With rumors of another trade possibly happening.
Mason, Bonner and Finley for Childress.
Parker/Hill
Childress/Manu/McClinton
RJ/Gist/Hairston
Tim/Blair/Haislip
Dice/Ian
-Two remaining roster spots.
Printable View
With rumors of another trade possibly happening.
Mason, Bonner and Finley for Childress.
Parker/Hill
Childress/Manu/McClinton
RJ/Gist/Hairston
Tim/Blair/Haislip
Dice/Ian
-Two remaining roster spots.
Yes.
The only wart on his game is his relatively limited range (I'm not sure if he can consistently extend out the three-point line).
If they do a trade similar to this though, they'd probably need to use the LLE to sign a veteran shooter.
Grant Hill for the LLE? :downspin:Quote:
Originally Posted by L.I.T
But honestly, I don't think we need a vet shooter even if Childress has a limited range.
No... I really don't want to lose Mase. And Childress sucked this year in Europe.
No, I want to keep Mason.
Just to get him away from the Celtics? Hell yeah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Holly
Just checked Childress's three point shooting. In his four years in the league he made 13/32/26/22 threes shooting 23%, 49%, 33.8% and 36.7% respectively. He also shoots a real solid overall percentage: 47%/55%/50%/57%. So...I wonder if he has a three point shot and just doesn't utilize it or what?
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser
Why do you want Childress?
Let's see if the young guys can fill the back-up SF role!!!
It's time to move in that direction!!!
Childress can play the 2.
No.
We cant lose both mason and finley, one has to stay
No. We need shooters and with mase not running the point he will be back to his normal self and his catch and shoot is deadly. Bonner even though i'm not high on him is sort of serviceable. He still hits the three(best in the league) and our big man rotation is deep but things happen. He is insurance and finley is clutch. Josh childress is good but we lose more than gain with this move.
Ok, Bonner and Finley plus rights to Splitter. Would you do it then?
Childress > Mason but a lineup of TD/TP/RJ/Dice/Mase > TD/TP/RJ/Dice/Childress.
I'd probably go with Bonner/Finley and a protected 1st.
noQuote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Holly
Mason is exactly what we need, when he can play his spot up shooter role he is one of the best 3 shooters in the league, before he went to backup PG he was a beast.
I'm just throwing ideas out there. To be completely honest, a trade for Battier, Bell or Nocioni for Bonner and Finley is what I'd prefer.
I could run with that. But I feel we'd be giving away to much for childress. He has holes in his game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Holly
This idea is stupid. Childress is not worth 3 roles.
Childress had one good playoff series against Boston two years ago, other then that, he sucks.
Childress is a very good utility player and more than solid off the bench - he's smart and does a lot of things well. I don't know what you apes are talking about.
In terms of value, that's a win. The problem becomes minutes. Is Childress playing only 20 or 25 minutes per game?Quote:
Originally Posted by L.I.T
?Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
When Childress sucked in Europe fans here said "he was a scrub NBA player not good enough for the NBA that got no offers so he had to go to Europe"
Now all of a sudden he is a "good NBA player":blah:rolleyes:rollin
I agree that I wouldn't want to give up Mason unless it's a no-brainer of a trade. With TD, TP, Manu, RJ and even Dice out there, Mason can thankfully move back to the role that best suits him - spot up shooter.
The problem last year was that he was being forced to create offense. He doesn't have the speed to turn the corner off the pick-n-roll and drive inside, so he did the next best thing which was to shoot the 3 off the screen. That's not a hard play to stop, and that's what happened in the playoffs.
This year, all he needs to do is let the others (and you gotta think that there will be at least 2-3 other players on the floor with him who will create) get him some open looks and continue to play some of that improved defense. I think he can excel in that role. A 45% 3-point shooter with decent D is a valuable complementary piece
Translation: there is 6th string guy who plays for a semipro club in rural Greece who is better than Childress, but that is not surprising because the 6th string guy is actually better than Kobe Bryant. If all Americans had to play in Greece, they would all suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill_Bill_Pana
After Mason's wilting act in the playoffs, I'm not convinced that he's a crucial ingredient and think he could be a useful asset to find other kinds of help. With that said, I wouldn't deal him unless an established wing (not a star, but a guy with some pelts on the wall) was part of the return. I think Childress would be a good fit and I think he fits the definition of an established wing, so if it took Mason to get him, I could live with it. I think Childress would be an interesting piece, if only because he'd add still more athleticism to a team that was woefully short of that the last couple of seasons and that has become overly-reliant on the 3 ball because it struggles to score otherwise.
