Aldridge: Neal told to expect some minutes at PG

[TD 21]

Exactly my point.

At the same time, I rather use the current trading assets for a starting caliber power forward that has the length, size, and mobility to defend and rebound effectively. That is the biggest issue right now. A lot more so than trying to improve the back-up point guard situation which would only hinder the progression of our best young prospects at the wing.

No question, starting PF -- specifically the type you alluded to -- is the biggest issue right now. But if they trade for that player, there's a good chance one of the wings will be in the trade. Since there's a good chance that type of PF will be making at least $5 million a season, the only way I could see the Spurs taking on that amount of salary is if they're able to get rid of Jefferson in the process. Which would open up more minutes for the young wing prospects and pave the way to sign a credible backup PG, such as Watson.

I don't think it is as necessary.

You will, if they don't sign someone like Watson and Parker is injured for more than a couple of games.

I'm not underestimating how lightning quick some point guards are. I'm just understanding their limited roles on irrelevant teams. I don't think this is as relevant as you're implying. The only mismatch that should have the Spurs worry about is Barea (and he might not even return to Dallas--because of the additions of Butler/Fernandez). The other players play for teams that aren't in contention or play for teams in other conferences and at the same time they are back-ups who play limited minutes and have a small role for their teams. It's not as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

The biggest issue is interior defense, now that Spurs have improved their perimeter defense with the additions of Leonard and essentially Anderson.

Limited or not, they're NBA players and they're pretty much all scoring PG's. If they have a significant advantage, they're liable to have a big game and enough of them could be the difference between a 1-3 seed or a 4-6 seed. We've seen this many times in recent seasons. Ford has went off a few times, Bayless had a career game against them, Brooks and Lowy ran wild in a game, Beaubois nearly singlehandedly sent a series to game 7 (and might have, had Carlisle either left him in, or put him back in). And that was all with Hill on the team, who's one of the better PG defenders in the league.

I agree that the Mavs are the biggest concern in this regard and that the Fernandez acquisition sealed Barea's fate, in terms of him not returning. But they have Beaubois to replace him.

They've improved the perimeter defense in theory only. In reality, as presently cons uted, one of Anderson or Leonard will most likely not play major minutes and may not be in the rotation altogether. They've gotten bigger on the perimeter, but they've also gotten slower.

No I don't think it's a recipe for "disaster". Why? I elaborated above on why.

I think improving the Blair and Bonner situation is the bigger issue. Spurs just can't play them together. Spurs have to improve that situation through trade by parting with one of them. Having them on the court simultaneously hurts the defense in so many ways. If Spurs can't improve that area, it doesn't matter who the Spurs have on the perimeter to defend-- the paint will get exposed by guards and post players.

Obviously, that's the bigger issue, but this is still a issue.

[ElNono]

Several reasons

1) Talent
2) Defensive ceiling
3) Offensive ceiling
4) Size
5) Progression of Anderson and Leonard (two best wing prospects in the Spurs organization)-- They need playing time and are more than capable.
6) Arroyo/Quinn type isn't significantly better than Neal in any point guard attribute on either end of the floor. Therefore, playing an Arroyo/Quinn type just because they are a labeled "point guard" is a stupid thing to do if it hinders the progression of young players with higher ceilings. Playing Neal at back-up point allows the Spurs to develop and give their best young talent playing time.

I disagree. I think Arroyo is a seasoned 9 year NBA vet, really good team-oriented point guard and would fit well in a system like the Spurs in the backup PG role.

Progression is nice and all, but the Spurs are banking to win now.
Anderson isn't a bad contract to keep around as insurance in case Neal fizzles or the team decides to go full tank mode after this season (rookie deals is what you want to have at that point). But the SG position is overloaded, and playing guys out of position so you can get progression from rooks isn't my idea of trying to contend, tbh.

Seeing that Bonner won't be moved, nor lose a spot on the roster, I wouldn't mind moving Anderson or Blair (or both) along with the Dice trade chip for an upgrade in the frontcourt.

