The Spurs roster is becoming more balanced

When it comes to building a basketball team, there are basically three types of players you want on your team:

1. Go-to guys - These are your superstars, the core of your team. Without these guys, there wouldn't be anything to build around.

2. Proven veterans - You know what you're going to get from these players. They may not be as athletic as the days of their youth, but you rely on them to provide some sort of steady role on your team.

3. Youth with potential - Young guys who have athleticism, energy, or above all, potential. Sometimes these players are expected to provide a spark off the bench. Sometimes they get heavy minutes and are billed as "the future of the team." Or sometimes they sit on the sidelines as they develop.


In the last couple of years, the Spurs have tried to build championship teams largely with numbers 1 and 2. Yes, they've relied somewhat heavily on young guys at times (see Parker, Tony and Jackson, Stephen), but for the most part their role players have fit into category #2 (Kerr, Barry, Finley, etc.). And yes, they've occasionally signed younger guys, but you wonder how much they really staked in their development (Butler, Marks, Washington, etc.).

Now, however, the 12-man roster for 2008 is expected to be a pretty even balance of all three categories. I could break it down by position and show you that they have at least one of each in the PG, wing, and big man rotations, but for the sake of brevity, here's the synopsis:

1. Go-to guys

Parker, Ginobili, Duncan

2. Proven veterans

Vaughn, Finley, Bowen, Oberto, Thomas

3. Youth with potential

Hill, Mason, Udoka (still developing despite age), Mahinmi, Bonner, (Tolliver)

(yes, I know there are 13 guys on my "12-man" roster; most likely out: Hill or Vaughn)

Obviously relying heavily on category #3 is much riskier than going with proven experience, but there's no doubt the Spurs needed to get younger, and at least they've done it with a sense of balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

When it comes to building a basketball team, there are basically three types of players you want on your team:

1. Go-to guys - These are your superstars, the core of your team. Without these guys, there wouldn't be anything to build around.

2. Proven veterans - You know what you're going to get from these players. They may not be as athletic as the days of their youth, but you rely on them to provide some sort of steady role on your team.

3. Youth with potential - Young guys who have athleticism, energy, or above all, potential. Sometimes these players are expected to provide a spark off the bench. Sometimes they get heavy minutes and are billed as "the future of the team." Or sometimes they sit on the sidelines as they develop.


In the last couple of years, the Spurs have tried to build championship teams largely with numbers 1 and 2. Yes, they've relied somewhat heavily on young guys at times (see Parker, Tony and Jackson, Stephen), but for the most part their role players have fit into category #2 (Kerr, Barry, Finley, etc.). And yes, they've occasionally signed younger guys, but you wonder how much they really staked in their development (Butler, Marks, Washington, etc.).

Now, however, the 12-man roster for 2008 is expected to be a pretty even balance of all three categories. I could break it down by position and show you that they have at least one of each in the PG, wing, and big man rotations, but for the sake of brevity, here's the synopsis:

1. Go-to guys

Parker, Ginobili, Duncan

2. Proven veterans

Vaughn, Finley, Bowen, Oberto, Thomas

3. Youth with potential

Hill, Mason, Udoka (still developing despite age), Mahinmi, Bonner, (Tolliver)

(yes, I know there are 13 guys on my "12-man" roster; most likely out: Hill or Vaughn)

Obviously relying heavily on category #3 is much riskier than going with proven experience, but there's no doubt the Spurs needed to get younger, and at least they've done it with a sense of balance.

---

tolliver, if he makes the team will be the odd-man-out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manufor3

tolliver, if he makes the team will be the odd-man-out

---

I had Tolliver in parenthesis already, for a couple reasons: his contract is likely not guaranteed, and he's almost definitely going to be an odd man out if he makes the team, unless he beats out Bonner. If you count Tolliver, I listed 14 players.

no love for Hairstron?

