Reply With Quote
The whole business summed up in one sentence. Extending Parker, drafting Anderson, and finding Neal combined to make George expendable. It's just that simple.
Answer me this..
Do you think it's smart basketball business to pay a back up combo/guard 6-7 million per year, when you already have an All-Star point guard demanding 33-35 minutes a night making 12.5 million per year?
At the same time, do you think it's smart to pay a back up SG 6-7 million per year, when you already have two quality back up's in Anderson and Neal for 1/6th of that 6-7 million price tag?
Hill didn't and doesn't have a future here from a common sense perspective if Parker is here. That has to do with Parker, the draft of Anderson and the coming out party of Neal last year. It just didn't make sense, unless Spurs thought of Hill as Manu's replacement at the SG position, which they obviously didn't considering his size. Which is totally understandable.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 06-25-2011 at 02:37 PM.
The whole business summed up in one sentence. Extending Parker, drafting Anderson, and finding Neal combined to make George expendable. It's just that simple.
Answer me this...
Since when is keeping your veteran core for one last stand and trading your best young asset and 4th best player on the team, for a player that wont have an immediate impact a smart move?
Thats the only question I want answered.
Your question has been answered multiple times. It seems as if you don't like the answer, but the question has been answered.
Sacrificing young talent for established players is understandable and happens all the time. Sacrificing young talent for even younger raw talent when youre still trying to contend is re ed, plain and simple.
See. You just didn't like the answers.
I get what your saying and I understand the logic behind the move. I'm breaking it down like this: spurs aren't any closer to truly contending because of the move. They didn't do any thing to help usher in a rebuild either.
In that case, I figured they wouldn't give up a player that is young and proven that they say they loved unless it really accomplished something immediately by trading him either towards making a push to contend or rebuilding.
Again, I understand there might be more to the off season, I'm simply analyzing the trade that actually happened and where it puts the Spurs as they currently sit. I have no real feeling toward the actual trade in a buble as it is with two players that likely have about the same overall skill level.
TJ and FkLA went all in on George's being the starting point guard for the Spurs.
It's a little poignant watching their dream die, but it's a little pathetic seeing it take over their entire lives like this.
lol might
Because the gap between the 4th best player (Hill) and Neal/Anderson wasn't and isn't significant. Neal and Anderson are more than capable to fill in the void left by Hill on both ends.
And how do you know Leonard won't have an impact? He only happened to be the best small forward prospect in the entire draft (a position of weakness the past 3 years). And he only happens to fit the skill-set of a player that the Spurs have needed ever since Bowen retired. If you watched any games last year, Spurs were physically out manned on the perimeter at the expense of Hill and Neal playing out of their positions (SF/SG).
Next year, with Leonard and the freeing up of playing time for Anderson, the Spurs instantly improve their perimeter defense. At the same time, Leonard and Anderson will help the interior defense-- given their size and superior physicality. Not saying they will be playing the 4 obviously, but they will be able to lend the bigs a significant helping hand considering their length and size-- rotating over and getting a hand up to contest off the ball. Or shoring up defensive possessions by limiting teams to one shot by their superior rebounding (Leonard) or by being able to put their big bodies on big 2-4's when blocking out.
Spurs won this trade.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 06-25-2011 at 02:33 PM.
I think they are basically setting it up so that as Tim and Manu's career winds down, they are just one ty season away from being a contender again vs. two. If you trade young players for "win now" guys, you are probably talking about veteran players with fairly large contracts. Now if the Spurs don't win a trophy (what deal is out there to make the Spurs a le favorite?), then bottom out and get a top 3 pick, that great player will enter a team with a bunch of old players and complicated cap situation. You now have to begin the process of surrounding this player with solid role players, and we're talking about a 4-5 year rebuild, a couple of which would probably be really crappy seasons.
But if you do what they are doing...build toward the future but also remain in contention in the short term, then it's more unlikely you win a trophy but only marginally. Meanwhile if the same scenario plays out and you bottom out in the near future, winding up with the same top 3 pick and great player, he's entering a team surrounded by role players entering their prime. Now we have maybe a 2-3 year rebuild with only the one really crappy years.
