What if West is simply "done"?

[Chinook]

Speaking of under-the-radar bigs to try to get for cheap, I wonder what it would take to keep the Magic from matching on Dedmon. He's not a seven-footer, but he is a defender/roller, and he has a pull-up that makes him dangerous on the short-roll. The Magic gave up O'Quinn for a song last summer, and they might do the same for Dewayne. But it's also possible that the team cleared so much front-court salary (Harris and Frye in addition to letting Q'Quinn walk) this past season so that they could match any offer.

[TD 21]

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

Call it what you want, but I told you, I'm not wasting my time. But you know full well you have. What's worse, you don't have the balls to own up to something on a message board.

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).

Once again, out to lunch. I'm not trying to twist out of anything; you clearly didn't get it. The only time I've discussed anything having to do with the deep bench this off season, is when I said I wouldn't mind Robinson as a fifth big.

Bull . They have the money to potentially address everything, but it'll take some creativity and frankly, some settling. I didn't say they'd necessarily get high quality.

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.

Maybe so, but it's an example of addressing three quarters of the potential rotation holes, something you seem to think is impossible.

Marjanovic is probably a match-up dependent player, which means it's unlikely he's anything more than a fourth big.

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.

Had everything to do with what you said. You specifically lumped the Celtics bigs in with the other two.

So if you think players suck, then they must, right? You're one of those people who thinks 90% of the players in the league suck, even though you clearly don't watch much.

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.

Again, no reading comprehension. I'm not suggesting they'd give West that. I'm saying, he could easily opt out and be looking for (and possibly command) that on the open market.

If they're "contrived examples", then when you brought them up? Besides, all of those centers have been in the league a minute and more or less are what they are.

I get that Ilyasova is just an example, so I'll play along: They could have both with him, as he'd replace Diaw, thus leaving the cap space untouched.

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.

I'm well aware that most talk about what they want them to do, which is fine, but it's often completely unrealistic. I usually speak within' the confines of what I think they'd do.

I doubt Pop meant that literally and even if he did, things change. Like I said though, I think Mills is likely to be back, but I also think they're at the point now where they'd move him in the right trade.

It depends on the guard. I think Gordon is unlikely, as is anyone of that caliber. Unfortunately, they'll probably end up with Vasquez or someone of his ilk.

[Chinook]

Call it what you want

I know, that's why I called it -made. It isn't getting any less so as you continue to try to find a way to come out of this not looking like you got caught pulling something out of your ass. There's nothing wrong with me asking you to back up a statement you made about me. And you know that. You refusing to do so isn't defensible, and for you to try to call me out as arrogant and cliched or say that I can't admit when I'm wrong when you'd do this is just so much worse.

Once again, out to lunch. I'm not trying to twist out of anything; you clearly didn't get it. The only time I've discussed anything having to do with the deep bench this off season, is when I said I wouldn't mind Robinson as a fifth big.

You're acting as if you aren't the only one talking about this bench. I was saying "They need a really good PF to be their second big next to LMA". Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you always meant it, you're retort was "They'll need a good PF and a good C". And my retort to that was, "They'll actually need a whole new rotation." You're the one who changed the scope, so when someone else changes it to point how just how much work there is to be done, it rings hypocritical for you to try calling them out. They'll need to figure out their starters. And they'll need to figure how how to get good production from their bench. AND they'll have to find deep-bench guys who can fill in as necessary while still hopefully having upside. For all we know, the deep-bench may end up being a factor in their moves. Like having Bonner back might discourage them from signing another stretch-four, while picking up Okafor for the min might make them think they don't need another "true center". That's a fascinating but separate discussion, and it doesn't change the fact that "both" is just an attempt to sit on the fence at best and strawman me at worst.

Again, no reading comprehension. I'm not suggesting they'd give West that. I'm saying, he could easily opt out and be looking for (and possibly command) that on the open market.

