Reply With Quote
poor man's tyrus thomas
I know right. Another 6'9 who won't get any playing time!
poor man's tyrus thomas
As everyone knows, ESPN is the first to report accurately on what the Spurs FO is doing.
Seriously folks, how in the would someone at ESPN ever get knowledge of the Spurs draft targets this many weeks ahead of the draft ? , they hardly get it right on draft night.
Moving on...
With the Spurs needs at both SF ad PF, I wish they had 2 first round picks.
I wish they'd pony up the 3 mil and buy one from one of the teams that has multiple picks. I know it's easy to spend Holt's money - it aint mine.
This whole bull "who can we get that's any better" argument doesnt fly. We have fallen flat on our collective asses the last two seasons as currently packaged. Its not as easy as looking at a players individual skillset.
parker, QFT. you give your opinions and say they're facts. CH points out that they're opinions, and you try to flame him over it.
come on son. name the PG to replace parker then. you really want two undersized PFs on the team? not enough room in the paint for that. and blair's enough for that.
Our greatest need is defense at all 5 positions. Give me 5 guys willing to scrum, with Pop as coach, and enough mobile size to combat the lakers/suns/etc, and I'll take that.
Notice I didnt mention any scoring PG?
Why do the spurs need another power foward when they have Blair?
Rumors rumors rumors... it's great that we all love basketball, but I have to laugh because this is one time of year when we all become a little crazy and start debating almost anything-- and worse than that, I'm embarrassed to say, I'd rather turn on the computer and read a rumor that probably has no basis in reality at all than read nothing... that's how bad it is! Manu might be traded for Deron Williams, a family of seagulls, the ghost of George Mikan, and ten cases of Pop's favorite cabernet?? WTF, RC-- we need a defensive minded SF who's long and more shooters!!!
Because Blair is only 6'7". The Spurs need more size.
6'9" is pretty weak, and I was never really impressed with Davis at UNC. They could do better
Amen.
Again, which is why I wanted so much, for the Spurs to have gone after Tyrus Thomas, back in Feb.
Don't think I'm not cognizant of this, but assuming the Spurs targeting Davis is true...This is some really good news, IMO; and Bruno nailed it with a spectacular selection of imagery.
There definitely seems to be a fire producing the majority of this smoke but the Ed Davis rumor has to be some additionally manufactured.
Why would the Spurs ever tip their hand about whom they're trying to move up to get? Whom in their organization would ever let slip their true target at such a crucial time? No, this is a smokescreen. The Spurs must simply want others to believe that's who they're targeting so the player they're after will be there at 10; if other teams caught wind of who they were high on it could sway a team ahead to scoop him up and those behind to trade in front.
Everybody and their mother expected the Spurs to target a wing in this draft but all we've heard about are Bigs. Maybe there's some validity to it. Maybe there's a prospect they're really high on to bolster their front court. Maybe. But then again, maybe not . . .
This is the Spurs, people!
It makes no sense. If the Spurs intention is to prop open the Duncan window, as we keep hearing, then acquiring a project big man is not the answer. The other potential parts to this deal don't make it any better, from Rush to Murphy, etc.
Even Favors probably wouldn't prop open the Duncan window because I'm not sure how much he can be expected to contribute in the next year or two. Unless they think Favors is ready to contribute something close to what Howard and Stoudemire did as rookies, then short term he doesn't make sense (considering what they'd have to give up and the fact that they're supposedly trying to win a championship next season). Long term, obviously he would.
Granted, neither Splitter nor Blair is a franchise big man, but what's with this teams supposed obsession with acquiring a young big? Aren't they supposedly optimistic about signing Splitter? Wouldn't keeping Parker and signing Splitter have them closer to a championship than a young, raw big?
any trade involving tp to the pacers would mean the spurs getting tj ford back. i don't see that happening unless the spurs want to draft a pg.
If it their target was Favors I couldn't fault them. He could definitely help them in the present and he could potentially be someone to take the reins moving forward. But there really isn't another Big I'd move up to get with a Top-10 pick, unless it was just an absolute no-brainer of a deal.
Having said that, I can definitely see the Spurs liking someone like Ed Davis. I've disagreed more than once or twice with some of their collegiate picks since Pop really took over. And other than their most recent picks, Hill and Blair, their scouting has seemed a bit questionable on the homefront. So it's not out of the realm they like him and there's some truth to this. Some.
But if the Spurs were to be so brazen as to both burn up the lines to get into the lottery and make known who they were after, they wouldn't be the Spurs. They wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that -- there's not some huge differentiation between the prospects in that range and they wouldn't risk their opinion swaying someone to take their guy in front of them or allow someone to trade up in front of them. I just don't buy that their sole target is Davis (I actually have a hard time believing he's a target at 10 unless what they're giving up is minimal -- could it be the hometown kid, Hill?).
So while I won't completely dismiss the possibility Davis is an option, I just can't bring myself to believe he's the option. That they'd just throw caution to the wind and stake their claim to Davis ... it's just counterintuitive and doesn't coincide with the way this team has done things for years; they're looking to manufacture smoke on top of the real smoke to create a little misdirection, IMO. They're looking to get someone, but all the talk of Bigs and Davis doesn't lead me to believe that's necessarily the position or player they're going after.
They've shown what they've wanted to show, as far as I'm concerned (and you only need to look at Pritchard's reported attempts to get ahead of the Spurs in the draft order and their recent draft history to come to a similar conclusion).
Last edited by Blackjack; 06-15-2010 at 08:18 PM. Reason: I stake my claim to steak -- hunger leads to confusion . . .
spurs aren't going to bring in tj ford to run the offense. too much of a regression.
yeah B...Well Played Frenchman!
