Reply With Quote
Not going to happen. He's played all season as a stretch 4 and been great at that spot. If he plays, that is the spot we will see him at.
Guys, if you don't know yet...
These playoffs aren't for him.
Not going to happen. He's played all season as a stretch 4 and been great at that spot. If he plays, that is the spot we will see him at.
I know it won't happen. However, it would happen if it were up to me. That's all I'm saying. The premise of the take was based on my perspective and what I'd want. It wasn't what Pop thinks or what Pop is going to do. Pop prefers the rookies take their time to ease into permanent roles by year 2, only if the depth is there with proven players who have respectful sweat equity. The rookies Pop has thrown in the fire ( Parker), or inserted in the rotation immediately (Kawhi) was due to their lack of depth at the positions.
Overall, Bertans is a much larger threat offensively than both Simmons and Anderson and Bertans is not a liability defensively.
Bertans is the better player and better prospect than both. I'd play him over both players at the back up SF.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 04-08-2017 at 01:42 PM.
Not going to argue on the merits of that bc I have only seen Bertans as a 4 and I cannot judge him as a 3 when he hasn't played that all season. He's a great shooter, but that spot entails not just the shooting, but ballhandling and playmaking. He's only acted as a pop or roller (very rare, as he pops a lot, but has rolled on ocassion as he's fast an athletic.) Just the way he's played I really cannot judge him or say he's better than anybody at the 3. Not having seen him play that spot all season except one blowout against the Lakers that was nothing to write home about, I don't even consider it.
Simmons may get those minutes as he has all season. I think Pop inserting Anderson lately in the rotation was well deserved for him. He's been solid when given chances and Simmons was throwing his own opportunities away with really bad games until recently. IMO, it was a to pressure Simmons to get his head out of his ass and start playing better. Even though IMO, Simmons is the worst player of the 3. He may be in a very short leash all things considered.
I hope Davis gets his chances, but it will be as a 4... Hopefully he can have positive impact when his number is called.
Spurs are in deep trouble against the Warriors and the Rockets. These two teams are going to to small ball on us and our bigs aren't going to be able to exploit that situation. Even worse, our smallish guards (patty and tony) are going to be eaten alive.
Unless they figure out how to have a team out there with the requisite quickness and size, we are in for a very short playoff season.
Do you really fear a D'Antoni defense over a full playoff series? Spurs win the series in 6.
You're looking at the wrong things then. It's not about the labels, its about the skill sets and Bertans commands the defense to acknowledge him when he's spotting up away from the strong side action. At the same time, when the defense does close out strong, Bertans is much more fluid and decisive from this triple threat position, pump faking and driving and dishing -- he usually makes the right pass more often than not and he's very quick from point a to point B unlike Anderson and Simmons who are hesitant and herk and jerk their way from Point A to point B. Bertans is much more fluid in regards to this skillset and this skillset is the prime skill set of a wing or a small forward who is not an initiator or creator ( something Simmons and Anderson are not --- unless they have the ball in a possession that's deep in the shot clock). And Anderson and Simmons' drive and dish effectiveness is hindered by their inability to garner hard close outs that bend the defense. Smart defenses will acknowledge them but they'll never run out and contest strongly -- which would give them an easier path to break them down off the dribble (if the smart teams did run out but they don't).
As far as their abilities to initiate, sure they have an ability to dribble and initiate in small stints vs. bad defenses or in lop sided victories, but so can Bertans and so can Forbes but neither of the 4 guys will be the prime initiators or the Manu off the bench. Although Forbes looked very good last night being the ball handler in the PnR, because he played under control with efficient movements and made the right pass to the open guy consistently -- which was a pleasant surprise).
Even if Bertans has played a 4, he's shown the skill set of a SF throughout the whole season. I look at skill sets and aspects within those skill sets, I don't look at labels. Bertans has the skill set to play the SF better than SImmons and Anderson in my opinion.
Does Bertans Pick and Pop? Sure he does when he plays the four but its not a staple, its just a wrinkle. Spurs optimize spacing and are at their best when its the 1-5, 2-5, or 3-5 PnR with Bertans spotting up on the weak-side with the 5 ( Dedmon, Lee or Gasol) rolling after the pick. That is the primary PnR they run when Bertans is on the floor.
Bertans has the skill set to be more effective than Simmons and Anderson at the wing. I could give a crap about labels.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 04-08-2017 at 09:26 PM.
IAppreciate the discussion and elaboration on your explanation, which is not cliche in the least.
Based on recent play, Simmons is Pop's guy.
He really has been all season at that spot, struggles and all and those who would argue the Spurs have not developed him well are wrong (If I remember correctly Mid made such an argument at some point, I just didn't care to debate about Simmons tbh. The reality is that he's gotten every chance this season to develop as a playmaker bc Manu is declined and Mills is lacking. He clearly has deficiencies, but he's had the role all season and I don't expect that to change.
