Agree. Trade is obviously the easiest route. You don't have to worry about selling the player on the team ... you just have to be willing to absorb the bad contract. Very cut and dry.
However, free agency shouldn't be totally discounted. Utah opened up cap room and got signatures from Maggette, Boozer and Okur. I wouldn't exactly call Salt Lake City the optimal paradise of the average NBA player.
I don't worry about selling San Antonio or selling the state of the team, the reason why the 2010 plan is so worrisome is there will be a huge amount of compe ion. There's going to be a bunch of teams fighting over the same crop of players. Taking advantage of the teams looking to shed salary to get into that compe ion seems like the safer and easier route.
The largest downside to settling for a trade is that the potential payoff isn't nearly as high but with memories of a Rasho and Hedo pull in the summer of 2003 after opening up cap space, the safe route sounds enticing. There's a chance you can land a Chris Bosh but there's also a chance you end up having to resort to Plan Y and Plan Z.
For the bigs, it depends on if the Spurs can get a legit starter. If they can, the bench bigs of some combination of Bonner, Thomas, Mahinmi and Gist would be fine.
The three needs to be addressed. Obviously the best route would be to bring in a starting quality small forward. But a scenario in which the Spurs run Ginobili, Hill, Mason, Bowen and a youngster or two (Hairston, Williams, draft pick, M. Almond, R. McCants, etc.) at the 2/3 isn't horrible. It's smaller than what would be preferred but the added speed could help the Spurs adjust to the faster NBA.
Getting Finley out of the mix by itself would solve a lot of problems at the three. The Spurs literally couldn't be worse off if they tried. 6-foot-2 Hill at the three would be better than Finley at the three next year.
Good points. But you take Manu off the team in 2005 and they probably lose to this Mavs team. You take Manu off the 2007 and they very well could lose to this Mavs team. These weren't the 2006 Mavs but the Spurs weren't really the Spurs so you can't do a straight equation.
Even with a healthy Manu, the Spurs had a slim chance to win a championship. I agree with your assessment that the supporting cast was just too weak. Finley is not a heavy-minute, defensive-stopper, go-to-clutch-shooter starter on a championship team. Bonner was obviously a choke waiting to happen.
But even if the Spurs "shot their wad" it wasn't even a semi healthy version of the team. It was a version of the Spurs that had Manu never at 100%, Duncan hobbled after the All-Star break and TP missing time in the beginning of the year. When the Big 3 was all together, they had a very good winning percentage despite never really finding a rhythm and having a horrible supporting cast.
54 wins out of the jumbled mess we saw this year is impressive in retrospect. Unless one wants to assume that Manu won't recover, Duncan will stay hobbled and the supporting players won't be upgraded, then the 54 wins should be a source of optimism. And on the other hand, if Manu won't recover and Duncan remains hobbled, anything done or not done is a moot point because the Spurs wouldn't be able to recover the loss via any trade that can be made.
I'm not sure what they would do in the regular season but I do agree that if the Finleys and Bonners are still integral cogs in the machine, they won't win a championship. The Big 3 with me and you at the forward spots would play .500 ball, though
The Spurs definitely need to uncover a couple gems to return to championship status. But I'd say that current Duncan + Parker + Ginobili > Duncan in his prime. So while that team had Duncan in his prime to build around, this team has an equally strong foundation to build around. Even aging Duncan + Parker is probably close to the equivalent of prime Duncan in the summer of 2001.
It's going to require luck, though. The Spurs will need Ginobili to squeeze out a few more years of high level play without breaking down in the playoffs. The Spurs need Duncan to remain elite. They need Parker to remain healthy and probably get even better. And then they need to get their hands on another damn good player to replace what Bowen brought, in addition to three or four trustworthy role players. Hill has a chance to be one of those trustworthy role players but that isn't certain at this point.
I disagree. Duncan structured his contract to open up room for 2010. That's been the plan the whole time. I doubt they'd reach the end of the tunnel and then Duncan wants out before the plan can actually take place. Now if the Spurs strike out this summer and get a trash grab in 2010, then yeah Duncan might be looking for greener pastures.
That said, I don't doubt morale would be low if the Spurs try to sell the idea of coming back with the same garbage that was out there this year. There needs to be something else added to the mix other than a "this year we're gonna be healthy!" slogan. I don't think anyone is expecting an overhaul but at least one above average player needs to be added to the mix via free agency or trade this summer ... and the gangrene needs to be removed from the starting lineup.
If you didn't give a what we think you wouldn't post here.
Quadriplegics with pee-bags need less attention then you do.
SUNS, ringless since 1968 and still going.
I'm tempted to think as Extra Stout does. With the inherent uncertainties of free agency in 2010, does it make more sense to accelerate the plan a year and use the many expiring contracts in a market with known quan ies and diminished compe ion -- in fact, the compe ion will be among those who are trying to dump long-term contracts to get themselves into the mix in 2010.
Duncan's woes in 2008-09 are the clearest proof of what we've all known for a while -- that the end is near. Do you hold out hope for the summer of 2010 and wade into the fray knowing: (1) that most everyone else intends to be a part of it; and (2) that some teams have inherent advantages (the ability to offer bigger deals, the lure of bigger markets, the availability of younger rosters and rising stars) that the Spurs can't really match? Do you do that knowing that without some pretty significant changes, your existing max (with no injuries and some good fortune) might be the conference finals and that your chicken little bottom might be entry into the summer of 2010 with injury-plagued stars and a late lottery pick?
Making moves this summer also gives the Spurs an additional year to make a run at that 5th le while Duncan still has something left in the tank. The summer 2010 plan basically says that the Spurs are going to sacrifice another one of Tim's few remaining years because, unfortunately, the current group isn't going to win another championship without a fair amount of retooling.
