Redundancy in the Rotation

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but have not garnered any responses...

I know that Buford and Pop like to build their team around this formula... Duncan down low, Ginobili and Parker slashing and shooting. Complement the Big Three with 3-point shooters and guys that play good defense.

However, we have redundant skill sets in the rotation:

Horry/Bonner = tall 3-point shooters
Finley/Barry = veteran 3-point shooters
Elson/Oberto = scrappy rebounding PF/Cs

That's a lot of overlap.

What's more alarming is that when you have Bowen and Vaughn on the floor, you better hope their defense holds, because all you're going to get on offense is the occasional 3.

When I think of this team, outside of the Big 3 (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker), who is capable of putting the ball on the floor and creating his own shot. I'm talking a mid-range jumper, a drive to the hoop, a fadeaway on the baseline, etc.

In other words, most of the bench consists of 3-point shooters and/or guys who can't create anymore or never could in the first place.

The second unit is stale and stagnant, which is why Ginobili comes off the bench.

We need guys that are more versatile and can get things done.

I'd like to see Udoku or someone on this team bring some creativity outside the block and within the 3-point line.

I think a swingman or point guard that can create off the dribble would open a lot up for this team and keep defenses honest.






What do you think?

Question.

A big that could post up on his own and actually have some big man skills would be nice.

Sure Splitter is coming, but I want repeat NOW :(

Bonner is Danny Ferry.

The thing I don't like is that when you sub Elson for Oberto, you're getting more of the same.

Bonner for Horry? Sweet. Another 6'10 guy who plays behind the 3-point line.

Finley and Barry do the same sh1t, too.

No diversity or creativity beyond the three star players.

It gets worse at the end of quarters.

Geez... I wonder if the Spurs are gonna just give the ball to Ginobili and hope for the best.



We need to add another dimension to this offense -- a versatile scorer.

Horry/Bonner = tall 3-point shooters Do you still trust Horry? Some think he's done, thus irrelevant.
Finley/Barry = veteran 3-point shooters I'm sure if they could trade one for a younger player, they would.
Elson/Oberto = scrappy rebounding PF/Cs Elson sucks, so he doesn't figure much into the scheme of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Writer

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but have not garnered any responses...

I know that Buford and Pop like to build their team around this formula... Duncan down low, Ginobili and Parker slashing and shooting. Complement the Big Three with 3-point shooters and guys that play good defense.

However, we have redundant skill sets in the rotation:

Horry/Bonner = tall 3-point shooters
Finley/Barry = veteran 3-point shooters
Elson/Oberto = scrappy rebounding PF/Cs

That's a lot of overlap.

What's more alarming is that when you have Bowen and Vaughn on the floor, you better hope their defense holds, because all you're going to get on offense is the occasional 3.

When I think of this team, outside of the Big 3 (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker), who is capable of putting the ball on the floor and creating his own shot. I'm talking a mid-range jumper, a drive to the hoop, a fadeaway on the baseline, etc.

In other words, most of the bench consists of 3-point shooters and/or guys who can't create anymore or never could in the first place.

The second unit is stale and stagnant, which is why Ginobili comes off the bench.

We need guys that are more versatile and can get things done.

I'd like to see Udoku or someone on this team bring some creativity outside the block and within the 3-point line.

I think a swingman or point guard that can create off the dribble would open a lot up for this team and keep defenses honest.






What do you think?

Question.

---

You feelin' me and I'm feelin' you, GW.

I've always been concerned with the Spurs inabilty to get more opportunity baskets when they are present. Much of that has to do with their style, but some of it has to do with the fact that they do not have anyone outside of Manu and TP, who can slash to the basket or create their own shots.

Obviously, it's a formula that has been successful. They do not have to turn into the Suns or Warriors, but having someone else on the team who could put pressure on the defense from inside the 3-pt line and not necessarily in the post is a good thing.

I've long stated my belief that the Spurs need to acquire a player who possesses a various combination of skills and athleticism. That's why I was heavily campaigning for the Corey Maggette acquisition - still am. Doesn't necessarily have to be him, but someone who bring such skills to the table.

Your comments don't instill confidence in me, Kori.

Basically you are saying the bench is filled with a sh1tty player and a corresponding sh1ttier version.


How can the Spurs not have one (1) athletic, dynamic scorer under the age of 30 in their rotation?

