2010 Free Agent: Ian Mahinmi

[TD 21]

Yeah I do, #35 bald guy who frequently competed with Malik on who could dive on the floor the most and get down and dirty. Had one of the purest set shots the silver and black has seen. That unfortunately never fell against the Lakers.

Ferry was a small forward. He wasn't a big man. He could have played the 4, but they never played him at power forward or the 4 spot. He always played the small forward position with Derek Anderson at the 2 and Terry Porter at point.

Making your point irrelevant. He wasn't a 4.




We were and are talking about the 5th spot in the rotation, assuming the successful pursuit of Splitter.

They didn't sign Haislip as their 5th big. He was a low risk;high reward small forward/power forward that they didn't expect to contribute. It was a low risk; high reward situation and he was the 7th big behind Mahinmi, Ratliff, Bonner, Blair, Duncan and Dyess.

Like I said before, Spurs will need their 5th big to be able to contribute right now. Quality will be the priority, regardless if they can stretch the floor or not for this spot on the active roster.

Now once they add their quality big man as their 5th big, like resigning Mahinmi for instance, then I can see the Spurs adding a project stretch 4 for the minimum as the 6th guy, who would be sporting a his best wardrobe from Men's Warehouse.

But since we are talking about the 5th big in the rotation ( not 6th, not 7th like Haislip, which is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things), I'm willing to bet anything they won't dig to the bottom of the barrel, overlooking overall quality, just to find a player of lesser quality that has the ability to stretch a defense out.(Kurz, Tolliver, Novak)

What you got?

50,000 VBookie cash? You down or what? Put your money where your mouth is.

What are we betting?

I'm betting Spurs won't dig to the bottom of the barrel and add a Novak, Kurtz, Tolliver, Cook for the 5th spot in the rotation.

You in or are you out?

You're right, he was more of a three than a four, but really he was a combo forward and particularly towards the end of his Spurs tenure, he played mostly as a four. The Spurs would play three bigs: Duncan, Robinson, Rose. The fourth, depending on match-up, would be Willis or Ferry.

Haislip was not a SF at all; he was strictly a PF. You obviously drank the kool-aid about how the Spurs could see him playing SF. The point is, I think he was signed obviously as a flier, but also looking ahead to this season as a potential mix of Bonner/Mahinmi as the fifth big. I don't have any so-called sources like you apparently do, that's just my opinion. Sorry, Mr. Technical, Haislip was not the 7th big, he was 6th to start the season; Mahinmi was 7th.

To the Spurs, a tall guy who's an outside threat is contributing. Even if that player is a liability in most other aspects of the game. Quality is YOUR priority, how do you know it's theirs? As least I'm basing my thinking on past history. You're just saying what you'd like to see happen and passing it off as fact.

I doubt the Spurs carry 15 players next season, which is why I don't see their being a 6th big and why I see the 5th big being a shooter.

I don't even use Vbookie cash, but even if I did, I don't have 50, 000 to bet.

I'm betting the Spurs will bring in one of those types, IF the first four bigs are Duncan, Splitter, McDyess and Blair.

[MaNu4Tres]

As least I'm basing my thinking on past history.

So in regards of the active roster, the Spurs always dig to the bottom of the barrel of the free agency pool to fill it out? So in regards of filling out the active roster out, they always overlook the overall quality of the free agent as long as they have the ability to make a three? For the active roster? I'm talking about the big men for the active roster.

I can hear Pop and R.C right now," Attention free agents, we've had success with one of the best role players, who happened to be one of the best 3 point shooting power forwards in the history of the game from 2004 through 2007. We were also fortunate to find a diamond in the rough when we traded for Matt Bonner's expiring contract because we made a mistake giving the Rasho Nestorovic a 48 million dollar contract. Fortunately for us Bonner earned his stripes and slowly earned quality minutes by the 2008 season. He ended up one of the most consistent 3 point shooting role players in the league for us the past 3 seasons.

With that, since we've had success with them, we are willing to sign anyone who has the ability to make a 3 point shot to fill out an important spot on the active roster. Only stipulations are you have to be 6'8" are above. Don't worry we don't care about anything else you can or can't do on the court. Tryouts will be held at Incarnate Ward University. Goodluck."


