Top 30 Spurs Small Forward Free Agent Targets

[MaNu4Tres]

If Jefferson was soooo crucial to the Spurs success, then he would have been finishing games for them, being clutch in crunch-time right?

Except for how he wasn't for half the games when I look back at the play-by-plays.

Game 4 against PHX - 3:26 left in the 4th, Spurs only down 7 in a winnable game, RJ is pulled

Game 3 against PHX - he sits the whole 4th quarter until 1:30 when garbage time kicks in and Pop pulls the important Spurs

Game 2 he plays

Game 1 he sits in the 4th while the Spurs cut the lead by 9 when he gets put in with 3:30 to go, and does nothing

Against the Mavs - Game 6- he sits the last 6 minutes of the 4th in what was a 4 point game

game 5 is a blowout, no one plays

Game 4 - he plays

game 3 - he's benched the entire 4th except for garbage time with 30 seconds left

game 2 - he plays

game 1 - he plays

How is he so crucial when nobody can even say with a straight face that Jefferson is a rock solid, set in stone piece of the Spurs closing 5? Pop's more likely to go Duncan-Splitter-Ginobili-Hill-Parker.

Ask Pop and R.C since you won't listen to anyone else here.

They are included in the group of people that actually think its best for the Spurs to try to retain him.

But they don't know anything, right?

[ata]

21. Bostjan Nachbar

After spending the last two years in Europe, Bostjan Nachbar reportedly wants back in the NBA. At 6-foot-9, Nachbar has good size for the position -- and that lets him get off his shot at any time. He has a career three-point shooting of 37.5% and rebounds well ... but that's about the extent of his usefulness. The Slovenian struggles mightily to defend both forward positions. Considering that he didn't perform well at times in Europe last season, Nachbar would probably have to settle for the minimum if he wishes to play in the NBA next season.

One of the reasons/excuses for Nachbar's miserable season was coach and odd system coach wanted to implemet - according to Nachbar.
I would wait until WC in Turkey. On the other hand, if he is ready to sign one year at vet. min. I would go for it.

[EricB]

Ask Pop and R.C since you won't listen to anyone else here.

They are included in the group of people that actually think its best for the Spurs to try to retain him.

But they don't know anything, right?

You know of Pop? RC? Aristotle?

Yes.

Morons.


Never engage asians in a land war.

Nor a sicilian in a battle of wits.

[objective]

Logical reasons for trying someone else instead of Jefferson :

1. He didn't shoot threes.

2. He didn't defend well.

3. He wasn't a consistent member of the Spurs closing squad in crunchtime, and there's no reason to think he will be next season.

4. He often could be described as playing soft or as not hustling.

5. He's 30 and declining athletically.

6. He rocked out to 9 points a game in the playoffs.

7. He was benched for a stretch of games and only brought back as a starter after Parker's injury.

8. If he performed like that in his contract year, imagine him with job security.

9. Failed miserably when counted on to be the defensive stopper at the beginning of the season, causing Pop to unleash the Centerpiece.

10. He often won't even be the 4th option on the floor in line-ups with TD-Manu-TP, that will be Hill or Splitter.

Logical reasons for paying Jefferson a lot of money in a multi-year deal:



Well . . . I guess . . . uh . . . we don't know if Hairston/Gee/LLE scrub can fail to the tune of 9 ppg and not play in crunchtime while standing around inside the 3-point line.

[MaNu4Tres]

Logical reasons for trying someone else instead of Jefferson :

1. He didn't shoot threes.

2. He didn't defend well.

3. He wasn't a consistent member of the Spurs closing squad in crunchtime, and there's no reason to think he will be next season.

4. He often could be described as playing soft or as not hustling.

5. He's 30 and declining athletically.

6. He rocked out to 9 points a game in the playoffs.

7. He was benched for a stretch of games and only brought back as a starter after Parker's injury.

8. If he performed like that in his contract year, imagine him with job security.

9. Failed miserably when counted on to be the defensive stopper at the beginning of the season, causing Pop to unleash the Centerpiece.

