Reply With Quote
Yeah, WAY too early to commit that much on a "belief". I've been worried about his work-ethic since he was drafted, and I'd have liked to see how he handled NOT playing every game, if that makes sense.
No, as you said, he played garbage minutes. But he did play good defense, got rebounds and was aggressive around the rim. I never said the Spurs needed him to score, I simply pointed out that your assertion that he absolutely without a doubt had no offensive game was stupid.
Since I never said anything of the sort, I don't know how you could have disagreed with it. I think a season of playing time and some chances to develop with the Spurs could have resulted in his being able to contribute in the playoffs, especially when Manu was down. As poorly as the guards played defense, and as much as Hill was able to contribute, I'm not sure how that's such an impossible thought.
You said that Hairston could have helped Spurs this year with his "scoring ability". I disagreed with that.
Nice to see that you've changed your tune. I agree that he has a chance to perhaps be something. Maybe not, but it might have been nice to know more about him by this point.
In fact, I did watch D-League games, and I didn't say his offensive game didn't need work. I simply said that the numbers he put up suggest that he isn't completely and totally, now and forever, bereft of any scoring ability. That you assumed that I didn't watch him put up many of those numbers is irrelevant.
Another absolute statement that's impossible to prove. Does it make you feel better to say like that? Pop thought Hill wasn't going to be able to help against the Mavs either.
Defense is a big part of the game as well, and he's already a better defender than Mason or Finley or Udoka. As for rebounding, he seemed like a pretty good rebounder for his position in the games I witnessed him playing in. Better than Bowen, but not as good as Udoka.
Of course it's A reason, as opposed to THE reason. If you disagree, how exactly did Farmer work out for the team? Who did the Spurs have to turn to with Manu out, Hill and Bowen at the end of the bench and Mason running backup point? What's funny is you seem to think the Spurs had so much depth they couldn't have used an athletic young guy who can play defense and give energy. If they had no chance to win without Manu, then wouldn't it have been nice to have been able to throw him in there to get some experience?A reason why Spurs lost against Mavs is because Spurs keep Farmer over Hairston?
Yeah, WAY too early to commit that much on a "belief". I've been worried about his work-ethic since he was drafted, and I'd have liked to see how he handled NOT playing every game, if that makes sense.
I'm with O_V.
Most of us C.O.H. members aren't suggesting that Hairston is an All-Star in waiting or the difference-maker, just that he might of made a difference in a game, had he been given the opportunity to develop over the season.
After Manu went down, the writing was on the wall. Pop said as much before Manu went down for good. As banged up as Tim was and the type of load Tony was going to be forced to carry for as long as their playoff continued, it was probably better they didn't beat the Mavs.
Having said that, who killed the Spurs in that series?
You think the Spurs could have used another option to throw at Howard?
Again, not saying Hairston would've been the difference between winning and losing against the Mavs, but if you're a team admittedly not capable of winning a le, why wouldn't you try to develop players that have displayed enough potential to maybe supplant some of the vets that are no longer capable of getting it done?
I have no problem with them securing the rights of Williams if they think he's a potential point-forward prospect (in fact, I'm all for it) but why would you then cut Hairston when you've got a vet like Vaughn at the end of the bench.
I've got nothing against Vaughn but him being on the team doesn't even provide insurance once Manu's out of the picture. , let him sit on the bench as a coach, ala Avery's last season in Dallas, but don't let him take the spot of a prospect who might actually help you at some point.
I understand Pop and the staff not wanting to completely tank it with Tim and Tony playing there asses off, and I even somewhat admire it, but if it's at the expense of next season it really makes no sense.
Hill being relegated to the bench and Malik not ever being given the chance to succeed was just flat-out maddening.
Without looking backward, cutting Hairston to keep Williams made sense. The Spurs have a chance to have both of them at camp. They'd have lost Marcus for sure if they hadn't done that. It's probably a smart gamble at this point. If someone else grabs up Hairston then there will be plenty of people to second guess the decision.
