Why do many assume that Pop will over-play Bonner?

[Nathan89]

I want the regular season minutes for the bigs to look like this:
Duncan-30min
Splitter-20min
Dice-18min
Blair/Bonner-Have 28 minute to split. One might get a few more the other depending on the match-ups. Their avg. will boost on the blowouts.

[SenorSpur]

Why do many assume that Pop will over-play Bonner?

Because that's what he does.

We all know that Pop has, at times, demonstrated "blind loyalty" to some veteran players, whether their performance warranted it or not. Michael Finley was the most recent, and most obvious, example. Despite his streaky shooting, he was overplayed at 3 positions, to a point where he became counterproductive.

We've seen it too many times before. Some even older veterans were allowed to hang around, or even be acquired, when they were obviously a year or two past their prime. While Robert Horry earned the right to play as long as he wanted, Pop probably kept him around a year too long. Same for Jacque Vaughn and Nick Van Exel.

As for Bonner specifically, he's sucked the last 2 postseasons and what do the Spurs do? Resign him with a 4-yr contract and then reward him with a raise. He'll get as many minutes as he has before. Minutes in which Pop hopes he'll "spread the floor" with his shooting. Pop values this so much because of the fine work Horry did when he was here. The difference is Horry was a superb defender and super-clutch performed, whereas Bonner is the exact opposite. Still, Pop values the shooting aspect and must really believe that Bonner is the "rare bird" that is virtually irreplaceable. If he didn't think so, why did he not try and find an upgrade over Bonner?

It's the long leash theory, that young, talented and sometimes erratic, young players are not afforded. In that regard, Pop is really no different than any other veteran coach.

[lefty]

Because they have to justify his salary

[ElNono]

Really? Pop moved David out from under the hoop during Tim's early years, then replaced him with Rasho based primarily on Rasho's (perceived) ability to knock down the 12 footer.

It may not have been labeled as a "stretch 4" back when Tim was clearly labeled as the 4 himself, but Pop has always been about increasing the spacing of the offense so that Tim had room to operate and teams had to think twice before doubling him.

I'm talking stretching all the way to the three point line. To the point where you simply are giving up any possibility for an offensive board. Besides DRob, Rasho, Nazr even Oberto, were all paint bigs. They all could play their size and they all defended well.

But I'll tell you what, let's say it's not a newly found love. I don't want to waste time on the minutiae.
Anything else you disagree with in my post?

What makes you think Bonner will be the 4th big behind TD, Dice and Blair, especially when the playoffs roll around?

[ElNono]

I want the regular season minutes for the bigs to look like this:
Duncan-30min
Splitter-20min
Dice-18min
Blair/Bonner-Have 28 minute to split. One might get a few more the other depending on the match-ups. Their avg. will boost on the blowouts.

If you think Pop will not play small ball, then you have not been paying attention for the last couple of years.

I mean, I would love if he wouldn't, but I just don't see it happening.

[ohmwrecker]

Because they have to justify his salary

I would hope that the hubris of Pop and RC would not swell to that magnitude, but it sure would explain a lot.

[K-State Spur]

He'll get as many minutes as he has before.

At whose expense?

That's kinda my whole point in this thread. We can all just say that Pop will overplay MB as a generality (it makes sense)...but when you actually start breaking down the logistics of the matter - extended PT for MB on a healthy roster becomes pretty unlikely.

[Nathan89]

If you think Pop will not play small ball, then you have not been paying attention for the last couple of years.

I mean, I would love if he wouldn't, but I just don't see it happening.

I don't think were are going to see much small ball this year. Last year we had four capable bigs duncan,dice,bonner and blair(rookie). This year we have five capable bigs that can match up with most teams without playing small ball. I just can't see one big and rj on the court with four bigs on the bench happening to often.

[ElNono]

At whose expense?

That's kinda my whole point in this thread. We can all just say that Pop will overplay MB as a generality...but when you actually start breaking down the logistics of the matter - extended PT for MB on a healthy roster becomes pretty unlikely.

It's going to be at the expense of Blair, McDyess, Splitter and even small ball if necessary. Not that this is really news either.

[ElNono]

I don't think were are going to see much small ball this year. Last year we had four capable bigs duncan,dice,bonner and blair(rookie). This year we have five capable bigs that can match up with most teams without playing small ball. I just can't see one big and rj on the court with four bigs on the bench happening to often.

I would hope so. At least this season we have some more mobile bigs in Splitter and Blair, so we wouldn't really need to. I also wouldn't be opposed if the 9 minutes or so we played small ball last season would be the 9 minutes Bonner plays out there, since when he's out there we're basically playing a hybrid small ball anyways (he just sits on the perimeter).

That I can be ok with. Give his 18 minutes from last season to Splitter.

Then again, I'll believe it when I see it.

[nkdlunch]

Newsflash to the OP: Bonner has been a below average player getting above average minutes.

From the looks of the Spurs front office this is not going to change in 2010-2011

[K-State Spur]

It's going to be at the expense of Blair, McDyess, Splitter and even small ball if necessary. Not that this is really news either.

a) Do we expect Splitter to get less than 20 mpg when we have a need for an athletic big to pair with Duncan? Remember that Manu got 21 minutes as a rookie coming over from Europe (and was probably more raw than Splitter) - and essentially sent a proven vet in Steve Smith to the bench.

b) So Blair and Dyess are each going to play more than Bonner during their first year with the clubs, but are going to play less than him (which would have to happen for him to keep his minutes) now that they have a year under their belts?