A guy like Willie Green would be swell.

question is, demarr johnson should be on this team

The thing is when you sub Elson for Fabs, you actually get a big man who is faster on his feet. Which is why I would like to see Manu, Udoka and Elson comprise part of a second unit that uses a run and gun type offense. Maybe even throw Barry out there with them and let him run point. Set Bonner at Duncans spot, then we would have 4 three point shooters, a slasher in Gino, a passer in Barry and a rebounder in Elson/Bonner. I think they could run wild out there for 5 minutes at a time while the starters get their rest.

Then bring Vaughn in with Tony. I've noticed he seems to do better when Tony is on the floor with him. He can strictly be the hustle guy, pestering on defense and going to the floor after loose balls. I think Vaughn has a place on this team, but it isn't strictly as a back up point guard. We seem to go stagnant on offense when he is running the show.

It would sure be nice if we could depend on the bench to put up 40+ a night. And by having two styles of O, it would keep the opposing defenders guessing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

question is, demarr johnson should be on this team

---

Can't play D and dumb as a rock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Writer

Your comments don't instill confidence in me, Kori.

Basically you are saying the bench is filled with a sh1tty player and a corresponding sh1ttier version.


How can the Spurs not have one (1) athletic, dynamic scorer under the age of 30 in their rotation?

A guy like Willie Green would be swell.

---

I would like them to have a young athletic, versatile big that can swing from 4 to the 3, as well as a young athletic swingman (2/3). Even if these guys were just sitting on the bench learning this year.

They are obviously trying to look at guys, which is why they called up (and sent down) so many players in recent weeks.

But right now, they don't have it.

I still think they can win this year without young athleticism. The Big 3 and Bruce should carry them through. And like you said in the other post, the rest of the league isn't that good. But eventually, they need to start getting some youngsters up here that are going to stick.

Im sure the Spurs along with other teams would like to know where these players are GDub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Writer

Your comments don't instill confidence in me, Kori.

Basically you are saying the bench is filled with a sh1tty player and a corresponding sh1ttier version.


How can the Spurs not have one (1) athletic, dynamic scorer under the age of 30 in their rotation?

A guy like Willie Green would be swell.

---

The Spurs are missing the energetic fire-cracker SJax type role player. But they were last season too. Luckily Manu and Parker have been able to fill the slasher role without need for anything more.

Finley and Barry are actually pretty good midrange shooters.

The Spurs are at the top of the salary cap and so the only way to get the type of player you want, Ghost, is through a trade. Obviously the big 3 aren't going anywhere. Bowen and Udoka are the current and future defensive stoppers so they're staying put. The Spurs aren't going to trade Finley...Barry's been shopped before, largely unsuccessfully...I don't see anyone else on the roster that would have any real value to anyone. Bonner? Doubtful. Elson? Please.

This likely explains the musical 12th (13th?) man. The search is on for a diamond in the rough to fill that role you've mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Writer

Your comments don't instill confidence in me, Kori.

Basically you are saying the bench is filled with a sh1tty player and a corresponding sh1ttier version.


How can the Spurs not have one (1) athletic, dynamic scorer under the age of 30 in their rotation?

A guy like Willie Green would be swell.

---

Because the spurs were too conservative last summer and decided to keep the same old team and not add any younger players who could be the type of player your seeking.

I did not understand why the spurs decided that since they won last year it would be good enough to win this year with the same team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

I did not understand why the spurs decided that since they won last year it would be good enough to win this year with the same team.

---

No doubt. Expect to win with the same team that won the championship the year before???!!!

That's fvckin' nutz!!

Quote:

---

Because the spurs were too conservative last summer and decided to keep the same old team and not add any younger players who could be the type of player your seeking.

I did not understand why the spurs decided that since they won last year it would be good enough to win this year with the same team.

---

I'd still love to know the young good wing players that were available to get...


Oh wait, trade the heart and soul of the team Ginobili!!

YEAH THATS THE TICKET!!!

wouldnt sanikidze be our long 3 we are lookn for, next year come over?

didnt he do well in the summer camps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

No doubt. Expect to win with the same team that won the championship the year before???!!!

That's fvckin' nutz!!

---

Sure is when the team is a year older and many key players off the bench are on the decline. They should always try to improve, even after a championship.

james jones anyone?

Set Bonner at Duncans spot, then we would have 4 three point shooters, a slasher in Gino, a passer in Barry and a rebounder in Elson/Bonner. - SA Gambler

That sounds great in theory, but why would the 4 3-point shooters get any open looks?

