I was thinking the Spurs could have drafted Mario Chalmers in the 1st round, George Hill in the 2 round and James Gist. Having Chalmers would have given them a tradeable asset and no one was going to take Hill, more than likely. Even if someone did he would probably had not made their roster, SPurs could have swooped in on him then. Passing on Chalmers was just not wise.
Mason was a great pick up more than I could have imagined. All he needs is that green light and a starting spot.
Resigning Finley never made much sense to me and now it makes even less sense. If They could have traded Chalmers for a useable Big or Three, picked up Hill and still sent Gist overseas then the Spurs would be in a much better position and possibly would have had more money to offer someone else.
My thing is Chalmers would have gave them something to work with in this past draft.
How can you grade Hill with Chalmers when Hill has yet to play any real minutes. Chalmers is starting because he's on the Heat. He's putting up decent stats for a rookie starter but he's also playing 30+ minutes a game.
If Hill got those minutes as a starter on a terrible team, guess what, his stats would be probably as good or better.
Hill was gone to the Celtics in the first round if the Spurs wouldn't have picked him. There was no way to get both players without making a trade.
Chalmers has looked pretty good but Hill is also showing good things so far. Way too early to make a decision. Once upon a time, Spurs fans were angry that the Spurs didn't draft Jamaal Tinsley instead of Tony Parker after Tinsley started the season off with some good statistical games.
I remember that.
People hated Parker and were utterly pissed we didn't get Tinsley. I think those same people still post at SR.
Though correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't one of them GW? He wanted him because of his street cred?
Even if they don't miss Tinsley, people still hate Parker
Wow, I wasn't aware. My statement is based on no one taking Hill in before the Spurs in round 2. I'm not angry about not drafting Chalmers but I was thinking in terms of having some trade leverage because I know Hill is going to be a special player for the Spurs. Perhaps even the NBA. Great find in my book.
Which is why he lasted until the 34th pick in the draft. Most teams passed on him at least once - and others could have traded up to get him.
So what are you basing his value as to being a tradeable asset on? Especially in comparison to Hill, who appeared to be more in demand on draft day with the Lakers and Cs both eyeing him with their pick.
Drafting a rebounder has more logic than drafting Chalmers as far as this other scenario.
Chalmers being a pg and with the success of Nash, Paul and Williams the trends are to grab a pg especially since most teams need a GOOD one
If the object of the draft is to fill needs, why would any team draft two players at the same position in consecutive rounds? That simply makes no sense.
Agreed on the its still to early bid.
Still to early to make that kind of judgment. Alot of us watched the rooks play in summer leagues etc. Hill didnt look great but he didnt look bad. The hard part about our team is when we draft players we are not like lottery teams. So I think there is this transition period where you hope you find a talented player that blends into your system till you have no choice but to hit the lottery. On those teams thats where you find alot of young players, losing games, either getting better or still going nowhere. With us we still have 2 or 3 great players. Its not totally broken, just has a few pieces that havnt been worked on for to long. Give it sometime on the new pieces. So we cant permanently get rid of the broken pieces. Yall know the names and their numbers.
Offensive statistics don't translate to success. As of this morning, two of the top three scorers in the NBA play for the San Antonio Spurs, who have had their worst record out of the gates in their NBA history.
Chalmers has an open path to 30 minutes a game in Miami. If he comes here that is not the case. I don't think he can slide over to the 2 guard given his relative lack of size.
Hill can defend and also play more than one position given some experience because of his greater size and long arms. I believe George is a more versatile player and I trust Pop when his says George can become a disruptive defensive force (Jason Kidd did not like having the kid get all up in his grill a couple of nights ago.
I am hoping Hill will get the opportunity to get in Chalmers grill for awhile on Friday and see how Mario likes it. I know Tony Parker will teach him a couple of things as well.
like TimVP said, the Celtics wanted Hill, and the Lakers were also interested in him IIRC..
If a team selects two point guards in the draft, chances are, the one selected with a non-guaranteed contract won't make the team. You don't want two rookie point guards. And, just for the of it, if they did keep both, they would play one and one wouldn't play at all, so that one who didn't play would still have no trade value, which is the point you were getting at.
I was throwing out a scenario based on the idea that Hill wasn't known or being persued. I figured Chalmers would have garnered a trade to fill a need.
Tinsley.
I do have a slight, eh, not complaint...curiosity about the Spurs off season. First, the Spurs could use a 4 that could guard the likes of David West. James Gist fits that mold more than Tolliver, albeit perhaps a year away. Second, Bowen looks a little slower on the floor. I wonder if keeping Hairston instead of Farmer might have been the way to go because of that. Peccadillos, I know. But I'm still watching. The 14th and 15th slots are more about next year, anyway.
You hit the nail on the head about Gist. He is probably a year away form contributing on a consistant basis. That is why Pop advised him to play a year overseas and develop his game. I would bet next year Gist will be a solid contributor for the Spurs. I am very excited about his potential in years to come for the Spurs.
I do have a slight, eh, not complaint...curiosity about the Spurs off season. First, the Spurs could use a 4 that could guard the likes of David West. James Gist fits that mold more than Tolliver, albeit perhaps a year away. Second, Bowen looks a little slower on the floor. I wonder if keeping Hairston instead of Farmer might have been the way to go because of that. Peccadillos, I know. But I'm still watching. The 14th and 15th slots are more about next year, anyway.
They still could've used Hairston THIS season. With Finley sucking, even in worse ways than he's ever sucked before, Hairston would be an immediate upgrade. Of course, Pop would keep him on a relatively short leash. But they could use his defense.
I get chills and kinda down thinking about what could have been......
Last years roster: (I think would have won our 5th Championship)
C - Elson, Oberto, Bonner
PF - Duncan, Scola, Horry
SF - Bowen, Udoka
SG - Manu, Finley, Barry
PG - Parker, Vaughn, Stoudamire
This years roster:
C - Splitter, Ian, Oberto
PF - Duncan, Scola, Tolliver/Watkins
SF - Bowen, Udoka, Hairston
SG - Manu, Mason, Farmer
PG - Parker, Hill, Barry
Next year's roster: (If Watkins and Tolliver played well, they would keep their roster spot)
C - Splitter, Ian,
PF - Duncan, Scola,
SF - Udoka, Gist, Hairston
SG - Manu, Mason, Farmer
PG - Parker, Hill,
It sure would have made things interesting when competing for the OBrien........and at least our front court would been more than Duncan and the not so furious 5.
I wanted Barry over Finley. Once Barry left, I still didn't really want Finley back. I felt it was time to move on and trade him in for youth. I am thankful for his help with winning the 2007 Championship. I am thankful for sticking it to Mark Cuban and Pat Riley. However, I would much rather have Hairston. He may struggle offensively, but the kid loves to play defense. That alone should have earned him a roster spot.
Didn't they sign Fin before they knew what they had in Hairston? You can't un-sign a guy. The Spurs are in the boat they're in due to a progression of events. That they have Gist in the pipeline, Mahinmi and Hill on the roster and Hairston in Austin is a pretty rosy consequence of the offseason.
Finley >>>>>> Hairston.
But whatever happened to that Watkins guy -- things are so bad in the middle that he might help.
Finley isn't better than anybody at this point..
Agreed. Especially when you have a player like Parker at the same position. It's not like they needed anything more than a spot player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
