Reply With Quote
The Spurs pull the trigger on that deal in a heartbeat.
Obviously Manu > Mike James, but Blatche > Oberto, Wallace > Bowen and the 5th pick in the draft > nothing.
okay, manu is 32 and a huge injury risk, bowen's 38, and oberto is done (heart problems) so they would be nice to throw away..
wallace may be an injury risk as well, but is only 26.. and when he is not injured he's as good or better than manu.. it's just that he hasn't been noticed too well because look what team he's playing for...
as for blatche, he's a 6'11"F/C, athletic and only 22 years old. we could use that.
Then you use the #5 pick to draft a good SG and you have a stronger, younger lineup than before. Not to mention we would still have the MLE to sign a role player to add to our depth.
Starting Lineup:
PG: Tony Parker
SG: Roger Mason, #5 pick, or FA
SF: Gerald Wallace
PF: Tim Duncan
C: Andray Blatche or Rasheed Wallace for the vet min. or MLE
not too shabby.. that is how it would help
Otherwise this is your starting lineup:
PG: parker
SG: mason/ginobili
SF: bowen
PF: tim
C: Fab/Kurt
The Spurs pull the trigger on that deal in a heartbeat.
Obviously Manu > Mike James, but Blatche > Oberto, Wallace > Bowen and the 5th pick in the draft > nothing.
why do the spurs also laugh and hang up the phone?
Exactly..
Manu is better than Wallace, but he doesn't fit multiple needs like Crash..athletic slasher, defensive stopper, and creator of turnovers..Mason can play the 2 and just focus on his role as a shooter..
Blatche would be a huge upgrade in the frontcourt, and the 5th pick would give us another slasher/shooter/defender at the wing..
we would fill multiple needs with this trade, as opposed to "just" having Manu..
yes, it's a risk financially, but we need risks at this point, especially if the reward is this high..
I think Blatche is a decent player, and obviously an upgrade over Oberto. I am looking at it differently though:
Manu > Wallace (both have some injury risk, but like I said, Manu comes off the books, Wallace does not), Bowen > James. The 5th pick is all well and good, but do you really think there will be a true impact player for this year at that spot?
You are adding salary at the point for only marginal upgrades and the best player in the deal is injury prone and on the books for a while. Not to mention team moral and chemistry issues. The big man situation is still not taken care of, which is the biggest problem and now you have the same depth issue you once had at SF at SG.
That cuts into how much the team can spend on FA this year and in 2010. I do not think it is worth the money.
+1
And I think this trade keeps us contending for a championship.
Otherwise we pray that manu stays healthy at age 32, and hope we can still compete. It also helps us in the long run. Plus, what makes manu's expiring contract valuable when he will be 33 and most likely injured? His value will keep getting worse.
That's not the point. Manu is 32 and getting older and obviously we are watching his body get older as well.
and bowen>mike james? bowen is a SF and james a PG, why are you comparing the two? plus bowen is 5 years older and has about one year left in his career. and the "2010 plan" is so overrated... Every team is going to have a lot of cap space in 2010.
Blatche is more than just an upgrade over Oberto. He's a big upgrade. He's younger, more athletic, bigger and cheaper. All due respect to Kurt Thomas, but Blatche would instantly be the 2nd best big man on the team.
Someone drafted 5th or later in this draft will end up making the all star team, so yes. There will be an impact player at the 5 spot. Guaranteed.Manu > Wallace (both have some injury risk, but like I said, Manu comes off the books, Wallace does not), Bowen > James. The 5th pick is all well and good, but do you really think there will be a true impact player for this year at that spot?
Team chemistry was great for the Spurs this year. It wasn't enough. The Spurs need a talent upgrade. This deal accomplishes that at several positions.You are adding salary at the point for only marginal upgrades and the best player in the deal is injury prone and on the books for a while. Not to mention team moral and chemistry issues. The big man situation is still not taken care of, which is the biggest problem and now you have the same depth issue you once had at SF at SG.
If you make this deal you're not worried about 2010. In fact, in 2010 you can just re-sign Manu if he's still got game left.That cuts into how much the team can spend on FA this year and in 2010. I do not think it is worth the money.
You still need a big man, unless you are claiming Blatche to be the answer next to Tim. Gooden signed and was instantly the second best bigman on the team and look where that got the Spurs.
Yes someone drafted 5th or later will make the all-star team, but when? The Spurs need significant producers now, not 3-4 years from now.
The upgrades in talent at the SF/PF positions with Wallace/Blatche do not offset enough of the terrible lack of depth the Spurs would have a SG/C in order to justify taking on this salary and abandoning the 2010 plan imo.