You need someone down low that draws the defense.

What you described is 4 Spurs guarded closely on the perimeter and Ginobili left to try and score on his own.

An athletic forward who can rebound and put the ball on the floor and create his own shot. He doesn't have to shoot the ball well, because the Spurs have that. Someone who can create his own shot. I don't care if he can't shoot beyond 15ft.

Damon Stoudemire (spell check) might be bought out. He only shoots from the outside. Earl Boydkins is still out there. He likes to score.

a million posts is a lot.

First and foremost, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker won't be traded.

So you look at contracts... who has a deal that's expiring that might be attractive to another team?

You look at other teams' need... is there a team out there that could use a veteran gunner like Barry/Finley? How about a hardworking rebounder with championship experience like Elson/Oberto? Some coaches like the novelty of a 4 who can shoot the 3-pointer like Horry/Bonner.

And you continue to look at NBA-DL players or guys off waivers.

The bottom line is that we were fearful that the team was getting too old and injury prone (don't Ginobili and Parker always seem dinged up?) at least two years ago.

Just because the team caught some breaks and was relatively healthy last playoffs didn't mean the front office shouldn't have looked towards the immediate future.

The bench offers a lot of overlap and minimal upside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

james jones anyone?

---

Love the thought. I seriously doubt he could be had now. However, Portland does have a glut of swingmen and Jones isn't getting the type of minutes he could get here next season.

Hopefully, the Spurs will take a hard look at him this offseason.

I think there are enough difference between the players to truly consider it a problem of redundancy.

Finley is a scorer with limited passing ability who is a decent defender. Barry is a shooter who can also pass but is a limited defender.

Oberto is a solid defender who can't block shots. Offensively he's a good passer and can score around the bucket. Elson isn't a very good defender but he can block shots. Offensively he is most a jump shooter.

Horry is a low energy player who plays using his brain. Bonner is a high energy hustle player who plays using his heart.

I think if you want to paint the Spurs with a broad bush, there might be some redundancies. However, a closer looks leaves plenty of noticeable differences.

It sounds like some want the Spurs to be able to magically acquire -- either now or last summer -- a starting-caliber young wing player. Of course, doing that requires: (1) that the guy make next to nothing, in light of the obvious financial constraints that the front office must adhere to; and (2) that the guy be a willing bench player, despite being in the prime of his career. The first of those concerns strikes me as the most pressing, as I'm not sure why another team would give up a low-priced wing player. To get anything more than that, the Spurs are going to have to break up this team in some significant way.

I can understand the concerns for redundancy, but thinking that the Spurs are just going to be able to find a trade partner who's willing to give up a low-cost, credible back-to-the-basket scorer (how many teams really have guys like that coming off of their benches?) or an athletic, slashing wing player? And which players fitting those descriptions were available in free agency?

I can certainly see that guys like Cassell or Szczerbiak might fit the bill in some sense -- although Wally's defense would drive Pop crazy, his contract remains prohibitive, and Presti isn't going to take the Spurs' garbage -- but what chips does this team have to send out to get those guys?

We've spent two summers talking about finding a Derrick McKey-type, but, as we've seen, actually acquiring those players is not as easy as talking about them. I can see the "Spurs are cheap" argument, but it's not my several millions of dollars that are on the line in a gamble that a particular player might make a slight difference.

As for the DerMarr Johnson thought -- isn't that just adding still another spot-up shooter from distance? I'm not sure that DerMarr truly diversifies the bench, his defensive and other liabilities aside.

I think the Spurs have been and are trying to aquire another shooting guard or small forward who can create for themselves and others, but that is a very difficult task. They've taken fliers on several guys and I'm sure are exploring trades, but there just isn't the supply of these types of players to meet the demand for the price the Spurs are willing to pay. It's almost impossible at this point and the only chance is someone from the D-League getting a 10 day contract and exploding (which is improbable). They are going to have to work with the pieces they have and look to make pretty significant changes in the offseason.

FWD is spot on as always.

I agree that we need more youth on the team but every year that we changed the team after a championship we didn't repeat. So sticking with last year's team didn't present that much of a problem with me. I felt that it was worth a shot and maybe we could find a new piece that would fit in and contribute. Since the Big 3 command so much of the $ where were these younger players going to be found and how much would they cost? We got Udoka on the cheap didn't we? We all know how reluctant the FO is in spending $. I think they are still targeting 2010 FA market so they are really tight now IMO. So far we can't get anyone to stick so we're still searching for that young, athletic and elusive long 3.