I doubt we'll spend the money on a #10 pick unless Pop and the brain trust think they have a budding superstar in their sights that no one else sees. And from everything I've read, Ed Davis ain't the ONE. he Might be good player one day, but not a star.
well actually, seeing how you're RC Buford, it makes sense
naw, a trade for a finals MVP for a yet-to-be rookie just seems a tad outrageous. just a tad. good thing fans aren't GMs
Help what? Help the Spurs win a championship next season? I don't see it. Considering what they'd have to give up to acquire the tenth pick and select him, they wouldn't be contenders.
No offensive rebounding? Duncan, McDyess and Blair are all good offensive rebounders.
I wouldn't do a deal of that kind. You can tweak it however you want, Ford in/out, etc., I just think the overall package isn't good enough to part with Parker for.
I couldn't fault them if it's long term they're looking at, but if they're committed to winning another championship in the Duncan era, I could. Favors could help some next season, but considering what they'd have to give up to acquire him and the role he'd likely have to play, would they be contenders? I don't see it.
I could see what could draw them to Davis too and I wouldn't be surprised if their was some truth to this. But considering that Parker would likely have to go the other way in such a deal, I can't see it happening. By all accounts, Davis has nice potential as a quality role player, maybe a quality second big if he reaches his potential. You don't trade a relatively young star, who can help you contend for a championship (which is their stated supposed goal) for that type of a player. I know there would be other parts, but Rush, Murphy, etc., that wouldn't do it for me, either.
Can't see the Spurs moving Hill for the 10th pick. That wouldn't help them short term in terms of competing for the championship and even long term, is Davis, Udoh, etc. going to be better than Hill? Doubtful. You may prefer a big over a small if it's close, but those guys aren't such good prospects that that deal makes sense to take the chance. The Spurs need Hill to lessen the workload on Ginobili and if he's kept, Parker.
Completely agree with all parts in bold.
I don't want them to move Hill and I've seen no indication they're looking to, but none of these proposals involving Indiana and Parker pass the smell test. They're quite ridiculous, really. But it definitely seems the Spurs are knocking on that door and dangling something. So who or what could it be? I know Larry Bird's high on Nando and maybe Blair might interest them, but I can't help but think the hometown kid might not be an appealing prospect for them; especially if they're not comfortable with picking Hayward and they want to appease the fans.
we must get tjford + granger....no one else on the pacers we need...
we can throw RJ expiring + tp or ghill3 + 20th + draft picks/rights + cash + hoes and drugs
LOL at anyone who thinks trading for Ed Davis is a good idea.
If we're going to trade Parker, we may draft up to 5 i guess, why do we send Parker to raise to 10th pick from 20? Ridiciculous.
So bring the Splitter.
Probably the 20th pick plus the 1st round pick in '11 and maybe De Colo. Hill would probably be an appealing prospect for the Pacers, but I don't see the Spurs parting with him, at least not with what they have to offer.
As for Hayward, let's face it, deep down the Pacers probably want to draft him, but the last thing they need is an SF, 10th would be high for him and the fact that he's a clean cut looking white guy from Indiana would only perpetuate the notion that they specifically target white players. To pick him on the heels of picking Hansbrough last year (despite the fact that their were better players on the board) would only cement their reputation, a reputation which they've been attempting to dispel.
Because of their need for a long term successor at PF and the fact that there's a good chance that the highest ranked players available at 10 will be PF's, it'll be tough for them to pass on Davis, Udoh and Patterson and at least two of the three should be available at 10.
Not to veer too far off topic, but in a related note, can the Jazz resist the urge to draft Aldrich? You know they want to.
I just get the feeling they'd want a proven player. But if not, I'd be fine with something like that. I just hope the Spurs aren't really looking at Davis if that's the case.
No, I agree. I was just screwin' around with the new GM of the Pacers, objective.As for Hayward, let's face it, deep down the Pacers probably want to draft him, but the last thing they need is an SF, 10th would be high for him and the fact that he's a clean cut looking white guy from Indiana would only perpetuate the notion that they specifically target white players. To pick him on the heels of picking Hansbrough last year (despite the fact that their were better players on the board) would only cement their reputation, a reputation which they've been attempting to dispel.
But if they weren't as high on him as they would be the prospect of Hill as a Pacer, that might be something to consider. I love Hill and have been a big proponent of his, but the Spurs could improve their chances in the short-term by getting his talent at a different position and skill set. Not a knock on him, he just happens to be playing on a team where two of it's best three players play his position and if it's all about maximizing the Duncan window, there's definitely an argument to be made for the right move involving Hill (or Blair). I just don't think it's all that likely the Spurs would find the right kind of deal.
Maybe Blair's in the equation, who knows? It doesn't sound like it, as the Spurs have him working on individual development over the Summer and you know they love him, but I guess it just depends on whats out there. Blair's long but he's still 6-6. At some point you've got to ask where his ceiling is and if the talent he brings is both what's best for the here-and-now and/or the long-term (which is a dicey proposition given his knees).Because of their need for a long term successor at PF and the fact that there's a good chance that the best players available at 10 will be PF's, it'll be tough for them to pass on Davis, Udoh and Patterson and at least two of the three should be available at 10.
It'd be a sad day to see either one of them go but I'm just trying to be a realist. I don't expect that we'll see either of them getting shipped out but I think it'd be foolish to just outright dismiss it if their intentions are what we believe them to be: Duncan with a fifth.
Well, they've got Fesenko and Koufos capable of playing the 4 and 5 and AK-47 at the 3, but they just might lose Korver at the 2. Deron's at least light-skinned ... so maybe they just go Vazquez at the 2? What I'm saying is, they need to worry about acquiring the requisite whiteness at the 2.Not to veer too far off topic, but in a related note, can the Jazz resist the urge to draft Aldrich? You know they want to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
