What if West is simply "done"?

[MaNu4Tres]

Nobody is seriously promoting the idea of West as a starter, are they? That would flush the season down the toilet.

Chinook is confident he can become a three point shooter though going on his 14th year in the league -- so he'd fit in great.

[objective]

I actually had resigned myself last summer before Aldridge signed that West as a consolation wouldn't be too awful.

But he's pretty done, at least as a starting quality player. And as a center.

[Chinook]

A lot of mistakes?

Yes. And more in this post.

Biggest one is that PnRs and PnPs are plays, not sets. Motion weak, horns and floppy are sets. You can run pick plays all over the court, with different guys, multiple times a possession. It's like calling a post-up a set. You're correct that the Spurs do run pick plays quite often, but it's not longer their main offense. And as you and others are lamenting, most of those end up in pops, not rolls.

http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/...rcentile&dir=1

I have absolutely no idea what to make of these, as they seem at best incomplete and at worst just plain wrong. But anyway, it shows the Spurs as the team that posted up the most, iso'd the least and whose roll-men were the fifth-most successful in the NBA. This will be a cool tool when it's up, and it will hopefully answer a ton of questions. But right now, it looks like the Spurs ran the PnR a lot and were great at it, which what no one is saying right now.

Anyway, I posted legit stats showing the ball moving away from the play-makers and into the hands of iso guys. That's not something you can just "disagree" with. It's not just my opinion that those guys stopped initiating plays as much. It's the reality. When you don't have 2013 Parker, you simply aren't going to be able to wreck teams on the PnR like you used to. He can't beat guys to the rim consistently anymore. Manu is also an inconsistent player.

I've never once said Plumlee is the answer to ALL the Spurs problems and with him Spurs will be favorites like you're implying.

No one said this. This is just a ty strawman. The whole debate has been over which big to pursue this summer. You want Plumlee. I don't hate him but think he needs to be a bench player in favor of a more talented big. People don't seem to understand the talent drain that's likely to come this summer. The team will have to replace that talent before worrying about roles.

you're wanting David West to start because you believe he can become a three point shooter in his 14th season. Just... wow.

And this is a great example of another strawman.

back and watch the games

Or you could actually take the time to research to find or compile the numbers yourself. It's your burden to back up your assertions.

It's not my fault that you're in either denial or don't understand the game as much as you think you do. I know you have a high post count and respond to everything 24/7 but that doesn't mean much tbh... I'll give you the information on the cap but all that takes is research if you have the time on your hands -- which you obviously have a lot of.

I've just never seen a more butt-hurt poster. This is Tho's plus-minus crusade all over again. It's just silly at this point. I'm really not interested in having pissing matches with you. The ignore list works very well. I'm fine talking basketball and disagreeing and whatever. But if you're going to be stuck on kick of following me around and making snide-ass remarks about everything I say, just let me know.

[Chinook]

Nobody is seriously promoting the idea of West as a starter, are they? That would flush the season down the toilet.

I don't think next season will be too exciting unless they get two very good players in free agency. Spurs have way too many holes to fill in one summer, and they have to focus an filling one or two long term rather than filling in three or four temporarily.

[TD 21]

I didn't miss your point. I just said it's irrelevant in my opinion. West thusofar hasn't been a three-point shooter. The Spurs need a three-point shooter as a big. It's not going to help their offense to have guy who can't shoot but can do other things, not unless they get the ball out of Leonard's hands. I think he will become a three-point shooter, though. There's really no reason to not project it, as his shot looks good. I think he'll do whatever the team asks of him. So long as he can knock down open shots at an efficient TS%, I think he's fine. Not ideal by any means, but fine.

You clearly did. You're all over the place. First they don't need a stretch four (Jones and Sullinger shoot threes but aren't legit stretch fours), now they do; which one is it?

I told you, West already said this season that he's not interested in becoming a stretch four. The bottom line is, he fits neither description of the type of player they need next to Aldridge.

It's a ing game, man. I know it, they know it. You should know it. I want to watch the Spurs win. If they keep Manu and Tim, that's cool. I'll chat about ways they can win with those guys. But if they don't, they don't, and I have plenty of ideas about where I'd like to see them go from there. If you ask me right now, I think it's best that they go. Dunno what you mean about me taking shots, though.

I want to see the Spurs win too and like I said, it's fine to say you'd prefer to see them move on, but even on a message board, ting on them is ing disgraceful. They're not just any two players.

This is just an attempt to twist out of your old position. LMA being a 4.5 was never controversial. You were the one saying that as a result of that, he needs a center next to him. My stance this entire time is that they need to add the most talented big they can next to him, regardless of position. If it's Pau, then LMA would play as a PF. If it's Millsap, or Terrence Jones or whatever, then Aldridge would be a center. And yes, I agree that the third big being the opposite of the second big would be nice. Seeing as we've been talking about third bigs like Plumlee and Aldrich, it seems like getting a PF with the second-big salary slot is wise. There aren't many examples of cheap PFs out there who are good enough to play in the short rotation of a contender.