Dont know what bullshit you have written above but I'd take the Mavs roster right now over the Spurs...and that's a bad thing to say. Both teams gonna be in bottom four playoff seeding :elephant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarelooms

Dont know what bullshit you have written above but I'd take the Mavs roster right not over the Spurs...and thats a bad thing to say. Both teams gonna be in bottom for playoff seeding

---

Spoken like a true Mavs fan. You go ahead and keep your Mavs roster. No one wants a 36 year-old, non-shooting, aging PG. That is reason enough to trash your roster.

optimistic way of looking at things....

im still not very confident

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorSpur

Spoken like a true Mavs fan. You go ahead and keep your Mavs roster. No one wants a 36 year-old, non-shooting, aging PG. That is reason enough to trash your roster.

---

Mavs will finish with a better record and both will lose in the 1st or 2nd round :elephant

Threads presenting a positive opinion on the state of the Spurs' roster are not acceptable offseason material around these parts.

Please take that kind of crap elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

Is this an optimistic thread?!

Am I on the right board?

---

It's the exception to the rule thread.

Lurker23-- when I first found this forum just a few months ago, I was pretty amazed by how many posters regularly trashed the players and FO. It didn't seem possible that the single most successful sports franchise in this country for the last decade could really have fans saying Pop sucks or Manu is overrated, but, along with lots of great insights and lots of hoops knowledge, that's what it has on a pretty consistent basis. I've gotten used to it, just like people who lose their hearing adjust to life without great music, or the sounds of their friends' voices, or the wind.... but it still usually strikes me as strangely unnatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarelooms

Dont know what bullshit you have written above but I'd take the Mavs roster right now over the Spurs...and that's a bad thing to say. Both teams gonna be in bottom four playoff seeding :elephant

---

LOL would you like to elaborate?..

in case you didn't watch last year, we beat the Hornets with an injured Manu..the Hornets dominated Dallas..we should be better just based on health, while the Mavs are the Mavs..

I don't see the similarities..

Duncan > Dirk
Ginobili >>> Howard
Parker >> Kidd at this point

there's the BIG difference between both teams..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

LOL would you like to elaborate?..

in case you didn't watch last year, we beat the Hornets with an injured Manu..the Hornets dominated Dallas..we should be better just based on health, while the Mavs are the Mavs..

I don't see the similarities..

Duncan > Dirk
Ginobili >>> Howard
Parker >> Kidd at this point

there's the BIG difference between both teams..

---

Umm Dirk and Duncan are a wash. Manu has a slight edge over Howard but not by much and of course Paker is better than Kidd. However, the Mavs have a better bench and role players. Thus advantage Mavs on a head to head matchup :elephant

Even though I didn't see the drafting of Hill coming, I still like what the Spurs did in the NBA draft. It's in free agency where they came up waaaay short. I would've felt better if they could've inked Najera. I would've preferred him even over Pargo. I sincerely hope they give Tolliver an honest shot at unseating Bonner.

It looks like it'll be next year before they rid the roster of Vaughn, Bonner and perhaps Finley. Of course, these three will be counted on for consistent bench contributions this year. We'll see if they're up to the task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

When it comes to building a basketball team, there are basically three types of players you want on your team:

1. Go-to guys - These are your superstars, the core of your team. Without these guys, there wouldn't be anything to build around.

2. Proven veterans - You know what you're going to get from these players. They may not be as athletic as the days of their youth, but you rely on them to provide some sort of steady role on your team.

3. Youth with potential - Young guys who have athleticism, energy, or above all, potential. Sometimes these players are expected to provide a spark off the bench. Sometimes they get heavy minutes and are billed as "the future of the team." Or sometimes they sit on the sidelines as they develop.


In the last couple of years, the Spurs have tried to build championship teams largely with numbers 1 and 2. Yes, they've relied somewhat heavily on young guys at times (see Parker, Tony and Jackson, Stephen), but for the most part their role players have fit into category #2 (Kerr, Barry, Finley, etc.). And yes, they've occasionally signed younger guys, but you wonder how much they really staked in their development (Butler, Marks, Washington, etc.).

