I personally don't believe the Spurs will do much here after their assumed successful pursuit of Splitter. (In regards of addressing SG/SF position via Free Agency)
However, if their 20th pick and THG (Temple, Hairston, Gee) fail to impress or show progress in summer league/workouts by the beginning of August, then I can see Spurs trying to lure a veteran wing around the same time they signed Bogans last year for insurance purposes.
But if I had a wish list of realistically attainable free agent SG/SF's they would be the following in order: (assuming Magic and Celtics make 1.J.J Red and 2.Tony Allen a priority to retain. And assuming Splitter takes up around 3-4 million of the MLE.)
Top 4
- Rasual Butler (Market value may be between 2-3 million;which is out of Spurs $ range)
- Raja Bell - (Market value should be between minimum and LLE)
- Dorell Wright - (Market value should be around LLE)
- James Jones - (Market value at minimum)
The rest available for minimum-LLE
- Jarvis Hayes - great from the corner 3; good 3 point shooter; tries to do too much offensively at times;decent defender
- Mo Evans- decent shooter;good athleticism( used to be great); better than average defender; can mix it up inside
- Damien Wilkins- Best on the ball defender of this group, one of most underrated perimeter defenders in league IMO;inconsistency from 3 throughout his career (shot 41% from 3 a year ago; and 29% this past year); versatile scorer;good athleticism and 7'0 wingspan.
- Rodney Carney- best athlete of this group; average shooter w/ bad shot selection;decent on ball defender; time is running out for him to prove himself
- Dominic McGuire- 6'9" SF with length and athleticism to become a consistent reliable defender; below average shooter; still room to grow
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-26-2010 at 06:56 AM.
I still feel the spurs need to concentrate on bringing in another PG. I am not very confident that Hill can play backup PG to Tony all year and I for sure as don't want Manu having to take that role over and run out of gas by all-star break. maybe a player like felton,blake,watson, ridnour? just a quick list.
If you aren't confident Hill can play the back-up point guard, then I'm not quite sure if there's any point guard that can. (In regards of point guards realistically available.)
Hill has been the best back up point guard the Spurs have ever had. I know that's a bold statement, but it's true IMO. The closest compe ion he has in this respect in the past 20 years is probably Antonio Daniels from the 00/01, 01/02 seasons. I don't understand the criticism he's received from some people.
Even if I'm wrong on this assessment, why would the Spurs spend a significant portion of their MLE on the point guard position with Tony demanding 30-35 mpg, leaving 13-18 minutes available for Hill (voted 2nd on most improved player in the NBA) and Temple who performed really well this past season? That is not the best route to get the best value out of your MLE. It's pretty dumb basketball economics IMO.
If 35-38 minutes is too overwhelming for Hill at the 2 and the 1, then I'd take away some of his SG minutes. Especially if Hairston, Gee or the #20 pick show adequate progress over the course of the summer.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-26-2010 at 02:26 PM.
Nicely said, 'Tres.
And people need to stop picking at Hill's flaws and remember that he's no finished project. He may not ever be the prototypical point guard but neither is Tony. And even if he doesn't develop into the type of playmaker (distributor) Tony's become, he takes care of the ball and is fully capable of getting the team in its sets and initiating the offense. Seeing the growth in his game and confidence from his rookie year to this year only has me more excited to see where he'll be next year.
People need to stop doing what they've done to Tony and others to every player with a flaw or a less than ideal game. If the pros outweigh the cons, why must you feel the need to throw the bathwater out with the baby? (I keed, I keed)
Having thought about players to fill this role quite a bit, I'd say you nailed it. Barring some unforeseen trade (one option I've brought up is Cook and while I wouldn't be surprised to see him acquired, I don't think it's likely due to him making over $2 million next season), I think it comes down to Jones and Hayes, with the edge to Jones, because he's easily the better three-point shooter of the two.I personally don't believe the Spurs will do much here after their assumed successful pursuit of Splitter. (In regards of addressing SG/SF position via Free Agency)
However, if their 20th pick and THG (Temple, Hairston, Gee) fail to impress or show progress in summer league/workouts by the beginning of August, then I can see Spurs trying to lure a veteran wing around the same time they signed Bogans last year for insurance purposes.
But if I had a wish list of realistically attainable free agent SG/SF's they would be the following in order: (assuming Magic and Celtics make 1.J.J Red and 2.Tony Allen a priority to retain. And assuming Splitter takes up around 3-4 million of the MLE.)