Apparently, we are going to harp on Pop's over-reliance on a handful of vets in the past (even when the alternatives were equally flawed), but ignore his track record for giving players more PT as they gained familiarity with the system.

[Dr. Gonzo]

There weren't any other bigs worth a on the team last season to play ahead of Bonner.

[K-State Spur]

Newsflash to the OP: Bonner has been a below average player getting above average minutes.

From the looks of the Spurs front office this is not going to change in 2010-2011

Never said Bonner was average or above. Maybe you should read the OP before calling out the OP.

what bonner does do, is fill a role that nobody else on the roster (or available at a price the spurs could pay) does. there may be better big man options, but they would be redundant to what we have.

the question here is not bonner's talent (or lack of) - just whether or not pop will lean on the existing options primarily and limit bonner to spot duty/favorable match-ups.

[ElNono]

a) Do we expect Splitter to get less than 20 mpg when we have a need for an athletic big to pair with Duncan? Remember that Manu got 21 minutes as a rookie coming over from Europe (and was probably more raw than Splitter) - and essentially sent a proven vet in Steve Smith to the bench.

You can try to rationalize it any way you want. I could pull out threads from last summer claiming that the logical thing to do is to play Bonner for 10-15 mins and that Blair would be ahead of him come playoff time.

Apparently what people think the Spurs 'need' doesn't necessarily overlaps with what Pop thinks this team needs. We've needed an athletic big for two seasons now. The Spurs went and got Gooden and McDyess. So again, don't automatically assume that what you think is what Pop thinks.

b) So Blair and Dyess are each going to play more than Bonner during their first year with the clubs, but are going to play less than him (which would have to happen for him to keep his minutes) now that they have a year under their belts?

As I said, it's very difficult to understand what goes through Pop's mind. The only certainty is that Duncan will get his. Now, if you think they just handed +$10m to somebody because they're about to demote him from literally the 3rd big to 5th big, then either you know something we do not, or the FO has much bigger plans for Matt.

Apparently, we are going to harp on Pop's over-reliance on a handful of vets in the past (even when the alternatives were equally flawed), but ignore his track record for giving players more PT as they gained familiarity with the system.

I want to believe you. I do. If we go with familiarity with the system, then I have pretty low hopes of seeing much of Splitter this season, especially by the time the playoffs roll around. If the balance is so much weighed to being familiar with the system, then Bonner can easily claim superiority over any of the other guys. I'd like to think that's not the only rationale for handing out PT.

[ElNono]

I'm really disappointed nobody pulled the "But Pop watches them in practice" card yet...

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'm really disappointed nobody pulled the "But Pop watches them in practice" card yet...

I trust Pop to do what's best more than some dumb forum poster.

[baseline bum]

I used to make these threads about Finley and Pop a few years ago.

We all know how those turned out.

I was about to post the exact same thing.

[baseline bum]

Finley wasn't taking away minutes from any actual talent until George Hill (who was originally used primarily as a PG) came along. Did it really matter whether Finley was playing ahead of Udoka?

[Dr. Gonzo]

Bowen was done. In 2008 Finley>>Bowen.

[baseline bum]

Bowen was done. In 2008 Finley>>Bowen.

I seem to remember the Spurs going into Staples in the 2008 WCF and going up 20 on the Lakers with Bowen all over Kobe Bryant. The second Pop subbed him out Kobe went nuts and LA erased that lead real fast.

[underdawg]

Bowen was done. In 2008 Finley>>Bowen.

Based on what? Oh yeah that's right - Finley had better practices than Bowen. Your stupidity is outstanding.

[underdawg]

There weren't any other bigs worth a on the team last season to play ahead of Bonner.

except maybe McDyess or Blair

And yes Mahinmi

[DesignatedT]

Finley and Bowen were and have both been done for awhile now. If people really think Bowen would have turned us into some championship team last year than your a moron.

[angelbelow]

No, but its reported to be around 3-4 mil/year. Again, why does it even matter? If Holt is dedicated and not concerned about going over the cap than who cares what he gets payed.You're not paying for it. Holt has showed hes committed to pay to win so who cares..

Who cares? In terms of the owner willing to pay, its true, if he wants to pay him then so be it. (Although this could easily change at anytime. Just because hes dedicated to win doesn't mean hes willing to go over the luxury tax every ing season.)

But the bottom line is that if Bonners contract is 3-4 million its a bad contract. Doesnt matter whose willing to pay it. The Spurs pride themselves on bring in players at appropriate rates. I can only pray that they are consistent with Bonners contract.

-Eats up 3/4 million of our cap room. This can prevent us from signing players if it means going over the tax, this could make us think twice and hesitate about resigning players that actually contribute, Ex. Hill is likely to be extended next year, Blair is a few years away as well.
-Won't be a trade asset until his 3rd or 4th year, so if it just so happens that hes the 5th big/12th overall player off the bench, he'll just be there. 12th man making 3/4 million isn't an ideal situation for an NBA team.
-Bonners skill level is probably worth 2 million at most. Hes above average when it comes to 3s, but he doesn't do much else well. He doesnt rebound well, drive, pass, or defend. Don't get me wrong, he always puts in the effort, but his skill level doesnt allow hard work to make up his deficiencies.
-Even guys like Finley, Bowen, Horry made 3-4 million a season. But the level of contributions from the players that I just named are astronomically greater than Bonner's. So what is the justification?
-The last time Bonner got paid, it prevented us from signing a high caliber player like Scola, if Bonner got 3 or 4 million dollars again, we just better hope that it doesn't prevent any future roster moves.