Reply With Quote
they can say it was only the 2nd rounder
yup. you are right. except when they like a player.
they can say it was only the 2nd rounder
Players that I liked have moved up the board and look like they will no longer be available when the Spurs draft. Williams very well may be the best player available when the Spurs draft.
Spurs DO promise picks. They did it for Mahinmi and Batum.
Higher picks are more likely to be promised. It does seem rare, but is done to keep guys from working out for other teams. Later in the round too much can happen to bother with it.
lulz. Stop pretending to be some insider, it makes you look like a bigger . "Naw" lol. Have you ever heard him speak?
Text conversation:
ME: Hey Nicholas, did the Spurs promise you that 25th pick they used on George Hill?
NICHOLAS: Sheeiit man, dats right dey did jeefus.
ME: Thanks. You are an alright dude.
NICHOLAS: You best be knowin's dat.
I guess it was sarcasm, like all your other "insider" bull . How about you just stop posting regardless of if they do or don't draft him?
There's nothing that really says that they made him the guarantee. As of now, it's just an assumption. So, if they don't draft him it wouldn't mean that you are right. If the do draft him, though, I think that would show that they did offer him a promise.
What are you talking about? The Spurs wanted Hill and didn't think Batum was gonna fall to them. When Batum started falling, they started calling around to try and buy another 1st rd pick to get both. They weren't trying to sell their pick.
That draft day I was in a chat room with a spurs insider (who doesn't share info often, but is never wrong)... as Batum was falling (we were monitoring his status), the Spurs were trying to buy the 24th pick in addition to their 26th pick. The deal didn't get done in time and he went 25th.
Edit: Oh, and it's not like the Spurs were drafting a player they never heard of in the 1st rd (and passing up other players)... and only decided to keep him after the Lakers wanted him... that would have been stupid
At the 1:10 mark:
He's right. Jane Curtain was a . I know.
At the 1:10 mark:
And the legend that is Blackjack continues to grow.He's right. Jane Curtain was a . I know.
The person I'm talking about has direct contact with Pop as well. And I was talking about what he was telling us during the draft, not after... but I do agree with you that teams don't often make promises without a clarifier like, "If you are available at spot 20, we'll take you.... unless something crazy happens like Blair has no ACLs".
17? Little ?Sounds like somebody has a hard time with truth. If you are older than me, I'd be surprised. You don't share everything because you know . Figuratively -- you ing moron. I don't use lulz to insult you, you ing moron. That's me laughing at your ing stupidity. Nowhere did I say that it was "inside info" about promising picks; how about you go back to school and learn to read? It is quite helpful when you are trying to argue some ing asinine point. Yes, it's quite common knowledge that teams don't promise picks. God. You really believe that.
Yes. John Wall is definitely falling to the 20th pick. Moron!
That's the chance that players and agents take. You play out the scenario in your head anyway you want to try to justify why players wouldn't want to go on a promise, while it will continue to happen in actuality. You think players aren't promised picks? Teams can over any player they want in a draft and promise them anything. If something more tangible comes up, doesn't mean they can't back out of it.
It's more likely the scenario that it doesn't happen often because agents are smart enough to not skip out on things -- like working out for other teams with higher picks -- when they know if there isn't a contract, there is no "guarantee." It's merely team X promising a player that if they are they will take them. Again, they don't have to take them -- they merely gave themselves more outs. By the same token, the player may get drafted ahead of the promising team -- ala Nicholas Batum.
I think there's something wrong with your quote thing, oligarchy. It's subs uting and Anus where Chamberlain usually goes.
uh oh. you might have burned some synapses by writing post #40 of this thread, but are aware of what you just told us? (after thankfully telling us so much about how a NBA FO works). our genious FO needed the Lakers to see what they just got in Hill????
like you, I also just imagined a conversation....
Pop: hey RC what's up.
RC: someone from LA called. he wants George Hill.
Pop: who?
RC: the guy we drafted.
Pop: we did? WTF. I told you to trade the pick.
RC: I tried, really. called Houston. they said they take the pick if we add Splitter.
Pop: Bas s. they won't rest till they got all our Argies. but why did you pick a guy with such a name, from - where?
RC: IUPUI
Pop: Yippie-ki-yay?
RC: no. IUPUI in Indiana. that's a college. sort of.
Pop: jesus, what did you smoke?
RC: you told me, if you don't know who to pick, just take a guy from a place none knows.....
