Reply With Quote
That's the one! The next Moses Malone. About like Mahinmi is the next Kevin Garnett.
Pretty ty prize.
That's the one! The next Moses Malone. About like Mahinmi is the next Kevin Garnett.
If Ian succeeds elsewhere you can put the blame squarely at the feet of the Spurs medical staff. Their failure to properly diagnose his ankle injury during the 2009 season cost Ian the chance he needed to prove himself. He would have gotten a ton of playing time and we would have been able to see if he could make the adjustments needed.
This. No minutes from Pop = Inconsistent play.
I've always said this: Give Ian 15-20 solid minutes during the first half of a season and see what he can do. If he doesn't improve in basic areas (fouling, TO, etc) then give him the hook.
You simply can't judge this kid based on the lack of burn he's had thus far.
hasnt earn toget 20mpg
He ALTERS SHOTS!!
Mahinmi will get an offer from another team and the Spurs will let him go. But the FO will keep Bonner and Mason as shooters, since they have no chance financially to get one of the better shooters in FA to come here. , it's hard enough to get anyone to come here and they can't overpay now that they have RJ.
I can see OKC making an offer. Presti might have a use for Ian.
OKC might actually be a really good fit for him. Would suck if he goes to OKC and really does turn out to be good.
Well, how you do "earn " exactly? Not by playing the last 6-7 minutes of blowouts.
He needs prime time minutes. You can't gauge his progress or potential from garbage time.
Dude is only 23, and his weaknesses are things that experience usually fixes. Horrible decision by Spurs to nit keep him around. I'd love to see more of him and less of Bonner. Why do they need a stretch 4 anymore? TD isn't dominant and the offense needs to change to reflect that.
I don't think they need a stretch 4 either, especially if that stretch 4 is of lower quality for the 5th spot in the rotation for the minimum. For the 6th big spot, I wouldn't mind because the Spurs wouldn't be dependent for this experimental (lower quality) big man to produce at this spot when Duncan and McDyess sit out.
In regards of the offense, it has changed.
The Tony and Manu pick and roll has been the Spurs' first option for the past 3 years, oppose to 4 down during Duncan's first 10 years in the league.
When Duncan is the screen setter, a stretch 4 gives Manu and Tony a wider lane to penetrate. Which makes the defensive rotations longer and gives the Spurs offensive players off the ball more uncontested shots from the outside when the ball movement is precise.
However, I'm still not a fan of the stretch 4, as I am a fan of strong interior defense. And I don't believe a stretch 4 is more valuable than a strong interior defense by any stretch. Spurs were fortunate to have a player like Horry for many years, who could stretch the floor and have an impact on the defensive end. Truth to the matter is, a player like Horry is extremely hard to find. What I find interesting is I believe Pop was enamored by the teams success with Horry's ability to stretch the floor on the offensive end. So much that he probably overlooked what Horry actually brought on the defensive end for the team's overall success. Leading to his infatuation with Bonner the past two years, despite Bonner's obvious defensive liabilities.
Concerning Bonner's situation, I do think he plays good position defense to help his overall value as a stretch 4, but his physical liabilities while playing adequate positional defense just doesn't win the battle in one on one situations in the post when it's all said and done. Concerning his weak side rotations off the ball, the only time he is effective is when his timing is precise to draw the charge. If his timing is not precise (which is the case 8 times out of 10), it's a relative easy 2 points at the rim or at the free throw line because of Bonner's physical liabilities, which doesn't effectively threat any offensive player within the vicinity of the basket. Therefore in the end all he can really do is stretch the floor.
All in all, Spurs need to continue to pursue players that can effect the game in multiple of ways. And hopefully defense is back to being the priority.
I tend to agree with you, but at the same time shooting has become arguably more crucial than ever before in the NBA.
We just saw it with the Celtics last night, when they had a Perkins, Rondo and T. Allen all playing at once. The lack of spacing killed them. I remember a particular play where Rondo drove and Fisher helped off of T. Allen in the corner and slid in and took the charge. As Van Gundy pointed out, if that's R. Allen instead of T. Allen, Fisher is staying home and Rondo has a layup.
For as much talent as a Duncan, Splitter, McDyess, Blair front line would possess, it's not all that versatile of one and it clearly lacks shooting, even if Blair becomes an adequate - adept mid-range shooter. I'm not advocating bringing in some severely undersized player who's a liability in myriad areas, but at the same time I'm not so sure it would be prudent to forgo bringing in a big who's a range shooter. I know there's not a long list of stretch four's who are multi-faceted players and are affordable/attainable, but the Spurs need someone who's tall who can make a jump shot.
