cases, teams won't want them for that long, even if it is at a reasonable number.

Five-year deals were relatively common under the old CBA, when it was easier to qualify for them. We're just now seeing the end of those types of deals. The appeal for taking the longest-term deals is the same now as it was then, when players like Artest, Ariza, Haslem and Miller were signing them. Players without much upside tend to be okay with stagnant salaries if it gives them a lot more guarantees. While Green may well bet that he'd get a big deal in 2017, it won't be because his value went up. Not to mention that it's really uncertain what types of teams would be willing to break the bank for him in three years.

If the Spurs get a star next off-season they'll stop trying to sync up their salaries for a few years. If not, they'll stop by 2017 or 2018, as they don't project to have much cap space after that unless they have fallen off. Whenever future cap space stops being important to them, their goal will just be to lock in their talent for the longest they can at reasonable prices.


I don't follow your logic here.

If Duncan reups, then the Spurs will have a pretty clear idea of how much longer he'll play. I imagine he'd sign a one-and-one deal through 2017, which fits their assumed plan B for cap space. That year is so important to them that they structured Diaw's contract so that he's easily cuttable. They also gave Mills only three years instead of four, even though Patty is a young piece who could have been locked up for longer. If they view Danny as just a compliment rather than a core guy, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have him on a reasonably large deal taking up cap space that they'd need for a desperate attempt to chase players to put around Leonard.

[TD 21]

Five-year deals were relatively common under the old CBA, when it was easier to qualify for them. We're just now seeing the end of those types of deals. The appeal for taking the longest-term deals is the same now as it was then, when players like Artest, Ariza, Haslem and Miller were signing them. Players without much upside tend to be okay with stagnant salaries if it gives them a lot more guarantees. While Green may well bet that he'd get a big deal in 2017, it won't be because his value went up. Not to mention that it's really uncertain what types of teams would be willing to break the bank for him in three years.

If the Spurs get a star next off-season they'll stop trying to sync up their salaries for a few years. If not, they'll stop by 2017 or 2018, as they don't project to have much cap space after that unless they have fallen off. Whenever future cap space stops being important to them, their goal will just be to lock in their talent for the longest they can at reasonable prices.



If Duncan reups, then the Spurs will have a pretty clear idea of how much longer he'll play. I imagine he'd sign a one-and-one deal through 2017, which fits their assumed plan B for cap space. That year is so important to them that they structured Diaw's contract so that he's easily cuttable. They also gave Mills only three years instead of four, even though Patty is a young piece who could have been locked up for longer. If they view Danny as just a compliment rather than a core guy, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have him on a reasonably large deal taking up cap space that they'd need for a desperate attempt to chase players to put around Leonard.

That explains the appeal from Green's perspective, but what about the Spurs perspective? Even though he probably will still be in his prime at 32 (albeit, the tail end), it's damn near impossible to predict how the team will look then, so why lock him in for the extra year? Besides, if they want to re-sign him after 4, it's not like he's going to break the bank.

That's already their goal, because they know signing a star in free agency is going to be difficult and if they have to, any of the contracts they've handed out in recent years are eminently movable (while taking back minimal to no salary) to create the necessary space.

I can't imagine Duncan signing anything more than a 1 year deal at this point, even if he did return for another season beyond that. As for Mills, he might have only wanted 3 years instead of 4.

[Malik Hairston]

Danny Green was third among SG in Real Plus Minus.

Can't trade for #1, Manu Ginobili.

Didn't sign #2 the aging free agent Vince Carter.

24 SG were better on offense.
1 (Tony Allen) was better on defense.

Yep, DG's on/off metrics are elite in both facets of the game, particularly defensively..

Some of the answers don't make any sense, as it must be taken into consideration that Green's replacement must be able to play off Parker/Ginobili/Duncan and even Kawhi at this point..

If you bring in another ball-dominant player(like a Derozan or Ellis), it severely reduces the impact of Parker(forcing Tony to be an off-ball player), and replacing Parker with a lesser player like a Derozan or Ellis would just be stupid, obviously..the replacement would have to possess the potential to be a great defensive player and an elite shooter, obviously..