[MaNu4Tres]

No question, starting PF -- specifically the type you alluded to -- is the biggest issue right now. But if they trade for that player, there's a good chance one of the wings will be in the trade. Since there's a good chance that type of PF will be making at least $5 million a season, the only way I could see the Spurs taking on that amount of salary is if they're able to get rid of Jefferson in the process. Which would open up more minutes for the young wing prospects and pave the way to sign a credible backup PG, such as Watson.

You will, if they don't sign someone like Watson and Parker is injured for more than a couple of games.

If that's the case, the Spurs will be extremely lucky to get Watson for the minimum. For one, he's the best eligible point guard for the minimum on the market and secondly, his market value is arguably higher than the minimum. Third, San Antonio isn't as attractive to high quality minimum players anymore. Usually those attractive top minimum free agents are attracted to championship scenarios, which includes a definite opportunity for significant playing time. That doesn't match what the Spurs have to offer compared to other elite suitors. Realistically, the Spurs are going to have a better opportunity at signing an Arroyo or bring in a player from the D-League to help (like D.J Strawberry).

Limited or not, they're NBA players and they're pretty much all scoring PG's. If they have a significant advantage, they're liable to have a big game and enough of them could be the difference between a 1-3 seed or a 4-6 seed. We've seen this many times in recent seasons. Ford has went off a few times, Bayless had a career game against them, Brooks and Lowy ran wild in a game, Beaubois nearly singlehandedly sent a series to game 7 (and might have, had Carlisle either left him in, or put him back in). And that was all with Hill on the team, who's one of the better PG defenders in the league.

And Ford, Bayliss, Brooks/Lowry all ran wild against Parker and Hill defending them. Why? Because of the laughable Bonner/Blair front-court not being able to contain them when helping pick and roll's by hedging effectively or rotating over effectively outside the circle to contest or take a convincing charge. Defending point guards has more to do with the team defense more so than individual defense because of the plethora of pick and rolls most teams run with the point guard-IMO.

They've improved the perimeter defense in theory only. In reality, as presently cons uted, one of Anderson or Leonard will most likely not play major minutes and may not be in the rotation altogether. They've gotten bigger on the perimeter, but they've also gotten slower.

They've gotten more physically imposing on the perimeter, to the point where they will be more effective at guarding the prototype 6'5"-6'8" wing. Wings of that size don't have great lateral speed/movement but what they do have is length and strength to the point where they were easily able to get off efficient looks against the undersized wings (Hill/Neal/Manu) in ISO situations. Spurs improved their perimeter defense in this regard. With Leonard and Anderson, Spurs have physical imposing wings with athleticism who can not only fight through screens effectively, but they won't give up significant separation like Hill/Neal did because of their length and girth (being able to absorb the contact most offensive players use to get off shots or to create separation).

Obviously, that's the bigger issue, but this is still a issue.

A small issue. The smallest the team has IMO. Hypothetically, if it is as important as you're implying and if there's a season, we still don't know what Joseph will be capable of doing when the season kicks off in February if Parker gets hurt for a significant amount of time.

[MaNu4Tres]

I disagree. I think Arroyo is a seasoned 9 year NBA vet, really good team-oriented point guard and would fit well in a system like the Spurs in the backup PG role.

Progression is nice and all, but the Spurs are banking to win now.
Anderson isn't a bad contract to keep around as insurance in case Neal fizzles or the team decides to go full tank mode after this season (rookie deals is what you want to have at that point). But the SG position is overloaded, and playing guys out of position so you can get progression from rooks isn't my idea of trying to contend, tbh.

I disagree entirely.

[DesignatedT]

Anderson needs to see the court next season. Guy has the ability to be a real difference maker on this team IMO.

I understand the reasoning behind bringing in a PG that is truly a backup point guard but if the options are players the caliber of Arroyo and Quinn than I would definitely pass. If we are talking about a PG that's still young and in there prime (maybe tj ford?) than I could see me going the other way and being open to the idea (depending on how Neal performs).

