Odoms length on the offensive boards is what hurts the Spurs the most. Lakers getting two-three shots per possesion is detrimental to the Spurs and has been since the Grizzlies donated Gasol to the Lakers.
Hopefully the addition of McDyess/ Blair can limit the shots per possesion to just one on most possesions when the battles play out between the Spurs and Lakers.
The lakers length is most definitely a concern. I'm all for finding a guy who can help in that department. Unfortunately for the Spurs, teams who have guys like that aren't going to give them up for the collection of spare parts that people here are willing to offer. Nor does that mean the Spurs should just go out and get someone based solely on how tall they are.
There's Camby!!! but his injuries are a concern
What was the deal the Spurs had done for Camby last year before they backed out?
I would say give him a little more time to get on a hot streak, he is a good defender and it will take him a little time to get a customed to our offence.
I know Hill was involved. I want to say Thomas, Bowen & Hill.
I don't agree with waiving Bogans merely for the fact that his money is guaranteed.
I do agree that his signing was a mistake. If his signing was purely for defensive reasons, why not keep Bruce?
and Oberto i think as well.
I'm sorry, It was Oberto/Hill/Bowen. No Thomas. Just looked it up
^^^ You're right. Good find.
Camby would be fine, but I doubt the Clippers trade him to us unless we're giving up Hill or Blair, or some kind of future picks package in addition to the matching salaries required..
I dont wanna give up blair and I dont wanna give up hill unless that Rubio Rumor comes true. Also Camby could get hurt; however his salary comes off at the end of the year. Camby gone after the 1 yr and then welcome Splitter with open arms and some money too.
The fact that he's an expiring contract is why I don't think the Clippers would do it unless we give a sweetener..
I wouldn't mind Camby as a 1-year rental at all, but we'd have to get a 3rd team involved IMO..
I'd like to see how Ratliff looks first though, he might be good enough to give us good minutes in certain matchups..
thats kinda my problem, Certain matchups ala Kevin Willis. I want another 7 footer next to Tim for 82games and 25 minutes who can block shots and get rebounds and help own the paint and intimidate others teams guards.
Agree.
At this point, the Spurs are going to have to piecemeal their 3-6 bigs in the hopes that they'll be enough. The chances of landing the coveted 7' to oppose a Lakers front line just aren't all that great; given where the likely candidates are located and what the Spurs have to offer in return.
Hopefully Hairston can come through on the perimeter defensively, to where he can play alongside RJ in stretches, when it counts, and that goes a long way in shoring up that question mark.
With Duncan, 'Dyess, Ratliff, Blair and Mahinmi the Spurs have the personnel to make the Lakers' front line shoot over the top and do a credible job defensively. But we only know that Duncan and 'Dyess will do a good to credible job, the rest are open question marks due to age and inexperience; Theo possessing an abundance of the former.
If the Spurs are unable to upgrade the front line, significantly, their best hope might be in the likes of Blair and Mahinmi.
If Blair and Mahinmi -- the former I'm less optimistic for in the upcoming year, at least, when it matters -- can warrant the playing time in the playoffs, they could go a long ways in determining the outcome. They've got games that put pressure on the opposition's front line defensively, and that pressure usually results in the ac ulation of fouls; it's a lot easier to defend 7' when it's seated on the bench.
Duncan and 'Dyess, good health willing, is a of a tandem and doesn't allow the opponent to cheat off Tim like they did in the past. And if Theo can give some minutes, and one or both of Blair and Mahinmi come into their own, there could be just enough defense and offensive-pressure being applied from the Spurs' front line to get them over the top.
It's a lot of 'if's' and question marks, but that's what's expected when you're relying on 33+yr-old vets at the top of your big rotation and 20/22yr-old's at the bottom.
That would be a b*tch to have to give up Hill in a trade, but I don't see any other way if the Spurs even wanted to get the Clippers attention. I still don't know the reason the Clips backed out, so I don't know if Hill would be enough anymore. I would give up Blair before Hill in this scenario because I believe Hill's role is more vital.
I don't know if it would be worth it, but it would be interesting....I believe something like Bonner/Fin/Hill/Williams works. Saves the Clips 2M this year, they get to keep their cap space for next year bc they all expire (or could next year) and they get an asset in Hill.
Getting a 3rd team would make things easier on the Spurs but more complicated overall.
Pop loves hill and wont trade him, now that he knows what he's got. Blair aint going no where, even though Pop hasn't given him deserving praise. And Pop loves Finley and Bonner for some odd reason.
Well he did try and trade Hill last year, and I don't think his "love" for Hill is completely genuine. It is just how Pop can get the best from Hill; at least Pop thinks so.
You're not getting Camby for spare parts. Obtaining him will cost actual assets.
I not so sure. The only legit asset in last years trade was hill an unproven hill at that. Oberto's heart gave him problems and Bowen was not as quick as he'd been in previous years. If you call them assets then Bonner/Finley are assets as well.
Hill was and is a promising player on a cheap rookie contract. He is an asset. Blair is a promising player on a cheap, rookie contract. He is an asset. They are the type of assets that a team like the Clippers would want.
Bowen, Thomas, Finley, Bonner were/are expiring contracts to make the numbers work. You have to include something from the list of Hill, Blair, or draft picks to get the attention of the Clippers. They are not going to trade a valuable player on an expiring contract just for a collection of smaller expiring contracts.
How would yall feel about giving up either Hill or Blair + expiring contracts to get Camby? I am not sure the Clips would even consider it seeing how they backed out last year.
Clippers would definitely do it IMO, they're going to lose Camby anyways..I wouldn't do it though for the Spurs..I'm very high on both Blair and Hill, even for this season..
Just looking around the league at some bigs, I'm not really sure who else we could get though..
Brendan Haywood would be perfect, but he would only be a 1-year rental, so I wouldn't give up Hill and/or Blair for him, which is what we would have to give up no matter what..
Gortat would be nice, although he's overpaid, but I don't think Orlando would just dump him..
Marc Gasol would be fine too, but I don't think the Lakers would allow their farm team to salary dump him to us..
Kaman is very possible, but I'm just not a fan of his game at all, and he has heavily struggled against Bynum..
Biedrins and Turiaf are both overrated as defenders, but I guess it could be a possibility..
I can't really think of anything else off the top of my head..another salary dump doesn't look likely for a quality big man..only the Lakers seem to get those..
Thing is, Camby might be a guy the Spurs can sign for cheap next year without giving up Blair or Hill. The question would be: do the Spurs have enough this year to get by the Lakers and everyone else in the West where they can afford to let another precious year with Duncan pass, in hopes of bolstering their roster next season? Or cannot they not afford to run the risk this year and possibly miss out on someone signing somewhere else next year?
Not sure, but the first half of the season should give us those answers.
There may have been a trade in the works last year, but it was also one the Clippers ultimately declined; not the Spurs.
And just because they were open to it then, doesn't mean they'd still be open to it. They were a floundering team with a bloated payroll and contemplating shedding a contract. Now, they've got a promising rookie, the start of a new season, and the hope that comes along with all that.
Shedding Camby's salary when he had 2yrs left might have made sense then, thus, taking back expirings was an attractive allure, but even then they needed a prospect to be enticed; a prospect, Hill, they deemed not enticing enough.
Maybe come the trade deadline Camby's made available after they've considerably fallen off the playoff pace, which is somewhat likely, but there's no way I'd deal Hill, and I'm starting to feel the same way about Blair, in order to get a 1-yr. rental in Camby that in no way guarantees or drastically enhances the Spurs' championship-odds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