Wrong again. I said he needs both a center and a power forward that can essentially get by as his main big partner depending on match-up. Most talented big is fine if you can get a star. They can't, so fit needs to be the primary concern.

I think you're off your rocker if you think the idea of having LMA play PF is a GS idea. It's not. There are just too many damned examples out there of teams that aren't playing two traditional bigs nowadays. That includes a number of playoffs teams. And I'm not even talking about pulling like Animu at the four. We're talking about legit bigs here. LMA/West is hardly a GS-inspired front court. And LMA/Sullinger is significantly less so.

I not only never said that, but I said the exact opposite of that. If it's the Warriors, then obviously Aldridge will need to play more center. If it's the Thunder, then he needs to play more power forward.

I mean, they have exclusive control over three of their top-five bigs. And they are extremely likely to be able to keep a fourth. It's not very hard at all to figure out how to get the other guys if they want to go that route. But just as with Diaw, Parker and Mills are question marks. Unlike with Diaw, there is no one who is playing their position who can score better. Finding guys who can role and score isn't hard. Again, the Spurs have one in Europe right now. But they've have like no success finding guys who can drive and create mismatches. The priority has to be fixing that glaring flaw and finding a new guy to fill their sixth-man roll.

As far as Parker goes, he needs to be part of the Spurs' core the same way Haslem is part of the Heat's core. They can't rely on him, so if they keep him, they're going to have to improve around him and take his good games as gravy.

Obviously, we're all just guessing at this point, but at this writing, I suspect only Aldridge and Marjanovic are back out of the bigs.

Finding guards like that is more difficult (at least, for what they have to offer) than the type of center they could get by with for roughly 20 mpg next to Aldridge. And a lot of the scoring guards available that could fall in their price range don't fit culturally. You could argue they need to broaden their horizons, but they probably won't.

Parker may be a question mark, but he's not playing Haslem's role. He's making big money and he's going to remain as the starting point guard, so by default, he still IS a core player. No matter how much that needs to change for them to contend again, it's more than likely not, so they've got to work around it.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Go back and watch the games. Sure Spurs ran 4 down again at times like they used to, but Spurs ran a lot of the same sets -- they just created different shots because of the different personnel the Spurs had this year ( TD was no longer an effective diver since he had no knees -- he became a dribble hand off option, LA popped more often than rolled because thats who he is, West has never been a diver -- he's a popper who became unguarded as playoffs went along, Diaw became unconfident and was just a dribble hand off option after he popped from PNRs). Leonard had more PnR's called for him as the initial action than any ISO play for him or Aldridge. Most of the ISO plays just developed within the motion offense because no good looks were being generated from the motion offense -- so they just went to the ISO in the desperate second and third action. Go back and watch the games. Not having an effective diver hurt the Spurs' overall offense this year -- it hurt the bench more so because they couldn't generate offense for themselves or create for one another -- having a diver would have opened up better opportunities -- there's no doubt in my mind about that.

People can see all kinds of things by watching the games, there are too many things and too many games, so it's difficult to mindmap everything the Spurs ran without an effective stats tool and the NBA.com page doesn't look very helpful for some reason, so I'm not going to argue what sets the Spurs have played more and what they haven't based solely on my perception. I really don't think that most of the ISO plays have developed within the motion offense, especially in the playoffs, but agree to disagree there, I don't have the stats.

Also, I agree about the rollman for the bench unit but the Spurs would need a good passing PnR PG for this and they don't have anyone. Even if Manu returns, his playmaking hasn't been very good last season.

As for the primary offensive sets, unless they get an elite 3rd star in FA, I'd say the biggest question would be whether to put the ball in Leonard's hands and let him be a mini LeBron, or play him off the ball. The personnel around these two options would have to have vastly different skill sets. IMO if the Spurs don't manage to get someone significant this summer, I'd be happy seeing what Leonard can do if he's given the ball all the time.

If Duncan retires, I think the Spurs should get the best available big that they can to replace him and work around the fit after that, however, looking at the offensive profile of this team :

PG - non 3 point shooter, an OK slasher but declining, decent midrange J, average playmaker
SG - spot up 3 point shooter, everything else well below average
SF - elite post up player, elite midrange J, average slasher, good 3 point shooter
PF/C - elite post up player, elite midrange J, elite offensive rebounder, non diver, non 3pt shooter
PF/C - ?

What's the best skill set that would compliment this team would be? IMO the last thing they need is someone who plays in/close to the paint. They need a Horford/Millsap type much more than a Whiteside type.

[Chinook]

You clearly did. You're all over the place. First they don't need a stretch four (Jones and Sullinger shoot threes but aren't legit stretch fours), now they do; which one is it?

I told you, West already said this season that he's not interested in becoming a stretch four. The bottom line is, he fits neither description of the type of player they need next to Aldridge.

Dude, we're getting to the point that we should just drop this. I'm getting bored of talking about what a "real center" or "legit stretch-four" is. You just come up with polyphyletic examples of what you mean but expect us to agree it makes sense. LMA doesn't need a Ryan Anderson next to him. And the Spurs don't need that as their second-best big. He needs a guy who can give him space when he's in as well as score when he's out. Guys like Sullinger who can spot up, fade, roll, drive, cut and post up make perfect sense. That need that over some lumbering seven-footer. West isn't what they need, but he'll work well enough for them to focus the cap space on a guard and bench big. But he's not my first choice, as the rest of this paragraph confirms.

I want to see the Spurs win too and like I said, it's fine to say you'd prefer to see them move on, but even on a message board, ting on them is ing disgraceful. They're not just any two players.

You still need to show how I'm saying anything disrespectful about them. And even if I am, I don't really care. I'm not going to change my sig to "Tim and Manu have earned the right to play as long as they want." just so you can feel like I'm enough of a fan for your standards.

Wrong again. I said he needs both a center and a power forward that can essentially get by as his main big partner depending on match-up. Most talented big is fine if you can get a star. They can't, so fit needs to be the primary concern.

This is just another attempt to twist. The Spurs have one big who's a lock to be on the roster next year. One. They'll need five more. Stop trying to ride the fence with this "They need a PF and a C". They need a lot more than just one of each. But they won't likely be able to afford two of good quality, especially with the large need to fix the back court looming. So they have to be realistic. Then they have to worry about the rest of the rotation's talent level, which goes beyond complimenting Aldridge.

I not only never said that, but I said the exact opposite of that.

Yes, and I meant the opposite of that. And I think you know that. You said that I wanted the Spurs to be the Warriors. That's not true. None of the guys I've suggested would make the Spurs have a similar alignment, and there are too many examples of other teams going for perimeter-oriented PFs starting to act like GS made the blueprint for it.

Obviously, we're all just guessing at this point, but at this writing, I suspect only Aldridge and Marjanovic are back out of the bigs.

That underscores the need to get talent over fit. You get get fit guys for the min or room exception. Even if a guy like Aldrich starts, you'll need a bench big who's more talented than that.

Finding guards like that is more difficult (at least, for what they have to offer) than the type of center they could get by with for roughly 20 mpg next to Aldridge. And a lot of the scoring guards available that could fall in their price range don't fit culturally. You could argue they need to broaden their horizons, but they probably won't.

You're just supporting my point. The Spurs have $19 Million (minus Boban's salary) in your scenario. That's plenty of money to find a good guard. But they have to prioritize that financially. They can't afford to give $6 Million or whatever to a guy like Plumlee (who's not even worth half that). They'll need it all to attack their bigger weaknesses.

Parker may be a question mark, but he's not playing Haslem's role. He's making big money and he's going to remain as the starting point guard, so by default, he still IS a core player. No matter how much that needs to change for them to contend again, it's more than likely not, so they've got to work around it.

This is getting close to semantic turtling. If he's bad to the point that they'll have to work around him, then he's not part of their core. They aren't going to look for guys to compliment him. They're instead going to look for guys to compliment LMA and Kawhi while ignoring Parker. That's what I said in the first place.

[DrSteffo]

Chinook always use a lot of words, you have to give him credit for that. He is often wrong but would never ever admit it...

[objective]

West as a starter or 3 point threat is bizarre and the notion of a three point threat at this point is baffling

I did just barely crack video on Plumlee, beginning with the first half of OKC @ MIL which Plumlee started and small sample size and everything, caveat caveat caveat, and I did have some other things going on so the game didn't have my full attention, but he didn't look like he would have made a difference to be honest. Kind of a stiff, not fluid at all, mostly invisible on both ends. He was a taller, bearded David West. Adams and Kanter looked just as commanding, but I'll watch and pay attention to a few more games.

[MaNu4Tres]

West as a starter or 3 point threat is bizarre and the notion of a three point threat at this point is baffling

I did just barely crack video on Plumlee, beginning with the first half of OKC @ MIL which Plumlee started and small sample size and everything, caveat caveat caveat, and I did have some other things going on so the game didn't have my full attention, but he didn't look like he would have made a difference to be honest. Kind of a stiff, not fluid at all, mostly invisible on both ends. He was a taller, bearded David West. Adams and Kanter looked just as commanding, but I'll watch and pay attention to a few more games.

If you can, go back and look at video when he played for Hornacek, who had an offense that featured many similar sets & PnR action. Watch the ways Hornacek used to use him in the motion offense and in the different variety of PnRs -- his dives made the defense move and rotate ( which is what you want) and if they didn't it was a dunk almost every-time. Kidd didn't run a similar offense and they paid Henson, Monroe and then Jabari got healthy -- Miles was the odd man out from a roster construction perspective. He didn't see much time in an offense that didn't fit his skill-set anyway.

[Chinook]

Chinook always use a lot of words, you have to give him credit for that. He is often wrong but would never ever admit it...

Weren't you the one who tried puling the "I'm a university professor" retort to support your points?