I feel like Pop didn't really find the team's best iden y this season bc rookies typically get shafted by him anyways. He's slow to trust and truth be told, initially the Ded-Lee combo was too good to mess up and Simmons seemed to be heading in the right directon. Why mess with that?
Now the situation is different. I'd like to see him, but I doubt it. I specially doubt Pop will throw him in a spot he hasn't played all season, etc. On top of already being reluctant to even play him at the spot he has indeed played him all season.
Tough to tell. I really do appreciate what he brings and would like to see him more.
I honestly feel pop is missing the boat on Davis; he can play any role we feel Kyle can. KYLE ANDERSON is too soft and too passive to compete at this level
Is there a coach in the league who would not play Bertans in the playoffs?
Pop - except in garbage time.
I agree. The team needs a ginger out there
Porzingis is so frustrated with the Knicks he's skipping meetings. (Nice job Phil)
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1...cks-management
I knew this would happen. Man, I wish we could add a second Latvian to our team. Wonder what we could give Phil to get him realistically. Pairing KP, Kawhi and (maybe) Murray for the next decade could be sweet.Jackson was asked Friday whether any personnel move, including those involving a trade of Porzingis, is "off the table" this offseason.
"Everything has got to be possible, and we have to make sure that if people have something to say, we listen to it, we examine it," Jackson said before complimenting Porzingis for his development this season.
Last edited by BillMc; 04-15-2017 at 08:32 AM.
LA for him, straight up. Maybe throw in Porker to sweeten the deal.
Salaries wouldn't work. We'd have to take back some crappy Knicks players in return.
BillMcPZinger 4.5 Courtney Lee 11.7 Kyle O'Quinn 4 / LMA 22Salaries wouldn't work. We'd have to take back some crappy Knicks players in return.
Would Phildo go for that?
I dunno he and Pop don't like each other. Would Phil veto out of spite or would Knicks simply get better offers?
And unfortunately the trade machine won't really work on this trade, with the some of the Spurs' trade assets having options - team or player. But with Porzingis having such a friendly contract, I believe we would need to involve a third team, as well as assume a bad contract, as you indicate.
I believe we would need to sweeten the pot with picks. Imho Aldridge's value has declined pretty seriously since his signing with the Spurs.
Yes.
If Patty (or Green?) would go microwave again that would extremely sweeten his trade value.
Of course I would hate to trade Patty if he did turn in a Microwave 2014 type performance in another 'Chip.
Meh that's a big if.
I don't know. We'd definitely have to surrender a #1 pick (which given it would be in the late 20's, I'd be cool with).
Though not entirely fair to LMA, I agree this perception is true. His age (31) also doesn't make him a centerpiece for a perpetually rebuilding Knicks team. I could see Phil wanting LMA for Melo, but the Spurs wouldn't want that.
As you say a third team would have to be involved.
It's a shame if KP doesn't reach his full potential because of Knicks chaos. What the Spurs staff could potentially do with him, is worth a relatively risky move.
Agree with all you said - especially with the risky move. it was Timmy's loyalty to the Spurs that enabled the team to make low risk moves and yet consistently compete for les. Without his greatness and loyalty, I share your opinion that the team will now have to take greater risks than before to compete for the LOB. However, I have concerns that PATFO, having become accustomed to the luxury of being able to make low-risk moves, has the flexibility or per acity to adapt to Timmy's absence and make a higher risk move. It would sure be great to have Porzingis in a Spurs uniform!
I 100% agree they should take this risk but I don't believe in general they've been too conservative. I mean trading Hill, a big part of their team, for an unproven Kawhi was a big risk (one that paid out). And drafting overseas players who may have never come over to this country was also risky especially when it was fairly unprecedented back in the day. I'm not sure what risks you feel the PATFOs have proven gun shy upon. What aggressive actions would you have them take? Most such risks balloon your payroll and then required drastic actions to undo that problem. (Look at the Nets.)
Timmy certainly was a security blanket. And all those cheap deals he and others gave us, are going to get only rarer with new personnel who don't have the same commitment to the program. So, this I most certainly agree upon.
There is zero reason for the Knicks to move 3-6 Latvia. He is a 2nd year player that is frustrated. The Knicks still have all the advantages in place to keep him for the next six year or so. They could still move Melo, possibly in a deal involving Kevin Love and flip Courtney Lee to a playoff team for a 1st rounder to jump start the rebuild, he is on a decent contract, pretty good defender and an excellent 3pt shooter.
Last edited by cd021; 04-15-2017 at 01:59 PM.
The Hill trade was certainly very bold - and also extremely rare. I think it proves my point precisely by being the exception not the rule. How many other draft day moves do you remember? The euro picks started out as bold, but seemingly became rather rote means of preserving cap space in more recent years.
Dude was a steal. He's still learning the game and we are all scared of another ACL tear, but barring bad luck, he is the perfect stretch floor once he adds a bit more muscle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