I stopped you because I said West wasn't equal to Plumlee or Aldrich for the same price. If we were talking about those guys for the min, I'd be more than happy bringing them on board. And if we were talking West for cap space, I'd say no. Ilyasova is at least a 20-something player who may be had for a song. And he's very arguably better than the centers we were talking about, though he's crazy inconsistent. As far as what contract they'd get, it's actually not as simple as you're making it out to be, especially since you assume Boban returns. You have Plumlee, Boban and Ersan all taking up about $5 Million each, and that leaves no room to do anything else in free agency. I can understand the argument that they represent good value for that total, but the team still has it's major weakness, and I would totally call that an overreaction to the OKC series. Now, if you only bring in one of those guys and keep Boban or let Boban go and get both, you can try convincing Gordon to come over on a 1+1 deal with $9 Million or so in cap space. But then, you're not really "bothing" anymore.

I'm well aware that most talk about what they want them to do, which is fine, but it's often completely unrealistic. I usually speak within' the confines of what I think they'd do.

And yet, we've managed to have how many debates without me critiquing your lack of imagination? If that's how you want to see it, that's fine. But I don't think it's any more virtuous to be realistic in your expectations as a fan. Our job is to follow the teams like crazy; realism is what the front-office guys get paid to do.

Unfortunately, they'll probably end up with Vasquez or someone of his ilk.

I really don't disagree, though I think he'd be a horrible fit next to Anderson. Rather have Neal back for cheap than mess with lower-tier PG types.

[tholdren]

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.

They are and they are not close. It's the difference between a series and a regular season game(s).

1. First and foremost the spurs don't have a leader of the team. Some times its Tim, other times it's KL, then it's LMA. That bit them in the butt this playoff. Spurs STILL don't know who the "torch" is being passed to. That's a problem.

2. They don't have anyone that attacks the basket and controls the pace of the game. This doesn't matter in the regular season. It does against three point shooting teams in a series. You either need another overpriced scorer, or you need KL/LMA to change their games.

3. Athletes - Spurs don't have em. Playing against OKC showed. No one rebounded tough, no one went hard at 50-50 balls. This has been a Spurs problem. Not different than much of the rest of the league really, but no one in SA gets developed into an athlete of one with any type of dexterity/agility. Spurs bigs play slow, spurs perimeter players can't drive. WTF?

4. hunger/heart - Didnt really see the want or much of a fight the past few years. Could be coaching. Could be the pussies the Spurs bring in. Could be pop lets them live life too much and not spend enough time in the gym. Manu didnt even seem like Manu this playoffs.

Spurs will be a decent regular season team, but until they get some players with balls, then they'll drop out of the 1-2 round.

[objective]

They are and they are not close. It's the difference between a series and a regular season game(s).

1. First and foremost the spurs don't have a leader of the team. Some times its Tim, other times it's KL, then it's LMA. That bit them in the butt this playoff. Spurs STILL don't know who the "torch" is being passed to. That's a problem.

2. They don't have anyone that attacks the basket and controls the pace of the game. This doesn't matter in the regular season. It does against three point shooting teams in a series. You either need another overpriced scorer, or you need KL/LMA to change their games.

3. Athletes - Spurs don't have em. Playing against OKC showed. No one rebounded tough, no one went hard at 50-50 balls. This has been a Spurs problem. Not different than much of the rest of the league really, but no one in SA gets developed into an athlete of one with any type of dexterity/agility. Spurs bigs play slow, spurs perimeter players can't drive. WTF?

4. hunger/heart - Didnt really see the want or much of a fight the past few years. Could be coaching. Could be the pussies the Spurs bring in. Could be pop lets them live life too much and not spend enough time in the gym. Manu didnt even seem like Manu this playoffs.

Spurs will be a decent regular season team, but until they get some players with balls, then they'll drop out of the 1-2 round.

1. The leadership thing is overrated. Curry couldn't even win finals MVP last year and often has to be bailed out by Thompson. The more important leadership is coaching, and when the coach hamstrings his own team, that's a bigger deal.

2. They could have athletes to attack the rim, like Simmons, but they don't play them. Also, what big time scorers out there will supposedly attack the rim? Not Eric Gordon. Derozan for the max with terrible efficiency? Spurs will be fine if the coaching is fine (it won't be). Parker is finished but his issues can't be addressed until the coaches want to.

3 & 4. They could have the athletes, easily. They could play Simmons. They could have played Boban, while not fast was strong. They could draft a player like Gary Payton II. They could bring over Milutinov who would improve the athleticism of the old midget frontcourt. They could sit Kyle Anderson who plays en led and lazy and doesn't hustle his three toed claws like he should. , they can bring over Hanga or Dangubic. Cutting a poor shooting but hard playing Butler for tired Martin was a bad choice, but it was a decelerate choice.

Getting athletic, and adding hustle and heart isn't hard or expensive for the Spurs. The problem is the will of the powers that be. Getting hustle, heart & athleticism doesn't require max salary additions. It takes good, simple choices.

All these things are doable on whatever caproom they end up with, regardless of who retires. That doesn't make them far away, it makes them close, until they choose to be far away.

[Kawhitstorm]

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.

Forget "divers", had Tim been able to finish POINT BLANK layups then the Spurs would have won Gm 2. The team doesn't need an elite roll man like Tiago, just an average big that can finish at the rim will do on offense. LMA/Kawhi make their living outside the paint & issue arises when the 5 man doubles LMA on the block but all you need is a big that can flash to the rim & finish. Cole Aldrich is a guy that can give you 20 quality minutes on BOTH ends.

Kawhi needs a point guard that can spread the floor more so than a roll man, that's the reason the Patty/Kawhi two-man lineup had a ridiculous ORtg. For example, Carmelo didn't fare well w/ Amare but he had his best season when the Knicks surrounded him w/ shooters. Kawhi/Porker is also a bad fit like Carmelo/Iverson, PATFO need to get Conley who's the modern day Billups.

[MaNu4Tres]

Forget "divers", had Tim been able to finish POINT BLANK layups then the Spurs would have won Gm 2. The team doesn't need an elite roll man like Tiago, just an average big that can finish at the rim will do on offense. LMA/Kawhi make their living outside the paint & issue arises when the 5 man doubles LMA on the block but all you need is a big that can flash to the rim & finish. Cole Aldrich is a guy that can give you 20 quality minutes on BOTH ends.

Kawhi needs a point guard that can spread the floor more so than a roll man, that's the reason the Patty/Kawhi two-man lineup had a ridiculous ORtg. For example, Carmelo didn't fare well w/ Amare but he had his best season when the Knicks surrounded him w/ shooters. Kawhi/Porker is also a bad fit like Carmelo/Iverson, PATFO need to get Conley who's the modern day Billups.

You obviously don't understand the significance of an effective diver. In the games that matter vs. the elite teams, they will not double Aldridge -- especially OKC and W's. The bad teams, during the season may, but why make personnel decisions based on the JV games the Spurs will play?

They need an effective diver to have a higher ceiling as a team-- I've explained why many times to you but you obviously just don't understand. I obviously can't help you.

[AFMadison]

You obviously don't understand the significance of an effective diver. In the games that matter vs. the elite teams, they will not double Aldridge -- especially OKC and W's. The bad teams, during the season may, but why make personnel decisions based on the JV games the Spurs will play?

They need an effective diver to have a higher ceiling as a team-- I've explained why many times to you but you obviously just don't understand. I obviously can't help you.

Your arguing with a guy that has hardly any basketball IQ. Spurs need drivers.

[Kawhitstorm]

You obviously don't understand the significance of an effective diver. In the games that matter vs. the elite teams, they will not double Aldridge -- especially OKC and W's. The bad teams, during the season may, but why make personnel decisions based on the JV games the Spurs will play?.

Did you miss the OKC series when they ignored Tim (after they found out he couldn't make a layup in Gm 2:) & started doubling LMA by sending help LATE (they started overplaying his right shoulder & sent help when he turned over his left shoulder for layup/jump-hook)

Kerr used a similar tactic in the 3rd matchup when Bogut was available (he was out when LMA pounded 'em in the paint), that's actually how LMA dislocated his pinky.

It's basically what teams use to employ against Tim & he would often times dump the ball off to Admiral for a jam.

A roll man would be a luxury, the MAIN priority for the team is a point guard that excels running PnPs, plays off the ball & can check their own man. Even 2014 Porker wasn't able to utilize Tiago despite Carlisle not helping off shooters, PATFO could sign PRIME Amare & it wouldn't make much of a difference w/ Porker at the helm since team would dare him to beat them like OKC.

Conley excelled playing w/ a PnP center (Gasol) & also playing off the ball while Z-Bo went to work so he would be the most ideal fit especially since he can check his man. PATFO would have to dump Porker for this to happen so I'm all for it even though he would be getting overpaid.

[Chinook]

Did you miss the OKC series when they ignored Tim (after they found out he couldn't make a layup in Gm 2:) & started doubling LMA by sending help LATE (they started overplaying his right shoulder & sent help when he turned over his left shoulder for layup/jump-hook)

Kerr used a similar tactic in the 3rd matchup when Bogut was available (he was out when LMA pounded 'em in the paint), that's actually how LMA dislocated his pinky.

It's basically what teams use to employ against Tim & he would often times dump the ball off to Admiral for a jam.

A roll man would be a luxury, the MAIN priority for the team is a point guard that excels running PnPs, plays off the ball & can check their own man. Even 2014 Porker wasn't able to utilize Tiago despite Carlisle not helping off shooters, PATFO could sign PRIME Amare & it wouldn't make much of a difference w/ Porker at the helm since team would dare him to beat them like OKC.

Conley excelled playing w/ a PnP center (Gasol) & also playing off the ball while Z-Bo went to work so he would be the most ideal fit especially since he can check his man. PATFO would have to dump Porker for this to happen so I'm all for it even though he would be getting overpaid.

I do think people are totally underestimating the extent to which the Spurs' decline in PnR play has to do with Parker and Manu getting older. I posted the stats showing how those two aren't facilitating as much as they used to (especially in the playoffs), and they were "disagreed with". I just find it odd that people are demanding Plumlee and Aldrich when they want Miles due to his time playing with Dragic and Cole from his time playing with CP3. I bet that if the Clippers have to find a new backup center that they'll be able to get another guy who will good great as a roll man.

You get a guard who can challenge on a drive, and your PnR offense will look fantastic. When it's just old Tony trying to get by guys, you won't see great play there very often.

[Kawhitstorm]

I just find it odd that people are demanding Plumlee and Aldrich when they want Miles due to his time playing with Dragic and Cole from his time playing with CP3. I bet that if the Clippers have to find a new backup center that they'll be able to get another guy who will good great as a roll man.

I actually wouldn't mind Aldrich as a 20 minute type guy, unlike Plumlee he actually has post moves (which he displayed when he was w/ the Knicks) & an above average rim protector ala Mozgov. (Plumlee is essentially Baynes 2.0 & a strictly PnR player)

[Chinook]

I actually wouldn't mind Aldrich as a 20 minute type guy, unlike Plumlee he actually has post moves (which he displayed when he was w/ the Knicks) & an above average rim protector. (Plumlee is essentially Baynes 2.0)

To me, it's not about wanting them or not wanting them. It's about people putting too much emphasis on them. Having a guy who runs to the rim isn't really that useful in a lineup where players post up so much. And it is in no way a bigger need than a guard who can penetrate. It's funny that when Parker and Manu were in their primes, the Spurs were able to find a bunch of rolling bigs. Now that those guys are old, PATFO apparently lost its touch.