Now, however, the 12-man roster for 2008 is expected to be a pretty even balance of all three categories. I could break it down by position and show you that they have at least one of each in the PG, wing, and big man rotations, but for the sake of brevity, here's the synopsis:

1. Go-to guys

Parker, Ginobili, Duncan

2. Proven veterans

Vaughn, Finley, Bowen, Oberto, Thomas

3. Youth with potential

Hill, Mason, Udoka (still developing despite age), Mahinmi, Bonner, (Tolliver)

(yes, I know there are 13 guys on my "12-man" roster; most likely out: Hill or Vaughn)

Obviously relying heavily on category #3 is much riskier than going with proven experience, but there's no doubt the Spurs needed to get younger, and at least they've done it with a sense of balance.

---

Just shoot yourself in the head...

You are in denial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

Threads presenting a positive opinion on the state of the Spurs' roster are not acceptable offseason material around these parts.

Please take that kind of crap elsewhere.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarelooms

Umm Dirk n Bavetta and Duncan are a wash. Manu injured at 70% has a slight edge over Howard but not by much and of course Paker is better than Kidd.

---

FIFY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by your_pimp

Just shoot yourself in the head...

You are in denial

---

in denial-- that's what Suns' fans, who just spent the last two years harping on how old the Spurs were, are in with a 36 year old Shaq, a 34 year old Nash, and a just-about-to-turn 36 year old Grant Hill. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarelooms

Mavs will finish with a better record and both will lose in the 1st or 2nd round :elephant

---

As great as Dirk is, ive defended him more than most here, he doesnt have the impact Duncan can have on the game.

Offensively, both draw constant double teams and have a similar impact in making everything easier on the rest of the team, but as of now id give Dirk the edge in that department.

Defensively on the other hand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarelooms

Umm Dirk and Duncan are a wash. Manu has a slight edge over Howard but not by much and of course Paker is better than Kidd. However, the Mavs have a better bench and role players. Thus advantage Mavs on a head to head matchup :elephant

---

One little problem, coaching. Who knows what Carlisle is gonna do in his first year in the Mavs organization, and you can not tell 100% if the players are gonna respond positively. At least when the Mavs made the switch from Nellie to AJ, they went with someone who was already in the system and had a raport with the players. There's gonna be a feeling out period of sorts in Dallas, especially coming off the heals of three very dissapointing seasons. Do the Mavs match up with the Spurs? Maybe. Can they beat them? That's a completley different story altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarelooms

Mavs will finish with a better record and both will lose in the 1st or 2nd round :elephant

---

You are as delusional as your owner.

Quote:

---

2. Proven veterans

Vaughn, Finley, Bowen, Oberto, Thomas

---

i'm with you man, but these "proven" vets will have alot to prove...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

The only thing they need to prove is that they can still do what they need to do. Orberto needs to rebound and make his easy shots. Thomas needs to defend and hit that mid range shot of his. Vaughn needs to bring that defence leadership and hustle. Finley just needs to be that shooter we need. Fortunatly Mason can pick up some of the shooting we will loose from not having Brent.

---

Exactly. These proven veterans don't need to be spectacular, they just need to be solid in whatever their role is. Whether that role is to defend or rebound or make a couple shots or play backup PG and make sure the team doesn't absolutely implode while you're in there, that's all they have to do, no more (and no less).

BTW, my utmost apologies for the optimistic threads. I know the Spurs FO isn't perfect, and I know this offseason hasn't gone as many have scripted, but sometimes we have to balance out the hundreds of Chicken Little threads with at least one or two positive threads. And you know what? I really don't think you have to stretch that far to find a lot of positives in this team.

this is what a lot of people ignore when they dismiss players..they don't have to be anything special..they just have to be good role players..not complimentary players, but role players..we already have our 3 stars..

as for the Mavs fan..Dirk and Duncan is a wash offensively..Duncan is arguably the best defensive player of this generation though, while Dirk is just average..

Manu is EASILY better than Josh Howard, who looks like he is on the decline already..

who are these Mavs role players?..

Mason and Mahinmi have upside, while Thomas and Udoka will surely (hopefully) improve after being rookies in the system, so it's not unrealistic to expect that we can compete for the conference title. Ginoblili was a beast last year before he got hurt, so let's cross our fingers and hope he stays healthy.

The Mavs, on the other hand, are up to their nuts in shit: they've got some talent (though not enough), they've paid and overpaid for their nucleus, they have a new coach and an aging point guard - and it still won't be enough, and it's not even close! The skies may seem to be cryin' over San Antonio right now, but Dallas is a laughable mess.

