Reply With Quote
Which teams would want him?
top perimeter defender in the league + 40% career 3pt shooting = good trade asset
Please explain.
top perimeter defender in the league + 40% career 3pt shooting = good trade asset
Which teams would want him?
top perimeter defender in the league + 40% career 3pt shooting = good trade asset
Please explain.
Every single major le contender.
Celtics - Bowen could be useful here, but how many minutes will he get behind Ray Allen and Paul Pierce? Besides, who can the Spurs get back from them? What kind of trade asset would he be if he got someone who is a downgrade for the Spurs?
Lakers – Bowen’s lack of handle and offense does not fit with the Lakers at all. His defense would be a welcome relief for the Lakers, but without a strong interior defender, his effectiveness would be minimized. Not a fit at all.
Jazz – Could be placed at the SG position for stretches, but his lack of offense outside of the corner 3 does not fit with the Jazz. Again, who can the Spurs get back for him?
Hornets – Does not fit into the youth movement, could be a replacement for Mo Pete, but why would either team do that? What kind of asset would land you Mo Pete?
Pistons – Prince already got the position covered.
Mavs – If iso plays are still part of their offense, Bowen will not fit. Depends on new coach.
Suns – Forget about it.
Houston – Battier and Artest got the bases covered.
Cavs – Not really a contender to begin with, and Bowen’s age simply does not fit into their long range plans.
In conclusion, only the Celtics, and maybe the Jazz, Hornets and Mavs could use Bowen, and none of the teams can give the Spurs anything of value back. How is that a trade asset?
I don't think the Spurs are trying to trade anyone. I think the front office is sitting on its hands watching the NBA world go by.
Bonner + Oberto for Nocioni.
I really think that the Spurs front office doesn't care one bit about winning -- I'm sure that's actually true of the Spurs' players as well.
while they probably do care about winning, they haven't worked for it, or had to work for it. Take the 97 lottery away from this team and we have 0 championships and this FO was replaced and replaced again by now. with an aging Duncan and Manu, now we'll start to see if this FO (and Pop) has any real ability.
so far? not so good.
I'd rephrase that statement. The Spurs top priority isn't winning, but having a positive and cohesive work enviroment. I believe loyality is more significant to the Spurs than winning.
I offer the following question. Which is more important to you; Having a well paying job which you enjoy, or the number of championship trophies the Spurs win during the Duncan era?
Ok... I called dumbass on this one too....
HOWEVER, the Bucks did just make a 3-way trade involving OKC and the Cavs and involving Mason.
There MAY have been some small shred of truth to this after all.
The Bucks were obviously looking for trade partners and may have floated an idea to SA. I'm just saying, dude has some cred restored here.
http://news-herald.townnews.com/arti...c301173198.txt
article from 3 days ago. this has been rumored since before the "inside info" was posted. dont see how this trade lends any cred to the OP.
So, you are providing a link with no mention of Mason as proof that SA was never approached with a deal about him...
not providing proof of anything. just wondering how a three team trade between mil/cle/okc thats been discussed for a while now lends any cred to the OP? how does the OPs trade make any more sense then it did yesterday morning and wheres the connection to the aforementioned trade?
Ok, I see you are a color by numbers guy.
#1 - Bucks obviously shopping for trade partners to dump expiring salaries.
#2 - There was no mention Mason in the article as trade bait, yet he was indeed thrown in the mix of the trade, so the Bucks were obviously dangling him as part of a trade.
#3 - Making that up out of the blue when there are some things obviously afoot is more than I give him credit for.
This is like asking which teams would want Shane Battier. Please think.
Actually, my statement was entirely sarcastic. I believe the Spurs front office and the players are entirely committed to winning, just as they have been for the last decade. I don't think the Spurs' moves have much to do with the cohesion of the workplace, except to the extent that its easier to win when everyone is on the same page.
As for your question, there's no doubt in my mind that the more important thing to me is having a well-paying job that I enjoy and, luckily, the number of championships the Spurs win during the Tim Duncan era has nothing to do with whether I can maintain a good paying job that I enjoy. Now, if your question is whether Tim Duncan would prefer to maintain a good paying job that he enjoys or to win more championships, I'm guessing it's the latter. And if your question is whether R.C. Buford would prefer to maintain a good paying job that he enjoys or to win more championships, I'm guessing it's also the latter.
People in professional sports are in it to win. The notion that the Spurs don't care about winning is ridiculous to me.
I went through all that other crap for this one line
Let's trave for D Wade
That way, we'll get all the calls
Shane Battier is 30 years old, Bowen is 37.
Battier is a better offensive player.
Bowen is a great defensive player, but how many teams are as devoted to defense as the Spurs that they would be willingly give up something valuable for Bowen?
Now it's your turn to think.
Bowen is nothing more than a role player situational defensive replacement for most teams. And that is what he should be transitioning to on the spurs. Playing him starter minutes will bring the team down.
you guys have to much time on your hands.
The only similarity is the number of teams involved.
Agreed. 9 points a game is worlds above 6 points a game; truely superior.
Actually, one could argue that Bruce is just as good an offensive player as Battier. Shane has better FG and FT percentages, but Bruce is much better from three point range.
only one who has never ever seen either Battier or Bruce play would argue like this. Battier's role in the Houston offense is much more important than Bruce, who more or less does nothing but shoot his open 3s from the corner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions