-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spurs9
I guess that GIF seals the answer for good!
Spurs got lucky to have given him away!!
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
This isn't a debate about who between Splitter and Diaw is the better player. It's a debate about who fits better alongside David West in the second unit. In my view, Splitter on paper would seem to be the better fit.
Of course, as numerous people have pointed out, there were other considerations (e.g. length of the contract, health, etc). But I believe that the team ultimately would've been better off with a true center in the 2nd unit, rather than having 2 power forwards.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
Don't forget Tiago also had the bigger contract, tbh... there were also financial reasons to move him and open up more space for all the signings...
Let's not forget the health factor, tbh..I think Pop soured on him in the end..Missing a combined 53 games the past two seasons was not the way to go forward with Timmy pushing 40..Diaw, coasting and whatnot, still has been a real work horse or the team since he joined us only missing 11 games the past 3 seasons..
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cd021
Actually read an article about West's passing ability, apparently he put up similar passing numbers to Diaw last season and on a far worse offensive team. That unit really has four good play makers.
Exactly. The second unit doesn't need four playmakers. It needs a rim protector. Diaw's skill set in that unit is redundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
Why not Mills-Ginobili-Diaw-West-Marjanovic??? That makes just as much sense if you want to have a classical C in there.
Marvonovic is a classical C, but he's no rim protector. The 2nd unit needs a rim protector.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
benefactor
Diaw has basically zero value to any team other than the Spurs. It was always going to be Splitter.
it was all about whom coach Bud wanted more.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Nah, Diaw is a bad matchup for many teams in the playoffs. When he's on, he's far superior than a healthy Tiago Splitter. You can't underestimate what he brings to the team, and with the splitter trade, the FO see this as well. There is no one in the league like him. You can find another Splitter.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uriel
Exactly. The second unit doesn't need four playmakers. It needs a rim protector. Diaw's skill set in that unit is redundant.
Marvonovic is a classical C, but he's no rim protector. The 2nd unit needs a rim protector.
the 2nd unit must provide scoring punch. Diaw is the best all around big man. Splitter couldn't create and score by himself, only pick-and-rolls and foul drawings.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uriel
We
:lmao
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
benefactor
Diaw has basically zero value to any team other than the Spurs. It was always going to be Splitter.
Well, it's not like we get anything of value out of Splitter anyway. It was essentially a salary dump. Besides, if we offered Atlanta Diaw for free (the way we did Splitter), I doubt Bud would refuse.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
San Antonio Slayer
the 2nd unit must provide scoring punch. Diaw is the best all around big man. Splitter couldn't create and score by himself, only pick-and-rolls and foul drawings.
The 2nd team already has two playmakers in Ginobili and Anderson, as well as a skilled passer in West. The second unit doesn't need more offense. It needs more defense.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Mozgov and Bogut, traditional C's and rim protectors were benched on the finals. Marc Gasol, a rim protector, cant do anything against GSW. We didnt have a rim protector due to Splitter's health which is conveniently disragarded in these types of cnversations yet a contender like the clippers needed 7 games and late game heroics to beat us.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
look_at_g_shred
Nah, Diaw is a bad matchup for many teams in the playoffs. When he's on, he's far superior than a healthy Tiago Splitter. You can't underestimate what he brings to the team, and with the splitter trade, the FO see this as well. There is no one in the league like him. You can find another Splitter.
Again, this isn't a debate about who between Splitter and Diaw is the better player. It's a debate about who between the two fits better alongside David West in the 2nd unit.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
100%duncan
Mozgov and Bogut, traditional C's and rim protectors were benched on the finals. Marc Gasol, a rim protector, cant do anything against GSW. We didnt have a rim protector due to Splitter's health which is conveniently disragarded in these types of cnversations yet a contender like the clippers needed 7 games and late game heroics to beat us.
I see your point. There are certainly several matchups in the playoffs where we would be better off with Diaw than Splitter.
But you can't compare the two players in isolation. You have to look at them in the context of who they're playing with and the entire length of an 82-game regular season. Under those circumstances, I think you and I can both agree that it's better to have a rim protector in the second unit than none at all.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Richie
Diaw would have cost us a pick to get rid of whereas Splitter we dumped for nothing. Diaw also makes less salary and since we didn't know what the cap could be we had to plan for a 67m cap.
Yes, that's true, which is why I put "in hindsight" in the thread title.
