Reply With Quote
Hairston is just as good as Dragič.
Goran is 5X better.
And I'm not saying that just cause I'm from Slo.
Suns fans didn't hate Dragic. Dragic was drafted to be the backup PG and was groomed as such. Hairston was drafted as a second round pick who would be lucky to make the team. This comparison seems odd.
Fans love to say of their new found favorite, "if only he got more playing time he'd find his rhythm and show his true colors." It's an argument based solely on wishful thinking. Guys on the end of the bench must force the coach to play them by bringing something to the table that no one else on the team has. See Devin Brown, or more recently Garret Temple. The Spurs and Pop don't owe Hairston anything. He apparently didn't have what the Spurs need.
Hairston is just as good as Dragič.
Goran is 5X better.
And I'm not saying that just cause I'm from Slo.
Dragic is 100000 times better than MHHairston is just as good as Dragič.
Goran is 5X better.
And I'm not saying that just cause I'm from Slo.
Haters gonna hate, rationalize their team's decisions to not look so poor.
Fact of the matter is, they screwed up with Malik. There's no getting around that -- pretending that Keith Bogans was a better player or earned his spot over Hairston last year is laughable and could only been given credence by one who deems Hairston fans delusional. They not only failed to utilze the best of their options last year by playing Bogans, they cost themselves and Hairston valuable time to see what they really had and just how much he could help in a clear team deficiency.
Hairston wasn't a star, nor did we claim him to be, but he's an NBA-caliber player. He can contribute at this level. If you don't believe he could help a team that's perimeter defense is duct-taped together with a 6-2 guard and will now rely on a 6-5 combo-guard in Temple and a generously listed 6-6 rookie in Anderson ... I don't know what to tell you; oh, I guess I left out Gee who's always been noted for his defense. Malik was even undersized but he's proven capable of overcoming it in stints versus bigger players.
Hater's gonna hate -- hater's do that.
It's what they do.
They hate.
HATERS!!!
THC ain't dead, y'all. The Man just relocated.
PEACE OUT, SA TOWN
Oh, and Italy . . .
GET LIFTED . . .
And where the white women at?
lol Italy
[QUOTE=Blackjack;4547732]Haters gonna hate, rationalize their team's decisions to not look so poor.
Fact of the matter is, they screwed up with Malik. There's no getting around that -- pretending that Keith Bogans was a better player or earned his spot over Hairston last year is laughable and could only been given credence by one who deems Hairston fans delusional. They not only failed to utilze the best of their options last year by playing Bogans, they cost themselves and Hairston valuable time to see what they really had and just how much he could help in a clear team deficiency.
Hairston wasn't a star, nor did we claim him to be, but he's an NBA-caliber player. He can contribute at this level. If you don't believe he could help a team that's perimeter defense is duct-taped together with a 6-2 guard and will now rely on a 6-5 combo-guard in Temple and a generously listed 6-6 rookie in Anderson ... I don't know what to tell you; oh, I guess I left out Gee who's always been noted for his defense. Malik was even undersized but he's proven capable of overcoming it in stints versus bigger players.
Hater's gonna hate -- hater's do that.
It's what they do.
They hate.
HATERS!!!
+1
First they ed up with Ian and now they let Malik go. Two young and athletic defenders down the ing drain. With Malik gone, it leaves a ing roster spot open in which the ing FO will probably bring back ing Bogans or some other washed-up, over-the-hill ing vet.
IS THERE NO END TO THIS ING MADNESS?!
No more Chieflion onion articles.
Do we all get a refund on that application now?Now accepting applicants . . .
Why?
Hairston left the Spurs, The Coalition didn't disband or leave him.
Cause I don't speak Italian.
Neither does Malik. But I bet Italians can speak THC.
We are like the Cavs & Raptors of the SW...Ian & Malik leave for greener pastures. Like this is the end of the world as we now know it.
OK, I'm over the bball divorce. Life goes on...! tic
It's still THC all day.
I know this is a thread for Malik fans, but fans often let their emotions run away with their evaluations of a player. But try an think through this comparison with another young Spur who may develop his own fan base.
Last year--as a rookie--Garrett Temple played 27 games for 334 minutes on 3 teams, 193 of them with the Spurs at the end of the season. He played SIX playoff games. My opinion doesn't count, but you could easily tell from the comments of the coaches--and the fact that they played him in playoff games--that they had a high opinion of his skills and his poise.