They don't need a cadre of one dimensional three point shooters (like Bonner, Mason and Finley), but they also can't be devoid of three point shooting. They have to find a balance.
Shooting is crucial. I'm not denying that. I agree Spurs need to find the right balance. But they can't overvalue and stockpile one dimensional shooters who can't play a lick of defense.
Duncan and McDyess are better than average mid-range shooters from 15-18 feet out.
Truth to the matter is, most teams don't have quality big men that can really light it up from the perimeter.
What they do have which makes them more versatile, are long wings that are capable of playing the small-ball four. Spurs only have had one of those and his regressive outside shooting last year made him incapable to fill the versatile and athletic "stretch" small ball-four.
Having a long-three like a Babbitt, George, or Jefferson(if he can improve his outside shooting from last year) can be a more valuable option and would make the Spurs extremely more versatile than just adding any big man that can shoot a jumper. IMO
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 06-04-2010 at 07:38 PM.
Agreed.
I don't know if I'd say Duncan is a better than average shooter from 15-18 feet. But I do think if he's paired with Splitter, he can move outside more, particularly in the regular season and specifically against lesser compe ion.
The good teams do, though. The Lakers don't really (though Odom can make the three), but their three bigs collectively overwhelm teams inside, so they can get away with it. The Celtics have Wallace to shoot the three, plus Garnett and Davis are adept mid-range shooters. The Magic have Lewis and Anderson, both knock down three-point shooters. The Cavs have Jamison to shoot the three. The Suns have Frye, who's a knock down three-point shooter, plus Stoudemire who's adept from mid-range.
Yeah, other than the Celtics, those teams do have that and it is valuable. It's something the Spurs haven't had in a long time. It wasn't just Jefferson's outside shooting regressing, he's just a bit too small to play that role. Ideally, you want someone 6-8 - 6-9 and 230 lbs.
It would make the Spurs more versatile, but I doubt they'll be able to acquire one of those players. George is too rail thin to play small ball four. He's a long three and might even play some two. Babbitt, I'm skeptical of him playing small ball four. He'll probably be strictly a three. Jefferson, like I said, I think he's slightly undersized to play that role.
not bad brah, not bad.
I'm going to have to give this post a "+4"
Those teams aren't successful just because they have players that can shoot the ball. Shooting is important, as are many other attributes.
Sheed, Jamison, and Lewis are valuable because they are capable of producing in more ways than just shooting. They are in the game because overall they are one of the top 8-10 overall players on the team. You don't see the top teams just having a stretch 4 in their rotation for the sake of them having an ability to make an open shot.IMO ( Reason why Anderson never played in the playoffs.)
Frye is the only one out of that group that might be in the rotation for that sole purpose, but he has the length and physical ability to defend the paint to a respectable degree. So I believe he is a threat on both ends to a degree.
Anderson never played when it mattered because of his inferior game outside of shooting. So he is irrelevant with the group of players mentioned because he wasn't a player in the rotation in the playoffs.
Like I said players like Horry are extremely hard to find. But those players' ability to stretch the floor isn't the main reason why those teams are successful when they play. ( Something Pop may have overvalued the past 2 years with Bonner.)It's their overall skill-set that makes them a significant piece to a contenders puzzle.
If we are judging the SF, "small ball four" on their ability to defend an offensive (big) post player, then I agree.
The premise of my opinion is based on when other teams go small. Spurs would have an instant advantage if they had an athletic small forward(s) with length to play the small ball four. Opposed to all the years we were forced to match up with undersized and nonathletic wings with small ball.
That's obvious. I never said otherwise.
They are? Jamison is a fairly good rebounder, but he's a sub par passer and an inept defender. Lewis has a weak handle, is a poor rebounder and a mediocre defender. The difference is those teams prioritized having a stretch four who was better than a guy like Bonner, but they still prioritized having one all the same.
Anderson did play in the playoffs, just not against the Celtics, because the Magic were worried about being too soft.
I agree with this paragraph (in bold). But at the same time, those guys could stretch the floor all the same. Even if they were more than that. The point is, you don't see a lot of teams winning big nowadays with such limited shooting amongst theirs bigs. And it's not like this team is loaded with perimeter shooting, either.