10. He often won't even be the 4th option on the floor in line-ups with TD-Manu-TP, that will be Hill or Splitter.

Logical reasons for paying Jefferson a lot of money in a multi-year deal:



Well . . . I guess . . . uh . . . we don't know if Hairston/Gee/LLE scrub can fail to the tune of 9 ppg and not play in crunchtime while standing around inside the 3-point line.

Yet, Spurs are interested in bringing him back.

What morons, they really need a new GM.

[objective]

Ask Pop and R.C since you won't listen to anyone else here.

They are included in the group of people that actually think its best for the Spurs to try to retain him.

But they don't know anything, right?

you gots me there.

I present logical arguments and the response is about Pop and RC?



Maybe I'm one of the great, unwashed masses, but even fellows like me can be right once in a blue moon.

[objective]

Yet, Spurs are interested in bringing him back.

What morons, they really need a new GM.

So you have no logical counter-reasons.

Spurs also were interested in signing Bonner over Scola.

Pobody's Nerfect. Not even the Spurs.

[MaNu4Tres]

you gots me there.

I present logical arguments and the response is about Pop and RC?



Maybe I'm one of the great, unwashed masses, but even fellows like me can be right once in a blue moon.

Because I've presented the scenario on why the Spurs may think Jefferson is the still the most valuable, best/realistic option many many many times.

If you want me to dig it up I can.

[UnWantedTheory]

hariston>jefferson, all yall supporting jefferson tell me what the he brings that is better than malik, cuz it damn sure aint jefferson's defense,offense,

Well bro., I am not dogging you at all,....but tell us what Malik brings? The honest answer(s) would be..."we dont know" to "there is a reason he has played so little." He has some potential, but he has not shown enough to warrant a starting job or quality minutes thus far. Again, I do believe he has potnetial, but he has no shot in the literal sense. I am not saying RJ is great or better...but we know what we can expect from him. I honestly dont believe Malik will ever be a starter, but thats just me. I am not necessarily against you, but I am not necessarily for you either. I am not PRO RJ, but I am not an RJ hater....and honestly he is the better option out of what we have on our roster or what we can expect from FA. With that said, I could care less who starts at SF, as long as its to the benefit of the teams overall success during this brief and slightly ajar window of opportunity.


Overall, this is all that matters to me....

[EricB]

Logical reasons for trying someone else instead of Jefferson :

1. He didn't shoot threes.

2. He didn't defend well.

3. He wasn't a consistent member of the Spurs closing squad in crunchtime, and there's no reason to think he will be next season.

4. He often could be described as playing soft or as not hustling.

5. He's 30 and declining athletically.

6. He rocked out to 9 points a game in the playoffs.

7. He was benched for a stretch of games and only brought back as a starter after Parker's injury.

8. If he performed like that in his contract year, imagine him with job security.

9. Failed miserably when counted on to be the defensive stopper at the beginning of the season, causing Pop to unleash the Centerpiece.

10. He often won't even be the 4th option on the floor in line-ups with TD-Manu-TP, that will be Hill or Splitter.

Logical reasons for paying Jefferson a lot of money in a multi-year deal:



Well . . . I guess . . . uh . . . we don't know if Hairston/Gee/LLE scrub can fail to the tune of 9 ppg and not play in crunchtime while standing around inside the 3-point line.

@ Hairston


James White! has nothin on this guy....

[SpursTillTheEnd]

listen there is no way in rj should be back as a spur, everything objective said is true, but what ive learned is that alot of people on here ride timvp, if he says rj is good for us they will follow what he says, for all yall saying that rj is a good fit for us explain its not hard to do. but you cant come up with any reason rj is good for us. so shut the up

[objective]

Because I've presented the scenario on why the Spurs may think Jefferson is the still the most valuable, best/realistic option many many many times.

If you want me to dig it up I can.

what I took away from your other postings was basically that you hope RJ can hit threes next season, just like people hoped Bonner and Mason wouldn't reproduce their fail two postseasons in a row.

The rest was about not liking the other options, be they LLE scrubs or current young unproven scrubs like Hairston, Anderson or whomever.

But nothing that was too convincing that he was better than the unknown, because of the known performance this past season as I laid out.

