Reply With Quote
i'm sure the other team would do it
What if the Blazers (hypothetically) offered Batum for Blair straight up???
If our goal is to win another le while Timmy is still here (as it should be), these are the types of deals we just may have to consider. We have 5 bigs who all need playing time, and we haven't had a player like Batum at the SF position since god knows when.
i'm sure the other team would do it
That's the thing, Bonner neither deserve nor merits being a consistent rotation player. If the Spurs are stupid enough to play Bonner meaningful minutes then that makes either McDyess or Blair expendable.
True. However, against the Lakers, I doubt Blair gets much PT. Even last year, with no Splitter on the roster, Blair didn't play much against LA. Now, I would assume he would play even less. It's just a bad match-up for him.
On the other hand, if we were to get a SF in a trade for him like Batum, this SF would be probably be playing 40 minutes a night against LA, guarding the likes of Kobe, Odom, and/or Artest.
If, before the season or during, a legit, defensive minded, long, athletic SF becomes available, the Spurs at least have to consider dealing Blair to get him.
wah
If he improves his game enough that he can somewhat defend Odom, well then I see him earning minutes against the Lakers. Or if Phil Jackson goes small with Artest at the 4, then Blair could conceivably defend him.
Blair needs to stay, as does Dice. We need 4 legit bigs to ensure that Bonner keeps the bench warm in the postseason.
Eh....
Legit is probably the wrong word to use....^^^
Blasphemy!
We... Need... Blair!!!
How is a rookie big who dropped 20/20s on two WC playoff teams not a "legit" big?
Blair is a good value at his contract price. He could be a delicious sweetener in a larger trade.
I was not doubting his talent as a player, but as a "legit" big man. I was referring to his size. Also, it wasnt just in reference to him...we really dont have a true big outside of Duncan and Splitter. Blair is undersized, Dice is undersized and old, and than there is Bonner....who is who he is.
I love Blair, and his 2 20/20 games, but it doesnt change how short he is. We can not rely on him to defend true bigs just yet, if ever. Also, to the poster that said keeping Blair and Dice would keep Bonner on the bench in the PO's...you were kidding right? We would not have signed him to a deal like that to be a bench warmer. Pop is in love with him too much...which sucks...but he can still be a valuable bench player when his minutes are limited. Truth be told, Blair, Bonner, & Dice all have noticable limitations when compared to "legit" or "true" bigs.
Last edited by UnWantedTheory; 07-15-2010 at 01:30 AM.
Y wood Port. agree to it??
It makes no sense. As someone already mentioned, because of his contract, it would be difficult to get anything close to equal value in return.
The Spurs have five rotation bigs, but it will only be for one season, because McDyess is more than likely retiring after next season. In the meantime, having five rotation bigs is good for depth purposes, particularly when you consider the age/mileage of Duncan and McDyess and the limitations of Bonner and Blair.
My only issue with having all five is Pop playing mad scientist with the rotation, playing Bonner more than he should, subsequently playing probably Splitter and Blair less than he should, not allowing players to get into or stay in a rhythm, potentially alienating one or two of them, etc.
if blair + filler can net a solid defensive wing that can make 3's, i would go for it. no question. blair is a nice backup PF but the spurs need a reliable perimeter defender that isn't useless on offense.
Hammer. Nail. Head. Good take.
I wouldn't consider trading Blair, but I am worried about him getting minutes with Duncan, Splitter, Bonner and McDyess ahead of him in the rotation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
