Reply With Quote
Good thing is that 'cutting' young guys we can send them to the nbdl
Pop would keep the older guys in the active spurs roster IMO
Or maybe Pop will try to use November as pre-season to develop the players in season level NBA ?
Pop's comments about Hairston are very encouraging, but then he also makes the comments about potentially leaving the spot vacant, which is discouraging..this is really going to be an interesting last week or 2 of pre-season games and camp..
The key with Malik is that he's clearly improved DRAMATICALLY from when we first saw him in last year's Summer League until now..he's completely changed his style of play to fit that of a swingman, which wasn't his game in college..that's one of the main aspects when you want to make it in the NBA or any sport..you have to be a hard worker, and Hairston clearly has a huge work ethic..
I don't know if Pop will really cut him though..his comments are encouraging..Tony mentioned Hairston in an interview a few days ago, and he wasn't even asked about him..not only would Hairston be a great addition to the roster, but he would also be a notch in the belt for the Austin Toros system and another guy that shows the success of the D-league in general..it would be another way to convince future players to play for Austin by pointing out how Hairston has worked hard as a late pick and is now on the roster after developing his game with the Toros..promotes the Spurs farm team, and it'll show our 2nd rounders and late picks that they will have a realistic shot at eventually making the roster..
Another reason is that Hairston has fate on his side..come on..the guy was apart of a Phoenix Suns draft trade..if that doesn't guarantee success, I don't know what does..
Good thing is that 'cutting' young guys we can send them to the nbdl
Pop would keep the older guys in the active spurs roster IMO
Or maybe Pop will try to use November as pre-season to develop the players in season level NBA ?
Highly unlikely that Haislip gets cuts.
(1) Doesn't look good for Spurs to bring in a guy from Europe only to cut him in pre-season.
(2) Pop sat him out last game. In short, there's no need to further evaluate the guy. Simply not fair to sit a guy and give him no chance to prove himself in the court.
(3) The guy has a guaranteed contract.
With Bogans I'm not sure with the situation. See, nobody else wanted to sign this veteran. He supposedly got the veteran minimum from the Spurs. However, (although the agent claims that its guaranteed), I'm not so sure (see: http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ries/spurs.jsp ).
Bogans and Hairston - who gets their seat in the chair when Pop stops the music?
You might be correct, but I find it hard to believe that Haislip has done enough for Pop to just sit him because he doesn't need to see anymore..I don't know if they would cut Haislip, but he hasn't done anything at all in any of the 3 games so far..he's been one of the worst players so far IMO..
I don't see Haislip getting any potential minutes over Duncan, McDyess, Blair, Bonner, Ratliff, AND Ian..that's 6 guys ahead of him..so you could very well be correct about that, but it would be very disappointing if Hairston doesn't make it because of a guy that has no chance of getting any minutes at all, and hasn't played well at all in pre-season..
Bogans versus Hairston discussed from almost all angles here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=135419&page=2
Hate to be a downer but I really don't think the Spurs keep Hairston. Personally, I think he's worth a roster spot but the Spurs will cut him knowing that another team isn't likely to scoop him up. Then they'll sign him to the Toros. If at some point another team is about to call him up, they may go ahead and sign him later in the season. If they go down that path, that would save them some money and it's generally low risk.
I don't see a reason to think about keeping Williams, Jerrells or Jones at this point. All three would be good additions to the Toros, though.
The odd aspect of that article is that it makes it seem like the Spurs may try to trim their roster all the way down to 13. Who else is gone? Logically a big would have to go but I don't really think it'd make too much sense to waive Haislip or Mahinmi. Perhaps the Spurs will do Mahinmi "a favor" and buy out his contract and explain that he wasn't going to get minutes and that he needs minutes to further his career. With Haislip, if the Spurs tell him he isn't going to even be on the active roster, perhaps he'll agree to a buyout to go back to Europe or try to join another NBA team.
I've basically been expecting the Spurs to only carry 14. I think going all the way down to 13 would be a mistake -- if only for practice reasons.
Hairston contract stay non-guaranteed at the end of the training camp. So if Spurs likes him but have some doubts, they can keep him and give him some minutes in November before making their choice It won't cost them a lot of money.
And with the luxury tax, Spurs interest isn't to waive players with guaranteed contracts. If, as example, Haislip shows nothing and Spurs need a roster spot, Spurs best interest it to trade him after December 15th. A trade like Haislip + cash to pay his remaining salary + $250K to motivate the other team to to the trade will save Spurs $600K compared to waiving Haislip.
One aspect of this training camp that I like is all of the players are very motivated to be on this Spurs team. It seems the Spurs history of quality FO, coaching, and players is starting to make San Antonio a prime destination for players who want a ring.
the whole article does not make much sense.
yes, we know about economic crisis, cap going down, lux tax, etc.
Spurs knew this for several months.
so, if the Spurs in fact had planned to reduce the roster to 13 or 14 to save some money, why did they sign Haislip, Ratliff and Bogans to guaranteed contracts in the 1st place. the Spurs had a core of 11 players under contract.
it would have made more sense to sign maybe one more veteran to a guaranteed contract, but then to only sign unguaranteed contracts to 4 more players and to decide after camp who to keep. it's not that this #13 and #14 player would be crucial for a championship run.
so I think they decided to pay the tax to get a deep veteran core when they signed the 3. and they decided to keep one of the 2 unguaranteed if they are good enough during camp and go with 15. if either Hairston and Williams would have failed, they of course cut both and go with 14. especially the Bogans signing doesn't make much sense, if reducing the roster was a major goal.
I'm still not sure how much talent window Hairston has however he is most definitally a NBA calibur player. He may never be an All-Star (as many fans seem to think that all 12 of our players need to be) But he looks like he will be a very good role-player.
As for Hilsap, I'm not sure whats going on there. It was very odd that he did not get to play the last game. IT would be very unfair for him to get cut if he wasnt given the chance to prove what he can do. Pop Played Jones for God sakes!
I notice that too and Haislip name came to my mind. Maybe his contract is not fully guaranteed.
I didn't like the tone of that article. It seems pretty clear the Spurs are wanting to cut the roster down beyond the obvious choices.
Not sure what else Hairston has to prove but it doesn't sound good for him.
Hairston did a good job, keep him !!!!!
obviously hairston has the best shot.
Hairston is making the team. Stop the crazyness
C'mon Jones!!!!!
Just kidding I had no idea who that nucka was when I saw him playing in the Houston game.
they're already over the cap. they've already gone all in. why cheap out now? fill out the in roster so we dont have to go through a thousand 10-day contracts this season.
Everyone who keeps talking about waiving Haislip or Bogans needs to read this and at least make an attempt at absorbing it.
I agree with others that have said that this article makes very little sense. In order to get the roster down to 13 the Spurs would waive players with guaranteed contracts, still pay tax on them and they might eventually have to sign another player(s) to replace one or both of them. It makes absolutely no sense financially. As Bruno said, they are better off hanging on to them and trading them after Dec. 15th.
Hairston has show to be better then Bogans in every way. He is knocking down shots while Bogans isn't. He is rebounding way better then Bogans(The guy gets up). He is even blocking shots which is something I don't even see in Bogans game. Malik has shown to be just as competent staying with his man as Bogans has. The FO tried to play it safe and sign Bogans as there premiere perimeter defender, but Malik has thus far shown he can do everything Bogans has done but better. The only thing Bogans has going for him is he is an experienced NBA player. But we haven't even seen Malik's ceiling yet and everything he has shown me thus far is equal to if not better then what Bogan's has done.
All I know is if we let Hairston go I hope he gets snatched up by another team during the season. We in' deserve it.
This sucks. All in all the off season moves have been great, even though the level of play so far has been a little disappointing. In the long run, I know that these last roster spot decisions won't effect the main goal hardly at all. But it is still a little disappointing to see that a player like Malik may have to go.
I know the reasons why it may happen, but I don't envy Pop's job with regards to player cuts.
Wake me up next time roster spots #13, 14 have made any difference in a championship campaign of any team.
Or #11, 12 for that matter.
A lot of good takes in this thread; from the potential to show some fruit-bearing of the farm team to the financial ramifications.
And, yet, despite the sound logic and solid takes, I'm still having a hard time making much sense of the Monroe piece.
One would assume he's reporting on something he's learned about through someone inside the organization, one would at least hope, given the less than stellar basketball a en he and McDonald have both displayed, so why would the Spurs be looking to trim their roster to as few as 13?
timvp's post is a belief I've shared, as leaving an open roster spot and going with 14 is more of a Spurs-type game plan that leaves a little more roster and financial-flexibility, and Malik would be a very unfortunate, and possibly costly, casualty; basketball-wise.
The all-in mentality just doesn't seem to coincide with worrying about carrying a 14th and 15th low-cost option; even if that low-cost option comes at about twice the price because of luxury-tax.
It's a bit of a half-assed all-in, if you ask me..
Just looking at this from purely basketball-standpoint, this team still has two question marks even if they remain healthy: 1.) Do they have the perimeter defender to contend with the elite wings, and 2.) Do they have the defensive-size/length to contend with the upper-echelon of the league?
The answer to the former just might be Hairston and if they can they adequately picemeal their 3-6 big's to get the job done, they could very well answer the latter as well.
So if your sole intention is to win a le, luxury-tax be damned, cutting a potential cog that might help in that endeavor seems a bit misguided.
Pop's comment about practice, and his preference to have more players for those purposes, leaves me wondering if that wasn't a subtle hint to Holt..
Could it be that Holt asked Pop about maybe going with 13, instead of the full-roster he'd been hinting to during TC?
I know he really opened the wallet and had a real departure in character, but 2-4 million in payroll isn't the same pittance for Holt that it would be for someone like Cuban or Allen...
I agree with Blackjack 21 on some of these points.
I'm guessing that Holt gave Pop and RC free reign to make moves, but now that he feels more confident with what they have, he'd like to save a little money if possible. Otherwise, why bring the economic interpretation into the article? As others have said, the article doesn't make much sense.
Also, there's a lot of talk about end of bench players never contributing to a championship. While that's true in general, I don't think Hairston is an end of the bench player any more than several players. The pecking order after the top 7 or 8 players is going to be up for grabs this season in my opinion. Finley, Hairston, Mahinmi, Haislip, Bogans, and Ratliff - it's a balance of promise versus deterioration, and by the end of the season it is unclear if the vets will have anything left as well as if the new guys become legitimate players.
Given that, it doesn't make any sense to start cutting players if the sole concern is talent and production. If it comes down to money and convenience, then yeah, Hairston might be screwed.
Blackjack 21 - any chance you write by a pseudonym of "Timothy Varner"? Ha. Your posts seem eerily similar to 48 Minutes of .
Spurs will go with 14 players. Hairston and Williams will get cut. You have been primed. There just is not enough minutes to justify a tax that doubles their salary. The 14 guaranteed contracts will be the team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