No doubt, but waiving Vaughn would've guaranteed the opportunity to bring them both to camp. It's not like they would have been locked into some long-term investment; if they find something better than Hairston or Williams it's not like they couldn't have gone in another direction.
I don't know the business end well enough to know if they could have done that. With Pop's complete lack of confidence in Hill going into the postseason, we all know there's no ing way JV was going to get cut.
I'm assuming they could just as easily cut the 14th or 15th man whenever they felt the need to. Like you, I don't pretend to know the business-end as well as the actual basketball, but from what I understand, both Hairston and Williams' contracts both became guaranteed by the end of the season. Which, hopefully in Hairston's case, earns the good faith to land him back with the Spurs during the summer and at camp.
As for Vaughn, yeah. I never thought for one second he's be the odd man out. Not with the way Pop does things.
Doesn't make any more sense to me, though.
If Hill, Hairston and Gist stick, even if none of them ever progresses past being decent role players, this will be by far the most successful Spurs draft in a long time.
I never said that he "had no offensive game" and I never said "he played garbage minutes".
A third of the minutes played by Hairston weren't garbage time and he didn't scored well in these games.
As you said, "At this stage of his career, Hairston is a below average everything NBA player".
Now, it's always possible that more playing time with Spurs would have made him better to the point he would have been average but it's highly unlikely.
I never said that Hairston would never be a decent to good offensive player. I simply said he isn't for the moment.
Pop didn't give playing time to Marcus Williams. He surely wasn't in "we had no chance" mode. He tried to win the series against Mavs.
And the "Hairston could have maybe slightly less suck against Mavs than Finley or Udoka, so the Hairston waiving is a reason why Spurs lost against Mavs" logic is flawed. A lot of D-League players would have been able to help Spurs as much or more than Hairston.
Some players were awful in the Mavs series. A true reason why Spurs lost is that they didn't played at the level they had during the regular season.
Couldn't agree more. The Spurs roster was so devoid of solid, individual defenders that Hairston's defensive effort really stood out. Especially when he was pitted up against some of the NBA's marquee names LeBron, Carmelo and Kobe. Hairston more than held his own in these short stints. While he's got a lot to learn about the team defensive rotations, it's clear that he has the skills, effort and mindset to be a solid defensive player in this league. As for his rebounding, how many times did we see this kid got to the glass for an offensive rebound and putback? Even when he was unable to get the ball, his desire and effort had hiim in and around the ball. The Spurs have few players that have that skill.
I've got to side with OV on this one too. With Manu lost for the season, the Spurs le hopes were sidelilned with him. This event presented the perfect opportunity for Pop to have given some regular rotation time to a couple of young developing players like Hairston, like Williams. In doing so, it would have only accelerated their development and the Spurs could've reaped the benefits next season.
Really the Spurs are so poor at the wing position, I don't see how Hairston could've done any worse than the Finley/Udoka duo. Josh Howard proved to be the "X-factor" against them in the playoffs, as he literally ran circles around them. Howard is a good player, but it's not like he's Melo, Wade or Lebron. The fact that a team like Denver renedered Howard to look merely mortal, whereas he looked like an all-star versus the Spurs, should be clear evidence as to how poor the Spurs are at that position. For the Spurs to improve defensively as a team, they must bring in better individual defenders with skills that can translate into the area. Hairston looks has good potential in that specific area.
The reason the Spurs lost to the Mavs is the Mavs were a better team. They were simply better, quicker, faster and were obviously more talented. Otherwise, they don't win the series in five games. Factor in Manu, and that's not the case. As our "X-factor", it's frightening how Manu's mere presence helps compensate for so many of the team's weaknesses.
I think folks forget that the SG/SF position is where you will find many of the NBA's best and most skilled athletes. With Bowen's gradual decline and limited minutes, the Spurs are, and have been, ill-equipped to match up against these types of players - on both ends of the court - night in and night out. This deficiency is only magnified in a playoff series. It's really frightening that some 6 years later (after the departure of SJax), this position is comprised of older, slower, jump-shooters, who cannot defend, create their own shot, or drive the basketball. After 6 seasons, this position remains an achilles heel for this team.