Lose out on Splitter and Maggette.

Draft Hill who plays mediocre, prompting the FO to go after Pargo who plays us.

Barry leaves because he's tired of playing 2nd fiddle to Finley.

Gist plays very well and then we tell him to leave and go to Europe.

We sign Mason for possibly more than he's worth.

Hold ground with keeping Kurt Thomas.

Ian plays solid but unspectacular in Summer league.

Hairston hardly shows anything.

Finley resigns even though he's one dimensional at best when he's clicking, which is one out of every 6 games.

This isn't something to get that excited about. Once again it's all about the big 3 having to overcome the deficiencies of their teammates, and in a sense, the decision making of the FO. Does someone see it different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Truth #6

This isn't something to get that excited about...Does someone see it different?

---

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate and try to take a more optimistic viewpoint, to show that a lot of this is just about how you spin it. (Note: I don't 100% believe some of these, and are just presented as argument...just as I hope some people don't 100% believe the Spurs are doomed for next year.)

-----

Spurs FO was very aggressive this offseason. They aimed high and went after players with recognizable names who filled specific needs for the team. These players included Corey Maggette, Eduardo Najera, Tiago Splitter, and Jannero Pargo.

Pargo and Splitter were lost because of evolving global economics, something that obviously isn't the fault of Peter Holt.

Maggette was offered the max that the Spurs had available; they had a good chance at him until he was overpaid; again, not the Spurs fault.

Najera received a contract that would have upset the 2010 plan, and could have become as big a deal to fans as Bonner's contract. He also liked the prospect of playing in the easier East.

Spurs hear the cry of fans that they need to get younger, so they replace Brent Barry with Roger Mason Jr. Mason is a promising guard who has always had a great knack for defense, and has found a reliable offensive game now too. Paid him slightly more than market value, but had to to get him to accept a 2-year contract which keeps the 2010 plan intact. Meanwhile, Barry is an aging veteran who had a major injury last year, which it took him a longer than expected time to recover from.

Instead of using everyone else's scouting reports, Spurs are proactive in trying to find the next diamond-in-the-rough in the draft. It's possible they've found one in George Hill, a guard who in summer league play has already shown tremendous defense and flashes of being very capable of running the point in the Spurs system. They also find an energetic 3/4 very late in the draft, who could end up being the real steal of the draft. As far as the NBA goes, he's not seasoned enough to play the 3 or big enough to play the 4, so they send him off to Italy to develop, hopefully to return when he's ready. As for Hairston, they already received another 2nd round pick and cash for their 2008 second rounder, so anything they get from him will be pure bonus.

Spurs also solidified their front-court by convincing Kurt Thomas, an unrestricted free agent, to stay with the team he's only been with for half a year. Thomas is a very capable veteran who will bring a lot to the fold in his first full year here. Spurs also resign Michael Finley, who will be a great locker room guy, especially for all the young guys on the team.

Finally, with Duncan, Oberto, Thomas, and small-ball Udoka eating up a lot of the important big man minutes, the Spurs will have the luxury of seeing what young big men Mahinmi, Bonner, and possibly Tolliver can do. If any of these guys can prove to be solid contributors, the Spurs will be more than set in the front-court.

----

And why are these not equally valid points of view? Sure, some of them are seen from very rose colored glasses, but a lot of the takes around here are seen through the glasses of Chicken Little, so there's really not much of a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate and try to take a more optimistic viewpoint, to show that a lot of this is just about how you spin it. (Note: I don't 100% believe some of these, and are just presented as argument...just as I hope some people don't 100% believe the Spurs are doomed for next year.)

-----

Spurs FO was very aggressive this offseason. They aimed high and went after players with recognizable names who filled specific needs for the team. These players included Corey Maggette, Eduardo Najera, Tiago Splitter, and Jannero Pargo.

Pargo and Splitter were lost because of evolving global economics, something that obviously isn't the fault of Peter Holt.

Maggette was offered the max that the Spurs had available; they had a good chance at him until he was overpaid; again, not the Spurs fault.

