Reply With Quote
I woudnt wanna give up blair, and I also wouldnt wanna give up Parker if were not gonna get a PG back.
no way in the Blazers will send young talents such as Rudy or Batum for Haywood. Blazers won't go to Conf. finals this year and they'll get Prizbilla and Oden next year, same players as Haywood!
I woudnt wanna give up blair, and I also wouldnt wanna give up Parker if were not gonna get a PG back.
I really hope the Wizards aren't seriously asking for that high of a price..Haywood is a rental right now, and the Wizards aren't going anywhere as a team, so it doesn't make sense for them to be asking for a package like that..IMO, they're just trying to hold their ground since teams are probably trying to lowball/take advantage of them with all the drama going on in Washington..
whats the deal between the 76ers and timberwolves?
A cool stat i saw on ESPN earlier, from Elias Sports Bereau.
The Clippers' Chris Kaman, edged out of an All-Star berth by Randolph, recently became just the fifth center in the league to post two 20-point games in the same season in head-to-head starts against Washington's Brendan Haywood. The others: Shaquille O'Neal (2004-05 season and 2005-06), Orlando's Dwight Howard (2006-07), Milwaukee's Andrew Bogut (2007-08) and Phoenix's Amare Stoudemire (2007-2008).
Parker Bonner Splitter 1st rounder for Bosh and Jack?
Without giving it much thought..
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=ykt8vdb
Throw in Splitter and a first rounder.
PG Hill
SG Bogans
SF Jefferson
PF Duncan
C Bosh
6th man SG/SF- Manu
PG- Jack
PF/C- Blair
PF/C- McDyess
SG- Mason
C- Ratliff
SF/SG- Hairston
What about Hamilton for Jefferson?
No thank you.
Taking a contract that goes beyond 2012 isn't a good idea for Spurs. IMO, They will only do it if in a no-brainer deal and RJ for Hamilton isn't.
What about the proposal at the bottom of last page?
I have to agree with no on the RH trade. Not only a bad contract, but a bad fit imo.
Haywood isn't a rental. He is still a quite young player and a lot of teams are surely seeing him as a player they could re-sign him next summer and who could be a big part of their future. Haywood will likely be out Spurs' price range because of that.
Spurs have a way better chance to get a player like Camby. After back to back losses to Nets and Wolves, Clippers could finally decide to give up on this season. A trade like Bonner + Finley + Mahinmi + Ratliff + 1st round pick for Camby + Skinner is a quite good one for both sides.
Even if it nets them a cut in their luxury-tax this year and next and he's only got one more guaranteed year after?
IMO, it isn't realistic at all. I don't see Spurs doing a that big trade.
Take salary out of the equation, or more specifically, the extra year at $12.5.
Do you like him better than RJ as a fit?
No, and that was my main train of thought. I don't think RJ is the best fit, but I can see how he can work. I don't see how Rip's game fits.
Rips strength is coming off screens and his mid-range game. That's not a need. Besides Mason and Finley can do that just fine with the scarce opportunities there is for that to happen.
The problem is that Spurs will enter in rebuilding mode and given the size of the SA market, being in rebuilding mode too long isn't at all a good thing.
Having a 35 years old Hamilton paid $12.5M isn't the best way to start a rebuilding process.
I also think Pop is in the mindset of "I've been lucky as to have had Duncan. One of my priority is to let the franchise in a great state when I will retire with Duncan because my successor likely won't have the chance to get a that great player."
For the same reasons, I also don't think Spurs will offer trade assets like 2013 or 2014 first round picks while they are very valuable assets.
See, I'd much rather have my bigger money invested in the 2-guard and find the defensive specialist for the 3.
Hamilton's ability to to keep a defense honest and on the move with the action created by his off the ball movement, would be a welcomed addition, imo. He's not a lock-down defender by any means, but I'd rate him a better one than RJ per the position.
I actually think he and his game would fit quite nicely on this team; he creates the play with his movement so Tony only needs to know where he's coming off the next screen to find him and his shot only helps to keep the floor spaced, as he has to be respected. Plus, and I really hope it doesn't come to this, he'd be a nice insurance policy should Manu decide to go elsewhere (or the Spurs decide to move on).
He does not have a lot of range and his offense comes from things that the Spurs don't really run. He is no longer an efficient shooter, although that might change on the Spurs, but I disagree that he is a better defender than RJ. At least his ceiling is lower.
It's not about need, imo, when you're comparing RJ and Rip; the Spurs didn't need RJ, as much as they wanted to upgrade their talent (it was a no-brainer of a deal, value-wise).
I just happen to think this team would be better served having Rip's skill set and proven game than what RJ brings to the table. I'd much rather have someone like Iguodala, but that just doesn't seem likely to happen; Detroit would most likely do an RJ trade, as it helps them to clear their books sooner.
We've both agreed that the Spurs could really use a more well-rounded player at the 2, and I think Hamilton would suffice.
But at the cost of having no one to play the 3? Having Rip and Manu would be a net loss over Manu & RJ imo. I am still on the bandwagon that RJ can fit what this team needs. Does not look great as of today, but I am holding firm. He has the skill set. Much better than RIP imo.
The Spurs don't run a lot of action the way you're used to seeing Rip do his thing, but that's because they don't have someone to do it with; they do it in small doses with Fin and others.
I honestly don't believe you can win a Championship with RJ if he's being asked to play the way he is and is taking up $14.2M in cap space (not that I hold his salary against him, just that it means you've got lesser players on the bench). He's not someone that unequivocally needs to be on the court when the game's on the line (his salary might dictate it, but not necessarily his game) and I don't like the idea of needing lesser players to be bailing players and teams out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