That is what you're basically saying. You are saying Spurs don't care about overall quality for the 5th spot on the active roster and they will overlook that aspect to add a player like Novak, Kurtz, Tolliver, or Cook.

I have to disagree.

So we can agree to disagree obviously.

We will find out in time.

[The Truth #6]

I don't know...I think they do put a high priority on finding their stretch 4. A few years back we already Bonner and Gist was playing extremely well in Summer league. We desperately needed a mobile 4 who was athletic and could hustle. Instead, we sign Tolliver just to have insurance in case Bonner didn't produce. We cut Tolliver and Bonner still didn't produce. I'd say that's putting a high priority on having a stretch 4. Basically, Pop is locked into past archetypes and he will keep looking for the next Horry - even though Horry's greatest strength was defense and BBIQ - two things Bonner utterly lacks. Horry made big shots but was not a great shooter. Bonner is a great shooter who has never made a big shot. Nonetheless, we stuck with him every time.

In other words...I don't see Ian coming back.

[MaNu4Tres]

I'm aware on how Popovich likes the ability to have a stretch 4 to spread the floor. I know I wear glasses from time to time, but I'm not that blind.

I think they would like to have a stretch 4 in the perfect scenario. I just don't think they would sign a player of Kurtz, Novak, Cook, or Tolliver's caliber to be an important 5th big man.

And I say important because next year that 5th big will see more time than usual due to Tim and McDyess' anticipated limited minutes. I just don't see them making such of a desperate addition just to have a stretch 4.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made a move to find a better quality stretch 4 instead of the players TD 21 mentioned, or draft a player like Babbit in hopes of him being a hybrid 3/4 man.

I just don't see them searching at the bottom of the free agent pool for a player like Kurtz, Novak, Tolliver or Cook for that 5th spot. As I've said many times.

[The Truth #6]

I hope they don't either.

[objective]

Ferry was a small forward. He wasn't a big man. He could have played the 4, but they never played him at power forward or the 4 spot. He always played the small forward position with Derek Anderson at the 2 and Terry Porter at point.

Making your point irrelevant. He wasn't a 4.

I'm not involved in the argument but Ferry definitely played the 4 at times with the Spurs. And on paper even the 5.

He started a playoff game against the Suns in 03 in place of Robinson and pulled down 10 boards for just one instance.

[MaNu4Tres]

I'm not involved in the argument but Ferry definitely played the 4 at times with the Spurs. And on paper even the 5.

He started a playoff game against the Suns in 03 in place of Robinson and pulled down 10 boards for just one instance.

My bad I forgot about that game and now that I think of it he did see spot/ garbage minutes at the 4 spot in his last year 02/03, but my point was Ferry played small forward more often than not. I'd probably say 80% of the time he played small forward roughly during his 3 year (really 2 years) with the Spurs? If my memory is correct?

That percentage was higher in 00/01 and 01/02 from what I remember I could be wrong?

Regardless of what I can and can't remember, a proven valuable role player in the NBA like Ferry still has nothing to do with the argument I'm trying to make.
( I'm too lazy and tired to type it all out again)

I'm aware on how Popovich likes the ability to have a stretch 4 to spread the floor. I know I wear glasses from time to time, but I'm not that blind.

I think they would like to have a stretch 4 in the perfect scenario. I just don't think they would sign a player of Kurtz, Novak, Cook, or Tolliver's caliber to be an important 5th big man.

And I say important because next year that 5th big will see more time than usual due to Tim and McDyess' anticipated limited minutes. I just don't see them making such of a desperate addition just to have a stretch 4.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made a move to find a better quality stretch 4 instead of the players TD 21 mentioned, or draft a player like Babbit in hopes of him being a hybrid 3/4 man.

I just don't see them searching at the bottom of the free agent pool for a player like Kurtz, Novak, Tolliver or Cook for that 5th spot. As I've said many times.

[mogrovejo]

please elaborate this.

