'11 Spurs as '10 Celtics?

[TD 21]

I think you're assuming a bit.

How so?

I said it wouldn't be a huge concern of mine. I do think it's something that has to be taken into consideration, along with a handful of other factors that will bear some watching (both on and off the court).

This is a brief synopsis/summary of your previous take on this, but you neglected to answer my question: Why would he have a major problem with the rules transition? It's not like there's a known precedent for this.

It's not a question of liking him, I just don't believe in him or his ability to be what they need him to be. The more he becomes someone on the periphery and someone not crucial to their cause the better. They can win with him on the team and contributing, they just can't win if they're having to rely on him to come through significantly.

Disliking his game and how it fits on this team, I meant. Let's just say you're less than enthusiastic about it. I don't think they have to rely on him to come through significantly, but we'll see. I don't think he's quite as bad a fit as you're making him out to be, either. Law of averages says he goes back to being a decent threat from three next season. He's far from a lock down defender, but so was Finley when the Spurs won the le with him playing a relatively significant role. I know, different time, different team, but still.

Nah, I'm saying the Spurs aren't going to be the '10 Celtics in '11 unless there's a real change to the mix. Get rid of Jefferson and replace him with defensive length on the perimeter and some trustworthy three-point shooting on the roster? Now we're talking.

Define "real change"? Assuming the changes are Splitter, a 1st round pick, a veteran wing and a depth big, that doesn't qualify as a "real change"? When you say "unless there's a real change", you're really saying "unless Jefferson is traded", aren't you?

Because there's no guarantee they can play on the court to finish games. That's the equivalent to saying: I've got two solid players that combined give me what this star player does but they play the same position. It may be true but it don't mean a whole lot if one of them's sitting on the bench. But you're right that Rondo and Parker are close together. But it's not about the one-for-one comparison. The Celtics "Big 3" didn't include Rondo. The Spurs' Big 3 includes Parker. Rondo is the Celtics' Hill, only now he's arguably their MVP; and the Celtics have two of the best interior defenders in the league in Perkins and Wallace, and they've got their own bigger version of Blair (Davis) that's battle-tested. The Spurs have some work to do if they want to be the '10 Celtics in '11.

Never mind finishing games. I'm talking about if you brake down all of their games, are there not similarities between them? See, you're making more of this than what it is. All I'm saying is Parker and Hill provide some of what Rondo does. I get that Rondo is outside of the Celtics "Big 3", but if you want to look at it just purely in terms of weaponry, the Celtcis have four; the Spurs have five. Of course they have work to do, no one's disputing that.

No, it was about the degree to which you were dismissing them. Like they didn't worry you one bit. I din't have a problem with you not thinking they were championship-caliber, just how easily you dismissed them; and who's to say another matchup doesn't allow them to make considerably more noise in the postseason? Like I mentioned before, the league pretty much sucks these days and is more dependent on matchups. But, having said that, there's a threshold of greatness or quality that every team has to have to win a le. There's a certain mix you have to have. The pieces have to be there for it all to fall into place. The Spurs could advance and make some noise, but I don't see them making that final step unless we see something change with the roster. I'm not hoping or rooting for failure, just calling it as I see it at the moment (and I'd love to be proven wrong or have the ability to change my view once we see what the roster really is going to be.

They didn't worry me one bit. Why, was I supposed to be worried because it was popular opinion to be? "Who's to say another matchup doesn't allow them to make considerably more noise in the postseason"? Well then, let's say the same for the Spurs. Don't make excuses for them. The reality is they were a vastly overrated team with glaring flaws that I had pegged well in advance of their first round demise. Meanwhile, media and fans alike had them pegged as the biggest threat to the Lakers in the West. Of all my proclamations/predictions this past season, I can honestly say with 100% sincerity that I was most confident in what I said about the Mavs.

[Blackjack]

Rather than get lost in the minutia, TD, let's just look at this big picture. We differ on the Celtics comparison and you seem a little more optimistic about the addition of Splitter, a draft pick and maybe a veteran-minimum player being enough to get 'em over the top; conceivably a decent proposition at least. So let's look at this as pragmatically as possible.

