Valid points. But, imo, Pop and RC wouldn't had made this move if they didn't believe Neal and Anderson couldn't handle increased roles. With both Pop and RC being extremely fond of George, this trade should also tell you the confidence they have in Neal and to a lesser degree, Anderson, to fill the void of Hill's trade to the Pacers.
pretty much. As of right now we are a worse team and I did not want that for Duncan's last season. In the long term we MIGHT be better off, but coming into NEXT SEASON we are a worse team, not to mention Dice is gone and we haven't got a replacement.
this is the kinda move the Front Office said: forget Duncan, forget Manu, forget the fans. The future of the business is first.
Just like Hill.
goddam what is this river of tears. Grow some balls. it was just George Hill. Dude had potential but nothing special. He had plenty of chances to fluorish and in the end was mediocre, mas o menos, so-so.
don't get me wrong. Hill was still the 4th best Spur. But that's because we have a team.
Cough"Neal"Cough!
I get this point you are trying to make but I don't agree with your implication that it's a relevant issue when the Spurs have NBA proven players in Neal and Anderson ready and more than capable to fill in the void at the SG spot (where Hill played 80% of his minutes).
Spurs won't lose much if at all with Hill being gone from an offensive perspective because of Neal and Anderson deserving and worthy of more minutes and being just as good or better shooters than Hill (Hill was more of a spot up shooter than anything else). Hill was expendable, even if he was a rotation player last year.
That being said, I don't see this team taking a step back from offensive perspective with Hill being gone (Spurs have a lot of weapons outside of Neal/Anderson as well). Furthermore, the Spurs improved from a defensive perspective as they drafted the best small forward in the draft that happens to be very defensive oriented and gifted (6'7" frame- 7'3" wingspan). And at the same time, the move allows Anderson to get quality burn now-- who is a damn good defender and has to size to guard wings more effectively.
Last year, the Spurs used Neal and Hill quite often at the 2/3 spot behind the Jefferson-Ginobili-Parker starting lineup. Neal and Hill were asked and forced to guard long 2's and 3's quite often and their size was a glaring weakness from a defensive perspective (Sam Young, Vasquez, Allen had a field day in the first round). With this move, Spurs now have minutes available to integrate wings w/ size (Leonard/Anderson) into the rotation. And they still have Neal in their arsenal as well.
I don't see how this sets the Spurs back for now or for the future. If Spurs traded Hill for a questionable late first rounder ( Jimmy Butler) and didn't have quality depth at the two spot (Neal/Anderson) then I'd agree with you. But that is simply not the case. IMO
This shouldn't be surprising. It's like when Malik left, the blind homers who thought he was worth a top 5 pick or a trade for Kobe are getting bent.
Meanwhile:
From CNN/SI:
"Kawhi Leonard, 6-7 sop re forward, San Diego State. The kid is a complete gym rat. They say he's going into the gym at night, getting janitors to open the place up for him, so he's going to work hard to get better. I heard during a workout in Washington he just destroyed Jordan Hamilton. About halfway through, Hamilton quit because he couldn't get his shot off. [Hamilton told reporters that he felt dizzy during the June 7 workout.] "
It doesn't necessarily set them back. It doesn't necessarily move the forward. That is the only point I'm really making. There are definitely arguments to why they might be slightly better off or slightly worse. But either way, they gave up a solid young asset and the team right now or in the future doesn't have a pretty clear path on improving. Regardless of whether or not Hill was expendable or you think the Spurs marginally improve, the fact is the Spurs had to make one of two decisions: Keep going all in to become a true contender for Tims last year or blow it up. The moves in the draft really didn't even begin to accomplish either.
Its not a small tweak needed to truly contend or rebuild IMO. I would rather them push hard to contend but in reality I don't care either way as long as they don't just shuffle their feet.
I don't think there is or was a huge move to make that would catapult them into clear cut favorites ala summer of 10' Heat. That's not going to happen.