If I'm missing something or mischaracterizing anything, my apologies.

[objective]

I'd be fine with any of the listed LLe possibilities other than James Jones, Simmons, McGrady and Hayes.

The bottomer list I'd be fine with Stephen Graham or letting the current Spurs struggle their way through.

It's not like the Spurs have to replace their defensive stopper, or one of their 4 best scorers, 5 if you think Splitter can do what he did in Spain.

[ace3g]

My only question is how are the Spurs going to get the likes of Mike Miller, Childress, Korver (3 guys I added to my SF list yesterday knowing the possibility of having a trade exception). I got somewhat shot down yesterday because I was told trade exceptions can't be used to sign FA, and all 3 of those guys are? Would they have to first be signed by their respective teams then traded to the Spurs?

[UnWantedTheory]

listen there is no way in rj should be back as a spur, everything objective said is true, but what ive learned is that alot of people on here ride timvp, if he says rj is good for us they will follow what he says, for all yall saying that rj is a good fit for us explain its not hard to do. but you cant come up with any reason rj is good for us. so shut the up

You are one ignorant, rude, ass. Almost no one is saying he is a good fit for us or even all that great,...what most are saying is that he is the lesser of the evils of the proven and/or unknowns that may or may not be within our reach. We know what to expect from him, and we know what we can expect from some of your proposed replacements(Hairston & Gee)...which is a big fat ? I am not saying RJ should be with us, but he is realistically one of the better options at his position on the market...especially with a year in our system. We are trying to win now. I am not saying he is going to put us over the top, nor do I care if he returns;but what you would propse would make us more for the future, rather than for now. I dont believe he will be back, so who cares...But Hairston, Gee, Barnes, Jones, etc. will not cover it with the money we are able to spend. Stop hearing what you want to hear and actually listen to what some of us are saying. I am assuming you will only hear RJ homerism, which is why you actually need to pay attention to what is being said, rather than trying to be "right" and against everything. You accuse others of riding Timvps ? Its funny, because you seem to have the same problem,...you just dont know the name of the train your on.

[MaNu4Tres]

what I took away from your other postings was basically that you hope RJ can hit threes next season, just like people hoped Bonner and Mason wouldn't reproduce their fail two postseasons in a row.

The rest was about not liking the other options, be they LLE scrubs or current young unproven scrubs like Hairston, Anderson or whomever.

But nothing that was too convincing that he was better than the unknown, because of the known performance this past season as I laid out.

If I'm missing something or mischaracterizing anything, my apologies.

Both of those points were small, yet important reasons why Spurs would consider resigning Jefferson, a big part of it is the scenario that is playing out.

NJ is reportedly not interested in RJ. That takes away from a sign and trade situation.

NY doesn't make any sense either; which takes another possible sign and trade situation which was elaborated here:

I don't understand why the Knicks would want Jefferson.

They have two intriguing prospects at small forward in Gallinari and Chandler.

Jefferson is not good enough to spend 8-9 million a year, when they have Gallinari and Chandler there for a fraction of the price. That is bad basketball economics to add significant salary to an already set position.

Only way they'd sign a small forward is if it was LeBron. IMO

I'm willing to bet Jefferson sticks with SA.

Which leaves this left for R.J or any potential sign and trade situations:

Teams that still have enough cap space to offer RJ a contract larger than the MLE (assuming all reported trades and signings go through):

Miami
Chicago
Washington
Clippers
Sacramento

I don't see a match. While crazy money is flowing all over the NBA, RJ and his agent may have badly misjudged the market for his services.

Spurs should be patient, keep a reasonable short-term deal on the table (3/24) and see if a market develops for RJ.

Given this scenario that is transpiring, Jefferson finding a home outside of San Antonio is less likely unless it's for the MLE, which would kill just about all sign and trade scenarios. ( Which would leave the Spurs with the LLE to fill the huge gap at SF).

But lets just say NJ and NY all wanted him and gave the Spurs a trade exception for your sake(or agreed to a sign and trade). If that scenario were to play out, the Spurs still wouldn't be getting anything guaranteed in return via trade exception:

For your dream scenario to play out:

You have to go through each of these steps to logically think about this scenario.