If all fails and we don't get anyone then I will console myself in the fact that in the playoffs there are no B2B and our veteran players will have the opportunity tO get the rest they need.

timvp, well put. There are distinct differences between the players, but you get my drift. Generally, the positions are laden with with players with very similar skill sets. It's not like we can expect a major change of pace or a "different look" based on the substitutions.

FWD, I agree that Wally seems to be not worth it. I still like Cassell for the short term. And I don't think we can get an established player with the Big Three in place via a trade. I think the Spurs need to find a diamond in the rough... either a young guy that's been slept on or an old guy that no one wants.

Something to break up the monotony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Writer

timvp, well put. There are distinct differences between the players, but you get my drift. Generally, the positions are laden with with players with very similar skill sets. It's not like we can expect a major change of pace or a "different look" based on the substitutions.

FWD, I agree that Wally seems to be not worth it. I still like Cassell for the short term. And I don't think we can get an established player with the Big Three in place via a trade. I think the Spurs need to find a diamond in the rough... either a young guy that's been slept on or an old guy that no one wants.

Something to break up the monotony.

---

I don't think it's the redundency of the skill set which annoys you, but maybe the redundency of the rotations and matchups we have to offer.
As Timvp explained (to a t) the Spurs have a fairly diverse skillset. The skillset of our bench is to compliment the abilities of Tim, Tony and Manu.
Yes, without Tim, Tony and Manu, then the skillset of our bench does seem kinda redudent.

There seems to be a variety of players, if not all them, which are not providing maximum production. Now the cause is debatable, and varies from player to player. I don't feel this slump is as serious as many are making it out to be, nor so simplistic that a trade would be the most beneficial thing at this point. The Spurs just need to get their shit together. We're fine with the players we have.

I don't get what the problem is. There is redundancy in the rotation because that's what fits the system. Redundancy is a good thing, not a bad thing. You can run the same plays with different players instead of having a bunch of different packages for different personnel.

The mid-range scorer is the rarest commodity in today's NBA. The ones that exist tend to be veterans and thus somewhat overpriced. Of the top of my head, the only young guy with a mid-range game who comes to mind is Brandon Roy.

I have to agree that this team really lacks one more creator, a guy who can make his own shot for the 2nd unit when things stagnate. Hpw we're gonna acquire one is the problem.

I presented this scenario in the trade thread:

"...Elson for Pietrus actually does [make sense] for both teams - Golden State are short on big men (Biedrins, Harrington IS IT!) and have too many wings, while Elson is the sort of big that can run the floor and thus would fit their system. Intriguing. But it relies on the premise that Horry still has something left in the tank, and I'm not very sure about that... he may be done. If that is the case, we'd then be severely short on bigs."

Also, I don't think Pietrus solves the problem of adding a creative scorer. Hmmmm... you know who would've been perfect - Maurice Evans! He can create and has a mid range game. However he's found a niche in Orlando. :depressed

I think we're going to see a lot more of Udoka as the season goes on, and although he is more of a "shoot from spots" guy, does he have any shot creating ability? With more court time and a freer reign, could he fill that gap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle

I think we're going to see a lot more of Udoka as the season goes on, and although he is more of a "shoot from spots" guy, does he have any shot creating ability? With more court time and a freer reign, could he fill that gap?

---

Your seeing it tonight...


At least I am!

Redundancy in the Spurs forum? What the hell is that?

Yeah, what the hell is that?

hey isnt some of the gsw players are in a contract year

maybe we could try and pry away sjax!!!!! i believe his contract expires before the 09/10 season....

Ghost please post more often so we can move past the politeness phase and get back to things as they were. Thanks, in advance :tu

The idea of allowing a team that had just won a championship to return intact was a good one...the one tweak being Udoka. That being said, for whatever reason this lineup too often comes out flat and lifeless. When was the last time this team came out at the opening tap and just wiped the floor with an opponent for 48 minutes? A trade or significant roster move is highly unlikely- the best option would seem to be starting Manu Ginobili. It doesn't even have to be for the rest of the season, but right now this team desperately needs a spark- Manu sets the tone with his energy, something the first unit seems to be missing. Different season, different problems. It's worth a try, at the very least.

you know what needs to be done?

horry and elson needs to pull there heads out and start playin hard

You get good young players with high draft picks, something the spurs will lack as long as the big three is there.

