Reply With Quote
I don't get the love for Pittman either. He showed flashes over the last 2 games but was bad in the first 3. He's a long way away fom making an NBA rotation on a bad team, let alone the Spurs.
i missed the bucks game. but, i really love pittman. i think he's the standout of the summer league. i think him losing so much weight and playing so well shows a fantastic work ethic. thats the kinda thing that catches the spurs eye.
i want the spurs to dump bonner with blair for ariza so badly. fill the need for depth at 3. open the bench big spot for baynes. then sign pittman. when timmy is resting. tiago is cowering. and baynes is in foul trouble. pittman could keep pendergraph challenged.
I don't get the love for Pittman either. He showed flashes over the last 2 games but was bad in the first 3. He's a long way away fom making an NBA rotation on a bad team, let alone the Spurs.
The same can be said for Richards. He showed flashes in one game which was last night. Pretty much everyone on the Summer League roster outside of Baynes, De Colo, and CoJo have a long way away from making an NBA rotation on a bad team. That's why I wish the FO would hurry up and trade De Colo and Mills or get rid of them because they're just a waste of roster space. Pittman, Thomas, and Thompson should get an invite to summer camp IMO. Giving an opportunity to Richards kind of defeats the purpose of signing Pendergraph don't you think?
Yes I agree and don't think they should sign Pittman or Richards. But I'd def take Richards over Pittman if they were going to sign one because of the difference in upside. Same reason I wouldn't be mad if they signed Oden...I see how high the upside is. They are all long shots so at least go with the guys with high ceilings. Pittman I think maxes out as an end of the bench big.
Yep.... the FO should be gambling on folks with big upside at the end of the bench. The Spurs are loaded with capable role players already. The Spurs don't need any more average players!
Oden has a better chance than Richards. Richards is trash and has no knowledge or concept of how the game should be played.
I agree. why not use the last two guys as high ceiling types that can be groomed slowly. a greg oden or richards would be great for this. if richards could get up and spend a year or two learning he could be the replacement for bonner. but bigger, longer, and more athletic.
I like Thompson more than Thomas. There, I've said it.
Why?
(Not trying to be a smartass, just curious as to your reasoning.)
He's more NBA-ready. He can actually play the three. His offense looks good, and he seems to have good defensive instincts. Honestly, Thomas doesn't have a ton of upside, in my opinion. One of the reasons why I'm in favor of him getting a roster spot is because he's pretty much as good as he'll ever be. What I hope he learns in Austin next year is how to actually defend the three. Thompson's already there.
As far as Thomas' offense goes, I'm not horribly impressed yet. He's a good but not elite shooter, and his ability to get his own shot is going to be extremely mitigated when he's the fifth option. He has some nifty moves inside the arch, but I'm not quite sure how those will fair against legitimate big men. He seems like a smart passer, which is a great plus, but Thompson seems like he is as well.
As far as Austin prospects go, Thomas is better, since he could eventually grow into a good bench scorer. But I think that Thompson could do a decent job backing up Leonard now (and especially being the third-string three behind Ginobili or Belinelli). He can defend his position and space the floor. I wouldn't be upset if the Spurs chose Thomas over Thompson, but I hope they can get Thomas to go to Europe and keep Thompson for this season.
Thompson, Pittman deserve a camp invite for further evaluation for the 15th spot
The only way Richards or Pittman even sniff a roster spot is if Matt Bonner leaves.
That's a pretty cool idea. I've never heard it before (although I've seen discussions about a 16th roster spot in a similar format). In the 3rd round would it only be open to teams that owned their own D-League affiliates? Or would every team have the ability to draft, and just have to stash them on their assigned team?
The problem with that might be that with some D-League teams having like 4-5 NBA teams affiliated with them, their rosters would quickly fill with assignees. Then what happens if that team is required to carry like 8 PG's because that's what they've been assigned by the guys in the bigs? The whole seems works better and makes more sense when every NBA team has their own affiliate. Or at least you only have 2 or maybe 3 NBA teams per D-League affiliate.
The state of the d-league is disgusting. There really should be more teams. Perhaps NBA teams that don't have their own affiliate could buy spots on the other teams' affiliates like US states do with vet schools. Otherwise, the d-league teams they send players to have the right to release any player after a year.