Top 4
- Rasual Butler (Market value may be between 2-3 million;which is out of Spurs $ range)
- Raja Bell - (Market value should be between minimum and LLE)
- Dorell Wright - (Market value should be around LLE)
- James Jones - (Market value at minimum)
The rest available for minimum-LLE
- Jarvis Hayes - great from the corner 3; good 3 point shooter; tries to do too much offensively at times;decent defender
- Mo Evans- decent shooter;good athleticism( used to be great); better than average defender; can mix it up inside
- Damien Wilkins- Best on the ball defender of this group, one of most underrated perimeter defenders in league IMO;inconsistency from 3 throughout his career (shot 41% from 3 a year ago; and 29% this past year); versatile scorer;good athleticism and 7'0 wingspan.
- Rodney Carney- best athlete of this group; average shooter w/ bad shot selection;decent on ball defender; time is running out for him to prove himself
- Dominic McGuire- 6'9" SF with length and athleticism to become a consistent reliable defender; below average shooter; still room to grow
I'd be fine with Jones. He'd add length, three-point shooting and versatility defensively (though I question whether he could adequately guard Bryant). Hayes, on the other hand, I wouldn't be fine with. Despite his reputation as a shooter, he's a career .356 three-point shooter, which is nowhere near good enough. Jones, by comparison, is .395.
The Spurs should bring in a veteran regardless of how impressive the 20th pick, Hairston, Temple and Gee, look in summer league. It would be foolish to go that young and inexperienced on the wings when aspiring to win a championship. I'm fine with giving those players opportunity to an extent, but it makes sense to have a veteran to bridge the gap between Jefferson, Hill, Ginobili and those three.
It wouldn't be necessarily foolish to go with the young wings that have had successful, yet limited experience this past season. Especially if they keep building on their overall game this summer.
Fact of the matter is, the gap between these players and the assumed players available for the minimum isn't significant to where it would significantly alter championship aspirations.
I'm fine with bringing in one of the wings mentioned, as long as they are told from the get go that they have to earn their minutes. I'm content with that. I just don't think they should bring in a player who is expecting a guaranteed role, which would only hinder any progression of these young players who have proven they can have success on the NBA level.
The question is, can the young players show the same success consistently if they are given more opportunity? I think next year is the year the Spurs need to find out with the 20 minutes or so that will be available in the 5th wing slot in the rotation. IMO
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-26-2010 at 07:51 PM.
Foolish is exactly what it would be and it would be a clear indication that they're not serious about winning another championship. I've yet to see a championship caliber team, let alone a championship team, win with their backup wings consisting of a rookie (who's most likely going to be a second tier prospect) and a cadre of D-Leaguers, not one of which that's established themselves in the league.
The reality is the Spurs will be lucky if one of the D-Leaguers turns into a rotation player, particularly one capable of contributing on a team which aspires to win a championship. To think that they, along with a rookie who'd be the 20th pick, could make up the entire contingent of backup wings for such a team, is not realistic. History tells us that.
I disagree. All around, these players are comparable to and in some cases might be better than, say, Jones, but Jones can do one thing that I know none of these players can do: shoot 40% from three. That's huge on a team that's in desperate need for three-point shooting. On the basis of that one skill, he could be one of those typical role players who plays a (relatively) key role in the playoffs for a championship caliber team.
The Spurs can tell said player the typical company line about "earning their minutes". Unless Jones pulls a 09-10 Mason, or one of the young players plays out of their mind, he should be ahead of them. Any type of veteran player brought in to fill this role will expect minutes; it's only natural. Unless it's a player who really follows the league closely, he's going to look at the Spurs and go "They got Ginobili, Hill and Jefferson as their primary wings and then they got a bunch of guys I've never heard of" and he's going to see himself slotting in between those two groups.
Not a single one has proven they can have success on the NBA level, nor are any such a prospect or talent that they have to be given rotation minutes. I'm all for not burying these guys behind the Bogans' of the world, but at the same time the Spurs can't honestly just rely on these guys and expect to not just compete for, but win, a championship that way.
First off, saying that they have had no success in the NBA isn't accurate. They've had some success in the NBA, even though it was limited they still were successful in the NBA minutes given to them; much more success than the typical "D-Leaguer" would produce. In fact the main reasons why they spent time in the D-League because of two reasons:
1. They were owned by a team loaded with veterans vying for a championship and no time was available. And please don't say, well if they were that good then they would have earned playing time in practice. The Spurs hardly ever had real practices or scrimmages rather. They would have a light run through, where they go over assignments for an upcoming opponent. And follow that with a light shoot around. And that is it.
2. Because of being on a roster, full of veterans who all have " earned their stripes" with Popovich or with the NBA. Spurs wanted their young players to get quality playing time to keep their game in a progressive rhythm. It was virtually impossible for them to find playing time on the Spurs with the way Spurs were contending for a le. It's a testament to how good Temple and Hairston have progressed to have actually earned some playing time over some veterans during some important games.
If you don't think they had any amount of success in the NBA last year, I'd like you to tell me what this indicates then. And just in case you want to use the " they played only garbage time" card. I laid out all the stats in the games they averaged over 20 minutes.
Garrett Temple- played in 27 NBA games last year. In 334 minutes at 12 minutes per game he averaged 5 ppg on 44% shooting and 35% from 3.
*In 10 games Garrett Temple averaged 21.4 mpg and averaged 10.2 ppg on 49% shooting and 45% from 3.*
Malik Hairston - played in 47 NBA games last year. In 317 minutes he shot 57% from the field and 20% from 3.
*In 7 games Malik Hairston averaged 23 mpg and averaged 10 ppg on 59% shooting and 29% from 3. *
Alonzo Gee- played in 11 NBA games last year. In 182 minutes at 16.5 mpg he averaged. 7.4 points on 48% shoting and 78% from 3(inflated due to small sample size only 9 attempts)
*In the 6 games Alonzo Gee averaged 22.8 mpg and averaged 10.3 ppg on 51% shooting and 75% from 3(6-8)*
As I said before this indicates some success in the NBA, limited but still success. They were able to compete and perform on the NBA level on more than one occasion. So to say they are just "D-Leaguers" is foolish to say.
* Also you are arguing over something I did not say.*
I'm not saying bringing a veteran in is a bad idea. I'm for it as long as they aren't guaranteed a role. Of course whoever they bring will expect time, they are compe ors. But that doesn't mean for Popovich to give them the benefit of the doubt like he did with Mason and Bogans. As long as what happened with Mason and Bogans this past year doesn't happen again, I'm content with bringing in a minimum level veteran for insurance purposes.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-27-2010 at 11:12 AM.
You're right, technically it isn't accurate, but guess what? Mason has had success in the NBA. In fact, more than any of them have had to date. So how about the Spurs re-sign him? Or bring back Udoka? He had moments where he looked like a credible NBA player. The point is none of the D-Leaguers are anywhere near established enough or are projected to have high enough ceilings that a team with championship aspirations should entrust them with a role in the rotation. If one plays out of his mind and earns that trust, then fine.
Ah, more telling me things I already know. When did I imply these guys weren't "good"? I've repeatedly said, I like Hairston and don't want to see these guys buried behind a cadre of minimal veterans (just like I said I'd like to see Mahinmi re-sign), but you're so caught up in having an argument that you've obviously failed to realize that.
I disagree. It was more so a testament to how bad Bogans and in particular Mason were, that Hairston and Temple got some minutes. In the case of Temple, he primarily got minutes because the Spurs were thin at the point.
At this writing, they are just D-Leaguers. Maybe by this time next year, they won't be. But I think you, like many, are getting carried away with these guys just because you've been starving for youth/athleticism on this team for a while. The reality is none of these guys is a first tier prospect and the likelihood of more than one becoming a rotation player for a championship caliber team is not good. In fact, there's a very real possibility that none will be of that quality, especially as soon as next season. Sure, they all might be able to play in the league on some run of the mill team, but the Spurs need a specific skill set for this role of primary backup wing and I don't think any of these guys fit the bill.
Whatever veteran is brought in should absolutely be given the benefit of the doubt. They have a track record; the D-Leaguers don't.
No at this writing they are under contract with an NBA team. Making them NBA players. Not D-Leaguers. That my friend is a fact.
And I'm not getting carried away with them at all. I'm actually being realistic. As many high respected posters on this board would agree. I'm not talking about them becoming a starter or a first wing off the bench. I'm talking about the likely hood of one of them establishing themselves as the 5th wing in the rotation. Which more than likely could be the case.
Bring up any technicality you want, the reality is none are established NBA players and none are blue chip prospects. To entrust any beforehand to play a relatively important role for a team with championship aspirations would be foolish.
Who cares who else agrees? This conversation is between me and you and as near as I can tell, you're getting carried away with these players. The Spurs will be lucky if one provides them with a meaningful contribution next season.
By the way, it's likelihood; not likely hood.
I'd take Butler but I don't want anymore of these 6'5 "bulldog" "centerpiece" type defenders like: Udoka, Bell, Bogans.
agree.
none of these 6'5" and under guys are going to be able to guard the players we need to limit at the playoff level. Think of guys like bryant, lebron, anthony, durant and so forth.
can we sign shannon brown??
only if he opts out of his 2nd year with the Lakers. he would get 2.15 million next season. so if he opts out, he expects more than this number. (which is a LLE contract)
if Spurs sign Splitter for all or most of the MLE as expected, they only have the LLE to offer to Brown. bottom line: even if he opted out, Spurs don't have a chance to sign him considering the current situation.
I was going to say that I thought if the Spurs could steal Channing Frye away from the Suns to take Bonner's place, but after looking at their stats, they are very similar.