1) You got to find a team willing to sign Jefferson. Meaning they have to have a hole to fill at the SF position and have the cap space to sign him. Or they must have a player of less ability that they are willing to part with in a sign and trade ( meaning Spurs aren't the real winners in a player for player sign and trade swap).

2)This team must have a player that they are willing to part with, and that fits the Spurs better than R.J. and that would be more productive being the 4th option.

3) If there is a trade exception being sent to the Spurs ( instead of a player), what are realistic possibilities for such a move on both sides? * In case you didn't know- there's only a handful of scenarios that actually make some sense on both sides*

You have to go through all these three steps and find matches in every aspect. That my friend is a long-shot and that is why the Spurs are interested in resigning Jefferson because he is the best-most realistic option.

Spurs would be fools to let Jefferson walk, in hopes of finding such a dream scenario where the Spurs net a better piece.

The reality is Spurs are better off with Jefferson instead of having to live with a player for the LLE and 7-9 million per year for him isn't bad value. Especially considering what players are getting paid right now (Spurs also just paid Mason/Finley and Bogans 9 million total) and especially considering he's proven to be a reliable three point shooter for more than half of his career. Rumors are Pop is working with him; he must obviously think RJ has the potential to regain his footing in this aspect; which makes me even more optimistic about resigning him. All of these factors, factor into my reasons why I believe Jefferson should be in the Spurs best interest. It's a better option than James Jones at the LLE. ( Worse case scenario; If things don't pan out in 2 years after Duncan retires; his salary and contract will be respectable enough to move more easily than it was before.)

[tim_duncan_fan]

I'd rather we get one of the vets on this list and give Hairston or Gee or someone some burn. Please no more RJ. He plays scared and you just can't fix that.


Anyway, this is not the season to play weak-minded players or to be conservative in front office decisions. Whatever happens, Tim Duncan is on his way to the Hall of Fame and we are gonna be so we need to be doing something to make his last few seasons memorable.

Let us not sign scary players who disappear in the playoffs, small forwards who can't shoot the three (even if they're perceived to be the only option), ginger big men that can't play in the post or "centerpieces" that have no discernible skills other occasionally not letting their man get by them.

Let's shy away from anybody that doesn't want it. If you're scared to take a three to win the game then GTFO! Tim, Tony, Manu, Hill, Splitter, Blair, Temple...I'm betting any of these guys will take a shot to win the game and believe they can make it. We have no need for you MATT BONNER!


We're nearing the end of the Tim Duncan era and I don't want him to have to go out playing with the likes of Richard Jefferson, Matt Bonner and the centerpiece. all that! If we end up with Tim, Tony, Manu, Hill, Blair and a bunch of rookies and D-Leaguers then so be it!


In short:

No weenies on the 2010-2011 San Antonio Spurs please!!!!

[objective]

The reality is Spurs are better off with Jefferson than having to live with a player for the LLE and 7-9 million per year for him isn't bad value. Especially considering what players are getting paid right now and especially considering he's proven to be a reliable three point shooter for more than half of his career. Rumors are Pop is working with him; he must obviously think RJ has the potential to regain his footing in this aspect; which gives me even more optimistic about resigning him. All of these factors, factor in to my reasons why I believe Jefferson should be in the Spurs best interest. It's a better option than James Jones at the LLE.

But why is Jefferson better than LLE/Spur-scrub at 7-9 million per? I mean on the court. I'm not especially concerned with S/Ts as they seem unlikely. So the likely alternative is LLE or Spur-scrub (unproven players like Anderson, Hairston, Gee and the like).

I still don't see a good reason why Jefferson is better on the court.

You say that he's proven to be a reliable three-point shooter for more than half his career. I appreciate that he shot 3s well with the Bucks when he was the main guy. But he wasn't the dead-eye from 3 last year, his only year as a Spur. And he's been in the playoffs 7 times, and shot a 3-point % of 32.5% or worse 6 of those 7 post-seasons.