Of course minimum-type PGs is the most likely scenario in which I would rather take my chances with Neal and Manu running point.

[The Truth #6]

Sure is a lot of hang wringing in this thread about theoreticals. Realistically, the Spurs won't be able sign a great backup point guard without moving young pieces that should be played because they are cheap, show promise, and are possibly the future of the team (however grim that may be in a few years.) So we are going to squander the future for a PG who will hardly play?

I can't believe everyone is pissing in their pants about not having a great backup PG. Most teams don't even have a legitimate PG and we have Parker who is an all star. You can't be great at every position. PG is one of the positions we should worry about the least.

Does anyone think Neal should play less? Having him play at the 1 versus the 2 - he's going to get burned either way but he should still play. Playing Leonard should improve the team defense, which is more important. Get it? Different players add different strengths, you know, the that whole team concept.

[MaNu4Tres]

Sure is a lot of hang wringing in this thread about theoreticals. Realistically, the Spurs won't be able sign a great backup point guard without moving young pieces that should be played because they are cheap, show promise, and are possibly the future of the team (however grim that may be in a few years.) So we are going to squander the future for a PG who will hardly play?

I can't believe everyone is pissing in their pants about not having a great backup PG. Most teams don't even have a legitimate PG and we have Parker who is an all star. You can't be great at every position. PG is one of the positions we should worry about the least.

Truth speaking truth.

[DesignatedT]

At the end of the day it's way to early to tell what the Spurs could or should do. With everything R.C has said this off-season about wanting to trade., you definitely get the vibe that we are nowhere near done making moves. Who knows if we are able to move RJ or package a player with Dice.

Realistically, saying that we won't be able to sign a good point guard because were "cheap" isn't realistic at all seeing that our whole roster is probably on the trading block outside of the big 3.

[TD 21]

If that's the case, the Spurs will be extremely lucky to get Watson for the minimum. For one, he's the best eligible point guard for the minimum on the market and secondly, his market value is arguably higher than the minimum. Third, San Antonio isn't as attractive to high quality minimum players anymore. Usually those attractive top minimum free agents are attracted to championship scenarios, which includes a definite opportunity for significant playing time. That doesn't match what the Spurs have to offer compared to other elite suitors. Realistically, the Spurs are going to have a better opportunity at signing an Arroyo or bring in a player from the D-League to help (like D.J Strawberry).

Watson played last season for the veteran's minimum, so there's no reason to think he won't sign for the veteran's minimum again, particularly if a team such as the Spurs comes calling. The only other top ten teams that could use a backup PG are the Celtics and possibly Heat. The Celtics will probably just bring back West though, who's better and wants to stay. And the Heat, if they're to sign another PG, it'll likely be one that's a better shooter. Besides, how attractive is Watson to those teams, if not one signed him last season? The closest Watson can come to playing on a contender and playing significant minutes is probably the Spurs.

And Ford, Bayliss, Brooks/Lowry all ran wild against Parker and Hill defending them. Why? Because of the laughable Bonner/Blair front-court not being able to contain them when helping pick and roll's by hedging effectively or rotating over effectively outside the circle to contest or take a convincing charge. Defending point guards has more to do with the team defense more so than individual defense because of the plethora of pick and rolls most teams run with the point guard-IMO.

That's the point. If they did that against Parker and Hill, it'll only be worse with Neal replacing Hill. It is more about team defense, but there's no reason to think the team defense will be that much better, unless they're able to rid themselves of Jefferson and trade for someone like A. Johnson, which would break up the Blair-Bonner tandem. As presently cons uted, all Splitter does is replace McDyess, there doesn't appear to be many minutes available for Leonard and Anderson isn't projected to be a better defender than Hill.