No. I love Neal and his shooting but he doesnt bring the things to the table that Hill did offensively. Neither does Anderson from what little we got to see of him. Defensively its even worse, while somewhat overrated Hill was our best perimeter defender last season.
He also happens to be a 20 yr old rookie playing behind a player with a 40 million dollar contract. Expect 10-15 mpg out of him, tops.And he only happens to fit the skill-set of a player that the Spurs have needed ever since Bowen retired.
In a couple of years maybe, when Leonard has fully developed and is playing big minutes for this team. When Tim & Manu are gone and we're no longer contenders.Spurs won this trade.
lol contract playing time
Apparantly not for some on here.
The whole business summed up in one sentence. Extending Parker, drafting Anderson, and finding Neal combined to make George expendable. It's just that simple.
Size and defense was not a weakness according to Fkla and TJastal.
Spurs need to keep every two guard according to them, especially if parting with one helps the size and defense category. They would rather pass because every roster needs AT LEAST four quality shooting guards.
If Hill eventually became the "starting" point guard for the Spurs, well, we'd become a lottery team quicker than you could say "TJastal makes no sense and is probably George Hill's cousin."
Their 'best young asset' wasn't that good to begin with. He was serviceable as a backup, and that about sums it up. There's other not-best, but pretty-good-and-still-serviceable players that can fill that role. On the other hand, the Spurs have had a huge hole at SF since Bowen retired, and still do. So it makes total sense to try to shore up that position.
BTW, it's June. There's plenty of time for other moves.
He could have but the Spurs would've had to make a serious monetary commitment to him after 11-12, or let him walk... which is not what you want to do if you're going to be rebuilding.
2011 playoffs:
- Hill: 11.7 ppg in 31.5 minutes
- Neal: 7.7 ppg in 18.5 minutes
So the bet is: can Anderson contribute 4 points in 13 minutes?
Actually, it does help the Spurs should they decide to blow it up. They won't be forced to have to match a stupid money offer for Hill while fetching cheap contracts (what you want to have in a rebuilding team) in exchange for it.
This move gives them more financial flexibility going forward. Hate to say it, but this might have been accelerated because of RJ's stupid and untradeable contract.
Exactly!
Also by the same token, if Hill could've replicated some of the skills and contributions of Parker, as a true backup PG, the organization probably would've shippped Parker out and kept Hill, at a lower cost to the franchise.
If anyone doesn't get that there is a definite economical side to these decisions, then you're not looking closely enough. It's just good business - and the Spurs have proven they're one of the best in the NBA at it.
I believe that's the other side of the coin that has not been expressed enough. The FO overestimated and guessed wrong on RJ. Because of him being a misfit on the court, and a salary albatross off of it, they couldn't give RJ away to another team. Therefore, the Spurs were forced to upgrade the SF position, with a player who could provide many of the skills that they thought RJ would've provided - skills this team has lacked since Bowen left.
In the process, Hill was sacrificed to faciliate that upgrade.
So yall think the Parker rumors were all a smokescreen?
The Spurs believed in Hill as a PG otherwise they wouldnt have shopped Parker. If anything halted Parker trade talks it was the Spurs insistence to include RJ not their lack of confidence in Hill as a PG.
Based on what, the Spurs record when Hill was a starter due to Parker injuries? You might want to look that up first.
Great argument.
I wouldn't close the book on trading RJ just yet. The only trades mentioned were horrible. There was no reason to do any of them at this point.
I think some other teams floated some trades, and the Spurs made a counteroffer that would have made it work for them.So yall think the Parker rumors were all a smokescreen?
The dream is dead. You look silly now.The Spurs believed in Hill as a PG otherwise they wouldnt have shopped Parker. If anything halted Parker trade talks it was the Spurs insistence to include RJ not their lack of confidence in Hill as a PG.
I don't know that it was Tony specifically that was shopped as much as the Tony/RJ combo... if they did want Tony moved, they had a few offers they could've pulled the trigger on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