The only SG that could potentially replace Green's role on the Spurs is Klay Thompson IMO..Afflalo also could have a few years ago, but his defense has fallen off a cliff with age(exacerbated by systems that don't preach defense)

If you include SFs: Iguodala(although he's one of the most overrated players in NBA history) has shown flashes of shooting ability and Batum would be an upgrade

Others that have been mentioned that would be horrible fits:

Tony Allen(his offense would destroy the Spurs' spacing and would not fit at all)
Stephenson(plays the same role as Manu)
Ellis(would be a horrible fit with the Spurs in any capacity)
Wade(doesn't play D, can't shoot, ball-dominant, just a name at this point)
Derozan(extremely ball dominant, not a good spot-up shooter, can't play off the ball)
Beal(maybe, don't know how he is on defense, but his on/off metrics are pretty weak)

[Richie]

This is a horribly loaded question.

If a player is worse defensively or a worse 3 point shooter, they are written off as not being as good. If they are a more complete player and handle the ball, they're written off as not being able to fit in with the Spurs system because they'd need the ball in their hands.

This is basically asking if Green is the best 3&D player in the league, which he likely is.

[spurraider21]

This is a horribly loaded question.

If a player is worse defensively or a worse 3 point shooter, they are written off as not being as good. If they are a more complete player and handle the ball, they're written off as not being able to fit in with the Spurs system because they'd need the ball in their hands.

This is basically asking if Green is the best 3&D player in the league, which he likely is.
if they're able to handle the ball, more power to them. if they're reliant on having the ball to be successful, it's not as good a fit. i think Stephenson would be an upgrade if his 3pt% improved

[Richie]

if they're able to handle the ball, more power to them. if they're reliant on having the ball to be successful, it's not as good a fit. i think Stephenson would be an upgrade if his 3pt% improved

It's unfair to compare someone like Harden, who "needs the ball to be successful" to Green, because what constitutes success for each player is drastically different. It's also worth noting that a player like Stephenson has worse shooting percentages because he is in a worse offence and is forced to chuck up more difficult shots. Green literally shoots open 3s all game long.

[Chinook]

It's unfair to compare someone like Harden, who "needs the ball to be successful" to Green, because what constitutes success for each player is drastically different. It's also worth noting that a player like Stephenson has worse shooting percentages because he is in a worse offence and is forced to chuck up more difficult shots. Green literally shoots open 3s all game long.

I think it's a fine question because it sparks debate. Is having a three-and-D player more important than a play-maker? Can other players fill Danny's role if they are asked to? Those are advantages for the question, not weaknesses.

[spurraider21]

It's unfair to compare someone like Harden, who "needs the ball to be successful" to Green, because what constitutes success for each player is drastically different. It's also worth noting that a player like Stephenson has worse shooting percentages because he is in a worse offence and is forced to chuck up more difficult shots. Green literally shoots open 3s all game long.
this is why in the OP i didn't say "list all shooting guards better than Danny Green" but rather made it specific to the Spurs success

[Baam]

This is a horribly loaded question.

If a player is worse defensively or a worse 3 point shooter, they are written off as not being as good. If they are a more complete player and handle the ball, they're written off as not being able to fit in with the Spurs system because they'd need the ball in their hands.

This is basically asking if Green is the best 3&D player in the league, which he likely is.

Not the past season, it was Ariza. Then again TP had a down season and it's hard to tell how much that impacted Green's game.

Beal has everything the Spurs could dream of in a SG tbh, not sure why people are doubting him...

Anderson will add some playmaking so even with Manu retiring I dont think playmaking ability is at the top of the list, imo it's :

1/ range








2/ defense

3/ playmaking

and Beal does all 3 in that order...

[mkurts]

Beal can't defend, a dynamic combo guard but not 3 and D at all

[hsxvvd]

Green made Wade his bitch in the finals. All series the media was talking about "what has happened to Wade?"...Danny Green happened to Wade.

[hsxvvd]

Not the past season, it was Ariza.

Ariza has been paid. He'll go back to being shit, like he did last time he was given a big contract.

[kobyz]

Wiggins

[spurraider21]

not sure how good a defender Beal is, i haven't watched too much wizards. he can probably defend PG's and SG's but i dont know if he can take on SF's for extended periods of time like Green has shown

[Blizzardwizard]

Maybe Beal, but Green has both offense and defense and isn't Russell Westbrook. What more could you ask?