They've gotten more physically imposing on the perimeter, to the point where they will be more effective at guarding the prototype 6'5"-6'8" wing. Wings of that size don't have great lateral speed/movement but what they do have is length and strength to the point where they were easily able to get off efficient looks against the undersized wings (Hill/Neal/Manu) in ISO situations. Spurs improved their perimeter defense in this regard. With Leonard and Anderson, Spurs have physical imposing wings with athleticism who can not only fight through screens effectively, but they won't give up significant separation like Hill/Neal did because of their length and girth (being able to absorb the contact most offensive players use to get off shots or to create separation).

No question about it. That's the one positive if Jefferson isn't traded. The days of watching undersized, athletically deficient SG's being physically over matched defending big, powerful, athletic wings, will be over.

A small issue. The smallest the team has IMO. Hypothetically, if it is as important as you're implying and if there's a season, we still don't know what Joseph will be capable of doing when the season kicks off in February if Parker gets hurt for a significant amount of time.

I never made it more than what it is, I'm just explaining the likely downfalls. Yeah, we don't know what Joseph will be capable of doing, but again, we can hypothesize. Joseph is a soon to be 20 year old PG, coming off a down freshman season and was a projected 2nd round pick. This is a team still trying (presumably) to contend for a championship. They can't count on him to contribute next season.

[ElNono]

Sure is a lot of hang wringing in this thread about theoreticals.

Isn't that what the offseason is all about?

Realistically, the Spurs won't be able sign a great backup point guard without moving young pieces that should be played because they are cheap, show promise, and are possibly the future of the team (however grim that may be in a few years.) So we are going to squander the future for a PG who will hardly play?

The Spurs don't need a 'great backup point guard', IMO. They just need a serviceable, experienced, true PG. Not a guy that can bring the ball upcourt to Manu, but a guy that can run the offense even if Manu isn't available. Every time TP or Manu have gone down due to some sort of injury in the past couple of seasons, even when Hill was around, the same question pops up: Who's going to run the point? Hill sucked at it for the most part, RMJ sucked at it, and rightly so. They're not PGs.

And no, you don't need to trade Anderson for a backup PG. But having a serviceable PG allows you to move him if you need an extra sweetner to add to the Dice contract in order to upgrade in another area where the team does have a real need: the front court.

I can't believe everyone is pissing in their pants about not having a great backup PG. Most teams don't even have a legitimate PG and we have Parker who is an all star. You can't be great at every position. PG is one of the positions we should worry about the least.

Let's not forget that a couple of relatively inexperienced backup PGs (Dragic and Vasquez) kick our team's asses the last couple of seasons during the playoffs. There's good talent out there, even at the backup spot.

You should strive to put together the best team you can possibly have, at least on paper. That's the bottom line. Every position is important. Especially for an aging group like the Spurs that no longer have superstar talent in the roster. We need more consistent and solid contribution from everybody else.

[Blackjack]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a le, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

[ElNono]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a le, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

And I agree that the priority to shore up the team is somewhere else.
It's also conceivable that this team is done as far as contending goes.

But if we entertain the notion that it might not be done, I think a serviceable backup PG is a 'need' in this team. Just one backup PG won't take them over the top, but the collection of addressing needs and incorporating the available and relatively new talent would be what allows this team to be the best it can be, IMO.

Just my 2c anyways. I've been wrong plenty of times before.

[benefactor]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a le, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

Exactly...which is why I have no problem with Neal playing backup PG. If Neal can resurrect his play as a ball handler like he was in Europe...fantastic. I feel like he can, but if he can't...whatever. It's not like him struggling or not struggling will determine the fate of this team.

This is a team in transition. They don't need to waste money on a scrub like Carlos Arroyo that isn't going to make any difference. They need to work on two things...somehow getting another rotation big and making sure Leonard, Anderson and Splitter get plenty of minutes so they can continue to develop, as I feel these three are the only current pieces that are part of the future of this team.

[benefactor]

The Spurs don't need a 'great backup point guard', IMO. They just need a serviceable, experienced, true PG. Not a guy that can bring the ball upcourt to Manu, but a guy that can run the offense even if Manu isn't available.