[MaNu4Tres]

West as a starter or 3 point threat is bizarre and the notion of a three point threat at this point is baffling

I did just barely crack video on Plumlee, beginning with the first half of OKC @ MIL which Plumlee started and small sample size and everything, caveat caveat caveat, and I did have some other things going on so the game didn't have my full attention, but he didn't look like he would have made a difference to be honest. Kind of a stiff, not fluid at all, mostly invisible on both ends. He was a taller, bearded David West. Adams and Kanter looked just as commanding, but I'll watch and pay attention to a few more games.

Here's a great video featuring Miles Plumlee (starts at 1:34) in similar sets of Pop. Watch how his diving action opens up shooters or a wide open opportunity around the basket.

[apalisoc_9]

Chinook is confident he can become a three point shooter though going on his 14th year in the league -- so he'd fit in great.

[apalisoc_9]

Vying for West as a starter has got to be the worst take ive seen in quite a while and hes unanimously hated in the board for his lack of effort and size. Theres a reason why Indiana was so happy to get rid of him.

The biggest obvious need the dpurs need right now in our starting lineup is a roll man. Starting west and Aldridge together doesnt fit the need. It just exacerrbates the smae problem we already have anf thats lack of diverisity in the offense and poor penetration.

Way too many people cant realize the importance of a rollma to get your penetrators going.

[objective]

I don't think next season will be too exciting unless they get two very good players in free agency. Spurs have way too many holes to fill in one summer, and they have to focus an filling one or two long term rather than filling in three or four temporarily.

This quote doesn't encompass all of your posts but I think I remember enough to disagree strongly IF you think the Spurs have major holes and need another superstar added to have a chance. If I have your position wrong I apologize.

The Spurs are so damn close that even small improvements in personnel or coaching will make a huge difference.

They may not have lost a great number of player games to injury, but last year's spurs team had so much going against it that the 67 games is not just impressive, but in fact informative in ways people don't appreciate.

Kawhi and LMA together make them contenders. Because all around them this season was garbage and things going wrong. , if Pop doesn't have his head up his ass and played Boban against true centers more they not only likely win against OKC they also win 70 games. If Duncan plays like he did against the clippers they move on to Golden State.

Among everything that went wrong:

Duncan after the knee issue was a shadow on the court, be couldn't even finish when open at the rim. The defense faded. He performed very, very poorly. His offense was so bad ... there was no way he could score at even replacement player level. The pressure they added to the rest of the offense was crucially too much.

Green was poor shooting most of the year, worse than anyone would have reasonably expected. And they still won a ton.

Parker while starting the year well devolved into Porker with terrible defense mixed with occasional hero ball porking. A playoff albatross when his defense is factored in. I am not joking or being hyperbolic when I say I think they would be better off with Gary Payton II over Parker. Or at least neutral. He can play pnr with LMA and added a nice set three pointer, but he remains a problem. Despite him, they won a lot of games and should have beaten OKC.

Mill had a bad shooting year and his defense is getting worse with age. They still won a lot.

Manu declined and had his freak injury. They still won a lot and should have been in the conference finals.

Diaw sleepwalking through the season. Losing Pop's faith in the playoffs is probably the end of him. He had his moments in the regular season but could have been more. They still won a lot of games and should have won against OKC.

West played out of position all year and murdered the team against real bigs like OKC or in losses to the bulls and wizards. He did fine most of the regular season but was relied on way too much. They still won a lot and should have beaten OKC.

Anderson did nothing so spectacular that he mattered at all. They still won a lot and should have beaten OKC.

And Pop did his usual crap with the new guys like Boban and Simmons. Whoever is back will be on the verge of a huge season because Pop should finally give them a real chance.

All it will take are tiny gains: more trust in Simmons & Boban, the adding of Bertans, the drafting of someone like Payton II, even to be a back up, and maybe adding a good defender and finisher like Mahinmi.

They are damn close.

[MaNu4Tres]

This quote doesn't encompass all of your posts but I think I remember enough to disagree strongly IF you think the Spurs have major holes and need another superstar added to have a chance. If I have your position wrong I apologize.

The Spurs are so damn close that even small improvements in personnel or coaching will make a huge difference.

They may not have lost a great number of player games to injury, but last year's spurs team had so much going against it that the 67 games is not just impressive, but in fact informative in ways people don't appreciate.

Kawhi and LMA together make them contenders. Because all around them this season was garbage and things going wrong. , if Pop doesn't have his head up his ass and played Boban against true centers more they not only likely win against OKC they also win 70 games. If Duncan plays like he did against the clippers they move on to Golden State.

Among everything that went wrong:

Duncan after the knee issue was a shadow on the court, be couldn't even finish when open at the rim. The defense faded. He performed very, very poorly. His offense was so bad ... there was no way he could score at even replacement player level. The pressure they added to the rest of the offense was crucially too much.

Green was poor shooting most of the year, worse than anyone would have reasonably expected. And they still won a ton.

Parker while starting the year well devolved into Porker with terrible defense mixed with occasional hero ball porking. A playoff albatross when his defense is factored in. I am not joking or being hyperbolic when I say I think they would be better off with Gary Payton II over Parker. Or at least neutral. He can play pnr with LMA and added a nice set three pointer, but he remains a problem. Despite him, they won a lot of games and should have beaten OKC.

Mill had a bad shooting year and his defense is getting worse with age. They still won a lot.

Manu declined and had his freak injury. They still won a lot and should have been in the conference finals.

Diaw sleepwalking through the season. Losing Pop's faith in the playoffs is probably the end of him. He had his moments in the regular season but could have been more. They still won a lot of games and should have won against OKC.

West played out of position all year and murdered the team against real bigs like OKC or in losses to the bulls and wizards. He did fine most of the regular season but was relied on way too much. They still won a lot and should have beaten OKC.

Anderson did nothing so spectacular that he mattered at all. They still won a lot and should have beaten OKC.

And Pop did his usual crap with the new guys like Boban and Simmons. Whoever is back will be on the verge of a huge season because Pop should finally give them a real chance.

All it will take are tiny gains: more trust in Simmons & Boban, the adding of Bertans, the drafting of someone like Payton II, even to be a back up, and maybe adding a good defender and finisher like Mahinmi.

They are damn close.

Agree with a lot of this. Thanks objective.

[objective]

Here's a great video featuring Miles Plumlee (starts at 1:34) in similar sets of Pop. Watch how his diving action opens up shooters or a wide open opportunity around the basket.

That was a lot better.

And I love a diving finisher. Even if it's layups like Splitter. It's part of why I like Milutinov, I think he can do everything Plumlee did in the video.

David Locke has long been an advocate for the importance of finishers, particularly in the PNR. He has his own advanced stat, PAAC, which is Points Above Average Created. It's all about the use of a possession. Curry was historically great with his PAAC number, and Kawhi was 3rd or 4th in the regular season. And PAAC though possibly flawed really shows the value of finishers, like Whiteside or prime Chandler or how Brandon Wright was in Dallas. The really good ones aren't so easy to find. It's not as simple as just telling West to roll, he won't be converting points close the same rate.

At the same time, the three is also a key PAAC value, Korver was top 5 PAAC in the league last year (and Atlanta was great), but fell off and look what happened. This year Re was near the top and his points creation value was a big part of how they won so much without Griffin.

So by adding a shooter like Bertans and adding anyone who is effective at the rim, be it Milutinov or Plumlee or maybe a Ian if he can hold onto the ball, that would be a big deal for the offense.

[Chinook]

This quote doesn't encompass all of your posts but I think I remember enough to disagree strongly IF you think the Spurs have major holes and need another superstar added to have a chance. If I have your position wrong I apologize.

It's half-and-half. For the right half, I don't think the Spurs are going to be as good next season as they were last season. While I agree they were close to winning against OKC and even that they'd've had a great chance to represent the West in the Finals, I think it's going to be so much harder for them with an older roster, especially since matching Boban would take all of their roster flexibility other than trades and picks. If they bring the band back together I want them to focus on developing the bottom of their roster rather than getting even more old guys.

As to the wrong half, the West comments come from discussions on the post-Tim Spurs. I advocated the team signing the best big they could to play next to LMA without worrying about whether that guy were a center or a PF. Clearly, my first choice wasn't West. The West part was when talking about using the money on guards, I said that I'd be okay with West stop-gapping while the team rebuilt the rest of the rotation. 2017 will be a very good summer for bigs. While there are guys I'd be very happy with signing this summer I don't think it's the top priority. After that was just a bunch of back-and-forths about whether the team sucks with West starting. And they don't. So I don't feel particularly chastened.

[MaNu4Tres]

That was a lot better.

And I love a diving finisher. Even if it's layups like Splitter. It's part of why I like Milutinov, I think he can do everything Plumlee did in the video.

David Locke has long been an advocate for the importance of finishers, particularly in the PNR. He has his own advanced stat, PAAC, which is Points Above Average Created. It's all about the use of a possession. Curry was historically great with his PAAC number, and Kawhi was 3rd or 4th in the regular season. And PAAC though possibly flawed really shows the value of finishers, like Whiteside or prime Chandler or how Brandon Wright was in Dallas. The really good ones aren't so easy to find. It's not as simple as just telling West to roll, he won't be converting points close the same rate.

At the same time, the three is also a key PAAC value, Korver was top 5 PAAC in the league last year (and Atlanta was great), but fell off and look what happened. This year Re was near the top and his points creation value was a big part of how they won so much without Griffin.

So by adding a shooter like Bertans and adding anyone who is effective at the rim, be it Milutinov or Plumlee or maybe a Ian if he can hold onto the ball, that would be a big deal for the offense.

Glad to have a discussion with someone who gets it. Couldn't agree more with last paragraph especially.

[TD 21]

Dude, we're getting to the point that we should just drop this. I'm getting bored of talking about what a "real center" or "legit stretch-four" is. You just come up with polyphyletic examples of what you mean but expect us to agree it makes sense. LMA doesn't need a Ryan Anderson next to him. And the Spurs don't need that as their second-best big. He needs a guy who can give him space when he's in as well as score when he's out. Guys like Sullinger who can spot up, fade, roll, drive, cut and post up make perfect sense. That need that over some lumbering seven-footer. West isn't what they need, but he'll work well enough for them to focus the cap space on a guard and bench big. But he's not my first choice, as the rest of this paragraph confirms.

"Us", as if you're representative of the board's thoughts. Your lack of awareness and arrogance knows no bounds and blinds you from the reality that you just don't know nearly as much about this sport as you seem to think.

You still need to show how I'm saying anything disrespectful about them. And even if I am, I don't really care. I'm not going to change my sig to "Tim and Manu have earned the right to play as long as they want." just so you can feel like I'm enough of a fan for your standards.

I don't "need to show" and I'm not wasting my time digging through the short novels you and her have authored to find the myriad examples.

This is just another attempt to twist. The Spurs have one big who's a lock to be on the roster next year. One. They'll need five more. Stop trying to ride the fence with this "They need a PF and a C". They need a lot more than just one of each. But they won't likely be able to afford two of good quality, especially with the large need to fix the back court looming. So they have to be realistic. Then they have to worry about the rest of the rotation's talent level, which goes beyond complimenting Aldridge.

Can you comprehend anything? I'm talking about the rotation, genius. Here, I'll spell it out: In my opinion (I generally don't put like that since it should go without saying), Aldridge and Marjanovic are the only two likely to return and they'll slot in as starting power forward and backup center. That leaves 2 rotation spots.

They could get two, but they'd have to make a trade to also attempt to address the back court. I'm not necessarily advocating this or saying they'd do it, but for example: Trade Diaw, Mills and Simmons for Koufos and Collison, then sign Teletovic.

Yes, and I meant the opposite of that. And I think you know that. You said that I wanted the Spurs to be the Warriors. That's not true. None of the guys I've suggested would make the Spurs have a similar alignment, and there are too many examples of other teams going for perimeter-oriented PFs starting to act like GS made the blueprint for it.

It's only not quite true because it's not possible to replicate that exact team. Still, it's clear you've always wanted something along those lines.

That underscores the need to get talent over fit. You get get fit guys for the min or room exception. Even if a guy like Aldrich starts, you'll need a bench big who's more talented than that.

Out of realistic options, other than Gasol, I don't see much of a discrepancy in terms of talent, which makes fit the priority.

Again, I'm with that thinking, if it's someone like Millsap; not Sullinger, whom I'm not convinced is completely attainable anyway.

You're just supporting my point. The Spurs have $19 Million (minus Boban's salary) in your scenario. That's plenty of money to find a good guard. But they have to prioritize that financially. They can't afford to give $6 Million or whatever to a guy like Plumlee (who's not even worth half that). They'll need it all to attack their bigger weaknesses.

A good guard, who with their current roster will more than likely be a 20 mpg player. Why should that be prioritized over 48 minutes at a big position?

There's slim pickings available at guard. Gordon might be the best option and he's injury prone, up and down and doesn't seem a fit culturally (whether they should broaden their scope or not, I don't see them doing so).

This is getting close to semantic turtling. If he's bad to the point that they'll have to work around him, then he's not part of their core. They aren't going to look for guys to compliment him. They're instead going to look for guys to compliment LMA and Kawhi while ignoring Parker. That's what I said in the first place.

He is, by default. He's not going anywhere and his role isn't changing again, so they'll attempt to build a contender around that.

[SAGirl]

wow that was TD 21 version of going postal.

[dabom]

wow that was TD 21 version of going postal.

[Chinook]

"Us", as if you're representative of the board's thoughts. Your lack of awareness and arrogance knows no bounds and blinds you from the reality that you just don't know nearly as much about this sport as you seem to think.

Us meaning you and me, the two people having the conversation. I'll ignore the rest of this section, as it was just you going off on a misconception.

I don't "need to show" and I'm not wasting my time digging through the short novels you and her have authored to find the myriad examples.

Then you should shut the up about it. You don't get to make a claim and then act butt-hurt when someone asks you to back it up. For something with "myriad examples", it really shouldn't be time wasted. Or it would take even less time to just retract your statement.

Can you comprehend anything? I'm talking about the rotation, genius.

And no one failed to understand that. The point is that the debate has never been over whether they needed another center AT ALL. It's been about whether they need to prioritize having one next to Aldridge. My stance, going back to my first post in the "Post Tim Center Discussion" thread is that they need to focus on talent first and then look to fill in the pieces. Should you have a Splitter and Diaw? Sure. But if you had to pick one to prioritize, who do you pick? That was the nature of our debate, so this whole "They need both" argument is an attempt to rewrite your view into a mundane, non-controversial take. Like I ever said they shouldn't get one of both.

In my opinion (I generally don't put like that since it should go without saying)

And I don't either. However, you're wont to call me arrogant for it, Whether you disagree with that or not, it's baseless to suggest I've ever taken issue with you not qualifying your statements.

Aldridge and Marjanovic are the only two likely to return and they'll slot in as starting power forward and backup center. That leaves 2 rotation spots.

They could get two, but they'd have to make a trade to also attempt to address the back court. I'm not necessarily advocating this or saying they'd do it, but for example: Trade Diaw, Mills and Simmons for Koufos and Collison, then sign Teletovic.