[024]

I'd definitely take James Harden... he can play defense once he's under the Spurs hierarchy. I believe the issue with his defense is effort. Put him under Pop and Duncan, and he should at least play as good defense as he did during his Thunder days.

Definitely Klay Thompson. I don't know why people are overlooking him. He's basically a rich man's Danny Green. If he can shut down Parker, he can chase PGs around on defense if needed.

Wiggins? He was going to be a SG if he stayed on the Cavs. Wiggins probably won't improve the Spurs but... I would still do that swap.

Maybe Tony Allen. A defensive wing combo of Leonard and Allen would lock down any perimeter in the league. Allen can't shoot 3's but he's no longer a liability on offense like he used to be.

Maybe Lance Stephenson. Solid defense and developing offense. Probably not as crazy as the media made him out to be and he's always listened to Larry Bird. I'd imagine Pop would have a similar positive impact on him.

[Chinook]

I don't get why people keep saying that all of these other players are more well-rounded than Green. It's like they think that there are four categories in basketball: shooting, passing, dribbling and defense. That's not the case at all. There are multiple categories on both sides of the ball. Green's an elite man defender, team defender and rim protector (for his position), and he's well above average at rebounding and playing the passing lanes. Then on offense, he's one of the top 5-10 three-point shooters in the league. If you take the things Danny's good at an compare them to the things other SGs are good at, you'll see most players are significantly less well-rounded than Green is.


Definitely Klay Thompson. I don't know why people are overlooking him. He's basically a rich man's Danny Green. If he can shut down Parker, he can chase PGs around on defense if needed.

No, he's pretty much just Danny Green, except he's a net negative on team defense.

[cjw]

Would you have to take the contract into account? If so, that strikes half the names from the list as it would put us into the tax.

Given he didn't sign a four year extension, he's not eligible for another extension until the offseason (right before free agency), right?

[phxspurfan]

Stephenson on this team would be bonkers good

[Malik Hairston]

:lol Pop would never even consider Lance Stephenson, especially after the Jackson debacle, tbh..

Tony Allen is not a starting caliber player in today's NBA, his style of play is antiquated, tbh..

[spurraider21]

:lol Pop would never even consider Lance Stephenson, especially after the Jackson debacle, tbh..

Tony Allen is not a starting caliber player in today's NBA, his style of play is antiquated, tbh..
just don't tell OKC that, against whom he was shockingly effective

[Malik Hairston]

just don't tell OKC that, against whom he was shockingly effective

He has net negative on/off offensive metrics over his career, much better sample size than a few fluky games vs. OKC:lol..

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Ray Allen, and whoever the Spurs draft with the 1st Green is surely worth.

[Splits]

Green's an elite man defender, team defender and rim protector (for his position), and he's well above average at rebounding and playing the passing lanes.

agreed, but you left out the fact that he's probably the best transition defender in the entire league.

[Shabazz]

Is Danny the best defensive SG currently in the NBA? :toast



He is the best transition stopper IMO. How many shooting guards in the NBA can strip the ball out of Lebron's hands when the freight train is going full speed to the rim?

[spursparker9]

Actually Danny got incredible athleticism, just that he is not showing on the offensive end.

Defensive end he has shown that here and there. I remember during the OKC series, Danny even managed to block Durant's 3 pointers from the front. I am quite sure it was on either on game 5 or game 6.

[Chinook]

Actually Danny got incredible athleticism, just that he is not showing on the offensive end.

Defensive end he has shown that here and there. I remember during the OKC series, Danny even managed to block Durant's 3 pointers from the front. I am quite sure it was on either on game 5 or game 6.

Game Six, second quarter at around the 10-minute mark. Actually, Green made two great plays on that same possession. Danny first blocks Durant's three, but then KD tracks down the rebound. The Thunder pass it inside to Ibaka, who manages to get past Splitter. Green meets Serge in the paint and strips the ball before Ibaka can make a shot attempt.

[spursparker9]

Game Six, second quarter at around the 10-minute mark. Actually, Green made two great plays on that same possession. Danny first blocks Durant's three, but then KD tracks down the rebound. The Thunder pass it inside to Ibaka, who manages to get past Splitter. Green meets Serge in the paint and strips the ball before Ibaka can make a shot attempt.

Yes, thanks for pointing out the play. :toast

[spurraider21]

this is how highly we thought of Danny at one point tbh

gonna miss him