But if Manu is not on the floor and Parker is not on the floor then where does the offense come from? Who becomes the offensive option you are looking for with neither on the floor and a vet backup point running the show? There is no one...which is the big reason they are out of contention. Unless the the Spurs somehow manage to obtain either a big or a wing that can make plays there is no reason to debate Gary Neal vs. vet PG as it makes little to no impact from a contention perspective.

[wildbill2u]

The FO/Pop attempted to revamp the team with some players who appeared to be the best players available at the time, hoping to find some diamonds in the rough, but they might just turn out to be players other teams wouldn't take a chance on because of obvious deficiencies in size, speed, or whatever. When players drop in the draft there is usually a reason. So we took some chances.

Now we are stacked with unproven youthful tweeners at SG/SF--Green, Butler, Anderson, Hanga--a tweener at C (Blair) and another undersixed tweener perhaps in Leonard. It's interesting to note that Leonard himself has expressed the thought that he might have to play some guard in the NBA as a defensive specialist.

Neal is perhaps a little small at SG, but has proved his value as a shooter. Joseph is another mystery pick by the FO at his size and projected ability.

One way to look at this part of the roster is that we have a lot of versatility. Another way to look at it as we have unproven uminpressive rotation parts.

[ElNono]

But if Manu is not on the floor and Parker is not on the floor then where does the offense come from? Who becomes the offensive option you are looking for with neither on the floor and a vet backup point running the show?

Duncan? Posting up Tiago, and having Neal actually extend the floor as the SG with him? Pick and roll with Blair while you have shooters making room for them?

Unfortunately when this has happened in the last few seasons, it was Hill calling up ISOs for himself and everybody else standing around. In RMJ's case, it was dribbling down the clock and chucking some crap shot, or trying to play pick and roll with horrible handles.

When you don't have an actual go-to guy to make lemonade, execution becomes key. That's why you want experienced people that can organize the offense and run plays. I think Gary has balls of steel, but I don't think he's that kind of organizer type of guy (yet).

[Phillip]

sprs = fcked

[The Truth #6]

Isn't that what the offseason is all about?



The Spurs don't need a 'great backup point guard', IMO. They just need a serviceable, experienced, true PG. Not a guy that can bring the ball upcourt to Manu, but a guy that can run the offense even if Manu isn't available. Every time TP or Manu have gone down due to some sort of injury in the past couple of seasons, even when Hill was around, the same question pops up: Who's going to run the point? Hill sucked at it for the most part, RMJ sucked at it, and rightly so. They're not PGs.

And no, you don't need to trade Anderson for a backup PG. But having a serviceable PG allows you to move him if you need an extra sweetner to add to the Dice contract in order to upgrade in another area where the team does have a real need: the front court.



Let's not forget that a couple of relatively inexperienced backup PGs (Dragic and Vasquez) kick our team's asses the last couple of seasons during the playoffs. There's good talent out there, even at the backup spot.

You should strive to put together the best team you can possibly have, at least on paper. That's the bottom line. Every position is important. Especially for an aging group like the Spurs that no longer have superstar talent in the roster. We need more consistent and solid contribution from everybody else.

I agree that it would be great to have a solid backup PG. I just don't think it's our most pressing issue. I think improving the team defense should be a larger priority. Getting rid of RJ is way more important, in my opinion, then finding a Dragic level backup PG. But I still don't think we should trade young talent to get rid of RJ either.

I think Pop has to utilize what he has, and playing Neal at backup PG is a great way to do that. It's not like we're winning a le this year or anytime soon. Could playing Neal at the 1 negatively affect his game? Possibly, but I think he'll do better than Hill. So, I guess I'm not that worried.

[ElNono]

I agree that it would be great to have a solid backup PG. I just don't think it's our most pressing issue. I think improving the team defense should be a larger priority. Getting rid of RJ is way more important, in my opinion, then finding a Dragic level backup PG. But I still don't think we should trade young talent to get rid of RJ either.