The Spurs don't need his scoring (single digits in the playoffs). Hill was the better scorer last year and due to his age and experience it's reasonable to predict he can be even better next year. Plus Splitter as a scoring option next year if he signs.

They don't need his defense, especially after he lost his defensive stopper role. He arguably wasn't better than Hill, Ginobili or the Centerpiece for defending wings.

They don't need his below average PER.

They don't need him for crunch-time.

What has he demonstrated being so good at that they should keep him over the unknown?

I'll grant that he had some good rebounding games in the playoffs but his postseason average was unremarkable for his minutes.

[UnWantedTheory]

But why is Jefferson better than LLE/Spur-scrub at 7-9 million per? I mean on the court. I'm not especially concerned with S/Ts as they seem unlikely. So the likely alternative is LLE or Spur-scrub (unproven players like Anderson, Hairston, Gee and the like).

I still don't see a good reason why Jefferson is better on the court.

You say that he's proven to be a reliable three-point shooter for more than half his career. I appreciate that he shot 3s well with the Bucks when he was the main guy. But he wasn't the dead-eye from 3 last year, his only year as a Spur. And he's been in the playoffs 7 times, and shot a 3-point % of 32.5% or worse 6 of those 7 post-seasons.

The Spurs don't need his scoring (single digits in the playoffs). Hill was the better scorer last year and due to his age and experience it's reasonable to predict he can be even better next year. Plus Splitter as a scoring option next year if he signs.

They don't need his defense, especially after he lost his defensive stopper role. He arguably wasn't better than Hill, Ginobili or the Centerpiece for defending wings.

They don't need his below average PER.

They don't need him for crunch-time.

What has he demonstrated being so good at that they should keep him over the unknown?

I'll grant that he had some good rebounding games in the playoffs but his postseason average was unremarkable for his minutes.

I undertsand what you are saying,...I really do...But a equally fair question is.....what have the unknowns done to warrant the risk? I believe that is what most think.


Unknowns meaning(to me), Hairston & Gee. I can expect the Matt Barnes, J Jones, etc., but I wouldnt expect much more of a result. If that is the case than maybe we are better with Hairston. But I believe we are trying to give it one last go, so RJ, IMO, is the better option at this point. If we just want to stand pat, than NO, him. Either way, I doubt we get him back. I expect an LLE guy to come. I also expect us to make the PO's, but possibly not advance to the second round. Oh well.

[MaNu4Tres]

But why is Jefferson better than LLE/Spur-scrub at 7-9 million per? I mean on the court. I'm not especially concerned with S/Ts as they seem unlikely. So the likely alternative is LLE or Spur-scrub (unproven players like Anderson, Hairston, Gee and the like).

I still don't see a good reason why Jefferson is better on the court.

You say that he's proven to be a reliable three-point shooter for more than half his career. I appreciate that he shot 3s well with the Bucks when he was the main guy. But he wasn't the dead-eye from 3 last year, his only year as a Spur. And he's been in the playoffs 7 times, and shot a 3-point % of 32.5% or worse 6 of those 7 post-seasons.

The Spurs don't need his scoring (single digits in the playoffs). Hill was the better scorer last year and due to his age and experience it's reasonable to predict he can be even better next year. Plus Splitter as a scoring option next year if he signs.

They don't need his defense, especially after he lost his defensive stopper role. He arguably wasn't better than Hill, Ginobili or the Centerpiece for defending wings.

They don't need his below average PER.

They don't need him for crunch-time.

What has he demonstrated being so good at that they should keep him over the unknown?

I'll grant that he had some good rebounding games in the playoffs but his postseason average was unremarkable for his minutes.

Because they believe he can be a much better fit next year and he has proven to be capable in this regard. Him rediscovering just the confidence in his 3 point shooting will do wonders for the team spacing and do wonders for his ability to get to the line from spot up- triple threat scenarios from the Manu/Tony pick and roll; when the defense is shifting and closing out hard. That one aspect will open up the flood gates on the Spurs' overall potential attack as a team. And this single aspect is quite reasonable to believe in considering Jeffersons past.