Malik Hairston, in his second year with the Spurs played in 47 regular season games for 317 minutes. NO PLAYOFF GAMES. It should be obvious that he had an opportunity to impress the coaches with his game and came up short compared to other players they either have or want to look at.
Wwithout as much time in the Spurs system Temple still exceeded Hairston per game average in the following categories: rebounds , steals, blocks, assists and points. And although he is a defensive specialist, he showed a lot of confidence and poise while running the team as a backup.
I don't hate Malik. Why should I. He tries very hard to get by on his heart and hustle. Unfortunately, basketball is a game where heart and hustle can only carry you so far and then players with greater talent move ahead of you. I hope he does well in Europe and develops his talent to where some NBA team will give him another chance.
How are you going to compare a guy like Temple (who I am a big fan of) with Malik in this case? Malik's a small forward that excels defensively, off the ball and on the move. He played behind a guy they were paying $14.2M to play big-time minutes and a player in Bogans the Spurs simply put too much faith into.
You do realize Temple was playing at the 1-2 and that the reason he got playing time was because of injuries at the point and because of good play in that stint he got a semi-look in the playoffs, right?
I'm just tired of the either/or talk and the people that want to dismiss or on Malik because a few of us are fans of the guy and like to have fun with the whole thing. It's like they believe we're saying this guy is an All-Star in the making when all we're saying is the guy's done and shown everything needed to get a REAL look. A REAL opportunity to go out an play that centerpiece role Pop likes to refer to.
I'm not comparing Malik to Bruce as a player, but look at it this way. If you're job is to go out and be a defensive specialist and bring toughness and energy to the court, how exactly does one go about doing that with a few scattered minutes over the course of a season and largely in garbage time? How would Bowen have fared if all you saw him do was play a couple of good defensive possessions and then miss a shot, turn the ball over or just miss one assignment in a couple of short minutes and immediately got the hook?
If you want to have a defensive stopper on the floor or improve your defense on the perimeter, you've got to let the guy play. Defensive players find a rhythm too. Often times, the longer they're out there the more they help you out on the other end as well -- they get loose, find a rhythm and gain confidence as they see more minutes.
I've never said Malik was Bruce Bowen or an approximation but the Spurs have been declining defensively for the last few years. They needed better personnel, athleticism. They needed to supplement all of their veteran-ness with youth and energy. Malik represented their best chance to do so and they simply wouldn't give him a legitimate look.
He could've and should've helped the Spurs last year. And had he been given a real opportunity to showcase his game as well as grow and gain confidence as a player with some regular, decent minutes ... who knows? Why is it so hard to believe Hairston could've found a role the way Brown or Weems have; or any other young player that happened to be helping an NBA team?
I'm guessing Malik wouldn't be asking to go overseas had he been given the opportunity Bogans was given. If not with the Spurs, some team could've found use for him.
Theree isn't anything in this thread that makes me think his fan base is being anything other than objective.
Apparently Malik chose Siena over the Spurs so I'm not sure why fans are mad at the FO.
+1 You can copy this for Malik, Ian, and Pop.....etc...We always fall in love with the underdog but it doesn't always work out.
Malik got a real look. A real 2-year look.
You just made the comparison...after you said you're not comparing them. Their skill sets are very different, and though he was reasonably competent on defense, i fail to see how you can paint him as a defensive ace.
You've already said he's a spot player...so how many minutes does this guy need to get into both a defensive and offensive rhythm? Apparently he's a spot player who needs more than spot minutes to perform well. He's a 6'5" SF...he better be really special whenever he sees the floor or he's not going to see it often.
If Malik were highly valued he would have been given offers to other NBA teams. ST posters aren't the only ones who have seen him play. Ian was signed fairly quickly as soon as he entered free agency. Your emotions are really making this whole thing awkward.
Why you mad? Why is it so hard for you to believe that the Spurs liked Hairston and would have liked to have had him stick around, but actually sat down with the guy and told him what the real situation was? That they had Ginobili, Hill, Jefferson, Anderson and Neal playing at the 2/3 and Malik would be put in the same situation he was last year. I'll be mildly shocked if we don't hear about how the Spurs felt it necessary to do right by the player and let him know exactly what was up.
I don't have a problem with Malik choosing to go elsewhere when given that information, and I actually respect the Spurs for being as brutally honest as possible with their players (which they've been known to be and I believe they did in this case). The Spurs most likely didn't see the time for him to really play and that because he was out of D-League eligibility he wouldn't have the opportunity to improve his game riding the bench.
This all makes sense put into the Spurs' recent perspective and decision making, but I simply don't agree with the thought process. They've been mixing their message for 3 years now saying they're still this defensive team, yet they leave Duncan on an island with the likes of Bonner defensively and their first line of defense is nowhere near where it used to be.
The Spurs have built their championship success on defense. They've strayed -- all I can hope for is that the combination of Anderson and Temple can really do some positive things on the perimeter defensively. The Spurs need a trade as-is to be a real contender, but they're going to need the young guys come through as well (well, until they sign the next Bogans, that is).
Last edited by Blackjack; 07-30-2010 at 12:04 AM.
Why would i be mad?
So the Spurs had a guy that they saw a lot of potential in, wanted to have on the roster, had under contract, but released him because they wanted to do right by Malik? The Spurs don't even have a legitimate backup SF. It doesn't make sense that they would release the guy unless they preferred Gee or didn't see making the team.
Again, you're painting Hairston as a great defensive player. He was competent and athletic but lacked the lateral quickness it takes to guard perimeter players. If he were better than bogans defensively he would have seen more minutes. You deciding that he was a defensive specialist doesn't make it so.
Complete dumbass takes like the above is why this discussion is pointless.
You think he had the quickness to guard other 6'4-6'5 perimeter players? I saw a guy who was better at guarding SF's who bodied up with him. And while i think Malik was a better offensive player and enjoyed watching him more than Bogans, im not sure how you can say Hairston was better defensively.
I can think of other reasons why this discussion is pointless.
In the practice they don't do?
What exactly were you watching to be so dismissive of him being able to contribute? Is' George Hill Bowen's equal and was the Spurs frontline so vaunted they didn't need perimeter defense; Hairston was their most versatile and best equipped defensive player on the perimeter last year. He didn't play. Bogans did. That's a fact. And no one who saw last year's Summer League or followed the preseason would tell you Malik didn't outplay Bogans for the job. So what exactly can he prove in the practices they don't have and in limited and sporadic minutes, often meaningless, he gets during the season?
Because you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.You just made the comparison...after you said you're not comparing them. Their skill sets are very different, and though he was reasonably competent on defense, i fail to see how you can paint him as a defensive ace.
What exactly would have been Malik's role had he been given the opportunity? Was it not the same one Bogans was given, the one molded from the likes of Bowen? It's not that hard to figure if you just read the post and don't come at the post with a preconceived notion.
What spot minutes did you see consistently, the last 2 seconds of quarters? A couple of minutes here or there, never a consistent look or role? The funny thing is, you and others can be so dismissive of Hairston's ability because you don't like how some of us have fun with THC or because people like myself have been a fan before he was a Spur, you just feel the need to on the guy to prove a point to us. Keith Bogans was playing the minutes he should have been playing. Keith Bogans. You do realize this is the guy you're saying Malik had no business playing in front of or that he didn't show enough to deserve a look, right? Keith Bogans. The Bulldog. The Centerpiece. Yeah. That guy. At least you and a few others are consistent with the failed logic, though.You've already said he's a spot player...so how many minutes does this guy need to get into both a defensive and offensive rhythm? Apparently he's a spot player who needs more than spot minutes to perform well. He's a 6'5" SF...he better be really special whenever he sees the floor or he's not going to see it often.
See, this is one of those things that I alluded to where you've already made a judgment and come to a conclusion before you've actually read and comprehended what was written. If Malik would have been playing, proving his worth, showing what he was capable of and being able to put himself on the radar, he'd probably generate some interest from a couple of teams. That's how it works. You have to either be a no-doubt prospect or given an opportunity to prove your worth to find one GM or personnel evaluator or decision maker to believe in you and want to take a chance on you. It's kinda hard to do when you're on the bench behind Keith Bogans. That one. Same guy.If Malik were highly valued he would have been given offers to other NBA teams. ST posters aren't the only ones who have seen him play. Ian was signed fairly quickly as soon as he entered free agency. Your emotions are really making this whole thing awkward.
Read, comprehend, breathe, reply. There's no rush to be a curmudgeon. You've got all the time in the world -- or you could just move along if the guy's so irrelevant to you. I mean, why must you be so compelled to speak negatively on the topic of a guy who did everything right, busted his ass and had a lot of fans in the Spurs organization? Oh, that's right. It has nothing to do with Malik and everything to do with people like myself. People who root for a player and question the Spurs thought process from time to time.
Keith "Centerpiece" Bogans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