I don't think there is someone who disagree with that. Spurs need to have a good defensive SG/SF. Maybe Hairston will be this guy, maybe someone else will.
Spurs were damn good at the SG/SF position in the 05-07 area. They had an all star, the best perimeter defender in the NBA and some solid shooters with Finley/Barry. They also won 2 les...
Spurs have started to have trouble at SG/SF in 08. Manu has been injured and the other SG/SF (Finley, Barry and Bruce) have aged. Players who should have taken their spots have quite failed: Udoka isn't really NBA material and Mason quite sucked after a great start of the season.
The new role players are far form being as good as the ones that were here in 05-07.
I guess that's the part that is the most frustrating - that the FO actually hedged their bets that this team could have success with a group of perimeter players, who had both redundant skills and redundant flaws. Manu's unfortunate injury exposed something many of us already knew - that there was no one player, or combination of players on this roster, who couldn't even come close to replicating the contributions Manu brought to this team. His scoring, his hustle, his defense, his rebounding, his playmaking or his creativity.
Obviously, getting that type of contribution from a single player is too much to expect. However, it was obvious, even at the beginning of the season, that the Spurs were again destined to be as shorthanded, at that position, as they were last spring versus the Fakers. To me, this is nothing less than a case of poor, delusional personnel decision-making by the FO.
As the season wore on, and since those returning veterans weren't cutting it, it only made sense for Pop to have invested playing time, both in-season and in-playoffs, to a guy like Hairston, or Williams, who both had short stints on the roster.
Pop has publically admitted he didn't give Hill enough burn. Wonder if his regrets just end there? We all know the Spurs need a talent infusion. For such an initiative to work, Pop the coach, must be willing to commit minutes to young players, accept their early-season mistakes, and reap the season-long benefits, going forward. Because of cap constraints and an eye toward the 2010 summer, he has little choice.
Watching a team like Orlando, expand their talent-pool and experience playoff success with a squad that features a rookie (Courtney Lee), as a starter at SG, and a versatile, athletic swingman (Mickael Pietrus), as a key 6th man contributor, who the Spurs shunned the past 2 summers, makes me all the more envious.
Last edited by SenorSpur; 05-27-2009 at 01:25 PM.
right. and we can't blame the FO for signing either Udoka or Mason. 1 million for Udoka is 3rd stringer money and he is a 3rd stringer, so that's ok. and Mason is a nice player to have on the roster, even for that money, if he wasn't the starting SG, who also has to defend Kobe or Roy.
I often thought what might have happened if Finley didn't sign with the Spurs in 2005. not that it was a mistake to sign him, no, you must sign a player like he was back then when you get him for about 2.5 million. but before he opted for the Spurs, they were looking for a younger wing and back then for example James Jones was one of their prime targets. I wondered, what if Finley goes to the Suns or Heat and Spurs sign James Jones? (or a comparable young role player wing)
sometimes I think, in the long run a no from Fin would have been better than his yes. (and we would have won this 2007 le without Fin either)
Actually, ya did:
"Hairston hasn't a 'scoring ability'."
Actually, ya did.
I guess Hairston is the new player to enter in the category 'has done well in some garbage time, so he is a great player'."
Great. Thanks for coming around. How many minutes is that? Enough for you to decide that he has no scoring ability, perhaps, but many of us would like to have seen more opportunities for him. Frankly, I'm not sure how you could fail to agree with that. The personnel decisions during camp were head-scratchers.
Precisely. I did NOT say that he could have helped the Spurs with his scoring ability. I said that he could have helped the Spurs with his defense, his hustle and his ability to rebound. If he's able to put up minutes during the season, and play defense well enough to keep his plus minus numbers about even, the team is less tired when the playoffs roll around.