30 NBA teams
So IMO, there should be 30 DLeague teams. Each NBA franchise owns its own DL affiliate, and owns the rights to all players on that affiliate. For instance, the Toros are our DLeague affiliate, and we own the rights to every member of that team.
NBA - Parent Club
DLeague - Farm Club
This way, we could keep guys like Thomas, Thompson, Richards, Pittman, Denmon, etc, and give them quality minutes in our system, while developing their bodies, minds, and skills.
Damned straight.
Actually, the state of the NBA is the problem. There should be LESS NBA teams (about 4 less) - that would allow more talent on the remaining teams. Of course, no city would willingly give up their team but some should (Charlotte, New Orleans, Golden State and Milwakee are among the smaller cities). This would spread out a wealth of talent (Steph Curry, etc.) to play elsewhere and increase compe ion league-wide.
See, I disagree with that. There are too many talented basketball players in the world for people to really think that there aren't 450 NBA-caliber players out there. It's just an excuse people use for why there are bad teams. The truth is, the NBA culture is what's causing so many teams like Sacramento and Charlotte to fail. They have as much talent as teams like the Spurs do, but they just can't develop those players to save their lives. Then you have en led stars who keep screwing their previous teams over so they can play together, or who come into the league as rookies expecting their teams to bow down to them. A lot of these players would rather get a coach fired than put in the work to make use of their immense physical gifts.
What the NBA needs is more accountability and smarter front offices, not contraction.
the ownership in the NBA is largely to blame, so many terrible owners with bad front offices. I agree about contraction, there's so much talent now throughout the world, making the league smaller probably isn't the best overall idea. what's sad though is that half of the NBA is a farm league, with no desire to compete anyways.
It would also be interesting to see if they ever do get a hard cap, how that would change things. Some people say it wouldn't make a difference, but it appears this new CBA is already causing changes, so I think a hard cap would push things further in that direction.
Indeed. I always look at the NFL as a contrast. Even though there are teams like the Bengals whose owners just wanted to collect the revenue sharing, most teams are constantly trying to compete. The league is just too compe ive to have a lot of teams that just try to half-ass things. We've seen many teams go from being bottom feeders to playoff contenders by bringing in a good system and some talent. With the exception of the 2011 Eagles, we haven't seen any dream-team scenarios, either. Somehow, the NFL finds about 1,700 NFL-caliber players each year, even though they come almost exclusively from the US. No one thinks the NFL needs to contract.
A hard cap will definitely end these super-team formations. We'll see teams who draft well and make smart low-key free-agent signings succeed while teams that rely on buying talent won't be able to survive. It's gonna take a lot of fight to get to that point, though. A hard cap almost guarantees that players will take a major pay-cut. It's not just superstars who benefit from the current (or previous) system. Role-players like Mike Miller and Keith Bogans got fat paychecks due to teams overspending to try to surround their stars will talent.
Not to disrespect the NFL, but there's way to many positions in the NFL that don't really require much skill. Get a round, tough body with basic skill and you might make it.
It's different with the NBA, NHL and specially soccer. These sports require a lot of skills.
Yep and soccer you can learn basically anywhere in the world, it's way harder to get access to basketball training, the Nba is way closer to the Nhl and I really don't think there's that much talent all over the world.
man! i hate contraction talk!
fickle fan can't appreciate the team through a down cycle. no patience for the hard times that make owners and management wise. wise enough to appreciate hard working, intelligent, talented players. wise enough to appreciate effective, maybe even innovative strategies. nope, they'd much rather have the team scrapped.
more super teams, more raw flash! teamwork and strategy are disgusting.
It's true that having so many distinctions makes it less necessary for NFL to be great all-around athletes. But by the same token, the NFL requires VERY specialized skills, and a lot of generalists wouldn't be able to make it. Add in the fact that it pretty much has a pool of one country, and I still think it's impressive that so many professional players come can be found. Basketball is the second- or third-most popular sport in the world. No one is wondering if there are 2,000 professional-quality athletes to play soccer world-wide, let alone 450.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