When I look at this team, they're both too young and too old. Their warhorses are past their prime, injury-prone and their supporting cast, their 'glue', is too green and inexperienced. That's just the way I see it.

Now if you look at past champions, you often find that their best players are at or near their prime; they're composed with a veteran-laden supporting casts or trustworthy shooters; and/or they're an extremely balanced team that's construction is both and versatile and a greater-than-their-sum group (i.e. the Pistons).

When you look at the Spurs, Duncan and Ginobili are still capable but their not at or near their prime. Ginobili can have stretches, as can Duncan, but they can't summon those performances on cue anymore and their health is a bigger concern than normal. Tony's in his prime and has the ability to dominate a game but I don't believe this team's going to thrive as a collective with him playing in a '09 fashion. That's not a slight to Tony or his ability, just the nature of his game and how him trying to be Wade won't make this team championship-caliber, IMO. He's just not that type of a player and the team's not constructed for him to be that type of player. Really, other than Isiah Thomas (who had a much different team in a different time), guys like Tony don't win championships as the team's best and most dominant player. Hill, in his third year, is actually a good piece for a championship team's supporting cast. RJ. ... You know how I feel about RJ, regardless of age.

So what about their supporting cast? Splitter's a great piece and I believe he's going to be good, but it's his first year. Normally not a terrible prospect, given the type of player and talent he is, but normally you don't count on someone like that to put you over the top. Where's their trustworthy shooting? I love me some Hairston and I believe he can and should have a spot in the rotation next year, but is he supposed to come in and be a marksman in the postseason? Temple maybe? How 'bout Gee, or even their draft pick? Forget marksman, are these guys supposed to be well-rounded enough players to depend upon them the chips are down in their first meaningful NBA minutes?

I expect them to bring in a veteran, the likes of Bell, Jones, or someone of that ilk, but these guys are pretty big question marks and would be in their first year with the Spurs (even if Bell has some familiarity and he'd probably have the best chance to give what I'm looking for -- which isn't saying much). The only guy that's really piqued my interest and that is in the right place in terms of his game, is Sato. Stiil, he less than ideal (even if he's who I'd go with, given the free-agent options). There's just no doubt in my mind that the Spurs need one or two of these type of players to win big; which probably means trade.

They're just missing the requisite 'glue', not constructed all that well and their most crucial championship pieces are at best iffy, health-wise; they need more than good fortune, they need pieces (trustworthy and/or proven pieces).

[Agloco]

When I look at this team, they're both too young and too old. Their warhorses are past their prime, injury-prone and their supporting cast, their 'glue', is too green and inexperienced. That's just the way I see it.

When you look at the Spurs, Duncan and Ginobili are still capable but their not at or near their prime. Ginobili can have stretches, as can Duncan, but they can't summon those performances on cue anymore and their health is a bigger concern than normal. Tony's in his prime and has the ability to dominate a game but I don't believe this team's going to thrive as a collective with him playing in a '09 fashion. That's not a slight to Tony or his ability, just the nature of his game and how him trying to be Wade won't make this team championship-caliber, IMO. He's just not that type of a player and the team's not constructed for him to be that type of player. Really, other than Isiah Thomas (who had a much different team in a different time), guys like Tony don't win championships as the team's best and most dominant player. Hill, in his third year, is actually a good piece for a championship team's supporting cast. RJ. ... You know how I feel about RJ, regardless of age.

Well put. 100% agreed.

[TD 21]

Rather than get lost in the minutia, TD, let's just look at this big picture. We differ on the Celtics comparison and you seem a little more optimistic about the addition of Splitter, a draft pick and maybe a veteran-minimum player being enough to get 'em over the top; conceivably a decent proposition at least. So let's look at this as pragmatically as possible.

I'm not convinced that that get's them over the top, but I believe it gives them a chance.

When I look at this team, they're both too young and too old. Their warhorses are past their prime, injury-prone and their supporting cast, their 'glue', is too green and inexperienced. That's just the way I see it.