- That rotation has only one guy who can shoot out of 11ft and is a 36 years old McDyess in what may be his last NBA season. In today's NBA, that equates to make life extremely difficult for your guards to drive inside or even to get the ball inside.

- There's only one player with good quickness+fastness for a PF in Splitter, but it's not like he's some kind of explosive athlete either.

That's your opinion. Which I respect.

Although I disagree to an extent. Of course versatility is something teams look for. But do you dig to the bottom of the barrel just to add a 6'8"+ shooting big man that has the ability to shoot? I think not. And if you do would it make a difference in the grand scheme of things?

An example can be Scalabrine on the Celtics right now. Is his addition really as valued as you claim, in regard of teams value versatility over quality to a degree? I don't see it.

I'd much rather use Jefferson at the 4 than put my eggs into the basket of a Scalabrine or a Tolliver. That's just me though.

But Boston's big man rotation has 3 shooters, 3 guys who can fire 20ft jumpers - Garnett, Davis and Wallace - which weathers down the problem. I can't think of a single NBA team without shooting in their big man rotation.

But it's definitely a hole Boston have. A healthy Garnett can still shut down perimeter 4s, for most of the season that type of players were a big problem for Boston.

For example, it's part of the reason why they were 28th in offensive rebounding, they had to sacrifice stuff in order to defend the transition. And they still have Scalabrine as a 5th/6th big, which is comforting.

[mogrovejo]

You are saying Spurs don't care about overall quality for the 5th spot on the active roster and they will overlook that aspect to add a player like Novak, Kurtz, Tolliver, or Cook.

Have you seen Tolliver this season?

I think Tolliver is becoming a solid rotational player if he keeps improving his outside jumper. He'll be a quality 4th big for some team. He has a diverse skill-set that is rare to find in rotational players.

[MaNu4Tres]

He'll be a quality 4th big for some team. He has a diverse skill-set that is rare to find in rotational players.

For a lottery team. I agree.

But for a playoff team with championship aspirations, I have to disagree.

[mogrovejo]

For a lottery team. I agree.

But for a playoff team with championship aspirations, I have to disagree.

Okay, but I meant for a good team. In a lottery team, he can be a 3rd big or even a starter.

[TD 21]

The Truth #6 and mogrovejo essentially conveyed my thoughts...

I'll just add: Maybe the Spurs wouldn't go quite so low as a guy like Kurz or Novak (who, like Ferry is primarily an SF), but Tolliver? I think they'd jump at the chance to have him as their fifth big. Although I think mogrovejo is overstating his value, if he plays next season similar to how he did last season, he'd be a solid addition.

If it's not Tolliver, I know don't, there aren't a ton of names that spring to mind to fill this role, but based on this regime's history of constructing teams and like mogrovejo said, the way the league is going (in terms of teams coveting shooting bigs), I've got to think the Spurs come up with someone to fill this role. Maybe they pluck someone from obscurity, I'm not sure. But, I can't see this not being the route they go. Again, assuming Splitter is signed and McDyess is retained.

You act like teams don't target specific skills, when in reality that's exactly how a core is surrounded. Rarely is it with dynamic all around players, it's generally with specialists. Particularly with championship teams, none more so than the Spurs, who have always done things this way.

[MaNu4Tres]

You act like teams don't target specific skills, when in reality that's exactly how a core is surrounded. Rarely is it with dynamic all around players, it's generally with specialists. Particularly with championship teams, none more so than the Spurs, who have always done things this way.

No I don't.

You're totally ignoring the whole point I'm trying to make.

And making false assumptions.

Read again

I'm aware on how Popovich likes the ability to have a stretch 4 to spread the floor. I know I wear glasses from time to time, but I'm not that blind.

I think they would like to have a stretch 4 in the perfect scenario. I just don't think they would sign a player of Kurtz, Novak, Cook, or Tolliver's caliber to be an important 5th big man.

And I say important because next year that 5th big will see more time than usual due to Tim and McDyess' anticipated limited minutes. I just don't see them making such of a desperate addition just to have a stretch 4.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made a move to find a better quality stretch 4 instead of the players TD 21 mentioned, or draft a player like Babbit in hopes of him being a hybrid 3/4 man.