Why not trade Elson to some team trying to clear cap space at the end of the season for some (un)protected higher draft picks than the 25th or so the Spurs gonna get?

Elson does'nt play that much anymore and it would open some room for Mahinmi as a back up for the playoff even if it's just for 6 hard foul a night.

I'm just saying that it's a fine line between consistency and staleness.

Eventually, the Spurs need to bring in some younger guys that we can adapt into the system.

And many of you who favor the bench as it is are ignoring the fact that Ginobili is basically our only player who can create his own shot.

I'll give you Parker, but for every 2 times he gets the teardrop or a reverse layup, there's 1 time he loses the ball, arms flailing as he flops to the floor by the photographers, begging for a call.

I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel; just looking to add the dimension of the midrange jumper/creativity to the basket.

The team is the Big Three, a couple of garbagemen under the basket and then a bunch of 3-point bombers. That gets easier to defend as players get older and the shots stop falling. Remember the 2000-01 playoffs against the Lakers?

Redundancy can be an advantage because people are fragile and inconsistent. Having a reliable backup in case of cold shooting and injury is very useful since it allows you to continue playing your game, instead of having to find a new 'style'.

Ghost writer writes about redundancy as if its a bad thing. I believe on the other hand that this is the key to success for the spurs (sorry dude, got to disagree with you with this one). These are the player's roles:

Horry/bonner takes care of three point shots and draws the other teams bigs outside

elson/oberto are the bigmen that take cares of rebounds, boxouts, follow ups and occasional mid-range shots

Barry/finley role is to score and provide fire power from 23 ft and above

As conceded, spurs work with a system. In the middle is duncan; Parker and ginobili slashes etc. etc. However, for this to be effective overtime, the players must be able to understand what to expect from each other. They must also understand that the system only work when everyone is doing what he is required to do.

To do this regularly is ideal. But reality must be considered in the NBA. Things like injuries, personal problems and inconsistent play takes it toll on the players. If a player is not performing, then someone has to fill in his shoes -THERE IS WHERE REDUNDANCY COMES TO THE RESCUE.

If horry is assigned to draw out the bigs but he is injured, where can the spurs go? that would be to bonner.

If finley is on a slump on a particular game , who would score from 3pt land? that would be barry

If oberto is lazy on the rebound, who would do it? no choice but elson (or is it the other way around?). hehehe

Redundancy gives predictability (knowing how others would usually act) . Predictability on the other hand results to consistency (habituality of one's act). It gives the players the opportunity to work together (as well as the expertise). So thank the basketball gods for redundancy.

all im saying is how nice is it to have these players who can all do so many different things? if the only thing we have to worry about is how and when to use these players. thats not a bad thing to have to worry about. considering the state of teams in the nba right now

That's fine, genome.

But what happens when the bench and their clones are all ineffective?

I don't want to generalize, but the bench is two garbagemen and all 3-point shooters.

The NBA is about matchups. That's how you can go small against a Suns team or shoot with the Hornets or mix it up with the Mavs.

Is it too much to ask for a little versatility?


Question.

Quote:

---

I'll give you Parker, but for every 2 times he gets the teardrop or a reverse layup, there's 1 time he loses the ball, arms flailing as he flops to the floor by the photographers, begging for a call.

---

Still cant stand parker.

Still wish the Spurs made that Payton trade?

Yeah that would've been intelligent.

T Park, I give Parker credit... he's consistently worked on his game every year since I suggested they trade him for Payton to secure a ring... nearly 6 years ago.

Have a hot dog.

Anyone else think Malik Rose would be an upgrade over Elson at least?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManuTastic

Anyone else think Malik Rose would be an upgrade over Elson at least?

---

we dont even need elson. ie last night

Increasingly, I think an Elson/Frye swap makes sense. It saves the Spurs .5 million, it gives them a 4th or 5th big man in next season's rotation, it saves Portland money at the position in lieu of Aldridge, Oden and Pryzbilla. Frye's a free agent in 09 so he wouldn't affect our long term cap situation. Frye's skill set is similar to Elson's, but he's more of a "natural" in every way. So this isn't exactly redundant, but it is an upgrade in talent and saves a little money this year.

GW, I understand that there would be games that all might be ineffective. That would also mean a loss for the spurs. If the same roster however would be ineffective within a series of games , that would mean a shakeup in the roster or adjustment on the part of the players. Unless the latter happens, I think its better to leave things as they are. What I'm pointing out here is that, everyone must be in the same page come play time.