Spurs are right behind the elite of the league. One or two subtle moves to improve their defense could do the trick. look at the Mavs, last year they were one and done and the next year they win the le with the addition of Chandler and subtraction of Beaubois/Butler.
Wow. We finally get a potentially stud defender at the SF, a guy with the length to actually trouble Dirk some, and who also happens to be a phenomenal rebounder for his position, and people are kvetching about our back-up combo guard.
IMO-- Spurs have to make a move to improve their front-court. Bonner or Blair has to go.
One move I'd love is to move Blair/Jefferson and a 1st for Varejao.
Another one I'd consider is McDyess/Blair for Brandon Bass.
Kaman and Tyrus Thomas are also likely candidates to target.
I guess that's where we disagree. Mavs have their best player still playing like a top 5 guy, Spurs don't. Tyson was a pretty major addition and they didn't know Caron would get hurt.
Spurs don't have a superstar any more. I'm not expecting a blockbuster, but they will need to add more than minor tweaks to truly contend IMO.
If this leads to something else, that's fine, but I'm just analyzing the current situation and what has actually happened to date. Like I said, I don't love the trade at the moment, but I don't hate it. It will be predicated on what they do next whether it at least makes more sense to me in the bigger scheme of things.
To me right now, the move looks to be more financial than part of any plans to do something basketball wise.
You realize he's 19 and Richard Jefferson is on the roster right? I don't think anyone is " ing" about getting Leonard, at least I'm not. But thanks for the tl;dr.
Your comment sounds a lot like when Tiago arrived. "We finally got our starting center, this changes everything!!!!". It's not that Tiago can't help, it's looking at who is on the roster, who the coach is comfy with and how big of an adjustment NBA rookies outside of top 3 picks normally have to make.
td was playin awesome in the memphis series for most of the first halves in each game, then they stop going to him or he didnt demand the ball...
that series shoes td can still get his when the morons on the team decide to go to him
No, I agree with the bold part. But that doesn't change the fact that Mavs went from one and done to winning a championship with one or two minor tweaks. (Who Spurs managed to beat the previous season in the playoffs w/out a top 5 player.)
Spurs don't have a top 5 player in the league anymore, but with Manu and Tony healthy (seems like we've been using this hypothetical for a while now which never pans out; oh well--rinse and repeat) Spurs have two top guards able to put up 20 plus any given night in the playoffs. I don't think the separation between the Spurs and the Mavs is significant-- if anything it's very small. One or two subtle/significant moves could change things.
We are talking about a team that just won 61 games, not a lottery team.
You can't sit there and tell me you think the Mavs are leaps and bounds better than the Spurs. They are not. Spurs are right there behind them, even with Duncan in father time (sad).
Soooo why don't you love the trade? We pick up a player who can actually play defense. Offense was not the problem last year..Spurs are addressing their weak link, a wing defender. He hasn't even played a game yet and he is our best defender..Spurs need help defenseively and they are starting to address it. One move at a time.
Fianances definitely played a part of the Hill trade imo, but I do not believe that was the sole purpose. Because of the Spur's depth at the 2, they could afford to make this move, and the players acquired, although just rooks, have a chance to stick because of their defensive abilities.
http://www.sbnation.com/nba-draft/20...ll-tony-parker
29-year-old three-time All-Star, for a lottery pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. Instead, they traded zero-time All-Star George Hill and landed a player that should have gone in the lottery. Unfair, you guys.
Gained: Kawhi Leonard, Davis Bertans.
Gave up: George Hill.
Synopsis: Hill's pretty good, but he's not exactly a good starter. He can be a starter, and might be in Indiana. But if he were to become the starter in San Antonio, that'd be a position of relative weakness. Parker is one of the best in the NBA. George Hill will never be.
Leonard? We'll see. He's got potential and he's dirt cheap for a few years. He fits the San Antonio mold -- tough, defensive-minded -- and won't get in the way of Manu Ginobili or Parker too much. Bertans, meanwhile, was expected to go in the first round, and as such, is absolutely gravy in this deal. In a few years, the Spurs could have netted two promising, rising forwards. The Pacers will have netted George Hill.