You may be right about that. I'm not convinced that this team is going to win another championship or get to another finals or even conference finals, but I'm also not convinced that they're not going to do any of those things.

Now if you look at past champions, you often find that their best players are at or near their prime; they're composed with a veteran-laden supporting casts or trustworthy shooters; and/or they're an extremely balanced team that's construction is both and versatile and a greater-than-their-sum group (i.e. the Pistons).

I'd argue that Ginobili, if he's not at his exact peak, is perilously close to it. Would you agree that if healthy, the Spurs have three of the twenty - twenty-five best players in the world? I'd say one is top ten and generally, one is always playing at a level that's right around that.

When you look at the Spurs, Duncan and Ginobili are still capable but their not at or near their prime. Ginobili can have stretches, as can Duncan, but they can't summon those performances on cue anymore and their health is a bigger concern than normal. Tony's in his prime and has the ability to dominate a game but I don't believe this team's going to thrive as a collective with him playing in a '09 fashion. That's not a slight to Tony or his ability, just the nature of his game and how him trying to be Wade won't make this team championship-caliber, IMO. He's just not that type of a player and the team's not constructed for him to be that type of player. Really, other than Isiah Thomas (who had a much different team in a different time), guys like Tony don't win championships as the team's best and most dominant player. Hill, in his third year, is actually a good piece for a championship team's supporting cast. RJ. ... You know how I feel about RJ, regardless of age.

Maybe they can't summon performances on cue anymore, but neither can the Celtics big three. Here's the part where you bring up Rondo, to which I'd counter that and say, if you're just talking scoring/creating wise, Parker and Hill can more than makeup for what Rondo brings. Generally, teams may not win with Parker as their best player, but like I said, this team is unique. They have three players who at varying times can be their best player. He doesn't have to be far and away the clear cut best player and carry them game after game.

So what about their supporting cast? Splitter's a great piece and I believe he's going to be good, but it's his first year. Normally not a terrible prospect, given the type of player and talent he is, but normally you don't count on someone like that to put you over the top. Where's their trustworthy shooting? I love me some Hairston and I believe he can and should have a spot in the rotation next year, but is he supposed to come in and be a marksman in the postseason? Temple maybe? How 'bout Gee, or even their draft pick? Forget marksman, are these guys supposed to be well-rounded enough players to depend upon them the chips are down in their first meaningful NBA minutes?

But didn't, in some ways, the Spurs count on Ginobili to do just that in '03? Obviously, it wasn't him single-handedly, but he helped. I'm not expecting Splitter to eventually become a top fifteen player in the world like Ginobili, but similar to the '03 team, that needed a wing like Ginobili, the '11 team needs a big like Splitter. He's sufficiently talented/experienced enough to theoretically make the impact this team needs.

The lack of trustworthy shooting is a big concern of mine as well. It'll have to come in a free agent addition, but also internally from Jefferson. He has to get back to shooting how he did the previous bunch of seasons. The D-Leaguers are not supposed to be well-rounded enough, which is why with the possible exception of Hairston, it's highly likely that none will be in the playoff rotation.

I expect them to bring in a veteran, the likes of Bell, Jones, or someone of that ilk, but these guys are pretty big question marks and would be in their first year with the Spurs (even if Bell has some familiarity and he'd probably have the best chance to give what I'm looking for -- which isn't saying much). The only guy that's really piqued my interest and that is in the right place in terms of his game, is Sato. Stiil, he less than ideal (even if he's who I'd go with, given the free-agent options). There's just no doubt in my mind that the Spurs need one or two of these type of players to win big; which probably means trade.

They're not question marks when it comes to three-point shooting. Defensively, we can't be sure of where they're at; shooting-wise, they've been consistent throughout the majority of their careers. All you can do is go on track record and project for the up coming season. Maybe eventually it does mean trade. Asset-wise, the Spurs should have enough to acquire the type of wing they need.

They're just missing the requisite 'glue', not constructed all that well and their most crucial championship pieces are at best iffy, health-wise; they need more than good fortune, they need pieces (trustworthy and/or proven pieces).