Versatility isn't a bad thing. It's great if youre always playing isolation against the opposing team. Considering however the spur-like way of playing - "team means everything". versatiliy is no longer a great necessity. It would be more of a luxury. Shots will come your way if youre playing within the system.

I don't agree that NBA remains to be about matchups. As I see it, the trends seems to be team play not one on one( either on offense or defense). This could be proven by the emergence of international players in the the NBA (who is well trained in fundamental team play). It's a bit boring , but it get's the job done.

I don't agree that NBA remains to be about matchups. As I see it, the trends seems to be team play not one on one( either on offense or defense). - genome

I believe you are confusing the NBA with the NCAA.

I can't believe I can't sell anyone here on bringing is someone other than another old 3-point-shooting stiff.

I believe you are confusing the NBA with the NCAA.
I can't believe I can't sell anyone here on bringing is someone other than another old 3-point-shooting stiff.

Don't get me wrong GW, I'm with you on improving the team. I'm just saying that, having this kinds of players isn't that bad. If you could bring someone that add to the formula - then feel free to do so (As long as he does not disrupt the system). Basketball remains to be a form of entertainment. If you're not entertained - then it's probably spurs basketball that you are watching (that's what media used to call it).

About being confused...NBA - NCAA aren't they the same now a days? Aside from high paying players and huge egos here are some common traits:

1. Rules on zone defense - I think the NBA made this change after the US team composed of "vesatile -make their own shot players" got busted in the Olympics and international competitions (no wonder nash and jason kidds are so valuable)

2. Rules on less physicality - NBA has adopted the rule that you cannot handcheck, bump or hold cutting players who doesn't have the ball. (players like Tony parker has benefited from this rule).

3. Review of buzzer beater shots. Another adoption of the FIBA rules (similar to those used by NCAA)

4. Emergence of international players in the NBA (not really NCAA- like but it's a good point of referrence to FIBA rules) - after the US team lost in international competitions, the NBA has accepted that the other countries (which is used to playing FIBA rules ) are'nt patsies anymore. It showed that playing within said rules would do a ton of good to a team and its players (at least fundamentally). In recruiting this players,the NBA hope that such mentality would rub off to the league (and I think it did).

This adoptions are results of change in Basketball environment. The NBA realized the value of team play as compared to individual skills. NBA plays a big part on basketball but no longer the only part. Seeing the second coming of Jordan would be great for show. However, even jordan understood that the basketball is a team sport (and nobody could do everything by himself). Thanks to the triangle offense, he found a way to play with his team.

So in conclusion, match ups are no longer a big issue now a days. So many ways can be utilized by a team to lessen each one's burden offensively or defensively (because of to the fundamental concept of team play). Verastility , as I said , is a luxury but no longer a necessity.

James Jones looks almost as if designed to be the Spurs future SF.
unfortunatly the league has noticed what he can do, so he is no longer this typical under the radar player the Spurs would try to get.
we will never know for sure, but I think they have been sleeping when there was a chance to get him. Suns gave him away for nothing but a little cash (he was the prize to also get Fernandez rights) and the Blazers obviously didn't plan to use him in the first place, when he wasn't part of the rotation. back then in November, there should have been a good chance to get him for a low price.
remember, the Spurs were very interested in him in 2005, but then choosed to go for Finley. Spurs knew, that he would be the right player.
now the things are different, Jones has been one of the keys for the Blazers recent success and he even shows that he can play very good defense, something that was doubted before. Blazers won't trade him during the season.
maybe there is a chance to get him this summer, he will likely opt out, but his market price will be much higher than his current 3 million salary. (full MLE?)

btw. it was reported, that Riley want's to get the heat that far under the cap, that they can offer a big (or max.) contract this summer. this won't be impossible to do, even if the contract of Shaq is unmoveable.
they need to get expiring contracts for Haslem and Parker, then they will be about 12-13 million under the next years cap. I'm sure Riley once more plans to aquire Elton Brand. (remember, he signed an offer sheet with the Heat in 2003)
however, Haslem would of course add a quality the Spurs current big rotation can't provide. whatever combination of the expiring contracts would be necessary, I would do this trade and if needed also swallow Parker's contract (buy out 2008) and add a pick.
Haslem would be very helpul right now and he would also be a nice part of a future big rotation (Tim-Splitter-Oberto-Haslem-Bonner. Ian still a part time sub)