A few months ago, I'd have been in complete agreement with you on this. But watching this team being so incapable down the stretch of making threes, it became apparent that it's more of an issue than I had previously assumed. Now you take Bonner and Mason out of the mix and it's only going to exacerbate the problem. Even if they add a guy like Jones to the mix, there's still a good chance (assuming Splitter signs) that their top nine-ten will be lacking in terms of shooting the three.
Yeah, I don't even want to see Udoka, Bogans, etc. (someone of that build) playing PF ever again.
I think you are overlooking the fact that the Spurs only had 2 players out of the 6 (Manu, Hill, Parker, Jefferson, Bogans, Mason) in the rotation that were significant 3 point shooting threats on the wing this past season. * An important reason for the team's underwhelming season from 3*
You can't include Mason, Jefferson, Bogans and imply that the Spurs had 6 three point shooting threats on the team last year and imply "it wasn't enough". They were bad and shouldn't be credited.
If Spurs can turn that number to 4 (easily attainable) or 5 instead of 2 on the wing, that itself would be huge for the team's overall ability to shoot the 3. (Whether it be improvement among the players in the organization, the draft or free agency.) It can be done.
Having a big that can shoot the 3 doesn't need to be as such of a priority as you are implying to improve the Spurs' overall ability to shoot the 3, considering Splitter is more than likely going to make the leap. Which gives the Spurs a formidable and set 4 man rotation in the front-court.
This obviously leaves the Spurs without the assets to acquire a quality stretch 4 anyway. And even if I'm wrong and if they added a lower quality stretch 4, would he really help the Spurs' 3 point shooting "down the stretch" as you said or when it matters?
No he wouldn't.
Because he wouldn't step foot on the court ahead of the 4 players ahead of him. Making it more apparent that improving their 3 point shooting on the wing is about the only way the Spurs are going to improve their 3 point shooting when it matters or " down the stretch" if they use most of the MLE on Splitter (which is most likely the case.)
Concerning the 5th big spot in the rotation, I much rather draft a quality 5th big with upside, or sign a player with the quality of skills(athleticism, speed, 6'11" frame, ability to finish strong, alter shots around the rim, shot blocker, post up offense) like Mahinmi, that has the potential and significant upside to be a vital piece in the rotation in future years. Instead of signing an irrelevant lower caliber stretch 4 with much less upside and less skills.( Which is the case with the assumed resources available after the assumed signing of Splitter.)
All in all, I think the Spurs best bet is to try to attain Babbitt, George or Pondexter in the draft and to sick Coach Engelland on Jefferson this off-season. That would give them valuable option(s) (if they are consistent from 3) to use at the "small-ball" four when teams go small against the Spurs. (Suns with Dudley and Hill, Lakers with Odom/Artest, Mavs with Butler, Magic with Lewis, ect.)
If teams go big, I don't think Spurs should try to use a stretch 4 or go small and sacrifice other important areas like rebounding and defending, especially if Splitter comes over. Spurs finally may be adding a mobile big with significant length to be able to defend and rebound against the best teams. They need to utilize it.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 06-05-2010 at 04:21 PM.
No, I'm not overlooking that at all. I'm saying that the rotation is mostly set. Eight of their likely top ten players are already in place and the ninth is expected to be Splitter, which leaves essentially one spot to see consistent playing time. That spot is almost certainly going to a wing player who can shoot the three (and hopefully defend). Add that player in, but take out Bonner and Mason. Even if Jefferson improves from three, overall this doesn't figure to be a good three-point shooting team.
I never said that (referring to the part in bold).
Having a big to shoot the three would be a way for the Spurs to become a better three-point shooting team, even if whoever it is plays sparingly, as expected. This team is mostly set on the perimeter. It's unlikely they get a wing shooter out of the draft, so as I said we'll probably see one signed. Splitter would make the Spurs front court formidable, but at the same time shooting-wise they'd be lacking.
When I said "down the stretch", I meant towards the end of the season, not towards the end of games.
As you've alluded to in the past, the fifth big will be semi-important next season because of the age of Duncan and McDyess. It's not like this is the Lakers and we're talking about a completely inconsequential spot. Even though whoever it is won't be in the regular rotation, they will play some. So why not have it be someone who can do the one thing the other bigs can't?
Splitter may not be a big time shot blocker, but I'd be surprised if the Spurs don't look at him as their long, mobile rim protector. Can't see them prioritizing having a second, since they haven't prioritized having one (at least in the rotation) in a while.
