The Spurs need offense off the bench like "microwave" Farmer.
Which is exactly why the Spurs shouldn't take the risk in making Hairston available. Farmer has made a case for himself, no doubt. But if it's this close, I'd go fo the all-around player with the higher ceiling. Besides, the Spurs are in no position to throw away promising draft picks. It's not as though they have a plethora of swingmen in their pipeline.
I hear what you are saying, but I STILL want Farmer. I want Malik on the team too, but not ahead of Farmer. Dump Vaughn or Bonner please.
Like a lot of posters here, I'd like to see the Spurs find a way to hold onto both Farmer and Hairston, but if it comes down to one or the other I'd rather see them keep Hairston.
I like Farmer's ability to score, but I think Hairston has a more balanced game (particularly when you look at blocks and rebounds). And, as has been pointed out, Hairston seems to have a much higher ceiling.
No. You can only play in the D-League your first two years in the league. Hes got quite a few more than that.
As I stated in the other thread, Salim played himself out of any chances of making the team last night. He looked horrible. His shot was way off and he had no handles whatsoever. Poor guy. You can tell he was trying his hardest to do good, but his body and shot weren't cooperating.
Hairston or Farmer? Why not both? I suppose it's possible, but is it likely? Lets assume that Tolliver is a lock, leaving only one spot free now. You could conceivably move Bonner, but who would take him? And with two overpriced years left on his contract it's unlikely we could send him out without taking somebody equally unneccesary back. The best solution is waiving Jacque Vaughn if you want to keep the Hairston/Farmer duo.
There are several reasons this could happen:
a) The lightbulb for George Hill is obviously starting to come on. His play makes Vaughn's usefulness limited.
b) The injury to Ginobili, the age (and limited production) of Finley last year and the general need for athletic wings make Hairston and Farmer intriguing.
c) Roger Mason's ability to play both guard spots allows the Spurs to maintain a 3 PG lineup. And the Spurs have obviously been considering this by giving him the opportunity to play some PG in preseason.
d) The Spurs are often slow to admit a mistake with a draft pick (see Marcus Williams) indicating a preference towards Hairston. But Farmer's production is hard to ignore and seems to be just what we need right now.
However, there are reasons that this seems unlikely as well:
a) Pop likes his vets and values their experience. Vaughn is entrenched in the system and knows what to do already.
b) Theres a lot to be said about "knowing the system" to be effective in San Antonio. Waiving Vaughn leaves you with only 1 PG (Parker) that has more than 30 minutes in the system. A scary proposition regardless of what you think of Vaughn.
c) Pop has consistently shown a desire to have 3 full-time PG's on his rosters. The old addage of "make Barry the 3rd PG" never took off despite countless suggestions to do so. Mason would be a similar situation and might make no more sense to the coaching staff than Barry did.
All and all, it's unclear whats going to happen. I could really see it going either way. Frankly, I'm hopeful for Hill's continued growth and ability to evict Vaughn from his tenured position. So if Vaughn's days are numbered anyways, why keep him? We've needed a youth movement on the wing for a while and we have two decent prospects knocking on our door.
Waive Vaughn and take your chances with the Parker/Hill/Mason PG set. Bring in Farmer and Hairston. Problem solved.
Do the Spurs still have that trade exception or has that expired? If they do, I wonder if they could use it to unload Bonner or Vaughn.
If it hasn't expired yet it will in just a few days. Bruno would know.
Yes, I thought the same thing about Green. And Watkins too, I guess.
Couple days left. It doesn't matter, though. The Spurs don't have roster spots and Hairston and Farmer are as good as anyone they'd pry away with an exception. It'll expire unused.
Your little Indians are confused. Tell their chief to brush up on what a trade exception is and how it can be used. But the short answer is it can't be combined with a player, and even if it could, it's used to acquire players, not give them away.
+3, good response
This post nails it.
That would be a dream scenario. Would make too much sense, which is why it's not likely to happen. Pop has grown to like 3 legit PGs and 2 perimeter-shooting bigs on his roster.
What would be the salary implications if they waived Vaughn and he was picked up by another team (i.e. Orlando)? Isn't that money guaranteed regardless?
I think so. But I was under the impression that veteran minimum players are not counted against the salary cap anyways.
Essentially what the staff is likely arguing is the idea of win now or win later.
It's important to understand how the staff views each of the players.
Vaughn is definitely a win now player. His value decreases with each year as his age increases. There is no hope of "developing" a player like Vaughn. He is what he is.
Hairston is likely viewed as a win later player. One can assume that he will have an appreciating value to the team and that the dividends from his development likely wouldn't be felt this year.
I'm curious how the staff views Farmer. He obviously has the ability to score right now, but would he be able to overtake even a player like Finley? That still leaves Bowen/Udoka/Mason and eventually Ginobili in front of him even if he does. But hes young, so developing him is likely a draw as well. So maybe hes something of a blended now & later kind of guy?
With that aspect analyzed, what will each of these players bring to the team?
