Reply With Quote
I find it pretty amusing how everyone is so adamant on adding a small forward with length and that can shoot the three, yet Sam Young provides neither.
If Parker walks the Spurs are in complete rebuild mode...not just at the PG.
Here and now is the priority and for this year Young would be the perfect fit for the back up SF spot both in price and ability. The Spurs seemed to think so too...as they had their eyes on him before Blair fell to them .
I find it pretty amusing how everyone is so adamant on adding a small forward with length and that can shoot the three, yet Sam Young provides neither.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 07-31-2010 at 11:35 PM.
So true.
If you're going to trade them an unguaranteed contract that they will just waive why sacrifice Gee? Give them Jerrells and keep Gee with the Toros.
where does the Sam young talk come from? were there rumors he is on the block? if yes, he is an intriguing option, if the price is reasonable. right, he isn't long, but has a good wingspan and is really strong. he shot decent in his last college years, maybe last season was bad because of adjustment struggle.
however, but why should the Grizzlies want to trade him?
if they think they have to many wings and forwards, wouldn't they try to get rid of Carroll, who played much worse than Young, despite being drafted in the 1st round.
before this turns into a trade proposals thread:
from the remaining FAs, Hayes seems to be the best option. by far IMO.
Gee, Temple, it doesn't really matter. Obviously, I'd prefer to keep Temple in this scenario, because the Spurs would be set on the wings, making Gee expendable, but I don't see Temple as a deal breaker. At best, I see him as an adequate backup combo guard, but he's a replaceable piece.
Plus, the Grizzlies may prefer a true PG and a veteran one. They already have a rookie combo guard to play backup PG, so even if Temple had to go in the deal, there's a chance he would be waived too.
But he is a true SF, inexpensive, young, athletic and could fill the wing defender off the bench role. He's also a guy who can fill in as a starting SF if Jefferson goes down, which is something the Spurs don't currently have.
My main issue with Young is he'd be another Spurs wing who could provide one of shooting or defense (in his case, defense), but not both. They need one player who can provide both.
But I still see this as worthwhile if the Grizzlies would do it. Not only would it improve the team next season, but it would give them another decent trade asset going forward. Young has more value than Gee and Temple.
This is why I think the Grizzlies would be open to trading him in the type of deal I suggested: With Gay, Mayo, Henry and Allen, Young is expendable. Allen in particular makes him expendable, because he's of the same ilk and will be taking on Young's role.
Plus, Hollins supposedly wants another PG (Conley is their only true PG; Mayo/Vasquez are set to handle the backup duties), but Heisley is supposedly too cheap to okay that. They could waive Gee, who's contract is not guaranteed, then take the open roster spot/savings from that to sign a backup PG.
Similar to the Brockman trade, the Kings traded him because they were well stocked with bigs and he was no longer needed. I realize he's a lesser prospect than Young, but the same logic applies here. Young isn't a blue chipper, to where I could see them not wanting to move him unless it's a no brainer type of deal.
When you're as cheap a franchise as the Grizzlies, you have to prioritize. They're well stocked on the wings and they have Young's role covered with Allen, so why not look to fill a more pressing need (backup PG)? This would give them the money/roster space to do so.
Carroll is irrelevant. He's not going to be in the rotation unless he plays exclusively at PF and beats out Arthur as the primary backup. Short of that, he's likely to be the 12th man. Trading Young makes sense because he's a wasted asset sitting on the bench.
No way the Grizz would trade Young for Temple or Gee. They would want Hill or DB.
I'm not saying they for sure would, but this trade or a similar type of trade makes sense for them. Young has no role now or going forward, unless they're going to exclusively use Mayo as the backup PG or Gay as the backup PF. But even if they did do either of those things, that would probably just mean more minutes for Henry and Allen. Unless both of these scenarios occur simultaneously (which is unlikely), Young's probably not getting anything resembling consistent minutes.
This proposed trade, from their perspective, is not about getting equal value as much as it is it's about clearing a roster spot/salary to sign a backup PG. They claim they expect to make the playoffs next season. They're already going to be hard pressed, but if they think they can get by with Conley as their lone true PG, then they're only going to the task even more difficult.
If they take the savings from this, sign a decent backup PG, squeak into the playoffs and get a few home playoff games, that's more valuable for a franchise like that than having a so-so prospect, who has no role now or going forward, rotting on the bench. Plus, not that it's great value, but they'd get a 2nd round pick back as well.
When you're that cheap of a franchise, trades like this should be considered. Maybe this exact one isn't great for them, but something similar makes sense. Unless they can trade him straight up for a capable backup PG who makes less than $1 million.
hm. wouldn't a franchise in need of a PG and with an abundance at the wing try to trade a wing player for a PG instead of sacrifice an asset and then seek replacement on an extremely dried out FA market?
and if they are that cheap, why do they want to give up the rotation player with the by far most inexpensive contract? and roster spots they still have enough available. (after signing Henry they are at 12)
all this doesn't make that much sense, doesn't it? however, I repeat it - if there is a chance to get Young without give up good assets, let's do it. I just can't see how.
just read this and wondered if we ever mentioned him. however, hard to tell if he had become a legit NBA prospect at all. size and athleticism are there though.Air Avellino, close to sign Reyshawn Terry http://bit.ly/b5mfyn
Love to see us S&T Mason/Bogans/both/whatever for James johnson. He's a type of player we simply don't have. Doubt it will happen, but I'm intrigued by his energy off the bench and the matchups he could cover as an athletic tweener 3/4.