It might be their best bet, but I can't see George or Babbitt being available at 20 and I doubt the Spurs will have serious interest in Pondexter. He's a better prospect than Hairston and Gee, but somewhat similar to both. My sense is the Spurs don't draft another wing who's not known as a range shooter. I've bought into them drafting Williams (go to the think tank and you'll find my reasoning for it if you care), who while not a great range shooter himself and not a PG, would offer more ball handling. I don't see that as a pressing need per se, but unless you're sold on Temple, the Spurs are not exactly loaded in this regard, either.
I agree (second bold), but that's precisely why it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a fifth big who is a threat from deep: because it would offer something different than the other big men provide.
You are contradicting your own self. If there's one spot only available in the rotation at the wing to see consistent minutes ( or to have an effect on the Spurs overall 3 point production when it matters). How will a lower quality shooting big help that problem, when your guy would be behind Duncan, McDyess, Blair and Splitter in the rotation.. Perhaps even behind Mahinmi or another big of better quality..?
I disagree. There's many question marks right now concerning the spots behind Manu and Jefferson at the wing. We don't know who the Spurs will draft, sign via free agency, or which one of the players in the system steps up and earns that important 3rd wing spot in the rotation or 4th spot (and no I'm not including Hill, because I think 45 minutes a game is too much on Hill at both the SG and backup PG spot. And I think if Spurs want to have a size and match-up advantage (which is vital), Hill has to play all the minutes at back-up point;IMO hopefully leaving only around 15-20 minutes at the 2 sparingly, depending on how well the other players (Hairston,#20 pick, FA addition, Gee, Temple)improve or perform. )
The 5th big has always been semi-important. There's a reason why the 5th big has always been on the active roster. It has been needed in case of foul trouble, injuries, and rest purposes among the starters. That is why the Spurs went out and still signed Theo Ratliff after they signed Haislip because the 5th spot(made up of Haislip and Mahinmi) consisted of two enigma's.
Next year the 5th big will be important. Not semi-important. A quality 5th big will make the difference in the overall standings. In the 15 or so (maybe even more) games that Duncan or McDyess sit, having a quality 5th big can be the difference in Spurs going 6-9 or 12-3 during this stretch. Which is huge.
If he's of quality-all around, sure.. But realistically that won't be the case with the resources available.
Spurs shouldn't overlook the overall value for the 5th spot, to add a big that just has the ability to shoot a ball at a 30% clip from 22 feet out. IMO
To me that's not a smart if you are trying to win ball games. I don't care how many times he spreads the floor on the offensive end. You want to add the best quality as possible with the resources that are available for this important 5th spot. IMO If Spurs want to spread the floor, I rather the Spurs use Jefferson at the 4 during these moments than anyone like Novak, Kurtz and Cook. Tolliver is the better option, but I'm still skeptic on what his value truly is because of how inflated his numbers were, playing so many minutes and playing in that offensive lop-sided system.
And even with Splitter, Spurs won't have someone like Mahinmi. I know that sounds a bit biased and may be to a slight extent, but it is my honest opinion.
I was Mahinmi's biggest critic coming into last year, and didn't expect much out of him after being out a whole year. But I was wrong with him and he really opened up my eyes. And no I'm not basing that off of a stat sheet, where he fouled more than an ignorant critic can tolerate. Or for the fact that he's played more games in the D-League than the NBA. I'm basing my opinion on what I saw out of him every game he played this past year and all the times I've pressed the rewind button. I know my opinion isn't right 100% of the time, but he does offer an array of physical skills that can't be taught or replicated by Splitter, McDyess, Blair or Tim. IMO
They've always prioritized interior defense. Unfortunately with the resources available, it was tough to accommodate that area in the off-season. So unfortunately you are wrong about that.
Here are a few moves they've made in the past in regards of adding more interior defenders. (both successful and unsuccessful)
As you know Tim and David were interior defenders from 1997-2003. (With Perdue, Rose, Samaki Walker, Mark Bryant, Kevin Willis all as their main back-ups during these 6 years.)
In the summer of 2003 they gave Rasho Nestorovic a 48 million dollar deal. Then with the remaining amount of money available they signed Robert Horry, who was the best big left in free agency for the amount of money they had available. He too was a solid interior defender and could also spread the floor.
In February of 2005 they traded for Nazr Mohammed.