With Vaughn being a win NOW guy, and assuming Hill overtakes him, as well as a deep reserve he really contributes very little. Vaughn stands as a hedge against two things: injury and Hill contracting "Beno-itis" or otherwise hitting the rookie wall. And concerns over Hill are most definitely well-grounded. There are concerns about how he'll adapt (coming from a small college) and that his summer league appearances were often pedestrian. I think Hill will be good, but how good will he be this year? Jacque also was initially brought in to mentor both Parker and Beno. If ever there was a PG that needed mentoring it was a youthful one like Hill. Overall, Vaughn is their ace in the hole in case something goes south with any of the PGs, but especially Hill.
With Hairston being a win LATER guy his production is largely deferred. Hairston symbolizes a look towards the future and an anticipation of continued success.
Farmer being a blend offers an interesting situation. His win NOW aspect helps the team in a crucial area, but is probably little more than an injury hedge. And in the unlikely event that he makes the team and is active he also serves as a drought-buster. His win LATER aspect suggests that he can eventually take up the mantle held by some of the elder statesmen on the team (Finley?). Although, I'd say his ceiling is significantly lower than his compe ion's.
What are the team's motivations?
Obviously we want to win a championship. Now. Which lends itself to the win NOW players. Vaughn and to some degree Farmer, help this perspective.
But how long do we think the window will be open? Surely for a few more years at least. And our current wings are aging rapidly and probably won't be compe ive as long as Mr. Duncan is. Bringing along quality wings enables the team to keep supplying Duncan with quality support to make the most of his now limited contender years.
So the basic question is, does Vaughn give you enough NOW to dismiss the potential future of those two wings? And do those wings have enough potential for LATER to make up for Vaughn's current hedge?
I think you're correct. Half is paid by the league.
Waive him.
If a player (of 3 or more years experience) is playing under a 1 year, 10 day, or rest-of-season minimum contract, the league pays the portion of the salary above the two-year veteran minimum. The cap charge this year for such a player would be about $798k.
Good points, and I think you answered your own question.
In my opinion Vaughn really doesn't offer Win Now and he definitely doesn't offer Win Later. To me, he's neither. But yes he's more Win Now if only because there is no other option.
He is solid as a 3rd stringer but can we afford a third stringer when we have more pressing issues? We need help at the wing. In fact, we needed scoring at the wing before Manu had surgery. Remember, the obsession with JR Smith? With that in mind, it seems obvious we should keep Farmer because that is our most pressing need.
Also, you touched upon a good point about the FO being set in their ways. I would go farther and say that their at time formulaic approach to personnel is not always helpful and clouds their vision to what seems to be obvious decisions.
For example, our obsession with finding the next Robert Horry.
Horry, a 7 time NBA champion is not someone you can easily replace and the idea that they were grooming Bonner for that role looks basically re ed. Could anyone be more ill-equipped than Bonner to fit that role? The only thing they have in common is being tall and being able to shoot the 3, but in reality Bonner can't always shoot the 3 and to make the distinction more pronounced, Horry was actually useful in ways that had nothing to do with outside shooting, such as all around basketball knowledge, you know, things Bonner is lacking.
To make it worse, they're continuing with this formula so that now Tolliver is being groomed at the replacement to Horry's replacement. Tolliver is a fine player but in our insistence on finding the next Horry we've kept Bonner around at the expense of signing Scola, and then added Tolliver on top of Bonner at the expense of sending Gist off to Europe. Am I the only one who thinks Bonner is less useful than those two players?
Not at all. It's absolutely assinine to think that Bonner was kept at the expense of Scola. I'm sure the FO would spin it another way, but essentially that's what happened. Of course, I give them a pass on that one because at the time, it was widely assumed that Spilitter was coming over.
However your point is very well taken. Having Scola and Gist on the roster would make for a much better team.
IMO, one wrench that delayed the Scola arrival was the quiet acquisition of Oberto a couple of seasons ago. I wasn't a member of the board back then, but who saw that one coming?
I'm actually fine with this move. It's unclear how much Gist would have played this year for the silver and black anyways. Besides, I'm looking forward to some games in Avila this year and seeing Gist play out in Italy.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns
Spurs waive 3 to put roster at 16
SAN ANTONIO (AP)—The Spurs waived guards Devin Green and Salim Stoudamire and center Darryl Watkins on Thursday.
Green averaged 7.0 points and 22 minutes in four preseason games, while Stoudamire averaged 5.5 points in two games. Watkins played in five preseason games, averaging 3.2 points and 3.2 rebounds.
The moves leave the Spurs with 16 players on their roster, one over the regular-season maximum.
Except it didn't. Butler was dumped at the expense of Scola -- but if it makes you feel superior to the Spurs' FO, by all means keep believing your story.It's absolutely assinine to think that Bonner was kept at the expense of Scola. I'm sure the FO would spin it another way, but essentially that's what happened.
My bad. Thanks for the correction.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