I agree. It would have been nice to find out, and I hope the Spurs get an opportunity to do exactly that this season. The "veterans first, veterans second" mindset of the people making decisions has to change in order for that to happen, though.
Then I read too much into your comment that he has no ability. I apologize. No ability typically means that a guy shows nothing. That doesn't really apply to a guy who finished 8th in the NBDL in scoring in the regular season, and then scored 36 points per game in the playoffs. I don't think anyone's expecting him to score 15 points a game in the NBA, but he at least knows where the basket is, and that's a good sign.
Marcus Williams and Hairston are not the same situation, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would have expected Williams to get any time against Dallas when he'd had no time during the regular season. We understand the rationale for picking Williams up. I'm simply suggesting that if decisions had been made differently, Hairston could actually have been in a position to contribute. No more, no less.
That's a little oversimplified, but you're correct that the logic is flawed when stated that way.
The evidence list of this team's fear of placing any trust in young players and failure to develop talent acquired through the draft is long and established. Suggesting that Hairston is just one of that long line of bad decisions is not flawed logic. Suggesting that the team's success in the playoffs could have been different if the Spurs had been making decisions that weren't based on that fear and failure is not flawed logic either.
Hairston could have stepped in with the limited minutes he'd gotten during the regular season and probably sucked less than Mason or Finley or Udoka. If he had been with the team the entire year, he could actually have had a chance at cracking the extended rotation or earning some of Pop's confidence. All three of this year's draft picks look like they could be decent players. Imagine having all of them on the roster the entire season.
I agree on all points, except that I don't think the Spurs dropped in level, I think their compe ion went up a level. The Spurs never peaked this season, they never went on a winning streak, they never established their defense, and they only played one game at what looked like playoff intensity. By the time the playoffs came around they just looked old, slow and uninterested. Don't try to convince me that two or three young athletic guys on this team getting real minutes all season long couldn't have had an effect on, at very least, the outcome of a first round playoff series. If the season was going to end with a first or second round playoff exit anyway, it'd have been nice to develop some of the young players so they can help next year. I hate seeing years of Timmy's career wasted, and I'm sure you do too.
In addition, Bowen's aging exposed that there's no one player or combination of players who can replicate his defensive contributions. In fact, the best the Spurs could come up with as the playoffs progressed was an aging Bowen.
That's why I like Hairston and Hill, and would like to have seen Gist. I don't give a crap if none of them scores more than three or four points per game. If they're playing real defense, wearing down the other team, getting stops that turn into easy shot opportunities at the other end, and generally keeping everyone else's legs fresh, there's no downside to that.
That's the unforgivable part. The Spurs knew this day was coming. They absolutely should've made the task of finding a replacment for Bowen, more of a priority. By now, some young player could've been groomed and prepped to step in and play. Even a stop-gap player of that sort would've been sufficient. Instead, Pop grew impatient and fell in love with aging jumpshooters. Living off a steady diet of Barry, Finley and Udoka was a short-sighted approach.
Amen. For whatever reason, Pop "sold his defensive soul" for more offense and more age and experience. Spurs paid the price last season and this season. Can't wait to see what happens now.
sign this guy, reminds me of a small young malik rose
I guess there is some kind of misunderstood between us.
To me, "hasn't a scoring ability" doesn't mean the same thing than "has no offensive game".
A player like Udoka hasn't a scoring ability while he has an offensive game.
On the offensive end, Hairston has done well during garbage time and not so well during true playing time.
You can check it by looking at his pair stats :
http://www.82games.com/0809/0809SASP.HTM
Tolliver was a logical move. With Mahinmi's injury, Spurs needed a big. None of the bigs were great and Tolliver was the cheaper to keep because a big part of his contract was guaranteed.
Farmer over Hairston was quite surprising. It was also surprising that Hairston signed his rookie contract after all the other training camp invite and that this contract was a 1 year fully non-guaranteed one.
It isn't easy to play young players when you are a contender but I agree with you and Spurs could have tried to play more young players.
