Reply With Quote
Once bonners shot starts falling (and it will) that trend will change.
What do you mean? McDyess could go back to his bench role that he likes. Or you can bring the new big off of the bench.
Championship productive means you don't have holes in your game to a large degree. Blair has very little offense, cannot space the floor and is a sketchy defender in all situations. Although he has made great strides on that end, he is no where near what this team needs in order to sure up the defensive problems. I am not knocking Blair and I love what he does well, and he has been consistent from an energy standpoint. But the rest of his game has not been as consistent as you make it out to be. His rebounding has been excellent, but he also gets over excited, rushed and can have trouble finishing due to his size. His FT's are problematic as well.
I agree with everyone else, but Manu/TP have a shot to be championship productive if they are healthy, Blair does not imo. Not yet. He can still play a nice 3rd big role off the bench for a championship team though.
Once bonners shot starts falling (and it will) that trend will change.
If Blair's allowed to play a Powe-like role, he's Championship-caliber.
How significant would that upgrade be if the addition were to see 15-20 minutes off the bench or 20-25 minutes starting? If he were to see 25 minutes a game then your taking minutes from McDyess and Blair, who have been playing really well as of late.
Blair has little offense? He is outstanding at catching any passes in traffic and finding ways to score around the basket when he's contested to a high degree. I haven't seen one big man outside of Duncan that can do this with such a high efficiency in a very long time. This is vital due to the amount of pick and rolls Tony and Manu go through a game.
Haywood and Camby need the ball to score more so than McDyess and Blair. If you think Spurs' offense would be better off. I think your crazy. McDyess and Blair are very very good compliments to Tony/ Manu and Tim creating.
I do agree with you though on the defensive side of the ball, but I think Blair's rebounding negates that to a degree. I also think Camby is just as a liability on the defensive end at this stage of his career. At least the games I've seen. Maybe a chance to contend for a championship would change that though.
Haywood would give us more versatility on the defense end as a team. Giving us a defender that helps us match up with the Lakers. So I agree with that. I just don't think it would make our team significantly better because I don't think he would see enough time on the floor. Much like Kurt Thomas' situation. And if he did see enough time to make a significant difference then you take minutes from McDyess and Blair, who have been playing great lately. I question if reducing those two minutes would improve our team at the expense of a Haywood or any big that's realistically able to attain via trade.
Blair is the 3rd big right now....
I am talking about behind Duncan. You have Dice/Bonner/Blair. I think this team would benefit from Defensive Big/Dice/Blair more so than the aforementioned combo.
I agree has great hands and can finish, but he still has trouble finishing from time to time. Also, just because you are very good in one aspect does not mean you are not limited. He really has no range yet, he can't space the floor and his ft's are poor. That is limited.
He is a solid passer and his moves are crafty, but he is still a relatively one-trick pony. Once again, this is in no way knocking him, but just my assessment of his game versus what the Spurs need to win a le.
If Blair plays 20mpg or more, Spurs aren't a true contender.
Well no lol that's an improvement. I'm assuming your talking about Haywood, because that's the only big that I'd give up some assets for ( 1st rounder or Splitter) that could start over McDyess and Blair. Even though I don't think he'd see the minutes he's getting in Washington to put up the production he is right now.
I would love to make a move that would help both situations.
But I think the Spurs making a move for an all around wing would have a bigger impact.
As of now outside of Manu and Hill, we don't have a wing that has even average lateral quickness or adequate foot speed to be able to stay in front of their man and negate penetration from the perimeter. ( Or have the foot speed and lateral quickness to be able to force the person with the ball to certain vulnerable spots on the floor). (Jefferson/Finley/Bogans/Mason) have terrible foot speed and lateral quickness, which I think has been a big problem on the defensive side of the ball.
You bring in a guy like Salmons who has better lateral quickness and foot speed and replace him over Mason/Bogans/ Finley that instantly improves our defense for the 25-30 minutes a game that's available to the trio.
On the offensive side of things, ( Jefferson/Finley/Bogans/ Mason) are terrible from the triple threat position whenever Tony/Manu/Tim/Hill create.
Whenever Tony or Manu create from the pick and roll the clock is winding down. Against good teams Tony and Manu don't get to the spots as consistent as they are accustomed to against poor teams.
As they create from the pick and roll and kick out to Jefferson/Bogans/Mason/Finley, the good teams are aware of the proper rotations and react quicker, close out quicker, recover quicker, contest more effectively than the sub .500 teams.
As the clock is still winding down and the good teams close out to these 4 players, Jefferson/Mason/Finley/Bogans are forced to either take the contested jumper or forced to create a shot for themselves or their teammates, which is something they are just not able to do.
Same could be said whenever Tim has the ball inside and is trapped or double teamed as the clock is winding down.
If you replace the Mason/Bogans/ Finley and even R.J in these situations with Salmons, or a wing of such, it would improve the Spurs offense as Salmons would be able to create his own shot more effectively or create easier opportunity for his teammates.