You talk about me assuming, but that's an assumption on your part, to say that with such certainty.

[Blackjack]

I'd argue that Ginobili, if he's not at his exact peak, is perilously close to it. Would you agree that if healthy, the Spurs have three of the twenty - twenty-five best players in the world? I'd say one is top ten and generally, one is always playing at a level that's right around that.

If you're telling me he's perilously close to being able to play at peak capacity, I'd agree. But perilously close to his peak would fall in lines with sustainability and a less reliant three-point shot. Like I said, he's plenty capable of being a dominant player for a good stretch, the way he ended the year before tapering off by playoffs end (whether that was solely the nose or not -- I tend to believe it was both), so I wouldn't argue that. But he, along with Tim, are only going to sustain that level for a good stretch, IMO, and the Spurs have to hope to keep them upright and that that time comes from April to June.

Maybe they can't summon performances on cue anymore, but neither can the Celtics big three. Here's the part where you bring up Rondo, to which I'd counter that and say, if you're just talking scoring/creating wise, Parker and Hill can more than makeup for what Rondo brings.

But this is where it comes down to the composition and fit to me.

If we're working from a hypothetical standpoint that the team is, for all intents and purposes, healthy, then it comes down to how those pieces come together. Technically you can say players x and y can account for z's productivity but it's how that productivity translates to the court and their teammates. So when you compare the Celtics at full-bore and the Spurs at the same, even if you could make an argument for the individual productivity comparison, it doesn't translate the same; the Celtics have a pass-first point guard whose M.O. is to get in the paint and he's complimented by plenty of shooting with three perimeter-oriented stars and his two Bigs might as well be lead blockers. Players get the ball in their spots at the right time and the sum of the group is greater than the individual because each of their jobs compliments and enhances the other on both ends of the court.

Now if you look a the Spurs' Top-5 (assuming Splitter's in it), you've got a slashing, score-first point; a slashing, playmaker at the 2-guard; a slashing, open-court player at the three; and their front court consists of two pretty conventional post players. But I'd actually contend that Hill is in their Top-5, so that'd give them one spot-up shooter (which would help the cause offensively) but most often leave them at a defensive disadvantage (which they'll often have whether it's Hill or Jefferson). You could say Duncan and McDyess could very well both be perimeter-oriented Bigs this year (that is what 'Dyess is and there's always the talk of easing Tim's burden by keeping him at the high post more often) but the spacing is still not all that conducive to the slashing nature of their perimeter (and I'll believe Duncan playing more like Garnett when I see it -- Tim is what he is and talk of him playing almost exclusively as a high post 4/5 is just that. Talk).

So whereas the Celtics have the size and positional balance on both ends of the court from their Top-5, the Spurs have some fundamental flaws. It's not a fatal flaw if they can find a couple of players to put the pieces in the right place and find that positional balance, but it could be if they can't manage to do so.

Generally, teams may not win with Parker as their best player, but like I said, this team is unique. They have three players who at varying times can be their best player. He doesn't have to be far and away the clear cut best player and carry them game after game.

I just don't see the uniqueness to overcome what just I alluded to.

But didn't, in some ways, the Spurs count on Ginobili to do just that in '03? Obviously, it wasn't him single-handedly, but he helped. I'm not expecting Splitter to eventually become a top fifteen player in the world like Ginobili, but similar to the '03 team, that needed a wing like Ginobili, the '11 team needs a big like Splitter. He's sufficiently talented/experienced enough to theoretically make the impact this team needs.

In '03, the Spurs had an in-prime Duncan, a strong veteran presence in their glue and they weren't asking Manu to be something he wasn't, so it worked. He was an X-Factor and after getting over his injury and getting the better part of a season under his belt, he proved crucial. I don't dismiss Splitter's ability to have a similar impact when put in the same position but, as I've mentioned, they need a couple of pieces for him to have the chance to do just that.

The lack of trustworthy shooting is a big concern of mine as well. It'll have to come in a free agent addition, but also internally from Jefferson. He has to get back to shooting how he did the previous bunch of seasons. The D-Leaguers are not supposed to be well-rounded enough, which is why with the possible exception of Hairston, it's highly likely that none will be in the playoff rotation.

We definitely agree on the concern, I just don't believe in Jefferson's ability to allay those concerns -- '04 immediately comes to mind when I'm given the argument that shooters will become trustworthy marksman.

They're not question marks when it comes to three-point shooting. Defensively, we can't be sure of where they're at; shooting-wise, they've been consistent throughout the majority of their careers. All you can do is go on track record and project for the up coming season.

If you're talking Bell, I can see that argument. He does have the potential to fill much of the Spurs' need for a veteran presence and a proven shooter. But he is a question mark coming off a surgery that wrecked almost his entire season and being that he's at the tail-end of his career. He doesn't have the size and length to weatherr any further erosion in athleticism since the last time we really saw him defensively, but he might be the best free-agent option available. Might; I'd personally take my chances on Sato but that's both an endorsement of him and an indictment on the pickings.

Maybe eventually it does mean trade. Asset-wise, the Spurs should have enough to acquire the type of wing they need.

They just might, and I believe they'll have to do so.

You talk about me assuming, but that's an assumption on your part, to say that with such certainty.

First off, I was screwing with you on the "assuming," thus the . But it is my belief and I've made my argument. We'll see if I'm off-base eventually. And, again, the prospect of being proven wrong by one's favorite team pulling a rabbit out of the hat ain't something I'm losing sleep over. In the end, I just want the W. This is definitely one of those few cases where being proven wrong feels a lot better than being proven right.

[TD 21]

If you're telling me he's perilously close to being able to play at peak capacity, I'd agree. But perilously close to his peak would fall in lines with sustainability and a less reliant three-point shot. Like I said, he's plenty capable of being a dominant player for a good stretch, the way he ended the year before tapering off by playoffs end (whether that was solely the nose or not -- I tend to believe it was both), so I wouldn't argue that. But he, along with Tim, are only going to sustain that level for a good stretch, IMO, and the Spurs have to hope to keep them upright and that that time comes from April to June.

I think his three-point shot will become more reliable next season. He had become an excellent three-point shooter the last time he was fully healthy and in rhythm, back in 07-08. We started to see that when he went on a tear down the stretch of this past regular season. Next season, he won't come in rusty, he'll have worked on his game throughout the summer, so I expect a return to form in that area. As for sustainability, other than 07-08, he's never really had that, he's always been extremely streaky.

But that's where the value of having three guys who can carry a team for a stretch comes in. The times they're off, hopefully Parker is on. Look at the Celtics this post season, I believe they've never had the same player lead them in scoring in consecutive games.

But this is where it comes down to the composition and fit to me.

If we're working from a hypothetical standpoint that the team is, for all intents and purposes, healthy, then it comes down to how those pieces come together. Technically you can say players x and y can account for z's productivity but it's how that productivity translates to the court and their teammates. So when you compare the Celtics at full-bore and the Spurs at the same, even if you could make an argument for the individual productivity comparison, it doesn't translate the same; the Celtics have a pass-first point guard whose M.O. is to get in the paint and he's complimented by plenty of shooting with three perimeter-oriented stars and his two Bigs might as well be lead blockers. Players get the ball in their spots at the right time and the sum of the group is greater than the individual because each of their jobs compliments and enhances the other on both ends of the court.

Now if you look a the Spurs' Top-5 (assuming Splitter's in it), you've got a slashing, score-first point; a slashing, playmaker at the 2-guard; a slashing, open-court player at the three; and their front court consists of two pretty conventional post players. But I'd actually contend that Hill is in their Top-5, so that'd give them one spot-up shooter (which would help the cause offensively) but most often leave them at a defensive disadvantage (which they'll often have whether it's Hill or Jefferson). You could say Duncan and McDyess could very well both be perimeter-oriented Bigs this year (that is what 'Dyess is and there's always the talk of easing Tim's burden by keeping him at the high post more often) but the spacing is still not all that conducive to the slashing nature of their perimeter (and I'll believe Duncan playing more like Garnett when I see it -- Tim is what he is and talk of him playing almost exclusively as a high post 4/5 is just that. Talk).