Pop: god damn, I was talking about unknown countries far away not a f*cking red neck school in f*cking Indiana. Moldavian. Macedonia. Austria. there you go.
RC: they don't have basketball players in Austr....
Pop: now shut up! tell me what Kubrick wanted.
RC: Kupchak.
Pop: you want this 2000 $ bottle of Italian wine go conversely thru your body....
RC: sorry. he wanted George Hill and offerd Jordan Farmer.
Pop: Jordan Farmer? the point guard?
RC: yes. that Farmer.
Pop: hmmm. we could use another point guard.
RC: but Hill is also a point guard. sort of.
Pop: hmmmm. that f*cking little p*ick Kubrick thinks that I'm his b*tch Chris Wallace. that Farmer kid is not bad you know. if Kubrick offers him, our boy is at least as good as their guy Volcanic.
RC: Vujacic?
Pop: some wine?
RC: no, thanks. what should I tell him.
Pop: tell him to go to . and that we know that Gregg Hall is good. to good to trade him for a f*cking back up point guard.
RC: George Hill
Pop: who?
RC: Indiana George
Pop: ah him. thank god they didn't offer that guy Mbongo. I might have answerd they can have our guy, but only if they change the offer to Farmer.
RC: Mbenga
Pop: UNCORKED!
no, we don't need any more shortys.
That said, our FO ignorantly going with a pick because Meatch liked him seems amazingly implausible. Lakers got a pretty good piece in Bynum, but otherwise their drafting history of late hasn't been of the kind to deserve any sort of hushed reverent tones or anything.
6'4" for a SG isn't tall... but it's not short either. A few quotes from Nbadraft.net:
"At 6'4 with long arms, has the size and length to play either guard position... On ball defense is top notch ... Light on his feet with great lateral quickness. Stays low in his stance. Uses his long wingspan to disrupt opponents and eliminate passing angles ... Reads passing lanes very well (.6 stl per game as a freshman) Great defensive awareness and anticipation ... Not afraid to get his hands dirty and do work on the glass (2.3 rpg) ... Smart kid with good character - shows desire to learn and improve."
Take that mee-yotch!!!!
Anyway, I remember reading that the FO told Ian they would draft him if he stayed away from the pre draft camps. That sounds like a promise, assuming the article was true. Who really knows. It's big money so I'm sure lies happen all the time.
The Spurs definitely promised Ian.
Everything about this guy sounds like Spurs material, right down to the being off the radar as far as the 20th pick is concerned.
I'm buying it. Not the promise necessarily, but that the Spurs pick him nonetheless. I can't see George or Babbitt being available at 20 and no other player jumps out as a logical choice.
As I touched on, positionally this may surprise people, but the Spurs aren't exactly stocked with ball handling guards, unless you're sold on Temple. Williams may not be a PG, but by all accounts he's not exactly Hairston when it comes to ball handling, either. He can handle the ball some and make plays.
I also think the Spurs view Hairston, because of his lack of ball skills, as more of an SF than an SG on this team and that the SF's likely to be available at 20, for one reason or another, aren't great fits. So instead of forcing it, they'll go with Hairston, a veteran (I'm guessing Jones) and Gee in reserve of Jefferson. Keep in mind, Ginobili will also see some time at SF when the Spurs go to a three guard alignment with Hill and Parker in the back court. So, while there would still be no long term successor in place, depth wise the Spurs should be fine.
For now at least, I'm plugging Williams into my latest revised version of what I think the team will look like next season...
Starters: PF- Duncan, SF- Jefferson, C- Splitter, SG- Hill, PG- Parker
Bench: SG- Ginobili, PF- McDyess, PF- Blair, SF- Jones, SG/SF- Hairston, SG- Williams, PF- Tolliver
Inactive/D-League: SG/PG- Temple, SF/SG- Gee
I'm not even going to guess who the 2nd round pick will be or gauge their chances of making the roster. All things being relatively equal, my guess is their preference would be a big.
The toughest spot to come up with a name for is fifth big. I believe the Spurs will look for a stretch four, but their aren't a ton available or attainable for the LLE or the veteran's minimum and many of the ones that are are worse than fifth bigs. Particularly on a team with two old bigs, who need their fifth big to be a useful player. At this writing, I'm going with Tolliver, even though the Warriors can retain him, if they want to.
mountainballer, FTW.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