I just don't see them searching at the bottom of the free agent pool for a player like Kurtz, Novak, Tolliver or Cook for that 5th spot. As I've said many times.

I do agree though that Tolliver is the best out of the group you mentioned. But 3 out of the 4 guys you said you could see the Spurs go after for the 5th spot are really bad players.

The guys you mentioned was the reason why I made the whole argument in the first place.


Comprehension skills. C'mon son.

[TD 21]

So in regards of the active roster, the Spurs always dig to the bottom of the barrel of the free agency pool to fill it out? So in regards of filling out the active roster out, they always overlook the overall quality of the free agent as long as they have the ability to make a three? For the active roster? I'm talking about the big men for the active roster.

I can hear Pop and R.C right now," Attention free agents, we've had success with one of the best role players, who happened to be one of the best 3 point shooting power forwards in the history of the game from 2004 through 2007. We were also fortunate to find a diamond in the rough when we traded for Matt Bonner's expiring contract because we made a mistake giving the Rasho Nestorovic a 48 million dollar contract. Fortunately for us Bonner earned his stripes and slowly earned quality minutes by the 2008 season. He ended up one of the most consistent 3 point shooting role players in the league for us the past 3 seasons.

With that, since we've had success with them, we are willing to sign anyone who has the ability to make a 3 point shot to fill out an important spot on the active roster. Only stipulations are you have to be 6'8" are above. Don't worry we don't care about anything else you can or can't do on the court. Tryouts will be held at Incarnate Ward University. Goodluck."


That is what you're basically saying. You are saying Spurs don't care about overall quality for the 5th spot on the active roster and they will overlook that aspect to add a player like Novak, Kurtz, Tolliver, or Cook.

I have to disagree.

So we can agree to disagree obviously.

We will find out in time.

This is the post I was referencing when I made the comment about how you act like teams don't target specific skills.

I don't want Kurz, Novak, Cook, etc., which you not surprisingly seem to be failing to comprehend. I'm just saying I could see the Spurs bringing in someone like that to fill this role. Probably not them specifically, but someone of that ilk.

You're talking to me about comprehension skills? The same guy who routinely takes what I said out of context or completely misunderstands my view point. You're so caught up in trying to have an argument that you've failed to realize that I actually agree with quite a few things that you've said on this; I'm just playing devil's advocate. Looking at it from the organization's/Mahinmi's point of view and basing my thinking off of past history of this regime.

[MaNu4Tres]

What you just posted is pretty darn similar to this:

I'm aware on how Popovich likes the ability to have a stretch 4 to spread the floor. I know I wear glasses from time to time, but I'm not that blind.

I think they would like to have a stretch 4 in the perfect scenario. I just don't think they would sign a player of Kurtz, Novak, Cook, or Tolliver's caliber to be an important 5th big man.

And I say important because next year that 5th big will see more time than usual due to Tim and McDyess' anticipated limited minutes. I just don't see them making such of a desperate addition just to have a stretch 4.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made a move to find a better quality stretch 4 instead of the players TD 21 mentioned, or draft a player like Babbit in hopes of him being a hybrid 3/4 man.

I just don't see them searching at the bottom of the free agent pool for a player like Kurtz, Novak, Tolliver or Cook for that 5th spot. As I've said many times.

And that is everything I had to argue the past page or so, but all in a nut s . So you obviously misunderstood my point in the first place.

[TD 21]

No, I understood you all along.

The difference is I don't think the Spurs would "like to have a stretch 4 in the perfect scenario", as you say, I think they'll specifically plan to get one, even if it's not an ideal one, this off season. They probably won't go as low as Kurz (unless they plan to carry 6 bigs; which I doubt), but I think their mindset will be (assuming Splitter is signed and McDyess is retained), we want our fifth big to be someone who can stretch the floor.

Just like last off season, even though depth wise they were fine on the wings, they were determined to add a guy who they felt could help fill the wing stopper role. Was he any good? No. Would they have been better served playing a younger player? Arguably. But, they didn't care. They decided that was what they wanted and they went out and got it.

That's why I expect this situation to be the same. We're not talking about a franchise big man here, which is a rare thing. If they want a (relatively) tall guy who can make shots, they'll find a way to acquire one.

[MaNu4Tres]

No, I understood you all along.


but I think their mindset will be (assuming Splitter is signed and McDyess is retained), we want our fifth big to be someone who can stretch the floor.

Well from my interpretation you obviously didn't really understand me. I was arguing the whole time that they would not go as low as Kurz (for the 5th spot;6th likely) and you refuted it by using the whole " history proves otherwise remarks". That remark you made made it apparent that you were basically comparing a low caliber player like Novak, Cook or Kurtz to Horry and Bonner's situation in San Antonio.

The reason why I use Horry and Bonner in comparing the 5th spot in the rotation is because that spot will be needed to contribute and be a proven commodity(IMO), due to Duncan and McDyess' anticipated limited minutes. You can't compare this 5th spot to Haislip because Haislip was brought in as a low risk high reward gamble and a long shot. They didn't need Haislip to come in and contribute. That's a different scenario than what the Spurs have with their 5th spot in the rotation.

I also said multiple times that I can see the Spurs adding a development/gamble stretch 4 like Kurtz or someone of less ability as a 6th man. But in order to find a stretch 4 to regulate the 5th big spot on the active roster, they will have to either do it via draft or make a trade to find a player of better quality, due to limited resources available. Or resign Bonner, if he signs for less out of loyalty. (All of what I've already stated).

I just think you misunderstood my whole point, which is fine.

Just like last off season, even though depth wise they were fine on the wings, they were determined to add a guy who they felt could help fill the wing stopper role. Was he any good? No. Would they have been better served playing a younger player? Arguably. But, they didn't care. They decided that was what they wanted and they went out and got it.

Again your point here is under the premise which the depth was fine. Therefore it was a low risk; high reward pick up that may suit a need. Like Haislip was. I can see that.

However in the situation that we have been arguing about, the depth is NOT fine. We are talking about the 5th spot. Which will be more important than any other year. Therefore a gamble like Haislip, Kurz, Novak or Cook wouldn't make sense for this spot.IMO That doesn't mean I don't think Spurs want a stretch 4 at all. I just don't think they will be so desperate (talent wise) just to find a big man that has the ability to hit an outside shot for the 5th spot.IMO

[Blackjack]

I think you two are talking past each other a bit and are a lot closer in your view then the debate would leave one to believe.

[The Truth #6]

I propose we make peace by appealing to the lowest common denominator...criticizing Matt Bonner, of course.

[Blackjack]

Throw in a healthy dose of Mason and I think you're on to something.

[BronxCowboy]

Doesn't anyone hate Finley anymore?

[TD 21]

Well from my interpretation you obviously didn't really understand me. I was arguing the whole time that they would not go as low as Kurz (for the 5th spot;6th likely) and you refuted it by using the whole " history proves otherwise remarks". That remark you made made it apparent that you were basically comparing a low caliber player like Novak, Cook or Kurtz to Horry and Bonner's situation in San Antonio.

The reason why I use Horry and Bonner in comparing the 5th spot in the rotation is because that spot will be needed to contribute and be a proven commodity(IMO), due to Duncan and McDyess' anticipated limited minutes. You can't compare this 5th spot to Haislip because Haislip was brought in as a low risk high reward gamble and a long shot. They didn't need Haislip to come in and contribute. That's a different scenario than what the Spurs have with their 5th spot in the rotation.

I also said multiple times that I can see the Spurs adding a development/gamble stretch 4 like Kurtz or someone of less ability as a 6th man. But in order to find a stretch 4 to regulate the 5th big spot on the active roster, they will have to either do it via draft or make a trade to find a player of better quality, due to limited resources available. Or resign Bonner, if he signs for less out of loyalty. (All of what I've already stated).

I just think you misunderstood my whole point, which is fine.



Again your point here is under the premise which the depth was fine. Therefore it was a low risk; high reward pick up that may suit a need. Like Haislip was. I can see that.

However in the situation that we have been arguing about, the depth is NOT fine. We are talking about the 5th spot. Which will be more important than any other year. Therefore a gamble like Haislip, Kurz, Novak or Cook wouldn't make sense for this spot.IMO That doesn't mean I don't think Spurs want a stretch 4 at all. I just don't think they will be so desperate (talent wise) just to find a big man that has the ability to hit an outside shot for the 5th spot.IMO

I conceded that they more than likely wouldn't go as low as Kurz to be the 5th big, but I wouldn't be the least big surprised if they settle for someone a cut above.

Once again, the history proves otherwise comment meant in general they prioritize having a stretch four on the roster. You can debate natural positions, where they've been on the depth chart, etc., the fact of the matter is they've prioritized them. That's not opinion; it's fact.

I didn't compare, I just said the one thing they have in common is they're all (relatively) tall guys who are known to stretch the floor. Obviously, someone like Novak isn't anywhere near Horry's level as a player. But at the end of the day, they're both 6-10 (listed, at least) guys who were/are known as shooters.

Anticipated limited minutes? How much lower do you think the Spurs will be able to get away with? Duncan played 31 mpg and McDyess 21 mpg. Maybe, if everything breaks right, they limit them to 30 mpg and 18-19 mpg respectively, but there's not going to be some precipitous drop coming. Maybe more games off, should the Spurs have the luxury of doing so, if that's what you're thinking. But in those games, I'd imagine Splitter and in particular, Blair, will play significantly more. The fifth big will probably see limited minutes even in that scenario.

Of course they'll need the fifth big to be a viable player, but if the guy can stretch the floor that will probably be enough. Honestly, how good of a fifth big are you expecting, if the first four are what we're expecting? Someone like Tolliver is probably the high end.

No, I understood your point. Basically, you're saying ideally they'd like to have a quality stretch four, but given their limited resources they're unlikely to obtain one. I'm saying, despite their limited resources, they're going to have the mindset that their fifth big will be a stretch four, even if it has to be someone who's less than ideal.

I think the depth is better than you given it credit for, because of the quality of the first four. In reality, the first four are all really top three caliber bigs. Blair is not a true fourth big. Like I said, all those names I brought up, I don't want (with the exception of Tolliver, though it's that I'm enamored with him), I'm just throwing out names.

[NewJerSpur]

If Ian has to go, the Spurs will just have to find some way to keep moving as an organization, somehow......you're up Tiago.

[Manufan909]

Let's hope he doesn't. If they add Splitter and Bonner stays, then there is almost no way for Ian to get minutes.

With how Pop treated him this season, I wouldn't expect to be back if he sniffs a chance anywhere else. All those that think the decline of Duncan/Dyess will get Ian PT, look at all the opportunities Ian had to play this year. It was prob under 10% chance Ian would play on any given night. With Splitter likely coming, and Bonner likely getting resigned if Splitter bails once again, along with the guarantee of Blair having a bigger role, Ian is screwed unless Pop is forced to play a 3-man big rotation... Oh wait, that happened, and Pop still found a way out of giving Ian some burn.

Ian is like an abused wife, and all the optimists here are the abusive husband's friends, who claim that Pop will come to his senses.

I truly want Pop to see the light and quit his love affair with the Red Rocket, but look how long Fin and Pop lasted.

[Mr Bones]

There's one stat that is important for a defensive minded big man that obviously isn't going to be a big part of the offense with the Spurs, and that's block to foul ratio... it has always been Mahinmi's downfall, and last season didn't change anything as he averaged 0.3 bpg and 1.2 fouls per game. It has been 4 years since he had a terrible ratio with Pau-Orthez and 3 years since he had a terrible ratio with the Toros in the D-league... at a certain point, after practicing alongside Tim Duncan and Antonio McDyess and still not improving, I have to concede that he's probably not going to be as good as Dan Gadzuric, and that all of this anxious hand-ringing over his fate with the Spurs is probably not really worth it. Honestly, if most fans of the Spurs went on to a site dedicated to the Lakers or Celtics and read their fans talking about a D-league guy the way spurstalk does about Mahinmi, would they take it seriously? Or start cracking jokes about homerism?