Najera received a contract that would have upset the 2010 plan, and could have become as big a deal to fans as Bonner's contract. He also liked the prospect of playing in the easier East.

Spurs hear the cry of fans that they need to get younger, so they replace Brent Barry with Roger Mason Jr. Mason is a promising guard who has always had a great knack for defense, and has found a reliable offensive game now too. Paid him slightly more than market value, but had to to get him to accept a 2-year contract which keeps the 2010 plan intact. Meanwhile, Barry is an aging veteran who had a major injury last year, which it took him a longer than expected time to recover from.

Instead of using everyone else's scouting reports, Spurs are proactive in trying to find the next diamond-in-the-rough in the draft. It's possible they've found one in George Hill, a guard who in summer league play has already shown tremendous defense and flashes of being very capable of running the point in the Spurs system. They also find an energetic 3/4 very late in the draft, who could end up being the real steal of the draft. As far as the NBA goes, he's not seasoned enough to play the 3 or big enough to play the 4, so they send him off to Italy to develop, hopefully to return when he's ready. As for Hairston, they already received another 2nd round pick and cash for their 2008 second rounder, so anything they get from him will be pure bonus.

Spurs also solidified their front-court by convincing Kurt Thomas, an unrestricted free agent, to stay with the team he's only been with for half a year. Thomas is a very capable veteran who will bring a lot to the fold in his first full year here. Spurs also resign Michael Finley, who will be a great locker room guy, especially for all the young guys on the team.

Finally, with Duncan, Oberto, Thomas, and small-ball Udoka eating up a lot of the important big man minutes, the Spurs will have the luxury of seeing what young big men Mahinmi, Bonner, and possibly Tolliver can do. If any of these guys can prove to be solid contributors, the Spurs will be more than set in the front-court.

----

And why are these not equally valid points of view? Sure, some of them are seen from very rose colored glasses, but a lot of the takes around here are seen through the glasses of Chicken Little, so there's really not much of a difference.

---

:toast

Great points.

I always enjoy reading your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurker23

Spurs FO was very aggressive this offseason. They aimed high and went after players with recognizable names who filled specific needs for the team. These players included Corey Maggette, Eduardo Najera, Tiago Splitter, and Jannero Pargo.

Pargo and Splitter were lost because of evolving global economics, something that obviously isn't the fault of Peter Holt.

Maggette was offered the max that the Spurs had available; they had a good chance at him until he was overpaid; again, not the Spurs fault.

Najera received a contract that would have upset the 2010 plan, and could have become as big a deal to fans as Bonner's contract. He also liked the prospect of playing in the easier East.

Spurs hear the cry of fans that they need to get younger, so they replace Brent Barry with Roger Mason Jr. Mason is a promising guard who has always had a great knack for defense, and has found a reliable offensive game now too. Paid him slightly more than market value, but had to to get him to accept a 2-year contract which keeps the 2010 plan intact. Meanwhile, Barry is an aging veteran who had a major injury last year, which it took him a longer than expected time to recover from.

Instead of using everyone else's scouting reports, Spurs are proactive in trying to find the next diamond-in-the-rough in the draft. It's possible they've found one in George Hill, a guard who in summer league play has already shown tremendous defense and flashes of being very capable of running the point in the Spurs system. They also find an energetic 3/4 very late in the draft, who could end up being the real steal of the draft. As far as the NBA goes, he's not seasoned enough to play the 3 or big enough to play the 4, so they send him off to Italy to develop, hopefully to return when he's ready. As for Hairston, they already received another 2nd round pick and cash for their 2008 second rounder, so anything they get from him will be pure bonus.

Spurs also solidified their front-court by convincing Kurt Thomas, an unrestricted free agent, to stay with the team he's only been with for half a year. Thomas is a very capable veteran who will bring a lot to the fold in his first full year here. Spurs also resign Michael Finley, who will be a great locker room guy, especially for all the young guys on the team.

Finally, with Duncan, Oberto, Thomas, and small-ball Udoka eating up a lot of the important big man minutes, the Spurs will have the luxury of seeing what young big men Mahinmi, Bonner, and possibly Tolliver can do. If any of these guys can prove to be solid contributors, the Spurs will be more than set in the front-court.