I think it would take a much bigger upgrade at the center position in order to abandon the 2010 plan. I do not like this trade because of the opportunity costs I am perceiving.
like i said, every team will have a "2010 plan" so it does not mean we will be able to get any greatness out of it
It is not about getting Lebron James or Wade. It is about having the flexibility to add a position(s) of need for one more legit le run.
I am all for the Spurs abandoning the plan in 2010, IF it is for the right players. Not injury prone Wallace and Blatche. That is not to say I do not like those players and would not take them on the Spurs in a heartbeat. I am just saying I think the plan is better than that.
Did they forget the offseason was here?
Well, nobody has been suggesting any other reasonable deals that would keep the team contending. Signing 1 player for the MLE and a veteren for the vet min. is not going to help us contend. It has not been working lately if you haven't noticed
I'm not absolutely sure Blatche > Oberto. While he is younger, more athletic and bigger, he's not a lot more productive.
Consider Win Shares - Oberto put up 1.6 in 677 minutes last year, Blatche put up 1.4 in 1703. This is primarily because Oberto's EFG was .587, while Blatche shot .475 .
Similarly Mike James was less productive than Bowen, according to the Win Shares methodology, -0.1 Wins in 1575 minutes vs 2.1 wins in 1508 minutes.
Wallace produced more wins than Manu, but played many more minutes. 9.6 wins 2669 minutes vs. 4.8 wins in 1181 minutes. Per minutes, Manu is considerably more productive.
All in all, I suspect that I would want more back from a trade than the #5 to balance all this out. If offered this, and I was the spurs FO, I would make a counter proposal removing the #5 and Mike James, while adding Brendan Haywood.
You mean for 2 years? What the Lakers had been doing did not work for 7 years.
What does that matter?
They haven't signed anyone for the full MLE in a while.
The Spurs need another big whether they make the deal or not. But if they make the deal they have Blatche who's a of a lot closer to being an answer of who to put next to Tim than Oberto is.
Exactly the reason to pull the trigger on the deal. Blatche would contribute more than Oberto would, immediately. Wallace would contribute more than Bowen would, immediately. Whoever the Spurs would draft at #5 would contribute more than an empty chair would, immediately. The only place the Spurs would be taking a step back at would be SG.Yes someone drafted 5th or later will make the all-star team, but when? The Spurs need significant producers now, not 3-4 years from now.
The Spurs would definitely have Mason, James and Hill to play SG. There would also be a slew of guys they could draft at #5 like Harden, Curry, Evans, DeRozan or Holiday if they were still worried about the SG position. Collectively, that's a pretty good SG situation. As good as it would be if Ginobili were there? Of course not. But it wouldn't be some huge gaping hole that would bring down the entire team.The upgrades in talent at the SF/PF positions with Wallace/Blatche do not offset enough of the terrible lack of depth the Spurs would have a SG/C in order to justify taking on this salary and abandoning the 2010 plan imo.
You're assuming the Spurs would be able to land a franchise center in 2010. The only one of those is Bosh, and frankly we should all just give up that dream because he's probably going to end up in New York with Lebron.I think it would take a much bigger upgrade at the center position in order to abandon the 2010 plan. I do not like this trade because of the opportunity costs I am perceiving.
You do not need a franchise center in 2010, just a very solid center. IMO, a very solid center+Manu+MLE SF is much better than Blatche+5th+Wallace
I would rather have the ability to bring Splitter over and still have Manu than have Blatche and Wallace.
There are a lot of players that could contribute more than Oberto+Bowen, but that does not mean you should abandon the plan for them and add on salary and handcuff your ability to sign someone else and go a different direction.
Why not sign Gooden by this logic and keep Manu? Gooden would be the 2nd best big man on the team as well and is better than Blatche.
How accurate is win shares really going to be when trying to draw comparisons here? My understanding of that formula is that it takes a team's total wins and tries to divvy them up amogst the players on that team. If that's the case then it doesn't really seem fair to compare Blatche's win shares to Oberto's because Oberto played on a team that won 54 games this year and Blatche's only won 19. Oberto had a bigger pie to carve a piece out of than Blatche did.
Spurs didn't and don't have the chemistry problems the lakers have had
What does that have to do with anything? If you have a chemistry problem, solve it. Don't take 7 years to do it.
You can't have "solid center" and Manu in the same equation because under your scenario we'd be cutting Manu loose in 2010 to go sign that solid center. It's "solid center" OR Manu, not "solid center" AND Manu.
Your point is saying Blatche > Oberto, and that he would contribute more, well how accurate is that when comparing my argument? Obviously Blatche is better than Oberto and we would assume he would play more minutes (but he is known for being a bone head so Pop might grow tired of him).
But is Blatche really as good as you make him out to be? Aren't there a lot of players that are younger, more athletic and able to contribute more than Oberto out there? Should that be the only qualification on whether or not the Spurs should 1) Give up on Manu and 2) abandon the 2010 plan?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions