Reply With Quote
^^^I was a fan of Raistlin myself...
Somehow I believe that the Spurs are targeting someone else with the 10th pick. Or they are trying to send a message out to teams interested in Parker to up the ante.
^^^I was a fan of Raistlin myself...
He was one dark dude...who eventually got over his jealousy and found his inner "soulmage"....or whatnot.
#1 - You can't play Manu at point for 25-30 per game, he won't make it to the playoffs. Hill can't/won't do this either as he's an SG.
#2 - Are the Spurs aware? Does the sun come up each day?
#3 - Good point here. Do the Spurs want a guard oriented team, or a big oriented team. We've seen the results of both.....
4# - The Spurs pay Parker eight figures per year and are the reason that he has the lifestyle that he has today. It's the least Parker could do to humor them. If he's still butthurt over that, it's quite childish of him.
Ahhh, memories. I remember a friend correcting me on the pronunciation of his name: "No, his name rhymes with waist not mast......". It shattered my world.
Parker for 10th pick+Granger
Sorry
Another 6'9" big? Geeze, what the do the Spurs FO have against players with size! No more small bigs please we have enough of those, pass.
TP for another All-Star or not a all. Williams or Paul would do.
in a heart beat and trade jefferson for a point guardParker for 10th pick+Granger
Sorry
Davis is the same height as Dwight Howard and has a higher vertical leap. He's just frail at 227 lbs. If he can put on a extra 15 lbs, then he would be a steal. The spurs need a shakeup and Duncan is 99.9% sure to be a spurs for life. manu just resigned....Sooooo
What's wrong with that pick?
Is it cursed?
That shows how much the Pacer's FO sucks; the Spurs have drafted very good players with lower picks, and Indy wants to deal #10?
I get the same feeling. I can't see the Spurs offering Parker, Hill, Blair or Splitter, so short of that, the best they can probably do is 20, next year's 1st and De Colo.
My guess is they'd prefer Hill over Hayward (because their one star and best building block plays the same position as Hayward), though if they had their druthers they'd probably go with Collison or Lawson over Hill. They need a true PG, not a combo guard, even if it is a local kid. I agree with the bold part.No, I agree. I was just screwin' around with the new GM of the Pacers, objective.
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.
Blair could be in the equation, but Buford claimed last year that the number one thing they felt they needed going into last off season was an "ass kicking big man" and they felt Blair fit the bill. A year later, I can't see them trading him unless it was in a no-brainer type deal. By the way, I was talking about the Pacers when I said "they need a long term successor at PF". Again, I agree with the bold part.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).
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.
Nah, Fesenko and Koufas are strictly 5's, so there's a void at the 4. I just read today that apparently they're high on Babbitt, Henry and Hayward and would be comfortable with all of them if, as expected, Monroe is gone by 9. Ford's got them picking Babbitt as of right now. Shocking!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.
I thought Ed Davis was 6'9"......Dwight Howard is 6'11". We need another 6'11"/7 footer to compliment TD, but right now it seems to be easier said than done. I hope like we can do better than Ed Davis if we move up.
FWIW, pre-draft measurements:
Height w/o shoes/Wingspan/Standing Reach
Davis: 6'9"/7'0"/9'0"
Howard: 6'9"/7'4.5"/9'3.5"
Davis is 21, Howard was 18.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
