The bad things about ZaZa is that he's turnover prone and is not much of a shotblocker.
Printable View
The bad things about ZaZa is that he's turnover prone and is not much of a shotblocker.
I admit to not knowing much about this guy. For those that are more well-informed, how does rate versus the other BIG possibles? (Camby, Gortat, Kaman, Sheed)
Younger and more durable than Camby, but not as good a rebounder or defender.
More skilled than Gortat. Similar size.
Not in Kaman's class.
Nowhere near the skills of Sheed, but younger, bigger and emotionally stable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimble87
:lmao
:rollin:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
linkQuote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Nice :smokin
Would be a nice fallback if Dyess and Sheed can't be inked.
Im ok if we get Zaza at least hes young. Still I hope Wallace is the Spur's priority right now.
i like Zaza and have thought he'd be a good fit for the Spurs' needs..not sure if he's not just another Rasho though...
It would be just like the Spurs to make him their #1 priority while everyone else assumes it's Wallace or McDyess.
I'm still hoping it's Wallace but I'm ok with this if so.
That thought has indeed crossed my mind when speculating about 'Sheed and 'Dyess...Quote:
Originally Posted by loveforthegame
I actually like Pachulia, but I don't find it all that appealing to invest the type of dollars needed to acquire him, when you've got a somewhat similar player (Splitter) who will demand an MLE-type contract next year to bring him over.
Maybe the Spurs don't want to chance Spillter doesn't come over?
I don't see Bonner back next year and it's likely they want to keep Blair's minutes down as well.
linkQuote:
Pachulia is sure to be a target for other teams, mainly because quality 7-footers at reasonable prices are hard to find. He just finished up a four-year, $16 million deal with the Hawks and stands to command more on his next deal.
“We’ll see how things go,” Pachulia said via e-mail Tuesday afternoon. “All you can do is watch how the negotiations go and move on from there.”
Why so much interest in this guy? I'm asking honestly for those who are in favor of bringing him in.
hes a fallback plan at least I hope that is what the spurs consider him.
He's a skilled, young F/C that probably will get undervalued in the current market.Quote:
Originally Posted by NewJerSpur
Having said that, he's probably not a good fit. He won't intimidate anyone defensively and though he's not a terrible rebounder, it isn't a strength.
I saw him play live and on TV when I lived in ATL, so I've seen the talent...but again, not sure he's the best fit for the Spurs.
Not likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveforthegame
The three interviews I've heard of R.C. have given me the impression that Splitter is very much in their picture and someone they're committed to getting over here. It actually sounded like they made a pretty decent attempt to find a way to get him over here a year early, but are definitely now looking at '10 being the year.(What was expected all along)
As for the second part you mentioned...
The Spurs, in all likelihood, will extend at least a MLE for 2 yrs. on a big, need to spend MLE-type money on Splitter to bring him over, and have Tim making his huge chunk, all next year.
I don't know that it's all that feasible to have 3 bigs (if you add a Pachulia) not named Tim making over 5M a year.
Skilled offensively? Post game? Jumper? I know he has athleticism from the games I've seen but I've just wondered why he was so high up on the wishlist for what the team needs at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Offensively, yes. Fundamentally solid, smart player...can score with his back to the basket or face up, but he does most of his damage in the paint. He flashed the mid-range game from time to time, but since he was utilized mostly as a Center, I couldn't tell you for sure how effective it would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by NewJerSpur
I actually think him being classified as a Center probably hurts him too...because he's more of a finesse player. He only played Center because the Hawks were devoid of anything resembling a center for most of his tenure.
If he were to play for the Spurs I'd like to see him at PF and/or alongside a stronger, better rebounder.
Thanks for the breakdown....I've never really followed his game that closely. I'd probably prefer to bring in David Lee via S&T if we were going to go the PF/converted C direction. Just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Lee would be insane, but most of the discussion is that he'll get a deal above the MLE from the Thunder or Grizzlies.
A player that is in the same class as Pachulia, although with a completely different skill set would be Anderson Varajao. I figure they'll both get between $4-5M per year. And I think Varajao actually fits the Spurs better.
Yeah, people are ranking Anderson pretty high in general. I view him as being in that 2nd to 3rd tier with guys like Gooden who should get scooped up after the dust clears to strengthen a team's depth.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
David Lee isn't at all what the Spurs are looking for and I'm not sure the word "finesse" and "Pachulia" ever really belong in the same sentence.
I think the Spurs have to operate this year as if Splitter isn't coming over next year. They can't make room for him by turning down players that could help and then find that Splitter stays next summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKJACK21
Besides, Splitter isn't bust-proof. Pachulia could be the much better player.