Salmons or a wing of such, would improve our defense and offense a lot more than people think. IMO
All in all in my ultimate dream scenario. I'd love the Spurs to trade Finley/Bonner and a 1st to Chicago for Salmons and then turn around and trade Mason/ Mahimni and Splitter for Haywood.
Or I'd even consider Mason and Mahimni for Turiaf straight up.
Or just throw in Tyrus Thomas in the Salmons deal.
There's absolutely no chance that Blair plays more than 15 MPG in the playoffs IMO..no chance..
The playoffs are obviously a much different game..Blair is going to be in foul trouble a lot quicker, Pop is going to pull him for his rookie mistakes a lot quicker..teams game-plan for specific teams a lot more thoroughly, and that's something Blair can't quickly adjust to in his rookie season..it would be unfair to him to expect him to play more than that IMO..
The Spurs clearly need another big..Bonner isn't the answer, it's too risky to depend on him after what happened last year..Ratliff could be good as a 5th big in case of foul trouble and for depth purposes, but I don't want to rely on a 37-38 year old player when we're already relying on McDyess/Duncan as our main bigs to begin with..
IMO, we need either a #2 big that can push McDyess/Blair to 3rd and 4th, which would make them elite complimentary bigs IMO..or we need a big man that can give us a different dimension of defense for 15-20 MPG, which would be an energy guy/shot blocker..we also need a better perimeter stopper..I would like to combine the energy big with a legit perimeter player..
I would settle for 1 of those, depending on who it is..the only guy that has been listed that could be a legit #2 is Haywood(it's looking like it might be unrealistic to get him if the offers like the one from Chicago is true), so we might be better off looking to get a complimentary big + a competent wing player in a package..
Trading Jefferson would solve more problems than anything IMO, but that's a lot easier said than done..
Maybe because the last time a rookie as young as Blair played a significant role for a true contender, it was 30 years ago and the rookie was Magic Johnson.
Quick search, in the modern era, there have only been 2 big men that played more than 20 MPG at around Blair's age on a team that made it to the 2nd round or beyond..Tim Duncan and Charles Barkley..ya, that's not happening..
Tonight would be a nice night to pull off a collusion like trade just before the Lakers game.
First, Oberto wasn't a rookie in 07.
Second, you can't seriously think that experience isn't damn important for a bigman.
That's a valid point. I guess TD, Dice and Bonner will take most of the minutes.
Oberto also had a ton of basketball smarts that Blair does not possess yet. He was also a much better defender.
I agree with you. It'd be tough for DeJuan, but I would be willing to give him that chance if we can't get anyone else.
It's not fair to say that, usually the rookies are not good at all for true contenders since they were picked really late in the draft the previous season.
To make a fair assessment, Parker was Blair's age when he won his first le and he played a significant role. Rondo was 22 and was essential in Bostons le two years ago. Manu was great as a rookie in 2003 and played a huge role. Sam Cassell played a significant role his rookie season for the Rockets. ( As was Robert Horry his second year).
It's sure that it's more fair to compare rookies to players that are in their third NBA year...
Not to mention, as HarlemHeat37 pointed, that experience is even more crucial for bigmen.
If Spurs are a legit contender, Blair will be their 4th PF/C when they will enter in the playoffs. If Blair is their 2nd or 3rd PF/C, there is a huge probability that it turns as a disaster.
I think there was some speculation, that Pop was upset about these naked photos of G Hill surfacing on the web...
I will fire Pop right now if that is the only reason Hill dropped out of the rotation.
That is ing idiotic stuff from Pop if that is what he based it on.
Those photos weren't even current were they?
I didn't compare a rookie to a player that was in their third year.
Even if we get Haywood, (who would be the only big that is worth giving up future assets for and the only big out there that is slightly better than what we have.)
Spurs still wouldn't win a damn thing because of the quality of our depth in our wing spots. It's so obvious how inferior they are in the situations where I pointed out previously in post 972.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 02-08-2010 at 08:04 PM.
Exactly, same scenario I tried to point out.
I would be very excited if we could get Salmons and Haywood in one fell swoop.
I think there's some speculation that your attempt at humor fell completely flat.
I believe GH3 was a rookie last year and actually got significant playing time in the playoffs...more so than he did in regular season. It doesn't matter if Blair is a rookie,It doesn't matter what his shortcomings are,If he can help us win than than hes gonna get PT. I think pop learned from his mistake from GH3 last year, and wont make the same mistake again.
The truth is that I fully disagree with what you say.
In the playoff, TP can play 36mpg, Manu 30mpg and RJ 38mpg.
Hill has been good and deserves to play the 30mpg available behind TP and Manu.
There is only 10mpg behind RJ left. I don't see where is the huge problem that these minutes are played by Mason, Finley or Bogans.
If Spurs get Salmons, they will be in one of the 3 following situations:
1) Salmons play 10mpg.
2) Spurs play small ball.
3) Salmons takes minutes from Parker, Hill, Manu or RJ.
Now, my POW:
1) Trading for a player who plays 10mpg is qutie pointless.
2) Samll ball should be a last resort option.
3) Salmons isn't an upgrade over Parker, Hill, Manu or RJ.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions