LJC and Bertans

[Prime Time]

DX says best case is Mike Dunleavy, worst case is Steve Novak. To think he'd end up as Korver/Dunleavy is having tunnel vision; that would be ignoring his propensity to become a Novak, which isn't half bad, but terrible defensively.

To quote DX, since you're so keen on citing them: "Part of this will come with added strength, as he has a very narrow frame that makes it difficult for him to play through contact at the moment. This makes sense considering that he grew almost eight inches (20 centimeters) over the last two years, according to what he told us, so he's obviously still growing into his new dimensions. It will be important for him to continue to refine his shot-creating ability so he doesn't get labeled as a one dimensional prospect down the road"

NBADraft.net: Foot speed is below average by NBA standards ... Needs to add weight ... Only weighs 211 pounds, which makes him quite thin for either forward position... Doesn't stand out as a rebounder or defender.

Guess who NBaDraft.net compared Bertans to? Kyle Korver AND Austin Daye. Yikes.

1- Dunleavy and Korver have damn well the same play-style. Bertans could be compared to either one (not saying he'll reach the same level of success)

2- The report you're taking from was written more than 3 years ago. While I agree with the comparisons they make (because I've actually seen a couple of Bertans games), I don't find it fair to quote the actual scouting reports from then when in 2011, Bertans was more of a limited shooter IIRC.. like that of Austin Daye or Steve Novak. He's improved a lot since.

All I'm saying is that Bertans has more potential than Daye, I never claimed he was going to stick around.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Because draft and stash players actually get to play in Europe. Bring them here and let them fill out a roster spot...just to play five minutes a night? To say they get injured while citing Bertans and Jean-Charles is anecdotal evidence. That's simply taking a small sample size to bolster your argument. How about Adam Hanga or DeShaun Thomas? Robertas Javtokas or Sergei Karaulov? The Rhunder have good draft and stash players in Tbor Pleiss and Alex Abrines and both have been doing fairly well.


I'm not sure I can say this for Daye but definitely for Bonner: his experience is valuable. It takes a year or two to get acclimated to Pop's system, and the window is closing for Duncan and company. It would be wiser to keep veterans who keep the wheels running than bring in someone with little to no knowledge of the system.


Regarding your argument on their knees, the Spurs brought both forwards over last summer to have them evaluated. If they can't play abroad, what makes you think their knees are in good enough shape to withstand the rigor of an 82-game NBA schedule? By average, a second round pick yields value only 24 percent of the time; it would be absurd to expect tremendous value from players like Bertans.

If i didn't use this small sample size, my argument would lose focus. Because i've only been a forum following fan for a few years. Details like when Splitter was drafted and when Blair was drafted. How many McDyess, Kurt Thomas style projects came betweeen. And why Splitter was left over for so long. I don't know. But i know this, it's impossible to know how much different Splitter would have turned out. Had he just been thrown to the wolves, i'd bet he woulda turned out pretty similar. And i woulda taken my chances forking over some buyout cash or getting out-muscled over McDyess, Thomas, and Blair knee'n it all those years.

Also, playing just a few minutes is a plus. Familiarity with the system and the big 4. Extra run during injuries or d league time. I'll take that development over banging knees and bodies in some foreign country. And as a fan, i want to see the players the spurs draft. I don't want to see if dad gum Damion James/Shannon Brown types can pan out because they have experience. in hindsight or foresight, how much good do those types do?

[FireMicoHalili]

If i didn't use this small sample size, my argument would lose focus. Because i've only been a forum following fan for a few years. Details like when Splitter was drafted and when Blair was drafted. How many McDyess, Kurt Thomas style projects came betweeen. And why Splitter was left over for so long. I don't know. But i know this, it's impossible to know how much different Splitter would have turned out. Had he just been thrown to the wolves, i'd bet he woulda turned out pretty similar. And i woulda taken my chances forking over some buyout cash or getting out-muscled over McDyess, Thomas, and Blair knee'n it all those years.

Also, playing just a few minutes is a plus. Familiarity with the system and the big 4. Extra run during injuries or d league time. I'll take that development over banging knees and bodies in some foreign country. And as a fan, i want to see the players the spurs draft. I don't want to see if dad gum Damion James/Shannon Brown types can pan out because they have experience. in hindsight or foresight, how much good do those types do?

Exactly why your argument is specious - your small sample size. You can't bolster your position by citing biased samples. You mentioned Splitter, who's also been another success from the draft and stash system. Considerations such as buyouts, level of compe ion come into play as well. If you're going to argue how different Splitter might have turned out, I could argue how different Ginobili might have turned out if he were brought in here right away.

Familiarity with the system is a different thing from playing with the Big 4. These kids are slated to play post-Duncan era, where Leonard and Parker are supposed to lead them into the fray. Those 'types' of players (Damion James, Shannon Brown) never actually play, and it would be a waste to see kids like Bertans and Jean-Charles suffer the same fate. Farming players in the D-League eats up roster space and is actually limiting for contenders, so until the system gets fixed, stashing players overseas is optimal for players' development. Stuffing teams with younger players also stagnates their talent. Look at the Blazers. Victor Claver, Sergei Monya, Viktor Khryapa...foreign talent all gone to waste because they sat at the end of the bench.

Regarding roster space, the Spurs are up to 11, barring the signings of Diaw, Mills, Baynes, and Bonner, so I don't know what roster space anyone is talking about here. Daye isn't expected to leave, as per recent reports from Marc Spears and Jeff McDonald. Eleven, presumably including Anderson's rookie scale contract. None of the Spurs' draft and stash players would replace cogs like Diaw and Mills right away, unless of course you're content seeing LJC play point forward while Denmon takes Mills' spot, to bolster your thesis of a"development rich" environment.

[FireMicoHalili]

1- Dunleavy and Korver have damn well the same play-style. Bertans could be compared to either one (not saying he'll reach the same level of success)

2- The report you're taking from was written more than 3 years ago. While I agree with the comparisons they make (because I've actually seen a couple of Bertans games), I don't find it fair to quote the actual scouting reports from then when in 2011, Bertans was more of a limited shooter IIRC.. like that of Austin Daye or Steve Novak. He's improved a lot since.

All I'm saying is that Bertans has more potential than Daye, I never claimed he was going to stick around.

Son I'm quoting the sites you cited. That's all they had. You just contradicted yourself by downplaying the reports of your so-called "sources". As of late, Bertans still weighs 210 lbs, just as much as Daye weighs. Played only four games for Partizan averaging 12 points and four rebounds a game in 22 minutes per contest. If he can't dominate in Europe, what makes you think he'll do a solid job in the NBA?

[Prime Time]

Son I'm quoting the sites you cited. That's all they had. You just contradicted yourself by downplaying the reports of your so-called "sources". As of late, Bertans still weighs 210 lbs, just as much as Daye weighs. Played only four games for Partizan averaging 12 points and four rebounds a game in 22 minutes per contest. If he can't dominate in Europe, what makes you think he'll do a solid job in the NBA?

I'm only using the comparison because they're the only thing that's still valid after a good, I don't know, 3 years? If this was 2011 or even 2012 I'd say you have some ground. And don't kid yourself with the "that's all they had", they were basing it off of one game. One game 3 years ago. You're cherry picking to a max.

.. Those are actually very solid numbers for a 21 year old who only plays 22 minutes. Bogdan Bogdanovic, on the same team, averaged 14.8 points | 3.7 rebounds on 40% shooting in 31 minutes a game. Is he also a prospect who will never make it to the NBA?

[FireMicoHalili]

I'm only using the comparison because they're the only thing that's still valid after a good, I don't know, 3 years? If this was 2011 or even 2012 I'd say you have some ground. And don't kid yourself with the "that's all they had", they were basing it off of one game. One game 3 years ago. You're cherry picking to a max.

.. Those are actually very solid numbers for a 21 year old who only plays 22 minutes. Bogdan Bogdanovic, on the same team, averaged 14.8 points | 3.7 rebounds on 40% shooting in 31 minutes a game. Is he also a prospect who will never make it to the NBA?

Really? Comparisons are the only valid thing? Whatever happened to Bargnani being compared to Dirk? These comparisons are a hit-miss. I wasn't cherry-picking; you said these weren't amateur draft sites. That's what they had, unless you can scrounge around for better sources. Are you saying all the reports from DX and NBADraft.net were all based off one game? So if they worked with one game, the comparisons might have been based off one game too. Yikes.

Never said Bertans or Bogdanovic were prospects. Never said Bertans won't make it to the NBA, my position was that he comes over later. As for Bogdanovic, he isn't headed to the NBA for a year or two. They're stashing him because he isn't ready. He's got skills which could use some seasoning overseas. Isn't that the point of contention here?

Comparisons for 2011's draft class:

Kyrie Irving: Mike Conley/Chris Paul
Derrick Williams: David West/Michael Beasley
Enes Kanter: Al Horford
Tristan Thompson: Charles Smith
Jonas Valanciunas: Spencer Hawes/Primoz Brezec
.
.
.
Kawhi Leonard: Gerald Wallace/Luc Richard Mbah A Moute

Reliable for three years? That's manipulating a parameter to suit your argument. Why three years? Why not four or five? Why not make it 10 while you're at it?

[cd021]

Don't see Ayers getting traded straight up. Maybe an unprotected 2nd pick in 2016 (post big 3) or maybe the Spurs cut ties Bonner and go after 1 FA on the M.L.E

[tholdren]

NBADraft.net: Foot speed is below average by NBA standards ... Needs to add weight ... Only weighs 211 pounds, which makes him quite thin for either forward position... Doesn't stand out as a rebounder or defender.

Guess who NBaDraft.net compared Bertans to? Kyle Korver AND Austin Daye. Yikes.[/QUOTE]

Kyle Anderson

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Exactly why your argument is specious - your small sample size. You can't bolster your position by citing biased samples. You mentioned Splitter, who's also been another success from the draft and stash system. Considerations such as buyouts, level of compe ion come into play as well. If you're going to argue how different Splitter might have turned out, I could argue how different Ginobili might have turned out if he were brought in here right away.

Familiarity with the system is a different thing from playing with the Big 4. These kids are slated to play post-Duncan era, where Leonard and Parker are supposed to lead them into the fray. Those 'types' of players (Damion James, Shannon Brown) never actually play, and it would be a waste to see kids like Bertans and Jean-Charles suffer the same fate. Farming players in the D-League eats up roster space and is actually limiting for contenders, so until the system gets fixed, stashing players overseas is optimal for players' development. Stuffing teams with younger players also stagnates their talent. Look at the Blazers. Victor Claver, Sergei Monya, Viktor Khryapa...foreign talent all gone to waste because they sat at the end of the bench.

Regarding roster space, the Spurs are up to 11, barring the signings of Diaw, Mills, Baynes, and Bonner, so I don't know what roster space anyone is talking about here. Daye isn't expected to leave, as per recent reports from Marc Spears and Jeff McDonald. Eleven, presumably including Anderson's rookie scale contract. None of the Spurs' draft and stash players would replace cogs like Diaw and Mills right away, unless of course you're content seeing LJC play point forward while Denmon takes Mills' spot, to bolster your thesis of a"development rich" environment.

Buddy, LJC and Bertans aren't biased examples. They're relevant.

You say you could argue that Manu would be worse if the spurs had just brought him over? I say think about that. Manu is good because Manu is good. Benching him in a superior league vs playing him in an inferior one, it doesn't matter. He's gonna shine, because Manu shines. Same with Splitter, and contrarily or not, Anybody... but that's irrelevant.

We're talking about the same thing. At least, when it comes to players to play with Tony and Kawhi in the post-Duncan era. Developmental talent and do actual minutes abroad have value. I say sure, if a guy wants to play for his national team or finish out his contract. But not for any other reason. If Bertans and LJC are good, then bring them in and let them prove their way into minutes or back the where they came from. All the abroad minutes has done is mess up their knees.

F Bonner and Ayers, why pay somebody elses draft busts when you can just draft? F the Blazers and Thunder, this is the spurs bench. F the cap and the rights, these guys are rookie scale paid and you get 2 every year. F the chicken "guys aren't ready" mentality. These guys are draft eligible and the spots for them are at the bottom of the bench. Worse case scenario, you trade them so you cash in on some stupid gm who pays somebody elses draft busts. Mahinmi, btw.

[Prime Time]

Really? Comparisons are the only valid thing? Whatever happened to Bargnani being compared to Dirk? These comparisons are a hit-miss. I wasn't cherry-picking; you said these weren't amateur draft sites. That's what they had, unless you can scrounge around for better sources. Are you saying all the reports from DX and NBADraft.net were all based off one game? So if they worked with one game, the comparisons might have been based off one game too. Yikes.

Never said Bertans or Bogdanovic were prospects. Never said Bertans won't make it to the NBA, my position was that he comes over later. As for Bogdanovic, he isn't headed to the NBA for a year or two. They're stashing him because he isn't ready. He's got skills which could use some seasoning overseas. Isn't that the point of contention here?

Comparisons for 2011's draft class:

Kyrie Irving: Mike Conley/Chris Paul
Derrick Williams: David West/Michael Beasley
Enes Kanter: Al Horford
Tristan Thompson: Charles Smith
Jonas Valanciunas: Spencer Hawes/Primoz Brezec
.
.
.
Kawhi Leonard: Gerald Wallace/Luc Richard Mbah A Moute

Reliable for three years? That's manipulating a parameter to suit your argument. Why three years? Why not four or five? Why not make it 10 while you're at it?

Alright, a couple of things

1- Comparisons are a hit or miss. We agree on that, but they're always a best-case/worst-case scenario. Bertans in 2011 was not comparable to Korver or Dunleavy in terms of moving without the ball/shooting off screens (which has really been his biggest improvement), Bertans in 2011 was more of an Austin Daye/Steve Novak type of player. But since he had a quick release and good body control, scouts predicted he could end up a player that of the Korver/Duleavy mold.

Now, in 2014, Bertans is much better and more Korver-esque than he was in 2011.

(Also, Bargnani does play like Dirk. Dirk is just a lot ing better at it. This goes back to what I was saying, I'm comparing the styles - not the actual players.)

2- I may be completely wrong, but I believe NBADraft.Net goes by what a player actually does in Europe. My issue was how the one quote you decided to post was based off of one game, but I don't feel that every single scouting site also uses that same game as their foundation.

As for Bertan's Draft.Net profile, the strengths and weaknesses they used were what Bertans had in 2011 (when he was more one-dimensional). The Korver/Dunleavy comparison however is what they saw as a ceiling, and Bertans has been getting closer to it every year. That's why I have a problem with using the actual scouting report against him.

3- Then I'm not really sure what we're arguing over. I don't think Bertans is NBA ready either, I'd give it another year or maybe two. The only point I've ever tried to make by even posting in this thread was how Bertans is a more versatile shooter than Daye.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

i think that's playing it too safe. the guys have nba talent, analysts put them on the radar. the players themselves have faith in their games, that's why they declared eligibility. "scared man can't gamble." the spurs gotta take a chance on these guys. draft and stash got his acl torn in the first place. And he wasn't alone. I think the spurs should grow a pair when it comes to these draft and stashers.

That's like barely learning algebra then expecting to do fine when thrown into a college level calculus course. Why not bridge the gap?

[TheGoldStandard]

LJC will be in camp next summer, let him get healed up and another full year of euro ball. If the Spurs really wanted Bertans he would be here, he's not ready yet for what they want to use him for but that can change quickly.

[FireMicoHalili]

Buddy, LJC and Bertans aren't biased examples. They're relevant.

You say you could argue that Manu would be worse if the spurs had just brought him over? I say think about that. Manu is good because Manu is good. Benching him in a superior league vs playing him in an inferior one, it doesn't matter. He's gonna shine, because Manu shines. Same with Splitter, and contrarily or not, Anybody... but that's irrelevant.

We're talking about the same thing. At least, when it comes to players to play with Tony and Kawhi in the post-Duncan era. Developmental talent and do actual minutes abroad have value. I say sure, if a guy wants to play for his national team or finish out his contract. But not for any other reason. If Bertans and LJC are good, then bring them in and let them prove their way into minutes or back the where they came from. All the abroad minutes has done is mess up their knees.

F Bonner and Ayers, why pay somebody elses draft busts when you can just draft? F the Blazers and Thunder, this is the spurs bench. F the cap and the rights, these guys are rookie scale paid and you get 2 every year. F the chicken "guys aren't ready" mentality. These guys are draft eligible and the spots for them are at the bottom of the bench. Worse case scenario, you trade them so you cash in on some stupid gm who pays somebody elses draft busts. Mahinmi, btw.

I'm not saying they're irrelevant, I'm saying you're failing to look at the big picture. You're discrediting the whole draft and stash system if you disregard the good it has done for the Spurs and the teams as well.

No one's saying Manu is not good, but your argument reveals its flaw in that way. If a prospect, local or otherwise foreign, is inherently good, why even play college ball. Heck, let the NBA bring over 16 year-olds because they're good. Let's take LeBron's son because he's good. Players are sent to develop abroad to actually develop and make the most of their potential as the top options of their squad, a mentality they can bring to San Antonio. If all minutes abroad did is mess up their knees, what about all the other draft and stash players? I have a problem with your argument that all draft and stash does is bust knees and ruin careers. You're trying to prove a correlation between injured knees and playing abroad with just two players.

The concept is letting them grow abroad rather than languish at the end of the bench. At the end of the bench, players suffer from impatience, the lack of playing time, and stagnation. Bonner and Ayers were not draft busts, they were second rounders. They have a special skill set suited to the system. Bonner was signed way before any of the stash players you so defend were drafted. Ayres is a PF/C - we don't have any players who are center-forwards who can play his game. Why take someone so green when someone with a similar skill set and NBA experience is around? There's a reason contenders sign vets over taking youngsters from the D-League.

I don't know what you mean by 'Mahinmi btw' but he didn't bust his knees playing abroad, and you're banking on a hypothetical that he'd be better if he was brought over right away. Proof is speculative at best, non-conclusive at worst. If he's good, he's good right? Apparently not.

[FireMicoHalili]

Alright, a couple of things

1- Comparisons are a hit or miss. We agree on that, but they're always a best-case/worst-case scenario. Bertans in 2011 was not comparable to Korver or Dunleavy in terms of moving without the ball/shooting off screens (which has really been his biggest improvement), Bertans in 2011 was more of an Austin Daye/Steve Novak type of player. But since he had a quick release and good body control, scouts predicted he could end up a player that of the Korver/Duleavy mold.

Now, in 2014, Bertans is much better and more Korver-esque than he was in 2011.

(Also, Bargnani does play like Dirk. Dirk is just a lot ing better at it. This goes back to what I was saying, I'm comparing the styles - not the actual players.)

2- I may be completely wrong, but I believe NBADraft.Net goes by what a player actually does in Europe. My issue was how the one quote you decided to post was based off of one game, but I don't feel that every single scouting site also uses that same game as their foundation.

As for Bertan's Draft.Net profile, the strengths and weaknesses they used were what Bertans had in 2011 (when he was more one-dimensional). The Korver/Dunleavy comparison however is what they saw as a ceiling, and Bertans has been getting closer to it every year. That's why I have a problem with using the actual scouting report against him.

3- Then I'm not really sure what we're arguing over. I don't think Bertans is NBA ready either, I'd give it another year or maybe two. The only point I've ever tried to make by even posting in this thread was how Bertans is a more versatile shooter than Daye.

He is Korver-esque based on what, exactly? And oh, I didn't know we were doing trick answers! Bonner also plays like Dirk, he just sucks a lot more at it. Are you saying...Bertans has developed from a Novak-type of player to a Korver-esque player? So...draft and stash works?

That's a belief, not a fact, so I'm going to leave you to your devices as to how NBADraft.net actually evaluates talent. I will give you this though: “I wasn’t talking to NBA scouts or GMs the way that I am now. There weren’t the Synergies; you weren’t getting 30 games for Duke or all the big teams on TV every day. You’d have to go off a lot less footage and stats and so forth. It was more of a crapshoot.” That's Aran Smith, founder of NBADraft.net, on how they evaluate foreign talent. More reading here: http://grantland.com/features/2014-n...s-johan-petro/. I have been following the draft for a decade now using both sites and DX was more accurate in their assessment of a player's growth and development.

Too bad though, the Spurs just retained Daye. Now we're all just stuck with a what-if. I'm sure the Spurs have hungered for a shooter like Korver for the longest time, and yet they haven't brought Bertans in. Pop and the front office actually has contact with the kid more than I do so obviously they are better at evaluating talent to bring over.

[Prime Time]

He is Korver-esque based on what, exactly? And oh, I didn't know we were doing trick answers! Bonner also plays like Dirk, he just sucks a lot more at it. Are you saying...Bertans has developed from a Novak-type of player to a Korver-esque player? So...draft and stash works?

That's a belief, not a fact, so I'm going to leave you to your devices as to how NBADraft.net actually evaluates talent. I will give you this though: “I wasn’t talking to NBA scouts or GMs the way that I am now. There weren’t the Synergies; you weren’t getting 30 games for Duke or all the big teams on TV every day. You’d have to go off a lot less footage and stats and so forth. It was more of a crapshoot.” That's Aran Smith, founder of NBADraft.net, on how they evaluate foreign talent. More reading here: http://grantland.com/features/2014-n...s-johan-petro/. I have been following the draft for a decade now using both sites and DX was more accurate in their assessment of a player's growth and development.

Too bad though, the Spurs just retained Daye. Now we're all just stuck with a what-if. I'm sure the Spurs have hungered for a shooter like Korver for the longest time, and yet they haven't brought Bertans in. Pop and the front office actually has contact with the kid more than I do so obviously they are better at evaluating talent to bring over.

Except Bonner doesn't play anything like Bargnani or Dirk. And yeah, draft and stash works. And of course, Bertans isn't ready to come over yet. I have no idea what you're even arguing about anymore.

[FireMicoHalili]

Except Bonner doesn't play anything like Bargnani or Dirk. And yeah, draft and stash works. And of course, Bertans isn't ready to come over yet. I have no idea what you're even arguing about anymore.

Your argument: Bertans is Korver-esque (is this even a word) according to DX and NBADraft.net. You said I said he wasn't based in amateur scouting reports, which is strange because (1) you don't even know where I was reading from; and (2) we have the same exact sources. I quoted your source which you tried to rebuff by downplaying your sources' actual reports, indicating the only reliable portions were player comparisons, good for only three years, a parameter which has no footing whatsoever. I cited Bertans' draft class and their player comparisons. We agreed on a hit-miss, you shifted the argument to their ceiling, totally disregarding their floor. I cited Grantland and Aran Smith, founder of NBADraft, who admitted their evaluations of Euro prospects were more or less a crapshoot. It has all boiled down to you citing a source, said sources being used against you, isolating portions of that source, and using a four-game sample size to buttress a claim that is pure speculation at this point.

[Prime Time]

Your argument: Bertans is Korver-esque (is this even a word) according to DX and NBADraft.net. You said I said he wasn't based in amateur scouting reports, which is strange because (1) you don't even know where I was reading from; and (2) we have the same exact sources. I quoted your source which you tried to rebuff by downplaying your sources' actual reports, indicating the only reliable portions were player comparisons, good for only three years, a parameter which has no footing whatsoever. I cited Bertans' draft class and their player comparisons. We agreed on a hit-miss, you shifted the argument to their ceiling, totally disregarding their floor. I cited Grantland and Aran Smith, founder of NBADraft, who admitted their evaluations of Euro prospects were more or less a crapshoot. It has all boiled down to you citing a source, said sources being used against you, isolating portions of that source, and using a four-game sample size to buttress a claim that is pure speculation at this point.

I said Bertans is much more versatile shooter than Daye (which I stand by), you come in saying Bertans would be crushed by athletic small-forwards or bowling ball shooting guards. I'll admit that I was wrong to disagree (for some reason my mind skipped the "athletic" in "athletic small-forwards", and I thought you said he'd be thrown like a bowling ball against shooting guards. My mistake)

But since then it seems like you haven't been paying attention to anything I've said. I stated that DraftExpress and Draft.Net predicted his ceiling would be Korver/Dunleavy, which I personally agreed with. You then throw some outdated scouting report from the same site, which just isn't fair to Bertans by any standards. I try to tell you that I'm only talking about the ceiling player they used, because Bertans has grown a lot as a player since that particular scouting report. And yet you still use the same scouting report from 3 years ago.. I don't get why it's so hard for you to understand what I'm saying. I'll try one more time to explain.

At the time (2011), Bertans was more of a spot-up shooter - thus the Daye/Novak comparisons and the outdated scouting reports. But due to his quick release and body control, Draft.Net and DraftExpress claimed his ceiling player was Korver/Dunleavy. Since 2011, Davis has developed as a scorer and is now more comparable to those latter 2 players. The scouting reports from 2011 are mostly irrelevant now in the process. I'm not saying scouting reports are useless, I'm just saying that they don't hold as much credibility 3 years later.

The funny thing is, I agree with the majority of claims you've stated. About Bertans not being ready, about players developing, etc. But it seems as if you're trying to create an argument that really isn't there by bringing up the same points I don't find credible.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Buddy, LJC and Bertans aren't biased examples. They're relevant.

You say you could argue that Manu would be worse if the spurs had just brought him over? I say think about that. Manu is good because Manu is good. Benching him in a superior league vs playing him in an inferior one, it doesn't matter. He's gonna shine, because Manu shines. Same with Splitter, and contrarily or not, Anybody... but that's irrelevant.

We're talking about the same thing. At least, when it comes to players to play with Tony and Kawhi in the post-Duncan era. Developmental talent and do actual minutes abroad have value. I say sure, if a guy wants to play for his national team or finish out his contract. But not for any other reason. If Bertans and LJC are good, then bring them in and let them prove their way into minutes or back the where they came from. All the abroad minutes has done is mess up their knees.

F Bonner and Ayers, why pay somebody elses draft busts when you can just draft? F the Blazers and Thunder, this is the spurs bench. F the cap and the rights, these guys are rookie scale paid and you get 2 every year. F the chicken "guys aren't ready" mentality. These guys are draft eligible and the spots for them are at the bottom of the bench. Worse case scenario, you trade them so you cash in on some stupid gm who pays somebody elses draft busts. Mahinmi, btw.

While I tend to agree with draft-and-stash Spurs-style, and think the string of blown ACLs is just coincidence and would have happened here, in the D-league, or regular season, or practice, both sides of the discussion have been good reads.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

I'm not saying they're irrelevant, I'm saying you're failing to look at the big picture. You're discrediting the whole draft and stash system if you disregard the good it has done for the Spurs and the teams as well.

No one's saying Manu is not good, but your argument reveals its flaw in that way. If a prospect, local or otherwise foreign, is inherently good, why even play college ball. Heck, let the NBA bring over 16 year-olds because they're good. Let's take LeBron's son because he's good. Players are sent to develop abroad to actually develop and make the most of their potential as the top options of their squad, a mentality they can bring to San Antonio. If all minutes abroad did is mess up their knees, what about all the other draft and stash players? I have a problem with your argument that all draft and stash does is bust knees and ruin careers. You're trying to prove a correlation between injured knees and playing abroad with just two players.

The concept is letting them grow abroad rather than languish at the end of the bench. At the end of the bench, players suffer from impatience, the lack of playing time, and stagnation. Bonner and Ayers were not draft busts, they were second rounders. They have a special skill set suited to the system. Bonner was signed way before any of the stash players you so defend were drafted. Ayres is a PF/C - we don't have any players who are center-forwards who can play his game. Why take someone so green when someone with a similar skill set and NBA experience is around? There's a reason contenders sign vets over taking youngsters from the D-League.

I don't know what you mean by 'Mahinmi btw' but he didn't bust his knees playing abroad, and you're banking on a hypothetical that he'd be better if he was brought over right away. Proof is speculative at best, non-conclusive at worst. If he's good, he's good right? Apparently not.

I do mean to discredit the draft and stash system. I discredit on the basis that any project that has turned out well, would have turned out well regardless of being stashed. Scratch that, they might have turned out better. AND, of all the projects that went bust perhaps at least one might have turned out better. (Knees, Motorcycle accident, other injury, lack of desire to come over because they shined abroad and got paid, finally being brought over and not having the potential they once had) Knees were just the easiest broad stroke, don't get hung up on it.

You specifically pointed out a possible argument that Manu could have went bust, had he been brought over the year he was drafted. I call bs. You say any 16 year old (would have to be phenom) or son of Lebron would be better developed by forcing them through college or inferior leagues, i call bs. You say stagnation, impatience, and lack of playing time are more apparently negative than the "development" of actual minutes abroad... bs. "Bonner and Ayers were not draft busts"!!!???? cause they're second rounders, come on man. You lack vision, that's just plain pessimism. A guy wants make the comparison of college level calculus courses on a taste of algebra education, i call... actually hold on a minute, ok.

So the Spurs roster and the NBA are some kinda college level calculus compe ion. Draft and stash prospects are high school/equivalency grads with a taste of Algebra, a generally favorable evaluation, and of course a scholarship. Meet Professor Pop. Here are his favorite students and class tutors, they're called the big 3 (now 4.) There's another 7/10 students of high character, and whatever wisdom they have to offer. These students are actually compe ors for you're stipend money, but they're also evaluated on class average. So in a way, they benefit from your success and offer what they can to help. This courses' evaluation system is innovative and constructive in a way that even rival colleges envy. I think the student and the class, are gonna be ok. Oh, btw for this student, there's an additional remedial course that focuses on aging the student, while exposing him to factors like women, money, bad at ude, and disease. Potentially causing him to drop out, and the college wasting a scholarship. We said this course was innovative.

, looking at it like that. I guess if the prospect busts out during remedial course, maybe he was never fit for the roster. Maybe he wasn't good. What am i arguing? Oh yeah, 7/10 + 3/4 is 14 tops. There's a spot on the bench for the remedial student. I doubt the remedial student will slow progress for the rest of the class. Imo, the class is better off with such a promising young mind to groom. Much better than it would be if the spot is used on a red shirt student who has failed a similar, yet inferior, course.

[littlecoyotecoin]

I do mean to discredit the draft and stash system. I discredit on the basis that any project that has turned out well, would have turned out well regardless of being stashed. Scratch that, they might have turned out better. AND, of all the projects that went bust perhaps at least one might have turned out better. (Knees, Motorcycle accident, other injury, lack of desire to come over because they shined abroad and got paid, finally being brought over and not having the potential they once had) Knees were just the easiest broad stroke, don't get hung up on it.

You specifically pointed out a possible argument that Manu could have went bust, had he been brought over the year he was drafted. I call bs. You say any 16 year old (would have to be phenom) or son of Lebron would be better developed by forcing them through college or inferior leagues, i call bs. You say stagnation, impatience, and lack of playing time are more apparently negative than the "development" of actual minutes abroad... bs. "Bonner and Ayers were not draft busts"!!!???? cause they're second rounders, come on man. You lack vision, that's just plain pessimism. A guy wants make the comparison of college level calculus courses on a taste of algebra education, i call... actually hold on a minute, ok.

So the Spurs roster and the NBA are some kinda college level calculus compe ion. Draft and stash prospects are high school/equivalency grads with a taste of Algebra, a generally favorable evaluation, and of course a scholarship. Meet Professor Pop. Here are his favorite students and class tutors, they're called the big 3 (now 4.) There's another 7/10 students of high character, and whatever wisdom they have to offer. These students are actually compe ors for you're stipend money, but they're also evaluated on class average. So in a way, they benefit from your success and offer what they can to help. This courses' evaluation system is innovative and constructive in a way that even rival colleges envy. I think the student and the class, are gonna be ok. Oh, btw for this student, there's an additional remedial course that focuses on aging the student, while exposing him to factors like women, money, bad at ude, and disease. Potentially causing him to drop out, and the college wasting a scholarship. We said this course was innovative.

, looking at it like that. I guess if the prospect busts out during remedial course, maybe he was never fit for the roster. Maybe he wasn't good. What am i arguing? Oh yeah, 7/10 + 3/4 is 14 tops. There's a spot on the bench for the remedial student. I doubt the remedial student will slow progress for the rest of the class. Imo, the class is better off with such a promising young mind to groom. Much better than it would be if the spot is used on a red shirt student who has failed a similar, yet inferior, course.

The Spurs are a victim of their own success. They acquire and develop more talent than allowed on the roster. The draft and stash system allows them to continue to develop it and keep it under their influence until they can use it.

[FireMicoHalili]

I do mean to discredit the draft and stash system. I discredit on the basis that any project that has turned out well, would have turned out well regardless of being stashed. Scratch that, they might have turned out better. AND, of all the projects that went bust perhaps at least one might have turned out better. (Knees, Motorcycle accident, other injury, lack of desire to come over because they shined abroad and got paid, finally being brought over and not having the potential they once had) Knees were just the easiest broad stroke, don't get hung up on it.

You specifically pointed out a possible argument that Manu could have went bust, had he been brought over the year he was drafted. I call bs. You say any 16 year old (would have to be phenom) or son of Lebron would be better developed by forcing them through college or inferior leagues, i call bs. You say stagnation, impatience, and lack of playing time are more apparently negative than the "development" of actual minutes abroad... bs. "Bonner and Ayers were not draft busts"!!!???? cause they're second rounders, come on man. You lack vision, that's just plain pessimism. A guy wants make the comparison of college level calculus courses on a taste of algebra education, i call... actually hold on a minute, ok.

So the Spurs roster and the NBA are some kinda college level calculus compe ion. Draft and stash prospects are high school/equivalency grads with a taste of Algebra, a generally favorable evaluation, and of course a scholarship. Meet Professor Pop. Here are his favorite students and class tutors, they're called the big 3 (now 4.) There's another 7/10 students of high character, and whatever wisdom they have to offer. These students are actually compe ors for you're stipend money, but they're also evaluated on class average. So in a way, they benefit from your success and offer what they can to help. This courses' evaluation system is innovative and constructive in a way that even rival colleges envy. I think the student and the class, are gonna be ok. Oh, btw for this student, there's an additional remedial course that focuses on aging the student, while exposing him to factors like women, money, bad at ude, and disease. Potentially causing him to drop out, and the college wasting a scholarship. We said this course was innovative.

, looking at it like that. I guess if the prospect busts out during remedial course, maybe he was never fit for the roster. Maybe he wasn't good. What am i arguing? Oh yeah, 7/10 + 3/4 is 14 tops. There's a spot on the bench for the remedial student. I doubt the remedial student will slow progress for the rest of the class. Imo, the class is better off with such a promising young mind to groom. Much better than it would be if the spot is used on a red shirt student who has failed a similar, yet inferior, course.

Knees are your only proof, that's the correlation you've been trying to prove all along. No proof they might have turned out better. All this is based on a hypothetical with no proof whatsoever. Again, speculative at best, non-conclusive at worst. I could give you a long list of busts who spent their careers languishing on the end of the bench and eventually making it out of the league. You call BS because...? If you're going to argue a point, I suggest you provide proof. All you've done is argue with emotion using cuss words. No solid proof the whole time. Beginning to think arguing with you is pointless if you keep banking on hypotheticals. Courts rarely count what-ifs as solid proof if unsubstantiated.

A class is better off with a student which slows down the class, slows down the progress of top learners? Here's the thing: basketball is not a class. It's a professional league. Shape up or ship out. The Spurs are a contender. They need anything which helps them attain the ultimate goal: winning a championship. What are important to a championship-caliber team? Experience, familiarity, a grasp of a team dynamic. Farming players abroad allows the roster to develop their assets elsewhere without sacrificing roster spots for experienced veterans. The Spurs don't lose out in case the player turns out to be a gem; they retain rights without sacrificing a roster spot. If the prospect never shines abroad, what makes you think he makes a decent showing in the NBA? This is not a class; this is a job. If we base it off your argument, it's like taking a high school student directly to a hospital to operate on patients because heck, he's going to be a good doctor anyway. Take a kid without firefighting training and let him hose down houses on fire. Pluck any smartass out of the class and take him to court to defend your clients because he's smart anyway. Never mind the learning pains and the possible mistakes it could cause, right? Never mind the frustration it brings the young'un, let's just keep throwing them into the fire. Let's just take any forum troll and make him league commissioner, because if he's good, he's going to help avoid all the loopholes the Miami Heat can create with the current CBA.

So you want me to demolish your argument with "I call bs"? Jesus Christ. Then again what did I expect out of an Internet forum.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Knees are your only proof, that's the correlation you've been trying to prove all along. No proof they might have turned out better. All this is based on a hypothetical with no proof whatsoever. Again, speculative at best, non-conclusive at worst. I could give you a long list of busts who spent their careers languishing on the end of the bench and eventually making it out of the league. You call BS because...? If you're going to argue a point, I suggest you provide proof. All you've done is argue with emotion using cuss words. No solid proof the whole time. Beginning to think arguing with you is pointless if you keep banking on hypotheticals. Courts rarely count what-ifs as solid proof if unsubstantiated.

A class is better off with a student which slows down the class, slows down the progress of top learners? Here's the thing: basketball is not a class. It's a professional league. Shape up or ship out. The Spurs are a contender. They need anything which helps them attain the ultimate goal: winning a championship. What are important to a championship-caliber team? Experience, familiarity, a grasp of a team dynamic. Farming players abroad allows the roster to develop their assets elsewhere without sacrificing roster spots for experienced veterans. The Spurs don't lose out in case the player turns out to be a gem; they retain rights without sacrificing a roster spot. If the prospect never shines abroad, what makes you think he makes a decent showing in the NBA? This is not a class; this is a job. If we base it off your argument, it's like taking a high school student directly to a hospital to operate on patients because heck, he's going to be a good doctor anyway. Take a kid without firefighting training and let him hose down houses on fire. Pluck any smartass out of the class and take him to court to defend your clients because he's smart anyway. Never mind the learning pains and the possible mistakes it could cause, right? Never mind the frustration it brings the young'un, let's just keep throwing them into the fire. Let's just take any forum troll and make him league commissioner, because if he's good, he's going to help avoid all the loopholes the Miami Heat can create with the current CBA.

So you want me to demolish your argument with "I call bs"? Jesus Christ. Then again what did I expect out of an Internet forum.

Dude, have you ever seen a time travel movie? Some time travel movies depict how certain things are universal in time. And can't be stopped, no matter what historical changes take place. Some movies don't bother with that. The tiniest change causes all kinds of dramatically different events. I can't prove that Manu is Manu, no matter what changes in his developmental history. But i don't think it takes a grand leap of faith to assume he's a natural Manu. He woulda been as great as his is, regardless of benched his first year or stashed for even longer.