---

Spurs could have possibly acquired some good quality free agents at a bargain price. Unfortunately, you are spot on that changing economics (The Euro at 1.5 to the Dollar) robbed them of the opportunity. The other FAs that signed with NBA clubs were clearly grossly overpaid.

In summary, it was a decent offseason considering what was available on both the draft and free agency. Unfortunately however, I think the Houston Rockets rang rings around us. They stole Brent Barry at a time when we were waiting on Magette. They stole Batum who was traded for Donte Greene to be dealt for Artest. Greene incidentally was drafted after Hill, so we may have potentially made the same move.

Mason is a decent player but not an all-star. Mahinmi may improve if he gets more playing time. Hill is a complete wild card but without a doubt a better defensive player than Vaughn. Tolliver is a Bonner clone, but more athletic and with better shooting form.

The roster then looks like this:

Thomas/Oberto
Duncan/Mahinmi/Bonner
Bowen/Udoka/Finley
Ginobli/Mason
Parker/Hill

Inactive, Injured Reserve:

Vaughn, Tolliver, Hariston(?)

I agree with lurker.

What are you guys wanting the FO to do? They're being aggressive as they can without taking huge risks that don't pan out.

How aggressive do you want them to be? They've taken a decent amount of risks so far without going into make it or break it territory. Is it to the level of risk that you guys think they should? No, probably not but we don't need huge shakeups in the roster. You guys need to be more realistic. We're not going to get a Pau Gasol gift like the Lakers did.

More than anything you should be happy that our front office isn't trading away our only proven youth in Tony Parker for Jason Kidd. Or trading Ginobili for Shaq. Our FO doesn't make huge moves like that for which I am greatful. Maggete isn't bad but do you want them to overpay him just to sign leaving us with a Western Conference Larry Hughes? I mean, would you guys really be happy if they traded Vaughn, Thomas, Finley, and Udoku for Delonte West, Wally Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace, and Joe Smith?


I really really think you guys have forgotten how good we are when our big 3 are healthy. Sure we lost against the Lakers but Ginobili was hitting open 3's and Kobe was hitting fadeaway jumpers with Bowen's hand directly in his face while he missed those exact same shots against the Celtics. They went on some offensive rebound droughts as well but at about half of those were just unlucky bounces. Would it really have gone differently if during all this we had JR Smith on our roster to start chucking halfcourt 3's while playing subpar defense to get us out of the drought?

Be glad that the biggest mistakes they made last year was Damon Stoudamire Who Popovich at least didn't give much PT.

You guys listen way too much to Bill Walton when he says that the Spurs are getting too old during games, we're not young but we're really not THAT old. Ginobili playing during the Olympics is going to hurt us more during the upcoming season than anything the FO did or didn't do.

I for one can't wait to see us get through the first two rounds of the playoffs without Robert Horry.

Isn't defense supposed to win championships..

The Spurs are OK, except they have nobody to defend the athletics long SF (or small PF) like David West, Dirk Nowitski, Lamar Odom, Paul Pierce...

They need a Nocioni type player to be a real contender.

The Spurs must have one hell of a plan for 2010.

Odd on that Tolliver and Hill end start in Austin. FO would not have pursued Pargo if they had confidence in Hill at pg. He is a project at pg but with upside down the line. The handwriting is on the wall for Bonner. Pop doesn't like his game. Against NO and Fakers he can't get unglued from the bench while Horry struggled mightily with a bad knee. Next season h's going to give us 20 -22 minutes like Hory did for 4 years. I don't think so.Finley is less effective coming off the bench than starting. If Mahimni can't deliver some quality minutes the Spurs are looking at the unthinkable---missing the playoffs unless we wear out the Big 3 in order to keep up with Hornets, Rockets and Mavs. litter's decision really set the dominoes falling because he was supposed to the big that replaced Horry. I think we need to bring Horry back for another year ---if healthy he's still better than Bonner, Tolliver, Gist etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs50_

The Spurs must have one hell of a plan for 2010.

---

Bosh.