In the summer of 2006 ,they went after Joe Pryzbilla and offered him the MLE (24 million) for 4 years but he chose to stay in Portland for the extra 5th year at relatively the same price per year. After their unsuccessful pursuit of Pryzbilla and with Nazr still butt-hurt after the DNP's against Dallas and ignoring the Spurs' offer to join the Pistons; the Spurs were left with slim pickings to accommodate their need for a quality big. They ended up going after an athletic,capable shot blocker in Elson, and used the rest of the money available on the bad gamble that was Jackie Butler.
In the summer of 2007, Spurs were successful with the Elson/Oberto combination from the previous year ( winning the le). So they elected to keep their team.
In February of 2008 at the deadline, the Spurs wanted to improve their interior defense and the best thing available on the trade wire for the assets they had was Kurt Thomas. So they signed off on the deal giving up a 1st rounder.
In February 2009, they still weren't satisfied in their interior defense and their overall length inside. Because of it they went after Marcus Camby.
In July of 2009, after the signing of Haislip(as a low risk gamble) and McDyess ( the best quality big man out there in Free Agency after Sheed) the Spurs signed Ratliff to have a sure thing at the 5th spot in the rotation. This was after the Spurs front-court already consisted of Duncan, Bonner, Blair, McDyess, Haislip and Mahinmi. Spurs didn't know what they had in Blair,Haislip, or Mahinmi ( coming off sitting out a year), which lead to the signing of Ratliff.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 06-06-2010 at 11:30 AM.
Hearing about Mason makes my stomach feel ty... Please refrain from netioning him.
That's not contradicting. That's saying that if you don't have a lot of something in your rotation, then you should make sure you have more of it from your depth players. It's the same reason the Spurs have continuously brought in athletic players to fill out the roster the past few seasons. Why? Because their rotation was devoid of it.
Not really. We know Ginobili, Jefferson and Hill will play the majority of the minutes on the wings. Hairston will probably be on the fringe of the rotation and Gee will probably be primarily in the D-League. In terms of the draft, short of them drafting James, Pondexter, etc., my sense is any other wing they draft won't be in the rotation. We're probably going to see one veteran wing signed on the cheap. I expect that wing to be either ahead of Hairston, or, should Hairston take a step forward during the summer, then just behind Hairston. We may not know all of the players yet, but we can take a guess as to the type and caliber of player we're likely to see.I disagree. There's many question marks right now concerning the spots behind Manu and Jefferson at the wing. We don't know who the Spurs will draft, sign via free agency, or which one of the players in the system steps up and earns that important 3rd wing spot in the rotation or 4th spot (and no I'm not including Hill, because I think 45 minutes a game is too much on Hill at both the SG and backup PG spot. And I think if Spurs want to have a size and match-up advantage (which is vital), Hill has to play all the minutes at back-up point;IMO hopefully leaving only around 15-20 minutes at the 2 sparingly, depending on how well the other players (Hairston,#20 pick, FA addition, Gee, Temple)improve or perform. )
Yeah and that reason is because that's how teams construct their roster; it's not something unique to the Spurs. The two things you never want to get caught short in: size and ball handling.The 5th big has always been semi-important. There's a reason why the 5th big has always been on the active roster. It has been needed in case of foul trouble, injuries, and rest purposes among the starters. That is why the Spurs went out and still signed Theo Ratliff after they signed Haislip because the 5th spot(made up of Haislip and Mahinmi) consisted of two enigma's.
Next year the 5th big will be important. Not semi-important. A quality 5th big will make the difference in the overall standings. In the 15 or so (maybe even more) games that Duncan or McDyess sit, having a quality 5th big can be the difference in Spurs going 6-9 or 12-3 during this stretch. Which is huge.
We're debating semantics here, but I'd term it semi-important. Meaning it's important, but let's not overstate it's importance at the same time. It is, after all, still the fifth big spot, which means if the team is healthy it will not be part of the regular rotation. That was ideal last season and it didn't happen. You can't just say it like it's fact. Myriad factors will go into determining whether the Spurs can rest them that much or not.
What are the odds of acquiring a quality all around player to be the fifth big? I doubt Mahinmi re-signs if Splitter signs and I'd be surprised if a project like Sanders is drafted. The odds are that the Spurs, like most teams, have a fifth big who's minimal and probably one dimensional. Might as well have that dimension be something that no other big on the team possesses.If he's of quality-all around, sure.. But realistically that won't be the case with the resources available.
