No, you're never going to replace the Horry's and Bowen's of the world with an equal, identical player. But it's not about finding their carbon copy. You're looking to find comparable skill sets and character that can become a working part of the needed supporting cast -- a different build, personality or area of expertise, there's nothing wrong with that.
So it's not that they haven't found someone with Horry's clutch shot-making and intelligence as a stretch 4 or that they haven't replaced the relentless, tireless, and lockdown defender Bruce was for years ... it's that they attempted to address each respective loss with players that had neither the tools, a en or ability to even approximate those two's contribution -- if you can't address something adequately, it's an effort in futility to find close enough and hope for the best.
In other words, don't prevent yourself from finding the next Horry (as it pertains to the team) by thinking he can't look more like Haslem -- chasing the perfect mold, almost always nets an inferior player to fill it.
Agree. And as it pertains to the corporate knowledge, you're right. They couldn't have brought anyone in to replace it as if it were something tangible. But you've got to attempt to bring in the type of player that's capable of acquiring and utilizing it effectively. You can't simply do without.
A championship-caliber supporting cast can come in all shapes, sizes and skill sets (as long as they're in compliment to the stars), but there's a common thread with which they're made up and of the character they possess.
Obviously, the amount of help the Big 3 needs is greater than it's ever been and changed as their effectiveness has waned -- there's no guarantee that the complimentary player of yesteryear has the same effect or benefits as they would've in the past, nowadays. But there's no doubt that without the right supporting cast, a championship's out of the question -- they're out there to be molded in theory, but theories are often left empty.
There's no getting around needing the right players to win it all, which is why so few ever get the opportunity.
Well, they've got Hairston and Mahinmi in the fold (which would seem a decent pair to evaluate for the suggested roles), but it's become pretty clear that the latter, for whatever reason, isn't in their plans. There's no reason Hairston shouldn't be given Bogans minutes and the opportunity to prove his worth moving forward, though. And, no, I wouldn't view Bell as the answer on the wing or a position defender like Splitter becoming an athletic, shot-blocking big.
I've yet to really sit down and put to the screen exactly how I'd move forward. There's just too many variables to consider: Is RJ moveable and at what cost or lack thereof; what's Manu's market and can he be retained without preventing the Spurs from acquiring the needed, complimentary talent to win a le; is moving Tony the only way to bring in enough, or the right, parts to put the team back into contention; is Splitter really going to sign; and what will the Draft bring? To say nothing of the CBA, there's plenty to consider.
As you and many know, I'm hoping to see McGuire here and given an opportunity next year. I've got to believe he's going to come cheap, given he's a role player that's been buried on an also-ran's bench, but there's no one else I've really targeted of that ilk -- I'm very much open to any and all with the requisite size and tools for each respective role.
Reply With Quote
), the OP was never intended to be the subject of a thread. It was originally a response to a Hairston thread, and, like most of my ramblings, slowly and steadily meandered into a much broader take (which is what tends to happen when I'm left feeling punch-drunk and in a general malaise after a Spurs game these days).
). 