Grade: A+.
How do you know Hill won't turn into a star in Indiana. He no longer will be playing in the shadows of parker and Manu and will flourish in Indiana. He will be a boderline all star there with lots of opportunity to play.
His confidence level will increase with the added playing time and they probably will mainly play him at the 2, his more natural position. There have been times when hill showed how good he can be with the Spurs but those times were far and few between. It was a confidence issue with him playing in a backup role. That won't happen in Indiana.
He will have a better year than Leonard. the trade is not bad for the spurs because Leonard fills a needed role and the spurs had a logjam at the 2 and Hill should not have been logging many minutes at pg anyways but Hill will outperform Leonard.
Its a trade that will help both teams. But
The Spurs should have dealt manu for an impact borderline star big and moved Hill over to the 2. That would have been the best for the team.
Because as it stands now the Spurs still have the same core team that has been regressing in the playoffs, that will likely just add an over the hill type of player on the frontline who won't be enough of a difference maker.
Throw my 2c in if i may... Im on Manu4Tres' side of the fence on this one ... i think even if you put all stuff financial aside such as Hill being moved because the Spurs were worried they couldnt pay him next summer.. You can still argue the Spurs get better.
The Spurs can replace Hill's minutes with Neal and Anderson who is the better prospect anywau. Is the drop off from Hill to Neal/Anderson for those extra 25 minutes as big a drop off as having RJ and and guys like Manu Hill and Neal playing the 3 over having a defender like Leonard on the floor. In other words I think the subs ution of Neal/JA for Hill is a very small drop off (assuming there is one, remembering that JA could get an opportunty to blossom that he may not have gotten with Hill here) while the gain of having a guy like Leonard (albeit unproven like every draft pick) defending the 3 spot over RJ Hill Neal and Manu defending the 3 spot to be is likely going to be a significant gain almost by default.
To me its a very good trade.
You keep calling Tyson Chandler a minor tweak? That's what I don't get. Whether the Spurs are way behind the Mavs or not, they have legit things they need to address and the Mavs aren't the only team to be concerned with.
You and I just disagree with regards to where the Spurs are at from a contender standpoint. I was a vocal minority that said before the season Spurs werent true contenders. That doesn't mean I think they were way off, but I knew their margin for error was nil. They surprised me with a 60+'win season, but I don't put too much stock in that. Most knew they overachiever and they flamed out against a mediocre team. It's hard to tell where they were at bc of injuries, but that's a legit problem and not a fluke.
Again, I don't mind the trade and can see myself really liking it, but as of now the Spurs are completely stuck in no mans land.
Your not going to get a "impact borderline star big" for Ginoboli.
Only teams that would be interested in Manu are contenders, who would just offer crap they don't want (that brings the Spurs cap relief) and future assets (draft picks). Even Manu doesn't have as much value as you're implying due to his age.
Spurs wouldn't be able to get a "borderline superstar" to help now. That is unrealistic.
Here's how I view the draft: The Spurs are preparing for a post-Duncan/Ginobili future without a significant negative impact on the present. The lose a good player in Hill, but one who wasn't going to legitimately be able to replace TP or Manu this year. They gain a defensive upgrade at the weakest position on the roster and a decent replacement for the guy they gave up. Plus, three really high potential draft and stash projects.
The obvious next step is an upgrade in the post. They have RJ (who can still be valuable to a team given the right situation), McDyess' expiring and Blair as a possible kicker. Hopefully, they can find a solid big (Hickson, Thomas, Varejao, etc.) for a combo of those players. The bench might suffer a bit, but there is still free agency to add a piece or two.
I'm not counting on anything spectacular, but maybe a couple of tweaks (especially defensively) is just what the Spurs need. It's all pretty speculative at this point, but an improvement in Anderson, Neal and Splitter should be expected . . . not to mention Butler who could turn into what is essentially another high first round draft pick for the Spurs.
At the very least, the potential is pretty exciting and even if they fall short again, I feel pretty positive about the future, which I absolutely did not before last night.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