They trade the two guys currently slotted in a backup PG and backup SG for one guard and then use every other ounce of reasonable roster flexibility to lock in bigs? I don't think that makes any sense. The last thing the back court needs is a legit hole with only the room exception and 29 to fill it. Not even getting into the talent part of it, since you aren't necessarily advocating for it. In any event, that trade and its issues underscore why "both" isn't a very realistic answer to the second-big question. They just end up with a much weaker roster trying to fill holes rather than target talent.

Out of realistic options, other than Gasol, I don't see much of a discrepancy in terms of talent, which makes fit the priority.

Again, I'm with that thinking, if it's someone like Millsap; not Sullinger, whom I'm not convinced is completely attainable anyway.

Unless you retreat into the nebulous world of "just my opinion", I don't think you can really say that Plumlee, Sullinger, Johnson, Aldrich and the other non Pau or max free-agent bigs are close talent-wise. There's just too much data out there. It seems at least as likely that the Spurs or some other team will pull out of the rubble another big who can do what those guys did with just a min deal. No idea if it will be Sacre or Sims or Greg Smith or Ndoye or Udoh or Okafor or who knows? Neither Plumlee or Aldrich was picked up with their teams expected them to be the answer to their problems.

A good guard, who with their current roster will more than likely be a 20 mpg player. Why should that be prioritized over 48 minutes at a big position?

I think it's disingenuous to claim that a high-caliber guard would be a 20mpg player given the state of the team's perimeter rotation. A premium guy would take Manu's minutes plus a good deal of Patty's or Parker and some of Anderson's along with some PF minutes as Kyle moved over there to fill in that missing player. We're not talking about spending the money on Randy Foye here. And if we are only talking about Gordon, we are talking about leaving some money to spend on a bargain big like Plumlee anyway, which offers another permutation rather than "both". It also probably means that a guy like West is starting, but of course, people don't want to hear that.

[TD 21]

Then you should shut the up about it. You don't get to make a claim and then act butt-hurt when someone asks you to back it up. For something with "myriad examples", it really shouldn't be time wasted. Or it would take even less time to just retract your statement.

What a predictable, cliche response. I get to do whatever the I want. I'm not the only one who's seen it; others have called you on it.

And no one failed to understand that. The point is that the debate has never been over whether they needed another center AT ALL. It's been about whether they need to prioritize having one next to Aldridge. My stance, going back to my first post in the "Post Tim Center Discussion" thread is that they need to focus on talent first and then look to fill in the pieces. Should you have a Splitter and Diaw? Sure. But if you had to pick one to prioritize, who do you pick? That was the nature of our debate, so this whole "They need both" argument is an attempt to rewrite your view into a mundane, non-controversial take. Like I ever said they shouldn't get one of both.

You clearly failed to understand it when you said "they'll need five more" and "they need a lot more than just one of each". You see it as an either or proposition and favor a power forward because you claim that's the best talent attainable. I see it as both potentially and think Gasol withstanding, the talent is close enough, which makes fit the priority.

They trade the two guys currently slotted in a backup PG and backup SG for one guard and then use every other ounce of reasonable roster flexibility to lock in bigs? I don't think that makes any sense. The last thing the back court needs is a legit hole with only the room exception and 29 to fill it. Not even getting into the talent part of it, since you aren't necessarily advocating for it. In any event, that trade and its issues underscore why "both" isn't a very realistic answer to the second-big question. They just end up with a much weaker roster trying to fill holes rather than target talent.

Again, it's an example of a way to upgrade point guard, while still bringing in two rotation bigs.

Or, they could look to get a legit starting big, like Gasol and upgrade both guard spots . . .

If Dunn falls to six and the Pelicans take him, I'd offer Diaw, Mills, 29 and if necessary Simmons, for Holiday and Gee (if Simmons has to be thrown in).

Sure, the Jazz could offer something like 12, Burke/Neto and maybe some third minor piece, but the Pelicans are desperate to win now, Demps' job has been rumored to be in jeopardy for a long time and he has Spurs ties. He might favor the more immediate help.

Unless you retreat into the nebulous world of "just my opinion", I don't think you can really say that Plumlee, Sullinger, Johnson, Aldrich and the other non Pau or max free-agent bigs are close talent-wise. There's just too much data out there. It seems at least as likely that the Spurs or some other team will pull out of the rubble another big who can do what those guys did with just a min deal. No idea if it will be Sacre or Sims or Greg Smith or Ndoye or Udoh or Okafor or who knows? Neither Plumlee or Aldrich was picked up with their teams expected them to be the answer to their problems.

Again, either ignoring or not comprehending what was said. I'm not entirely sure Sullinger is attainable given the Spurs' situation and Johnson could easily not come available either.

I'll use West as an example. Let's say he opts out and wants to return, but it'll take $5M to re-sign him. Let's say it'll also take thereabouts to sign Aldrich or Plumlee. Sure, West is still more talented, but it's close enough at this point that I'd rather what I believe to be a superior fit.