True, and without any guarantee that you'll actually get one of the prizes of the Summer of 2010.
Christ, I'm starting to sound like Ghost Writer.
End of an era? No. End of thinking they can stack around their best players and still expect to win? Yes. This team is only two good consistent role players away from being the Spurs all of us are used to.
Yeah, I'm fine with going the trade route now. You aren't going to get as good of a player as you might in free agency ... but that risk and potentially wasted year makes it a very strong argument to beat.
+1
It's not all bad. We're a good interior defender and a consistent sharpshooter away. Tricky part is how to deal for them given how the contracts stack up though.
Yeah, the question the Spurs ask themselves can no longer be "will this role player mess anything up or get in the way?"
The question now has to shift to "is this role player good at basketball?"
Without considering a lot of other specifics, I'd think that you could come pretty damned close to being in the elite mix again heading into 2009-10 with a summer overhaul that looked something like this:
1. make a deal with the Bucks to acquire a guy like Jefferson, who has the chops to play in big games and probably a longing to do that again;
2. identify 1 rotation guy and 1 deep bench guy in the mix of Gist, Hairston (maybe), Williams, and whoever you pick at 37;
3. use the MLE on a rebounding big man; and
4. spend the summer making someone other than Roger Mason the backup point guard.
That would add some youth and depth to the wings, address the hole in the middle next to Duncan, solve the stagnancy problems in the 2nd unit, and still maintain some flexibility for the following summer -- just not enough (probably) to make a big splash with a max level player. Of course, it's all the better if Mahinmi can get healthy and be a serviceable extra big and better still if Splitter somehow can be enticed to come over now and proves to be what he's supposed to be.
Isn't this clearly Hill at this point?
I also hope the Spurs find some way of prying Splittler from (used-to-be) Tau a year earlier. This allows them target a good wing player or add depth with their full MLE.
Put me in the group of people who want to make their move this off-season, not in 2010. Too many risks, and the foundation gets a year older with that approach. I hope the FO isn't so cavalier about throwing away one of Tim's last ALL-NBA years.
Reading some of what McDonald has written in the last couple of days (this, in particular), I get the sense that the Spurs still have some hope that it might be Roger Mason, Jr. I've noted elsewhere my hope that the Spurs will send George Hill to the summer league with instructions to play those games as a true point guard -- almost with instructions that he'll be yanked from the game if he shoots the ball. It's not the optimal way to assess his ability to run the offense, but it will certainly give him plenty of opportunities to work on the craft and, hopefully, improve.
I think Hill is a useful piece going forward, whether as a point or an off-guard, because he's extremely athletic, uber compe ive, and seems unafraid of a big moment -- which is more than can be said (I think) of certain other role players currently on this roster.
It's funny you would spend time writing in the same forum those spurm filthy fans are. Ignorance is a bliss.
Filthy fans? WOW! Where does that stem from? Pure, unadulterated hatred or sheer, petty jealousy?
+1
Previous teams won by not doing anything wrong, unfortunately that is not sufficient going forward.
There are going to be some opportunities to improve but adding players who can create off the dribble and someone with length who can defend the lane must be at the top of the list.
Most importantly, the Spurs have to be healthy. Even if the Spurs had added Camby in trade for Hill and Bowen, if Camby was gimpy or in a suit sitting beside Manu against the Mavs...the Spurs would have looked even worse and probably would have been swept and Spurs fans would be cursing that trade.
In order to compete talent-wise with teams like the Lakers and Cavs, the Spurs need to add another impact player. It doesn't need to be an NBA All-Star but another difference-maker. You would love to see the Spurs trade for or add a player the quality and potential of a Marreese Speights or Thaddeus Young or Anthony Randolph. Right now, as bad as this sounds, the Spurs could have used CJ Watson off their bench.
End of the season....spurs will be back and better than ever ....
Agree 100%
Trade Mason/Oberto/Bruce for RJ; bring Bruce back for the minimum.
Sign a big who can rebound and prepare for the parade
TD and Manu are getting old. We need to win now. the 2010 plan
As the owner of the board, I have quoted your post, but am anxious to hear from any of the long-time members who have made similar suggestions in this and other threads.
Please tell me how you get VC or RJ, keep the Big 3, and stay under the tax. Let alone do all that and use the MLE.
The lux tax limit for 2009-10 will be between 69.4M and 72.6M. Post 17 in this thread in the Think Tank has details supporting that range.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124692
For the sake of argument, lets use the highest number. Lets also assume that Finley does not exercise his option.
The Big 3 will make 45.5M next year and VC will 16.3M for a total of 61.8M.
72.6 - 61.8 = 10.8M for at least nine players. If you use the MLE of about 5.5M, you would have 5.3M for eight players.
And you would still have at least one contract of between 3.2M and 4.0M left on the roster after the trades, not to say anything about Hill, Ian or Bowen for the vet min.
I keep seeing these scenarios advocating a big contract trade target, sometimes with an additional MLE player, but I have yet to see any example of how that is possible without exceeding the lux tax by several million dollars.
Please show how the Spurs can do this.
Thanks
When Hollinger's era or season end?
Can't wait.
Unfortunately almost all of these guys have had lots of injury issues. And Antawn Jamison's salary is crazy gaudy, on par with VC. Spurs showed a clear interest in Vince and they could do alot worse. And Vince was healthy last 2 seasons.
Doesn't sound bad...it's the truth! And Thaddeus Young is just a badass.
Agreed. BUT, I also think that we've got some good pieces already that are still adjusting to the system. Mason and Hill in particular. There might be some chemistry issues too as far as guys adjusting to Manu's playing style, sometimes the second unit looked awkward when playing with him.
Not the end of an era at all, but the game is more fierce than ever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