Spurs shouldn't overlook the overall value for the 5th spot, to add a big that just has the ability to shoot a ball at a 30% clip from 22 feet out. IMO
To me that's not a smart if you are trying to win ball games. I don't care how many times he spreads the floor on the offensive end. You want to add the best quality as possible with the resources that are available for this important 5th spot. IMO If Spurs want to spread the floor, I rather the Spurs use Jefferson at the 4 during these moments than anyone like Novak, Kurtz and Cook. Tolliver is the better option, but I'm still skeptic on what his value truly is because of how inflated his numbers were, playing so many minutes and playing in that offensive lop-sided system.
And even with Splitter, Spurs won't have someone like Mahinmi. I know that sounds a bit biased and may be to a slight extent, but it is my honest opinion.
I was Mahinmi's biggest critic coming into last year, and didn't expect much out of him after being out a whole year. But I was wrong with him and he really opened up my eyes. And no I'm not basing that off of a stat sheet, where he fouled more than an ignorant critic can tolerate. Or for the fact that he's played more games in the D-League than the NBA. I'm basing my opinion on what I saw out of him every game he played this past year and all the times I've pressed the rewind button. I know my opinion isn't right 100% of the time, but he does offer an array of physical skills that can't be taught or replicated by Splitter, McDyess, Blair or Tim. IMO
As I've said many times, I tend to agree with you, but I can also see (what I think will be their thinking, based on their history) the other side of it.
What do you mean by that (bold)?
I agree, I think Mahinmi will be a player in this league and I'd like to see him re-sign. Not a savior, not an All-Star, but a quality rotation player. But if Splitter signs, there is no incentive for him to stay.
I didn't say they haven't always prioritized interior defense. I specifically said "a long, mobile rim protector". That doesn't describe Oberto, Thomas, McDyess, etc., even though they're all solid post defenders. I also specifically said "in the rotation in a while". I'm not talking as far back as '03 or '05.They've always prioritized interior defense. Unfortunately with the resources available, it was tough to accommodate that area in the off-season. So unfortunately you are wrong about that.
Here are a few moves they've made in the past in regards of adding more interior defenders. (both successful and unsuccessful)
As you know Tim and David were interior defenders from 1997-2003. (With Perdue, Rose, Samaki Walker, Mark Bryant, Kevin Willis all as their main back-ups during these 6 years.)
In the summer of 2003 they gave Rasho Nestorovic a 48 million dollar deal. Then with the remaining amount of money available they signed Robert Horry, who was the best big left in free agency for the amount of money they had available. He too was a solid interior defender and could also spread the floor.
In February of 2005 they traded for Nazr Mohammed.
In the summer of 2006 ,they went after Joe Pryzbilla and offered him the MLE (24 million) for 4 years but he chose to stay in Portland for the extra 5th year at relatively the same price per year. After their unsuccessful pursuit of Pryzbilla and with Nazr still butt-hurt after the DNP's against Dallas and ignoring the Spurs' offer to join the Pistons; the Spurs were left with slim pickings to accommodate their need for a quality big. They ended up going after an athletic,capable shot blocker in Elson, and used the rest of the money available on the bad gamble that was Jackie Butler.
In the summer of 2007, Spurs were successful with the Elson/Oberto combination from the previous year ( winning the le). So they elected to keep their team.
In February of 2008 at the deadline, the Spurs wanted to improve their interior defense and the best thing available on the trade wire for the assets they had was Kurt Thomas. So they signed off on the deal giving up a 1st rounder.
In February 2009, they still weren't satisfied in their interior defense and their overall length inside. Because of it they went after Marcus Camby.
In July of 2009, after the signing of Haislip(as a low risk gamble) and McDyess ( the best quality big man out there in Free Agency after Sheed) the Spurs signed Ratliff to have a sure thing at the 5th spot in the rotation. This was after the Spurs front-court already consisted of Duncan, Bonner, Blair, McDyess, Haislip and Mahinmi. Spurs didn't know what they had in Blair,Haislip, or Mahinmi ( coming off sitting out a year), which lead to the signing of Ratliff.
He should learn how to stop fouling from the bench. That's how all the great big men did it.
We've all seen the movie: a famous owner buys a horse nobody else wants, trains it in secret using unorthodox methods, and goes on to win the Kentucky Derby. Only in our movie, the horse has health problems and a tendency to get there a half step behind his opponents. Ian Mahinmi is Sea Biscuit with bad ankles.
And for the record - that half step delay is the reason Ian picks up so many fouls. And it's not because his feet are slow. That's not likely to change. If the prize winner gets to sign Mahinmi to a two year contract, then second place would be signing him to a four year contract.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