I already said something along the lines of "if they can trade him for a PG that matches certain parameters, then that obviously makes more sense". You find me an available, decent, inexpensive ($1 million or less) PG that can be had for Young.
Young is an asset, but he's not a great one and when you're this cheap a franchise, you should prioritize. Barring something unforeseen, they have four wings, who are all young and locked in, ahead of him on the depth chart.
If you're going to pick apart what I wrote, at least read it all before doing so. I've already gone over a lot of this. From why they'd trade him despite him being a decent asset and being inexpensive to they fact that Heisley supposedly won't allow them to add another player despite having two open roster spots, etc.
http://www.48minutesof .com/2010/...mall-forwards/
Slim pickins', friends.
I'm not sure Spurs will sign another vet to a guaranteed contracts.
Spurs can carry only 13 players because of the luxury tax. They have 11 players under guaranteed contract and 3 (Gee, Temple and Jerrells) with non-guaranteed contracts. Gee and Temple have shown interesting things and Spurs seem to be high on them.
If Spurs sign a vet with a guaranteed contract, an almost sure consequence is that one of Gee and Temple will be waived. If Spurs want to keep both, they will have to do later in the season a salary dump thread which could be costly and complicate. Spurs will put themselves in a situation where young players they like won't get a fair shot to stick with the team. I'm not sure it's what they want.
I can see Spurs signing a vet with a partially guaranteed contract and letting him fight with Gee, Jerrels and Temple for the 12th and 13th roster spots.
That sounds right. Apparently the Spurs FO has decided that there was no vet FA to be had on the cheap that could put the team over the top (think Horry or Kerr), so they'd better stick to the young players for the rebuild phase which is coming soon.
But I can really see the Spurs signing a vet before camp to keep the young players on their toes - kind of a mini-playoffs, cut throat ambiance to see if they have the guts to step up.
As long is RJ is healthy, the hole at SF minutes-wise isn't a huge one. If RJ gets the 31 mpg he got last year, then that leaves 17 minutes for the Spurs to play the 1/2/3 equivalent of small ball. That means a lot of lineups of Parker/Hill/Manu, or Hill/Neal/Manu, or Parker/Hill/Anderson, etc.. Against some teams, this may be a big deal defensively, but I think these 3-guard lineups will work just fine against a lot of the teams in the NBA.
If Anderson and/or Neal (or Gee, if he gets minutes) prove to be defensive liabilities, then Pop needs to find a way to manage the rotations such that the strongest defensive big men are behind these three-guard lineups. At this point that looks like Duncan/Splitter or Duncan/McDyess.
I do not believe the spurs will make any more moves this off season. I actually think the rotation at the 3 will be RJ,temple, and Anderson with Gee getting most of his PT in austin.
Spurs have played significant minutes with a 3 guard lineup this past couple of years but there are some matchups where you need some "meat" at the SF spot.
The only player on the roster, besides RJ, with enough strength to be match up against strongest SF like Lebron or Carmelo is Alonzo Gee. If Gee fails, Spurs are in trouble and will need to get another strong/big wing.
Nobody can match up with those guys, lets be honest..Even when the spurs had the greatest NBA defender Bruce Bowen they could not match up with those 2, they are probably the 2 best in the world at that position. I would prefer the quickness of Temple at the 3 over some veteran scrub with "strength" who can not provide anything else on the court other than his lb's..
it sure that nobody will stop them but I think putting Temple on them would be a disaster.
anybody on the SF FA market, Gee, Temple, RJ, and Manu against those 2 would probably equal disaster..Its not about stopping guys like LBJ or Melo, its about making them work as hard as possible in getting what they are going to get anyway, which is pts..
Gee has the physical tools to do a way better job on them than Temple can. Even vets in the Udoka/Bogans mold will likely do a better job against them.
Exactly. If Jefferson is healthy, the Spurs are still thin in that area. If he were to suc b to injury, then what? 48 minutes of 3 guards roaming the perimeter?
Based on what's available, Bobby Jones makes sense. He's an improved shooter, at 38.8% from three and has always been a good defender. Plus, at about 6-7 210, he's got legit size and strength for an SF. Just a hunch, but my guess is he'd accept a non-guaranteed contract. He's already done so about 37 times in his career.
Hayes is the other option they should consider. But while Hayes is an average defender, Jones is an above average one. Jones is also younger and, I'm not going to definitively call him a better shooter than Hayes, but if he's around as good a shooter at this point, then I'd give him the edge overall.
Gee has nice potential and an NBA body, but I just don't see a role for him on this team now or in the near future. They need three point shooting and plus defending at SF (I say SF because he's not going to get minutes at SG on this team) and he provides neither. Maybe sometime in the future, he carves out a niche for doing one of these things well, but if the Spurs are only going to carry 13 players, then they need an immediate contributor in at least one of those two areas at SF.
Apparently Jones has already signed in Italy. Had the Spurs known they were going to lose Hairston, I think they they would have offered Jones a non guaranteed contract. Unfortunately for them (if they were going to do that), Jones signed the same day Hairston signed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