In regards of last year, sure he wasn't the picture perfect fit, but you are ignoring the positives Jefferson brought to the Spurs last season. As I posted here:

People really under rate the production he brought to the Spurs as the 4th option.

Sure he wasn't the "picture perfect fit", and sure he didn't average the 20 points he averaged in Milwaukee, but those 20 points per game was impossible to produce with the scarce amount of opportunities he had playing behind the big 3.

Even if he was the 4th option, he still scored in double digits in 58 games last year (more than 15 points per game in 32 outings). And was instrumental in many victories, even in the playoffs.

About his defense, I know he wasn't Bruce Bowen on the defensive end, but the guy showed progress as the season progressed; not so much on the ball, but off the ball; especially in putting in the effort and contesting shots around the rim more effectively than any big man outside of Duncan. I'm not saying he was Dikembe Mutombo by any means; but he was progressively active in this regard, especially in the last few months of the season.

Overall saying he didn't do anything is foolish to say.

Without him the Spurs would have more than likely been a lottery team this past year. Fact is R.J gets too much of the blame for the Spurs' disappointing year. He was not the reason why the Spurs rubbed one out, so to speak.

There were other reasons why the Spurs failed when it was all said and done. Most notably, the lack of having an established clear cut 5th wing ( part of it was Pop's fault) and the lack of interior defense that doomed the Spurs in the end. Not so much Jefferson.

Pop stubbornly made the wrong choice for the team by investing in the wrong players (Mason, Bogans) all damn year. Even when these two players were atrocious for the last 3 months of the season, Pop didn't budge and stubbornly played the law of averages game. In the end, Pop put the team in a very vulnerable position from a depth standpoint by stubbornly giving Mason and Bogans the responsibility as the 5th wing. It made no sense to do this and still doesn't til this day.

As a result of Mason and Bogans maintaining their atrocious status, the Spurs back court and Jefferson were forced way too many minutes and it showed in their 4th quarter execution down the stretch ( even in the Dallas series ).

Pop should have given more responsibility and prepared Hairston or Temple somewhere in the last 2 months of the regular season, when Mason and Bogans were consistently horrid. (Believe it or not, Hairston and Temple had more productive minutes than Mason and Bogans did all season; even if they played less minutes. )

If Hairston or Temple would have panned out as a 5th wing, Spurs could have stretched their bench enough, which would've given Manu more gas at the end of games to " go for the throat", and Hill wouldn't have had as big of a responsibility offensively ( because of Manu and Tony having less but more efficient minutes, and more efficient touches). But Pop was too stubborn to find this out.

By no means am I blaming the year on Popovich, but he certainly could have made different decisions in regards of the rotation that could have put the Spurs in a better position to compete in the playoffs. Many people just point at R.J and blame him. I couldn't disagree more.

.

[velik_m]

Isn't Childress a RFA?

[objective]

Because they believe he can be a much better fit next year and he has proven to be capable in this regard.

They believed in Bonner, Mason and the Centerpiece too. While confidence in a a player from the Spurs is nice, I don't see it as that convincing.

Him rediscovering just the confidence in his 3 point shooting will do wonders for the team spacing and do wonders for his ability to get to the line from spot up- triple threat scenarios from the Manu/Tony pick and roll; when the defense is shifting and closing out hard. That one aspect will open up the flood gates on the Spurs' overall potential attack as a team. And this single aspect is quite reasonable to believe in considering Jeffersons past.

Isn't it just as likely that he performs the same or worse as he did in 09-10? Why would he get better at 3s when he was in a contract year with open looks? Not saying he can't, or that I hope he wouldn't, I just don't see any good reason for optimism.

In regards of last year, sure he wasn't the picture perfect fit, but you are ignoring the positives Jefferson brought to the Spurs last season . .

Okay, let me see what I've been ignoring.

[QUOTE]

People really under rate the production he brought to the Spurs as the 4th option.

Sure he wasn't the "picture perfect fit", and sure he didn't average the 20 points he averaged in Milwaukee, but those 20 points per game was impossible to produce with the scarce amount of opportunities he had playing behind the big 3.

