Redundancy in the Rotation

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?