Bosh is a great idea. We need a Twin Towers again. I would like to get Melo, but its impossible i guess.

If we look at the additions and the losses, and compare offense and defense, it looks like this:

Losses: Barry, Horry

Additions: Mason, Mahinmi, Hill

Comparing scoring, the replacements might look like this:
Mason replaces Finley (10.1 ppg)
Mahinmi replaces Horry (2.5 ppg)
Hill replaces Vaughn (4.1 ppg)
Finley replaces Barry (7.1 ppg) (as #5 swing player)

So the question is-- can Mason/Mahinmi/Hill/Finley score more than 23.8 ppg? I think they can. Even something as modest as 9/6/5/6 for those four players would be 26 ppg.
It's not a huge net gain, but it is plausible for there to be a gain here.

Compare the defensive replacements:
Is Mason a better defender than Finley? Yes
Will a young Mahinmi be a better defender than an old Horry? Very possible
Can Hill be better than Vaughn? Yes
Finley vs Barry? A wash...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

If we look at the additions and the losses, and compare offense and defense, it looks like this:

Losses: Barry, Horry

Additions: Mason, Mahinmi, Hill

Comparing scoring, the replacements might look like this:
Mason replaces Finley (10.1 ppg)
Mahinmi replaces Horry (2.5 ppg)
Hill replaces Vaughn (4.1 ppg)
Finley replaces Barry (7.1 ppg) (as #5 swing player)

So the question is-- can Mason/Mahinmi/Hill/Finley score more than 23.8 ppg? I think they can. Even something as modest as 9/6/5/6 for those four players would be 26 ppg.
It's not a huge net gain, but it is plausible for there to be a gain here.

Compare the defensive replacements:
Is Mason a better defender than Finley? Yes
Will a young Mahinmi be a better defender than an old Horry? Very possible
Can Hill be better than Vaughn? Yes
Finley vs Barry? A wash...

---

:tu

We're not very much better, but better nonetheless.
A team that made it to the conference finals with their arguably 2nd best player on a bad ankle doesn't need huge improvements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

If we look at the additions and the losses, and compare offense and defense, it looks like this:

Losses: Barry, Horry

Additions: Mason, Mahinmi, Hill

Comparing scoring, the replacements might look like this:
Mason replaces Finley (10.1 ppg)
Mahinmi replaces Horry (2.5 ppg)
Hill replaces Vaughn (4.1 ppg)
Finley replaces Barry (7.1 ppg) (as #5 swing player)

So the question is-- can Mason/Mahinmi/Hill/Finley score more than 23.8 ppg? I think they can. Even something as modest as 9/6/5/6 for those four players would be 26 ppg.
It's not a huge net gain, but it is plausible for there to be a gain here.

Compare the defensive replacements:
Is Mason a better defender than Finley? Yes
Will a young Mahinmi be a better defender than an old Horry? Very possible
Can Hill be better than Vaughn? Yes
Finley vs Barry? A wash...

---

do you really think you can judge the quality of the team by just use some numbers and by ignoring much more obvious points?
like the question, who replaces minutes within the roster, if some unfortunately very likely scenarios happen.
the average player starts to decline around 32, then usually has another 3-4 productive years and then at one point hits the age wall. might happen at 35, at 36 or maybe at 38, but it will happen.
when this happens, such a player is more or less useless. we saw it last year with Horry. and this season we are in serious danger that it happens to Bowen, KT and Finley.
it's not a big deal, if you have another (younger) player, who just takes the minutes and provides the same impact. then the veteran can still be helpful as the 3rd stringer.
but who takes for example KTs minutes, if he goes Horry next season? Ian? Bonner? Tolliver?
and we won't see a quality drop? who takes the minutes of Bruce? Ime? can Ime play the same level of defense? sure, he can play decent defense, but is far from the impact of Bruce. and so on.
it's not about the numbers. it's about overall impact.
considering this, we are still 2 "impact" players away from the top of the West IMHO.
to assume that this impact players come from the group of Ian, Tolliver, Hill would be naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountainballer

do you really think you can judge the quality of the team by just use some numbers and by ignoring much more obvious points?
like the question, who replaces minutes within the roster, if some unfortunately very likely scenarios happen.
the average player starts to decline around 32, then usually has another 3-4 productive years and then at one point hits the age wall. might happen at 35, at 36 or maybe at 38, but it will happen.
when this happens, such a player is more or less useless. we saw it last year with Horry. and this season we are in serious danger that it happens to Bowen, KT and Finley.
it's not a big deal, if you have another (younger) player, who just takes the minutes and provides the same impact. then the veteran can still be helpful as the 3rd stringer.
but who takes for example KTs minutes, if he goes Horry next season? Ian? Bonner? Tolliver?
and we won't see a quality drop? who takes the minutes of Bruce? Ime? can Ime play the same level of defense? sure, he can play decent defense, but is far from the impact of Bruce. and so on.
it's not about the numbers. it's about overall impact.
considering this, we are still 2 "impact" players away from the top of the West IMHO.
to assume that this impact players come from the group of Ian, Tolliver, Hill would be naive.

---

If you add up a variety of small improvements and a completely healthy Ginobili to the mix, you have a team that can be better than the one that made it to the WCF last year.
To answer your questions:
If KT drops off-- 4 extra mpg from Oberto, 4 extra from Ian, 2 from Bonner, 2 from Tolliver= 12 fewer mpg for Kurt, which by the way, I don't think will be needed at all.
If Bowen drops off-- 6 extra mpg from Udoka, 3 extra from Manu (with Mason at SG), 3 extra from Finley, 2 from Tolliver= potentially 14 mpg of backup relief. Problem solved. And Pop is even better at this than I am.

Look at my post again. I talked about offensive numbers AND defense. The whole package, not just numbers. Also, you are neglecting the distinct possibility that Parker is only entering his prime right now and could be better than ever, as well as the potential improvement from role players like Udoka, Bonner, and Thomas who are now more familiar with the complex Spurs' system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timaios

The Spurs are OK, except they have nobody to defend the athletics long SF (or small PF) like David West, Dirk Nowitski, Lamar Odom, Paul Pierce...

They need a Nocioni type player to be a real contender.

---

Agree... unless Tolliver is that guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

Problem solved. And Pop is even better at this than I am.

---

I do hope he is. your idea that minutes can just be handed to whoever is left on the roster and could play the positions is...well, clueless.
and if you talk about Pop, than you should see how he handles rotations. it's about what role you play in the rotation. you think when a player turns from a 30 MPG player to a 15 MPG player, you just give 5 additional minutes to all the others? what an unbelievable nonsense. if a player loses his ability to deliver 30 quality MPG you need another player able to do this, who takes his spot in the rotation. if you don't have this player, your team gets worse. end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

as well as the potential improvement from role players like Udoka, Bonner, and Thomas who are now more familiar with the complex Spurs' system.

---

once more the weak "learn the system" argument.
Bonner was worse in his 2nd year than in his 1st. and you think he improves in his 3rd? why? because he got married?
the 36 years old KT won't "improve" book it.
Ime. maybe. so what. you've got a decent role player like even the worst teams usually have 3 or 4.


btw Tony? yes he's still young, but there isn't any player in the history who played as many games as he did up to his age. he's got the milage and experience of a 30+ years old player. you better hope he doesn't start to decline earlier than a player usually does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timaios

They need a Nocioni type player to be a real contender.

---

agree.
(plus a quality role player big, someone like Haslem)

I doubt Bonner can develop much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dknights411

One little problem, coaching. Who knows what Carlisle is gonna do in his first year in the Mavs organization, and you can not tell 100% if the players are gonna respond positively. At least when the Mavs made the switch from Nellie to AJ, they went with someone who was already in the system and had a raport with the players. There's gonna be a feeling out period of sorts in Dallas, especially coming off the heals of three very dissapointing seasons. Do the Mavs match up with the Spurs? Maybe. Can they beat them? That's a completley different story altogether.

---

yeah just wait till rick and mark have that first, (i thought you said you could coach) and then mark replying with.........i can, i really can and one other thing rick dont piss me off or ill upset you, the players, and the fans. ive done it before ill do it again :lol