How can you say Mase is better than Childress? Childress is a lot more versatile and complete player than Mason. IMO at least. If the Spurs could swing a deal that would bring Childress here, I'd be very excited and pleased. He's not as good as Mase from the 3pt line, but Mason was as good when it was most important, which was in the playoffs.
If we kept Mason, then got Childress I think the minutes would be spread too thin with all the wing players, like fwd said the spurs can rely on the three ball too much also. With Childress in his time in the NBA he was efficient, energetic, and could defend well. I think he would be a good fit to run along side Jefferson.
No to Childress. Yes to Nocioni.:downspin:
Bonner and Finely alone is not going to get the Spurs back anything good. Not many teams give up a good player for expiring contracts. We got lucky with RJ.
I'm not sold on Mason, so I would gladly package for the right player. Childress is young, so I would consider. We need a swing player, someon who can play both 2 and 3.
Childress' defense>Mason's defense
Pass. Childress is a good player, but not good enough to the point where I want to thin out the bench to get him. This would only be a move that makes sense if the Jefferson trade hadn't happened.
I think I read in an article where he said he doesn't wanna play in the ATL. He knows he might not be offered a lot, which the Hawks would/could match, but apparently he has asked them or hinted to them not to match. I also read that he said money isn't gonna play that big of a role in his decision. I know a lot of players say that, but who knows. He might be telling the truth.
So if that's the case, could the Spurs or should the Spurs offer the LLE?
Atlanta would have no choice but to match that, no matter what Childress asked them to do. Childress @ LLE would be way too good of a bargain contract to just let go. Even if he refuesd to play there, he'd be an incredibly valuable trade asset.
If I were Childress I'd just accept Atlanta's qualifying offer and suck it up for a year and then be a 2010 unrestricted free agent.
:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Holly
:monkeyQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Body
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord23
I wouldn't even trade Bonner for Childress straight up
all you people hating on Bonner are going to eat it, big time. there's no excuse for the treatment he gets here, and I'm going to rub it in all of your faces, you ignorant fools!
:ihit
He was doing a good job for awhile, but then disappeared. He was a no show in the playoffs. He's had his chance. I think the Spurs are making moves that sort of is like the writing on the wall for Bonner, which is why a lot of people here are throwing his name out there in trade ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by vander
Money mace is my favorite spur outside the big 3, and I don't like fros
:kingQuote:
Originally Posted by ffadicted
Okay, Bonner's dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by vander
:drunk
:froQuote:
Originally Posted by ffadicted
the only problem is that were trading away all of our shooters. im a fan of josh but not for all those guys. (by all those guys i mean just mason)
Yep. Mason is too valuable as a clutch shooter to trade him for the non-shooting Josh Childress.Quote:
Originally Posted by angelbelow
I like Josh Childress a lot, but I wouldn't give away Fin, and Mason, and Bonner.
I know, I know, no need to remind me those three didn't play any good during last year's playoffs, BUT! And I am saying BUT, Fin was big for us in the past, and even though he is not a starter anymore, he can be pretty successful as a bench player. Say anything you want about Bonner, I 'll agree to that, but Mason is for real, listen he is not a superstar and he can't take the team on his back, but he can nail down those 3s! Remember those game winning baskets he was big for us last year, and he will be awesome on a more limited role.
I know, I know, McClinton looks like he is 10 times the shooter Mason is and could potentially be way better for us than, Mason, but think about it, what happens if not?! Do you really want our success to depend that much on guys like McClinton, Blair, Ian and Gist -- too many eggs no chickens yet!!!
That's why we need to keep Fin, Mason and Bonner.
in response toJosh Childress wrote on his twitter,Quote:
as much as we'd love to have you back in ATL, any word on Sign & Trade offers?
https://twitter.com/JChillinQuote:
not really at liberty to say. Ill let Sund tell yall. Hahahahaha
doesn't really mean anything, but it sounds like he is expected to be involved in a sign and trade deal.
Maybe the Spurs are involved, maybe they aren't?
looks like it might either involve the Bucks or Washington
:bangQuote:
Originally Posted by ace3g
why not have a look at boris diaw
Yep, he'd be MUCH better on the Spurs second unit than Childress.Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
Boris on the second unit with Manu, Hairslip, Hill, and Blair, would SHRED the Lakers second unit.
Just embarrass them so bad they'd just walk off the court and go home.