[TD 21]

I know, that's why I called it -made. It isn't getting any less so as you continue to try to find a way to come out of this not looking like you got caught pulling something out of your ass. There's nothing wrong with me asking you to back up a statement you made about me. And you know that. You refusing to do so isn't defensible, and for you to try to call me out as arrogant and cliched or say that I can't admit when I'm wrong when you'd do this is just so much worse.

Resorting to playing internet tough guy and thinking I care what people on a message board think.

There's nothing wrong with you asking and with me tell you I'm not wasting my time.

You're acting as if you aren't the only one talking about this bench. I was saying "They need a really good PF to be their second big next to LMA". Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you always meant it, you're retort was "They'll need a good PF and a good C". And my retort to that was, "They'll actually need a whole new rotation." You're the one who changed the scope, so when someone else changes it to point how just how much work there is to be done, it rings hypocritical for you to try calling them out. They'll need to figure out their starters. And they'll need to figure how how to get good production from their bench. AND they'll have to find deep-bench guys who can fill in as necessary while still hopefully having upside. For all we know, the deep-bench may end up being a factor in their moves. Like having Bonner back might discourage them from signing another stretch-four, while picking up Okafor for the min might make them think they don't need another "true center". That's a fascinating but separate discussion, and it doesn't change the fact that "both" is just an attempt to sit on the fence at best and strawman me at worst.

I thought you weren't committed to a specific position and wanted the best talent? Stop flip flopping and just admit that you think Aldridge is a center because he has the physical tools for it.

I didn't change . I said they need something like co-second bigs alongside Aldridge. I didn't say it would be easy or that they'd necessarily be able to get it this off season, but that should be the goal. Not committing significant long term money to mediocrity that doesn't solve anything and pigeonholes them to Aldridge essentially being a full time center.

I stopped you because I said West wasn't equal to Plumlee or Aldrich for the same price. If we were talking about those guys for the min, I'd be more than happy bringing them on board. And if we were talking West for cap space, I'd say no. Ilyasova is at least a 20-something player who may be had for a song. And he's very arguably better than the centers we were talking about, though he's crazy inconsistent. As far as what contract they'd get, it's actually not as simple as you're making it out to be, especially since you assume Boban returns. You have Plumlee, Boban and Ersan all taking up about $5 Million each, and that leaves no room to do anything else in free agency. I can understand the argument that they represent good value for that total, but the team still has it's major weakness, and I would totally call that an overreaction to the OKC series. Now, if you only bring in one of those guys and keep Boban or let Boban go and get both, you can try convincing Gordon to come over on a 1+1 deal with $9 Million or so in cap space. But then, you're not really "bothing" anymore.

Well, you're a fool if you think there's any chance of West opting in. The only reason players in his position (playing for well under market value) have player options, is to secure more guaranteed money in the event of a career altering injury.

There's no reason to think he won't cost significantly more to keep, if he doesn't retire.

In your scenario, with Plumlee, Marjanovic and Ilyasova, they'd obviously have to go the trade route in the back court.

I don't see it as an overreaction. Odds are Durant stays for at least another season, so that match-up issue isn't going anywhere. The vast majority are consumed with the Warriors, but seem to forget that they've got to beat either the Thunder or Clippers just to get to them.

And yet, we've managed to have how many debates without me critiquing your lack of imagination? If that's how you want to see it, that's fine. But I don't think it's any more virtuous to be realistic in your expectations as a fan. Our job is to follow the teams like crazy; realism is what the front-office guys get paid to do.

It's not about a "lack of imagination" or being "virtuous"; I just think it's pointless. There's nothing wrong with saying what you'd like to see happen, but having long, drawn out debates over things that have no chance of happening, is a waste of time.

I really don't disagree, though I think he'd be a horrible fit next to Anderson. Rather have Neal back for cheap than mess with lower-tier PG types.

Not really. Vasquez has become a decent three-point shooter in recent seasons and would bring more ball handling/play making than Neal. A Neal-Mills back court would be even worse.

[tholdren]

West is as bad as martin. Has no place in the playoffs. Both of them should walk