Also, I disagree that we would've had to package a pick to dump Diaw. If we offered Atlanta Diaw for free (the way we did Splitter), I seriously doubt Coach Bud would've refused.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Start Diaw with Lma ��
Duncan comes off the bench as your coveted 2nd unit rim protector
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uriel
On paper, Mills-Ginobili-Anderson-West-Splitter makes far more sense than Mills-Ginobili-Anderson-Diaw-West, especially considering the latter group has three playmakers and no rim protector.
I think you make a good point. Our second unit is quite small. I will be interesting to see how pop will shuffle the line ups and manage the minutes with Diaw, West, and Marjanovic. Splitter would have played with LMA and would have given more rest to TD. It would have been a crazy pick and roll situation with Manu, Tiago, and West. It is what it is now. The FO had to do it at the time. No matter what, Spurs second unit is the best in the league.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
I'd be willing to bet the bank that LeBron, in a million years, wouldn't stuff Boban going up for a dunk........
We couldn't have pulled off our offseason if we didn't dump Tiago's contract to Atlanta.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
look_at_g_shred
any exhaust work on her?
Did a resonator delete. Sounds bad ass now. I'm doing the Scat Pack upgrade eventually.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uriel
The 2nd team already has two playmakers in Ginobili and Anderson, as well as a skilled passer in West. The second unit doesn't need more offense. It needs more defense.
Anderson is too young to be the main creator of our bench offense. Manu will play limited minutes and games. I am ok if the bench will have a mess under our rim while scoring 50+ points per game. West is a good passer but with his age he is better on the center than on PF. Anyway our best five was with Diaw at center 3 seasons in a row. We are witnessing the small ball era)))
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
benefactor
Diaw has basically zero value to any team other than the Spurs. It was always going to be Splitter.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
He can post up and West space the floor, on top of making plays for everybody else. That's the beauty of being stacked, tbh... Then on defense he can get some rest instead of banging with big men...
Recent history shows that playing 3 bigs just can't work outside of limited minutes in certain situations. Diaw and West can both post, pass and shoot but at the end of the day both can only hit consistently from about 18 feet. Teams will sag off one of those two and recover forcing them to put the ball on the floor or shoot a contested mid range jumper.
Utah tried this in '13 when they played Milsap, Jefferson and Favors together. They were very good defensively and crashed the glass but got murdered on offense.
Spurs will probably go Anderson-West-Diaw and have Boban play spot minutes or even start in the dozen or so games Duncan rests. At least with that unit Anderson has more range even though his 3pt shot is still a bit unproven. The Bench crew has been much more of an offensive unit ,anyways, for the past few seasons. As long as they can blow the doors off teams offensively and not be a joke on the other end they're be a plus.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Even if one thought Splitters rim protection > Diaws overall game, the health factor makes the Diaw choice right all the way.
Wish Splitts the best but it's a mystery as to how many playoff games he will show up in next year. If he stays healthy he should excell in the Least.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
we discussed this before free agency, too. i thought trading boris made more sense, but the salaries made it so tiago made more sense
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uriel
Marvonovic is a classical C, but he's no rim protector. The 2nd unit needs a rim protector.
What do you call a "rim protector"? To me, a rim protector is a shot blocker/excellent rebounder, and Splitter was none of that. Splitter was a terrific pick and roll defender and a bruiser with quick feet.
-
Re: In hindsight, should we have traded Diaw instead of Splitter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cd021
Recent history shows that playing 3 bigs just can't work outside of limited minutes in certain situations. Diaw and West can both post, pass and shoot but at the end of the day both can only hit consistently from about 18 feet. Teams will sag off one of those two and recover forcing them to put the ball on the floor or shoot a contested mid range jumper.
Utah tried this in '13 when they played Milsap, Jefferson and Favors together. They were very good defensively and crashed the glass but got murdered on offense.
Spurs will probably go Anderson-West-Diaw and have Boban play spot minutes or even start in the dozen or so games Duncan rests. At least with that unit Anderson has more range even though his 3pt shot is still a bit unproven. The Bench crew has been much more of an offensive unit ,anyways, for the past few seasons. As long as they can blow the doors off teams offensively and not be a joke on the other end they're be a plus.
Pop doesn't consider Diaw a "big". He used to call the frontline pairing of him and Tim, "medium ball". In other words, Boris is tall, but that doesn't mean he plays like a classical big.
EDIT: to the 2nd part, the Spurs will trot many lineups out there, depending on the opponent or whatever experiments Pop want to try out. The point is that we have the talent to match up despite losing Tiago.
