Reply With Quote
If Spurs had Paul George, they would not trade for Kawhi especially to create that big of a whole at the PG position.
Okay, I'm just curious.. I remember leading up to the 2010 draft, there were rumors that the Pacers were offering the #10 pick (there was/were a couple of players too, just forgot who) for TP and that the Spurs were interested in Paul George. Now, if the Spurs pulled the trigger on that one AND still made the GHill-Kawhi trade a year later.. What do you guys think the team would be like right now? Of course, the PG situation would be a question mark, but just curious what you guys think...
If Spurs had Paul George, they would not trade for Kawhi especially to create that big of a whole at the PG position.
We would have just traded one Hero for another, tbh.
Shut up tbh
George > parker
George>Parker but Leonard>>>>>Hill
I personally prefer the Parker/Leonard combo. 2 Playoff Performers >>> 1
Even more so that the Pacers would not have traded two decent draft picks for PGs in back-to-back years, especially when the second trade is for a worse player.
However, the Spurs could have perhaps ended up with the 2010 first (10th overall) and a late teens pick in 2011, which could have turned into Faried, Vucevic, a Morris twin. Parker's value was lower back then, but it was still worth two picks. And their own first may well have been poor enough to get Reggie Jackson or maybe even a lottery pick.
In short, the team may have been completely different and with a lot of youth and potential. But it probably would not have been better than it is now.
On paper, sure. In practice, who knows. Pop will veto any trade of the big 3, unless it's an obvious steal. There were rumors the Spurs offered Parker for Chris Paul. Even now it looks stupid, considering how many games Paul miss every season and that Parker has half his contract.
George and Leonard play the same position. It is an interesting thought to think about one of them taking the sg position, but ultimately I think we would be alittle slow with both of them in the starting lineup.
Our defense would have a hole.
Hard to say. 2012 is the when we finally started to recover from the RJ experiment. If we had gone with a guy like Grant Hill or Shane Battier instead of RJ we would have probably have been better off.
I just thought about this, since it just popped up into my head while waiting for the pelicans game. And don't get me wrong, I'm not or wasn't trying to play armchair gm, I guess I was looking forward to the pacer game and then poof, just came into my head.
anyway, correct me if I'm bring but didn't PG play the 2 during his first 2 years? And when granger got hurt, wasn't that when he slid over to the 3spot?
Or what if the Jazz had picked George and Leonard instead of Hayward and Burks? Hindsight is always 20/20.
Pointless question. IF the Pacers had traded for Parker, they would never have made the trade for Hill the next year. So there is no way the Spurs would have wound up with both George and Leonard.
George also grew two inches after is first year, so he was kind of too tall to play the two.
Huh, I did know that. I always thought him sliding to the 3 was out of necessity.
It was out of necessity. But the reason they never switched back was because George is physically more of a three now. He's listed at 6-10.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up bud. Just goes to show I don't follow the rest of the league as much as I do the spurs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