Personally, I would rank the priorities:
1) Trade for a big that doesn't suck now that Dice retired
2) Get rid of the mental softies: RJ, Bonner.
3) If RJ can be moved, bring in somebody to shore up the SF position. Leonard will struggle at times in his rookie season.
4) Get a vet min backup PG (already explained why and in what role)

That is if we want to play to win, which I think as long as the Big 3 are on the team, we want to do. I don't honestly think the Spurs will be prioritizing development until one or more of the big 3 retire/is moved, and the team is ready to tank for a high draft pick.

I think Pop has to utilize what he has, and playing Neal at backup PG is a great way to do that. It's not like we're winning a le this year or anytime soon. Could playing Neal at the 1 negatively affect his game? Possibly, but I think he'll do better than Hill. So, I guess I'm not that worried.

Fair enough. I'm not worried at all, BTW. I'll be shocked if this team plays anything close to passable defense when the next playoffs (whenever that might be) come around. With that in mind, my expectations are fairly low.

[TD 21]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a le, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

Who cares what the general consensus is? The fans and the media aren't the ones making the decisions. The people that are making the decisions have made it abundantly clear through their actions that they intend to attempt to continue contending until Duncan retires. Therefore, when we as fans discuss how the roster/rotation should be constructed, it should be with that in mind.

It's obvious they're not a solid backup PG away from a le. But again, with the championship being the goal, they're probably going to need a solid backup PG, which is something they shouldn't have much difficulty acquiring.

The "next star" isn't coming until Duncan retires and whoever it is will probably be a second tier star that's not capable of being the best player on a championship team. It's as if people think if they start re-building now, they'll have another Duncan in no time. Unless you're the Lakers, it doesn't work that way. The lottery is clearly rigged and because of what the Duncan era has done for basketball in San Antonio, the league no longer has a reason to give them another all time great, since there's no longer the threat of the team leaving and it's not a premier market. Throw in the fact that they're stockpiling decent young assets and the fact that they'll have a lot of financial flexibility three years from now and you've got the makings of a team that will be mired in mediocrity for years to come.

But I guess anytime you can give away what's likely your final chance (even if it is a sliver of a chance) at a championship for a lifetime and slap your all time greatest player in the face simultaneously -- so that you can get on with years of mediocrity -- you have to do it.

[benefactor]

Duncan? Posting up Tiago, and having Neal actually extend the floor as the SG with him? Pick and roll with Blair while you have shooters making room for them?

Unfortunately when this has happened in the last few seasons, it was Hill calling up ISOs for himself and everybody else standing around. In RMJ's case, it was dribbling down the clock and chucking some crap shot, or trying to play pick and roll with horrible handles.

When you don't have an actual go-to guy to make lemonade, execution becomes key. That's why you want experienced people that can organize the offense and run plays. I think Gary has balls of steel, but I don't think he's that kind of organizer type of guy (yet).

Look at the avatar...I love Duncan as much as the next guy but that's just not going to work anymore...not consistently anyway. The funny thing about all the stuff you mentioned is that Neal is actually a better fit on the second unit at point if you want to spread the floor. Kick out from the big, extra pass and he's wide open(not that I see any of the other options as all that appealing either).

As far as making lemonade...where we differ in opinion is that you seem to think having a vet that can run plays helps with the Spurs current personnel. I don't think it does because that personnel is just ok and some vet minimum player isn't going to maximize their potential any better than Neal can. Without a true threat on the second unit, they are the same lemons.

[benefactor]

But I guess anytime you can give away what's likely your final chance (even if it is a sliver of a chance) at a championship for a lifetime and slap your all time greatest player in the face simultaneously -- so that you can get on with years of mediocrity -- you have to do it.

Duncan was slapped in the face when the ink dried on the new contracts for Bonner and RJ. There is no sliver. It's over.