I think it's disingenuous to claim that a high-caliber guard would be a 20mpg player given the state of the team's perimeter rotation. A premium guy would take Manu's minutes plus a good deal of Patty's or Parker and some of Anderson's along with some PF minutes as Kyle moved over there to fill in that missing player. We're not talking about spending the money on Randy Foye here. And if we are only talking about Gordon, we are talking about leaving some money to spend on a bargain big like Plumlee anyway, which offers another permutation rather than "both". It also probably means that a guy like West is starting, but of course, people don't want to hear that.

I think a lot of you make the mistake of conflating what you'd like to see with that they'd actually do. Parker and Green aren't going anywhere and Mills probably isn't either. That leaves about 20 (maybe a few more with Green playing some small forward) mpg in the back court.

[Chinook]

What a predictable, cliche response. I get to do whatever the I want. I'm not the only one who's seen it; others have called you on it.

-made, man. Can't back up something that should be easy to demonstrate but still think you can call others out.

You clearly failed to understand it when you said "they'll need five more" and "they need a lot more than just one of each". You see it as an either or proposition and favor a power forward because you claim that's the best talent attainable. I see it as both potentially and think Gasol withstanding, the talent is close enough, which makes fit the priority.

I'll get into this on the a couple of quotes, but you're not going to find a way to twist out of this. We all knew they'd need multiple guys. They'll need a ton of new players if the exodus we're talking about comes to pass. So when we are debating, we are talking about priorities. You're trying to say that I only want a PF while you want both, and that's just stupid. I want both AND a guard, but there's no way that's reasonable to assume, so I have to prioritize what I want the team to get. That you're trying to not do that doesn't make you reasonable, it makes you seem unable to make a point. They just don't have the money to address all of their potential holes (ignoring the idea that they shouldn't even want to split the little room they have in the first place).

Again, it's an example of a way to upgrade point guard, while still bringing in two rotation bigs.

It's a poor use of resources that has the added issue of threatening their ability to get anyone of note in 2017. If they are going to be re-upping Boban, then the need to spend on two bigs is greatly reduced. That is even more true since you're only calling these guys rotation-caliber, which implies that the Spurs have spent so much precious flexibility on guys who are expected to just turn out average performance. That's even worse than last year's prognosis.

Or, they could look to get a legit starting big, like Gasol and upgrade both guard spots . . .

I already touched on this in the Holiday thread. I don't think it's realistic. If Diaw has positive value to any team, then dumping him for an asset makes the most sense. We'll know in a couple of weeks, but likely the Spurs won't get anyone good unless Diaw's deal changes.

Again, either ignoring or not comprehending what was said. I'm not entirely sure Sullinger is attainable given the Spurs' situation and Johnson could easily not come available either.

Had nothing to do with what I said. Of course, it's possible but extremely unlikely that neither of those Boston bigs are attainable. But they are free agents who aren't max guys. They are targets. If you literally think only bad players will be available, then that's your right, but I'm not getting on that bus with you.

I'll use West as an example. Let's say he opts out and wants to return, but it'll take $5M to re-sign him.

Let me stop you right there. The answer is no. Only way West could be in line for that money is if Tim returns while Boban leaves. The benefit of West is that he's cheap and won't embarrass himself as a starter. I'm not ear-marking money to West until the more important free-agent targets are spoken for. Room exception? Maybe, because that requires some trust between the team and the player. Actual cap space? Nope.

Contrived examples where one guy is younger and may still have room to improve aren't really a fair way to demonstrate the point. If you drop in someone like Ilyasova instead, then I think the debate makes more sense. I take Ersan without even thinking about it, but maybe you still think the center is the right choice. That's a legitimate debate where both sides could discuss and maybe come to an understanding. But if you try to go, "I want both", it's like someone running up the court and shooting the ball without dribbling.

I think a lot of you make the mistake of conflating what you'd like to see with that they'd actually do. Parker and Green aren't going anywhere and Mills probably isn't either. That leaves about 20 (maybe a few more with Green playing some small forward) mpg in the back court.

No, the mistake is that people think that everyone wants to talk about what the Spurs are going to do rather than what we want them to do. In my case, I don't care what the Spurs decide to do. I can't affect it. My statements aren't predictions. This is clear when people are talking about Bonner, who probably has a job a couple more seasons. But conveniently, it gets forgotten when someone wants an easy argument to attack. I mean, in this very post, you suggested trading Patty even though Pop said he was never going to do that.

Anyway, I don't agree that Pop wouldn't find significant minutes for a high-level guard. They'd get PG minutes if only because Parker is getting too old to play 30ish minutes while Patty is too inconsistent to warrant the remaining 22 or so minutes a game. And then adding in that if that Green will inevitably be involved in a season-long battle with that guard for the starting spot. And you have to add in small-ball with is a near certainty if the Spurs get that guard and don't get multiple rotation bigs. Now does that mean that a guy like Lou Williams would be blowing up the rotation? I was going to say no, but he probably challenges Patty pretty hard core. Anyway, a guy like Gordon would probably get all of the minutes his body could handle, as he just fit so many different combinations of lineups.