Even if he was the 4th option, he still scored in double digits in 58 games last year (more than 15 points per game in 32 outings). And was instrumental in many victories, even in the playoffs.

A reasonable alternative backed up by stats would be that he wasn't even the 4th option, George Hill was. And with Splitter, he might not even be the 5th option (I mean on the roster, not a lineup obviously where the 5th guy on the court would have to be the 5th option).

About his defense, I know he wasn't Bruce Bowen on the defensive end, but the guy showed progress as the season progressed; not so much on the ball, but off the ball; especially in putting in the effort and contesting shots around the rim more effectively than any big man outside of Duncan. I'm not saying he was Dikembe Mutombo by any means; but he was progressively active in this regard, especially in the last few months of the season.

He got somewhat better, but still wasn't very good at the end. He was better but only compared to how terrible he was the first half. Was he one the 3 best Spurs for defending wings? Even during the second half or the playoffs, I can't say he was. He had some blocks and contests, but 0.6 blocks in the playoffs isn't that great. His Blocks per 36 was better than any player getting regular minutes not named Duncan, McDyess or Blair. Taking a look at timvp's list of SF candidates, are all of them worse defenders than RJ? I can't say I believe so.

Overall saying he didn't do anything is foolish to say.

Without him the Spurs would have more than likely been a lottery team this past year. Fact is R.J gets too much of the blame for the Spurs' disappointing year. He was not the reason why the Spurs rubbed one out, so to speak.

I'm skeptical that the Spurs, who finished 8 games above the 9th seed, would have been a lottery team without RJ. They won more games in 09 with Finley starting at SF. The big 3 also missed only 37 games combined in 09-10 compared 55 games combined in 08-09.

I don't see how RJ is getting too much blame. He was brought in to be the defensive stopper, he wasn't. He was brought in to be the 4th scorer, but George Hill was. He wasn't even used in crunch-time for half of the playoff games. And he was even benched during the season. And his play with regards to 3 point shooting was so striking in a bad way that it garnered attention from the national broadcast announcers.

I'll flip the question. What did Jefferson do exactly to help the Spurs win in the playoffs that he deserves credit for as opposed to blame? He had one standout half against Dallas that I remember, and some good rebounding games against PHX. That's all that comes to mind.

There were other reasons why the Spurs failed when it was all said and done. Most notably, the lack of having an established clear cut 5th wing ( part of it was Pop's fault) and the lack of interior defense that doomed the Spurs in the end. Not so much Jefferson.

Pop stubbornly made the wrong choice for the team by investing in the wrong players (Mason, Bogans) all damn year. Even when these two players were atrocious for the last 3 months of the season, Pop didn't budge and stubbornly played the law of averages game. In the end, Pop put the team in a very vulnerable position from a depth standpoint by stubbornly giving Mason and Bogans the responsibility as the 5th wing. It made no sense to do this and still doesn't til this day.

As a result of Mason and Bogans maintaining their atrocious status, the Spurs back court and Jefferson were forced way too many minutes and it showed in their 4th quarter execution down the stretch ( even in the Dallas series ).

So earlier when I gave reasons in opposition to Pop and RC's choices (or possible/probable future choices), it was terrible. I dared disagree with Pop and so you posted that I must think that Pop was "a moron" and that Pop and RC "don't know anything".

But here you are, disagreeing with the very moves Pop made. Does this mean you think Pop is a moron who should be replaced because he doesn't know anything?

Now I'm just busting your chops. Sorry, had to do it.

I do agree by the way that Pop made the wrong decisions with regards to Bogans and Mason. Bogans moreso because at least Mason had some marginal track record albeit regular season as a Spur to give him a chance. Hairston meanwhile seemed to outperform Bogans every step of the way including pre-season.

So if Pop had unreasonable faith in Bogans and Mason . . . isn't it possible that he would have unreasonable faith in Jefferson leading him to work out with him personally this summer? Or that maybe Pop was working with him this summer to try to salvage something out of him with the expectation that the Spurs would be stuck with him for next year.

Hopefully now Splitter can come in to help the interior defense and hopefully Spurs can find a respectable replacement for R.J via trade ( less likely) or for the LLE. If not then I hope Hairston, Gee and Anderson are ready to contribute.