[TD 21]

Duncan was slapped in the face when the ink dried on the new contracts for Bonner and RJ. There is no sliver. It's over.

Maybe so, but at least the intent was to attempt to continue to contend. If they're to get their next star now, it would most likely involve trading Parker, among others, to acquire it, or it would take a fire sale of epic proportions that led to a high lottery pick. That would be throwing in the towel, which is a much bigger slap in the face than trying with flawed players.

After game three, I called them gutless worms and basically said that they had a look that they were resigned to their fate and that it was over. But, if you think about it, how many teams are clear cut better than them? At the absolute worst, they're the eighth best team in the league. More likely, they're a few spots better. You just saw what a team in that range, with experience, urgency and luck, can do. So yes, there is a sliver and as long as there still is, they need to pursue it. Because this will be the last time for the foreseeable future that there's even that.

[ElNono]

Look at the avatar...I love Duncan as much as the next guy but that's just not going to work anymore...not consistently anyway. The funny thing about all the stuff you mentioned is that Neal is actually a better fit on the second unit at point if you want to spread the floor. Kick out from the big, extra pass and he's wide open(not that I see any of the other options as all that appealing either).

I just think he works better as the spot up shooter or driver as part of the kick-out, instead of being the ball dominant guy that sets up the play. In a way, that is his role when Manu is actually running the point.

Maybe it's just that I've gotten too burned out seeing RMJ and Hill dominate the ball with incessant dribbling and no movement, and I feel Neal would do the same. Vaughn couldn't literally do offensively, but the ball moved when he was around (sure, another era).

As far as making lemonade...where we differ in opinion is that you seem to think having a vet that can run plays helps with the Spurs current personnel. I don't think it does because that personnel is just ok and some vet minimum player isn't going to maximize their potential any better than Neal can. Without a true threat on the second unit, they are the same lemons.

Well, this is from the optic that we get an inside guy to contribute. Be it whatever is left on Tim's tank, Tiago developing something other than that weak ass layup, Blair showing an incredible improvement on his horrific floater, or if we add some other front court guy, whatever he brings...

Even if there isn't a defined inside threat, moving the ball and executing whatever plays, is what's going to get you an open look. Our second unit when Manu isn't out there has had ball-stoppers for too long, and near zero execution.

[benefactor]

Maybe so, but at least the intent was to attempt to continue to contend. If they're to get their next star now, it would most likely involve trading Parker, among others, to acquire it, or it would take a fire sale of epic proportions that led to a high lottery pick. That would be throwing in the towel, which is a much bigger slap in the face than trying with flawed players.

After game three, I called them gutless worms and basically said that they had a look that they were resigned to their fate and that it was over. But, if you think about it, how many teams are clear cut better than them? At the absolute worst, they're the eighth best team in the league. More likely, they're a few spots better. You just saw what a team in that range, with experience, urgency and luck, can do. So yes, there is a sliver and as long as there still is, they need to pursue it. Because this will be the last time for the foreseeable future that there's even that.

That attempt was completely misguided...but that's all history now. I have already said that if they don't want to trade Parker or Manu then that's fine. There are trophies in the case at the AT&T because of them so the goals that were set when they were acquired were achieved. I once lamented becoming the Jazz of the early '00's but I've come to terms with that. Unlike the Jazz, at least the Spurs got some trophies out of the deal...and whatever the future may hold I am at peace with it.

We are just in different places in what we expect. Were they better then how they played? Perhaps. But Dallas, OKC and Memphis will all be better this year. The Spurs will only be older with a few young players with some upside. They need another impact player to be back in the le conversation...and I don't see how that can happen unless they trade Parker or Manu. We both seem to agree that is equivalent to rebuilding.

So all that said...a vet PG is a waste of time and money. Let Neal run it, win a bunch of games and enjoy what is left of the ride. The Spurs will still win 50 and we will likely see some great basketball from them to remind us of the good old days. At this point that's enough for me.