So whereas the Celtics have the size and positional balance on both ends of the court from their Top-5, the Spurs have some fundamental flaws. It's not a fatal flaw if they can find a couple of players to put the pieces in the right place and find that positional balance, but it could be if they can't manage to do so.

This is also where it comes down to you making assumptions. We don't know that Jefferson won't be a better fit next season, we don't know that Splitter won't make a seamless transition, etc. They could. Maybe they don't fit perfectly, but they fit just well enough for it to work; who knows?

It's fair to wonder about all of this and this is good analysis on your part, but at the same time, this could work. This isn't like a Curry-Randolph or Jefferson-Love front line pairing which has no chance to be successful defensively.

In '03, the Spurs had an in-prime Duncan, a strong veteran presence in their glue and they weren't asking Manu to be something he wasn't, so it worked. He was an X-Factor and after getting over his injury and getting the better part of a season under his belt, he proved crucial. I don't dismiss Splitter's ability to have a similar impact when put in the same position but, as I've mentioned, they need a couple of pieces for him to have the chance to do just that.

I know what that '03 team had that the '11 team won't. You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that team needed an athletic, creative wing player like Ginobili to get over the hump and this team needs a long, mobile big man like Splitter to have a chance to win another championship. I don't see the Spurs asking Splitter to be something he isn't, either.

If you're talking Bell, I can see that argument. He does have the potential to fill much of the Spurs' need for a veteran presence and a proven shooter. But he is a question mark coming off a surgery that wrecked almost his entire season and being that he's at the tail-end of his career. He doesn't have the size and length to weatherr any further erosion in athleticism since the last time we really saw him defensively, but he might be the best free-agent option available. Might; I'd personally take my chances on Sato but that's both an endorsement of him and an indictment on the pickings.

I'm talking Bell or Jones. Jones has had one bad season from three in the past six and it came during a season where he battled injury. These two are consistent marksmen from three. As I said, because of their respective ages, the fact that they're coming off injury plagued seasons and the fact that neither were overly athletic even when they were young, defensively they're a question mark.

I think I'd go Jones over Bell at this point. Significantly longer (which equals versatility defensively; he might be able to play small ball four in selective matchups), younger, cheaper, not as much stature league-wide, so if he were passed by, say, Hairston in the rotation, I doubt he'd ruffle feathers. Not saying Bell would, but my guess is he'd be more likely to. I'd be happy with Bell though, considering the options (or lack thereof) available.

They just might, and I believe they'll have to do so.

They very well might. Both the assets and motivation should be there to secure that piece. They may not get someone entirely ideal, but they should be able to get someone to do the job.

First off, I was screwing with you on the "assuming," thus the . But it is my belief and I've made my argument. We'll see if I'm off-base eventually. And, again, the prospect of being proven wrong by one's favorite team pulling a rabbit out of the hat ain't something I'm losing sleep over. In the end, I just want the W. This is definitely one of those few cases where being proven wrong feels a lot better than being proven right.

Remember, I'm not saying (at least not at this point) they will do this, that or the other next season, I'm just saying if the off season goes similar to how I think it will go, then they should have a chance to win a championship next season.

[Bob Lanier]

The difficulty in the comparison is that Garnett is a 4 and Duncan a 5, and as they've aged their skillsets have become more fixed in the roles. So Garnett's diminishing defensive impact is that of a 4, which can be covered by relying more on a center like Perkins to anchor the defense without drastically diminishing the offense. Duncan is a center who is having great difficulty anchoring a defense anymore, and unless you can find a player who can do that from the power forward position you're forced to play Duncan at the 4 with a second traditional center, clogging up the paint and negatively impacting your offense.

You needed Josh Smith, or Andrei Kirilenko, not Richard Jefferson. I realize that getting a player who can anchor the defense from the forward position is difficult and something the Spurs have not been able to do for years, but the need is becoming more urgent if you still want to build around Duncan.