Frye: 22 min 9 pts 46% FG 42% 3FG 80% FT 5 RPG
Bonner: 18 min 7 pts 47% FG 41% 3FG 79% FT 4 RPG
Those are career numbers. I thought that Frye had better production, but I think him shooting over 50% 3FG against the Spurs in the playoffs tainted my views of him.
What do you guys think of Frye? This is, of course, if Splitter decides not to come over.
Frye will be vastly overpaid this off-season. He can shoot the 3 sure (even though hes pretty inconsistent at times) but he brings absolutely nothing else to the table. He is even worse defensively than Bonner.
I thought about that after I made my post. Someone will throw way too much money at him because he had a decent season shooting the ball.
I wasn't sure if he brought anything else to the table or not, but I think that's because my thought of him was skewed by the performance he gave against the Spurs.
I don't think Frye will be overpaid. His market value should be close to 3-4 million. IMO
And Frye is not as bad defensively as you're implicating. The guy has the length and size to be able to contest shots off the ball from the weak side and in one on one situations in the post; much more effectively than Bonner can.
If Splitter stays in Europe and Spurs have the choice in bringing back Bonner or going after Frye. I'd go with Frye, even though I have a feeling he will resign in Phoenix.
On the other hand, If Splitter stays in Europe my first option would be to draft Larry Sanders and to resign Mahinmi for around 1.50-2 million a year.
That is a much better option than competing with other teams in a bidding war for a role player of Frye's caliber. IMO Which would result in paying 20-30 million over the course of 5 years. (Too much money and too many years.)
And if you really think about it, the Spurs have been very reluctant on giving role players contracts for more than 2-3 years. Only ones I can think of on top of my head are Malik Rose and Rasho Nestorovic, which the F.O realized how big of a mistake it was not even 2 years after the fact.( Because of them I think they have learned their lesson. Which is something many GM's should learn from R.C and Pop; Joe Dumars anyone?)
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 06-09-2010 at 01:19 PM.
I think someone could be stupid enough to throw him 5-6 mil a year contract which IMO is too much. 3-4 would be just fine.
His length is good sure but true post players are able to just go to town down low on him in the paint. I know we didn't see much of Tim doing during the 2nd round like we expected but that has more to do with Tim getting older and his knees than it does Frye's defense. The comparison to Bonner might be harsh but I think Bonner is better moving his feet and staying in front of his man than Frye is but overall another "stretch 5" who plays at best mediocre defense definitely is not the answer IMO.
I don't understand how you can come to a consensus that Bonner stays in front of his man better. IMO Frye did a fine job against LA, SA and POR in regards of staying in front of his man. We can agree to disagree, I don't think there's as big of a discrepancy as you're implying. I think Frye is an underrated positional defender with length to be able to contest more effectively from the weak side and in one on one situations. Bonner has good positioning as well, but due to his physical liabilities, he loses the battle more often than not in one on one situations. From the weak side Bonner doesn't have the ability to contest, so he resorts to trying to take charges; meaning he has to be precise in his rotation in timely fashion or it's an easy 2 points or 2 free throws. If he's too late it's 2 free throws, if he's too early the offensive player can easily make an adjustment to easily get his shot off around the basket without an effective contest from Bonner.
While I'm not trying to defend Bonner whatsoever (I want him out as much as the next guy) but I've never heard of Channing Frye being some strong weak side defender. I was more implying that when pulled out to the perimeter I think Bonner is better at staying in front of his man while hes driving to the basket. There is no doubt in my mind Frye is the better post defender although I don't know about him being some good weak side defender but at the end of the day I wouldn't want either of them on our squad, especially if it means giving up our MLE for one of them. I don't think were really disagreeing on much. I don't like Bonner's defense as much as the next person but I definitely don't think Frye is much better if any better at all in that regard.
Yeah I never said he was a strong- weak side defender. I just mentioned he was capable, where Bonner is not.
Regarding Frye vs Bonner, the major difference is not statistical nor defensive ability, rather it is that Frye has demonstrated that he's not a complete choke artist in the playoffs... Unlike Bonner. I would not object to Frye on the team, but I suspect he will be overpaid this summer; even if we are not able to sign Splitter, I am not sure that Frye is worth the MLE.
Frye has played in 2 playoffs' and has been extremely bad..PER of 10.5, TS% under 51..he's not a Bonner-level choker(only Roger Mason is at that level), but he's a certified choker..
I don't think his D is that bad, his post D is pretty decent, better than I thought it would be..I just don't like him though, I don't think he's a championship-level player..he's soft and has low basketball IQ, as he demonstrated in the playoffs with his bad shot selection and bad decision making..
Hopefully the Spurs go away from these soft chokers..stop looking for Horry so hard, Robert was a unique player..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