Here we can agree. And 'respectable replacement' for RJ isn't such an impossibility based on his production last year.

[MaNu4Tres]

So now we are comparing Mason, Bogans and Bonner to Jefferson?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mason, Bogans and Bonner have proved to be one dimensional players at best and all have a relative low ceiling.

Jefferson on the other hand is the polar opposite, in which he has proven to be a mult-dimensional player that has a high ceiling. Unfortunately, Jefferson had a bad year compared to his previous years where he was one of the best small forwards in the league. Same can't be said for your wishful analogy. Which is why Spurs probably believe that talented arsenal of Jefferson's is worth another look, compared to the inferior alternative. Especially after an off-season under the tutelage of one of the best coaches the game has ever had.

This is just another reason why the Spurs obviously think 7-9 million a year is worth the gamble, given his track record.


All of these reasons in the past 2 pages are why Jefferson is the best option for the Spurs. Rather than passing on Jefferson and acquiring a has-been piece for the LLE with a very low ceiling.

Spurs are trying to win a championship, and the higher the ceiling the better the chances are for the Spurs.

And it seems like Pop and R.C are thinking that way as well.

[objective]

So now we are comparing Mason, Bogans and Bonner to Jefferson?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I was comparing confidence in players, warranted or not. And when consider production to payscale, further comparisons aren't that bad.

Mason, Bogans and Bonner have proved to be one dimensional players at best and all have a relative low ceiling.

Jefferson on the other hand is the polar opposite, in which he has proven to be a mult-dimensional player that has a high ceiling.

Jefferson had proven that he was a multi-dimensional player who had a high ceiling. What kind of ceiling is there for him now that he's at best the 4th option if not worse? He's not on a bad team where he gets all the touches he wants. And he's not on a team that caters it's offense to the fastbreak style. It took like a month and a half for the Spurs to work in a lob play for RJ, and that was all RJ and Parker getting together on their own and making it happen, it wasn't demanded by Pop.

And it seems like Pop and R.C are thinking that way as well.

For a guy who had no problem ripping on Pop for how he handled underperforming guys like Bonner, Bogans and Mason, you seem eager to set aside any critiquing of Jefferson and the Spurs.

If the Spurs let him walk . . . will they be right because they didn't want him back badly enough, or will they be wrong because they didn't want him back badly enough?

[MaNu4Tres]

I was comparing confidence in players, warranted or not. And when consider production to payscale, further comparisons aren't that bad.

For a guy who had no problem ripping on Pop for how he handled underperforming guys like Bonner, Bogans and Mason, you seem eager to set aside any critiquing of Jefferson and the Spurs.

Read again: The bold please

So now we are comparing Mason, Bogans and Bonner to Jefferson?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mason, Bogans and Bonner have proved to be one dimensional players at best and all have a relative low ceiling.

Jefferson on the other hand is the polar opposite, in which he has proven to be a mult-dimensional player that has a high ceiling. Unfortunately, Jefferson had a bad year compared to his previous years where he was one of the best small forwards in the league. Same can't be said for your wishful analogy. Which is why Spurs probably believe that talented arsenal of Jefferson's is worth another look, compared to the inferior alternative. Especially after an off-season under the tutelage of one of the best coaches the game has ever had.

This is just another reason why the Spurs obviously think 7-9 million a year is worth the gamble, given his track record.


All of these reasons in the past 2 pages are why Jefferson is the best option for the Spurs. Rather than passing on Jefferson and acquiring a has-been piece for the LLE with a very low ceiling.

Spurs are trying to win a championship, and the higher the ceiling the better the chances are for the Spurs.

And it seems like Pop and R.C are thinking that way as well.

If the Spurs let him walk . . . will they be right because they didn't want him back badly enough, or will they be wrong because they didn't want him back badly enough?

If Spurs have a plan to attain a viable option at SF that's better than the LLE (which is more than likely unrealistic) then yeah they will be right letting him go. If they let him go, without a plan of action to fill this vital need then they will be wrong by letting him go for a player for the LLE.