I apply the Manu is Manu logic to the current draft stash projects. That logic applied, i think time overseas is a waste. Tbh, this is specifically in regards to any poster who thinks Bonner should be re-signed while Bertans stays overseas. Bonner's role on the bench is to stretch the floor. His d and rebounding abilities are garbage. He's gotta have a good post defender/rebound on the floor any minute he plays. If you fool yourself into thinking otherwise, "Bonner got the best of ole Ibaka," you're overvaluing Bonner. Pop got best of ole Ibaka! I guarantee Ibaka's eyes light up, for the rest of his career, at the idea of any awkward stretch 4 trying to defend and outboard him.

Bonner is an old, tall, white, guy who can drop 3's really well. Bertans is young, tall, white, guy who can drop 3's real well. Neither should be expected to get the best of ole Ibaka, but both should be expected to do their part in a system that can. Bonner's nba savy and spurs savy are not reasons to keep him in his roster spot. Any tall, white, draft and stasher who can drop 3's real well and has a brain in his head can and should fill that role. Especially while they're still young and healthy and have the potential to not be a garbage rebouder and defender.

LJC... nevermind.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Knees are your only proof, that's the correlation you've been trying to prove all along. No proof they might have turned out better. All this is based on a hypothetical with no proof whatsoever. Again, speculative at best, non-conclusive at worst. I could give you a long list of busts who spent their careers languishing on the end of the bench and eventually making it out of the league. You call BS because...? If you're going to argue a point, I suggest you provide proof. All you've done is argue with emotion using cuss words. No solid proof the whole time. Beginning to think arguing with you is pointless if you keep banking on hypotheticals. Courts rarely count what-ifs as solid proof if unsubstantiated.

A class is better off with a student which slows down the class, slows down the progress of top learners? Here's the thing: basketball is not a class. It's a professional league. Shape up or ship out. The Spurs are a contender. They need anything which helps them attain the ultimate goal: winning a championship. What are important to a championship-caliber team? Experience, familiarity, a grasp of a team dynamic. Farming players abroad allows the roster to develop their assets elsewhere without sacrificing roster spots for experienced veterans. The Spurs don't lose out in case the player turns out to be a gem; they retain rights without sacrificing a roster spot. If the prospect never shines abroad, what makes you think he makes a decent showing in the NBA? This is not a class; this is a job. If we base it off your argument, it's like taking a high school student directly to a hospital to operate on patients because heck, he's going to be a good doctor anyway. Take a kid without firefighting training and let him hose down houses on fire. Pluck any smartass out of the class and take him to court to defend your clients because he's smart anyway. Never mind the learning pains and the possible mistakes it could cause, right? Never mind the frustration it brings the young'un, let's just keep throwing them into the fire. Let's just take any forum troll and make him league commissioner, because if he's good, he's going to help avoid all the loopholes the Miami Heat can create with the current CBA.

So you want me to demolish your argument with "I call bs"? Jesus Christ. Then again what did I expect out of an Internet forum.

Some Decolo's are natural Decolo's. They're a bust because they're a bust. It doesn't have to take years of development and patience to find out. And honestly, i'm even sure Decolo was a natural bust. I think Pop fell in love with Neal too much, and didn't give him enough minutes. But it's hard to make that case with the way Neal scored.

[FireMicoHalili]

Dude, have you ever seen a time travel movie? Some time travel movies depict how certain things are universal in time. And can't be stopped, no matter what historical changes take place. Some movies don't bother with that. The tiniest change causes all kinds of dramatically different events. I can't prove that Manu is Manu, no matter what changes in his developmental history. But i don't think it takes a grand leap of faith to assume he's a natural Manu. He woulda been as great as his is, regardless of benched his first year or stashed for even longer.

I apply the Manu is Manu logic to the current draft stash projects. That logic applied, i think time overseas is a waste. Tbh, this is specifically in regards to any poster who thinks Bonner should be re-signed while Bertans stays overseas. Bonner's role on the bench is to stretch the floor. His d and rebounding abilities are garbage. He's gotta have a good post defender/rebound on the floor any minute he plays. If you fool yourself into thinking otherwise, "Bonner got the best of ole Ibaka," you're overvaluing Bonner. Pop got best of ole Ibaka! I guarantee Ibaka's eyes light up, for the rest of his career, at the idea of any awkward stretch 4 trying to defend and outboard him.

Bonner is an old, tall, white, guy who can drop 3's really well. Bertans is young, tall, white, guy who can drop 3's real well. Neither should be expected to get the best of ole Ibaka, but both should be expected to do their part in a system that can. Bonner's nba savy and spurs savy are not reasons to keep him in his roster spot. Any tall, white, draft and stasher who can drop 3's real well and has a brain in his head can and should fill that role. Especially while they're still young and healthy and have the potential to not be a garbage rebouder and defender.

LJC... nevermind.

Okay, tell me when (a) you've built a time machine or; (b) actually have this footage of this alternate reality where Manu or the rest of the draft and stash projects would actually be doing better. Everything you posit is a mere hope or expectancy. No weight. I'll end the argument right here, seeing all you have in the bag is a slew of hypotheticals which have so far failed to buttress your claim. Front office isn't listening or reading this anyway.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Okay, tell me when (a) you've built a time machine or; (b) actually have this footage of this alternate reality where Manu or the rest of the draft and stash projects would actually be doing better. Everything you posit is a mere hope or expectancy. No weight. I'll end the argument right here, seeing all you have in the bag is a slew of hypotheticals which have so far failed to buttress your claim. Front office isn't listening or reading this anyway.

how can a hopeful alternate reality expectancy have weight? drink a beer! I don't see how it's so hard to accept the simple idea that open roster spots + draft rights = filled roster spots.