If these "young athletic guys" were good, it would have had an effect. I'm not sure at all that Hairston fit that mold
The season was a first and second round exit the day Manu had a stress fracture in April. It was a little late to develop players.
And with his tendinosis, Tim wasn't great after the ASB. It's not like Spurs have wasted a great year of Tim.
I just wanna thank both OV and Bruno for bringing us some very good insight into spurs basketball. Both of you guys have very good opinions and I respect the way you guys debate without getting all crazy. Keep the good thoughts coming, thanks.
Agreed. I think we're probably on the same page when it comes to that. He's clearly got the talent to score on non-NBA players, but how that translates with better compe ion is anyone's guess. I still contend that Hairston could contribute (or could have already contributed) without scoring points, and certainly without having to hit three pointers.
Ah, I see what you were saying now. I'd still have loved to see him get more time so we could make better deteriminations.
I won't claim to know the business reasons, but Tolliver still doesn't make sense to me. He wasn't really a traditional "big", he was just taller than the other guys. If he hadn't gone on that little tear shooting three pointers in summer league, I don't think he'd have made the team. He couldn't defend, couldn't rebound or block shots, and as it turns out, couldn't shoot from the outside. I think Farmer was kept because Hill was cold during SL and camp and Pop was worried, which was dumb IMO. Everybody knew damn good and well, or should have known, that Hill had "scoring ability", whether or not he was hitting shots in SL.
And if the vets had played well and everyone had given effort they might still be alive and we wouldn't be second guessing. I'm only stating the things I am because they were my positions all season. The Mavs, Lakers and Magic have managed to play young players, and they all did better than San Antonio did.
I'm not sure that he does either. The Spurs put themselves at a disadvantage by, in my opinion, wasting time with guys like Tolliver, Farmer and Ahearn. Hairston can, if nothing else, play NBA level defense. That's a pretty good start. In hindsight, he couldn't have been worse than the vets we were all relying on were in the postseason.
Yeah, and that's exactly what I meant: The Spurs were probably dead anyway once Manu was out. I agree that it was too late by that time to develop players. My contention is simply that they should have been developing some of these guys all along.
Tim wasn't great, but he also didn't have anybody else aside from Parker even showing up. Another wasted year with him vertical, even if he's hurting, is still another wasted opportunity.
Hairston has kind of been the poster child for my frustration at the resistance to any kind of youth movement by the Spurs.
Last edited by Obstructed_View; 05-27-2009 at 07:23 PM.
It helps that we're probably not really as far apart in our opinions as we think we are.
Tolliver could have find his niche as a Spurs against the mobile PFs who have hurt Spurs a lot. He was quite mobile and even played some SF with the Toros. Mahinmi was also planed to be back in late November which made the need for a young true big less important.
If Spurs knew last summer that Mahinmi was out for the year, it could have changed things. Maybe Gist wouldn't have been send in Italy.
It's quite unreal when you look at all the players spurs tried as 14th or 15th player in the past 2 years.
In 07-08: DerMarr Johnson, Bobby Jones, Keith Langford, Jeremy Richardson, Darius Washington and Marcus Williams.
In 08-09: Blake Ahearn, Austin Croshere, Desmon Farmer, Malik Hairston, Pops Mensah-Bonsu, Anthony Tolliver and Marcus Williams.
It draws some questions why Spurs haven't been able to find a player worth sticking with him at the end of their roster. Are their expectations too high? Have they done a poor scouting job? ...
Personally, I believe it's a little bit of both. It's hard to believe tha every one of those players is trash. Surely one of them will eventually turn into an NBA player. Then, we'll find out if the Spurs simply gave up on them too soon.
The process of developing players is risky and it takes time, dollars and commitment. Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, no young player comes into the NBA without some warts. It seems the Spurs FO, and even some fans here, have developed very high, and even unrealistic expectations regarding potential young players, and how they could fit onto the Spurs roster.
I guess perennial championship contention can make one a bit aristocratic.
he sucks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions