Nature of the Threat

[ElNono]

WB, good to read some stuff from you, LJ

[Leetonidas]

Wel,, if you combine Lakaluva and Kool's posts.....

Yer alright, lefty

[Phenomanul]

With one post, in one fell swoop, the quality of this board has returned to its former prominence...

Great to hear from you LJ...

[Russ]

Hopefully, the experiment with soft is over. The Leonard pickup is a good sign.

[bigfan]

Great to read your comments/opinions again.

[Spurminator]

Welcome back.

Who knows what we have to look forward to this season, but I really hope we've seen the last March lineup change. Pick a rotation and stick to it. For me, things began to really fall apart when McDyess was forced into the starting lineup in place of a Blair who had been playing at a high level most of the season.

I don't necessarily think that change cost us a championship but we never played as well with McDyess starting.

[mexicanjunior]

Good read timvp...good to see you back.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Welcome back bud!

Great read, no surprises there

[loveforthegame]

Welcome back.

Always good to read your posts.

[baseline bum]

Rebuilding question for you, LJ: assuming the Spurs end up picking about 20 like in 2010, who excites you in the 2012 draft that could be attainable there?

[Sense]

I've been waiting for this, it's been a long offseason.. glad you two are back.

[Fireball]

Good read ... as always.

Regarding topics I think the next weeks will be a frenzy with an information overkill. I would really like to see what you make out of the rumors floating around regarding possible free agents acquisitions and trades.

[Spurs Brazil]

Thanks timvp. Nice to see you back.

What do you think about our bigs and who they can bring to help the team in this area?

[cheguevara]

spurs going out into the sunset as mediocre team. round 1 or 2 playoff fodder.

[lefty]

Thanks timvp. Nice to see you back.

What do you think about our bigs and who they can bring to help the team in this area?

No need for an expert's point of view

1. they suck
2. nobody; or Kaman maybe

[wunderkindepiphany]

No, it wasn't a bad dream. The top-seeded San Antonio Spurs lost to the eighth-seeded Memphis Grizzlies in the first round of the 2011 playoffs. Not only did the Grizzlies win, they did so in convincing (and shockingly easy) fashion. And, yes, that was former Spurs enigma Ian Mahinmi tallying a couple notable hoops in Game 6 of the NBA Finals as the Dallas Mavericks took home basketball's ultimate prize.

For Spurs fans, to say last year's postseason was one to forget is stating it rather nicely. A championship window? Following April's meltdown, it's difficult to argue against using the stonecutter's hammer to install hurricane shutters.

Where did it all go so wrong? How did a 61-win team dissolve so thoroughly when the bright lights arrived? Truthfully, the problems began with those 61 wins. Those weren't 61 championship Spurs wins. No, those were 61 wins from a team a championship Spurs squad would squash on their way to a le.

Rather than rely on stout defense, a precise yet predictable offense and superior chemistry, the 2010-11 team racked up victories thanks to an equation that leaned on a relatively fast pace in addition to accurate (and active) three-point shooting. Defensively, the Spurs pressured the basketball more than usual, which would occasionally cause havoc in regular season games, but finished the year outside of the top ten in defensive efficiency.

When push came to shove -- and the Grizzlies weren't afraid to do either during the playoffs -- San Antonio was outed as a fraud. The pace slowed. The spacing that allowed the threes to rain during the regular season was replaced by the congestion of best-of-seven familiarity. The already porous defense saw the smoke clear and the mirrors shatter.

Digging even deeper, last season's team uncharacteristically began the campaign in a sprinter's stance. With players, most outspoken of which being Manu Ginobili, wanting the Spurs to avoid their typical guarded stroll out of the gates, the overall strategy of how to attack the regular season was altered.

Typically, coach Gregg Popovich has preached the importance of unraveling a season in a step-by-step manner. First, his teams would run only basic offensive sets while concentrating their in-game and practice time perfecting the defensive execution. Come the Rodeo Road Trip, Pop's teams would open the playbook -- but only after the defense had become second nature. The result of this strategy was oftentimes a somewhat slow start followed by a sprint to the finish line.

Truth be told, the changes to how the Spurs usually do businesses weren't made with malicious intent. Without a legitimate stopper on the perimeter and an interior that no longer frightens opponents, San Antonio went into the season knowing their defense wasn't going to be elite. To compensate, the plan was to allow the offense to carry a greater share of the load by running more while utilizing a penetrate-and-kick European style that would accentuate the abundant catch-and-shoot specialists on the roster. And perhaps just as importantly, this new offensively philosophy -- not the defense -- was the main focus from Day 1.

For a while, the results were better than anyone could have hoped. A team that was coming off of a 50-win campaign was 29-4 heading into the new year. A few weeks later, the Spurs were 37-6 and far ahead of the compe ion in the race for the league's best record. However, slowly but surely, they faded … with the first round becoming an unsightly exclamation point.

Hindsight allows us to see that the Spurs, almost certainly due to their change in philosophy, had peaked early. November saw the team average 108.1 points per game. December (103.3) was still strong but the team would really never reclaim the burst witnessed early on last season. Add late season injuries to Duncan and Ginobili and the recipe for disaster was complete.

With pride still mending, the Spurs head into a new season. To begin with, a crossroads: Where does the franchise go from here? Do they stubbornly trudge along straight ahead with visions of reclaiming their past glory? Does San Antonio tip their hats, accept the probable end to their run of excellence and begin the rebuilding process? Or do the Spurs split the difference and attempt to rebuild on the fly while keeping their core intact?

Although the chosen road won't be known until at least a week from now when free agency is in full swing, it appears as if a sneak preview was offered on draft night back in June. The Spurs, for the first time under Pop, traded up in the first round of the draft. In doing so, the team obtained Kawhi Leonard with the 15th overall selection in a swap that landed George Hill in Indianapolis.

Trading away arguably the team's best player outside of the Big Three in each of the last two seasons for a 20-year-old prospect screams rebuild. There's really no other way to digest that transaction. Yes, Hill, at 6-foot-2, would often end up miscast as a small forward due to the makeup of the roster and his lackluster playmaking abilities. Yes, Leonard -- on paper, at least -- has the ability to play small forward and supply the team with the size, strength and athleticism that has been lacking at that position for eons. However, a team with the sole focus of winning a le today doesn't trade away such a key cog for a mid first round prospect.

That said, a complete rebuild doesn't appear to be in the works; the free agency rumblings heard thus far involve complementary veteran players and the trade chatter is minimal. Of course predicting what the San Antonio front office is conjuring up at any moment is risky business, but everything points to the Big Three headlining the show come the day after Christmas.

No matter the road, the Spurs must first decide what to do with Richard Jefferson. An amnesty provision in the new CBA allows the front office to erase the $30 million owed to him from the salary cap numbers. Doing so would allow the Spurs to spend more in free agency and be more active when it comes to trades. Unfortunately, jettisoning Jefferson's contract isn't a simple decision. Not only would the Spurs still be on the hook for the total amount remaining on the contract, they'd face a quick turnaround when indoctrinating his replacement -- who could very well also be overpaid in what promises to be a brisk market. Making the situation even murkier is the fact that the CBA doesn't put a time limit on the amnesty provision.

Another quick decision will be need to be regarding Antonio McDyess. According to reports, McDyess' contract for next season becomes fully guaranteed if he isn't waived on the first day of free agency. If the Spurs do waive him, they would only owe him half of his $5.2 million salary. Another option is to use his partially unguaranteed contract as trade bait.

Father time, being the unforgiving bas that he is, has probably already put the championship era to bed. But if San Antonio decides to give it another go and delay rebuilding, the Spurs will fittingly tip off the 2011-12 season versus Grizzlies looking to prove that last playoff's downfall was a part of the final chapter and not the period at the end of the last sentence.

Basketball season is back! Nice post Timvp

[pawe]

Basketball season is back! Nice post Timvp

Do you really have to quote the entire thing just to say that bland response??

[wunderkindepiphany]

Do you really have to quote the entire thing just to say that bland response??

yup

[pawe]

yup

LOL look at this GNSF getting all butthurt.

[SenorSpur]

It's finally good to have something solid to read and discuss, besides NBA labor crap.

Good stuff. Welcome back.

[Big P]

Good to see you back timvp!

Great analysis as usual...thanks!

[SenorSpur]

Although the chosen road won't be known until at least a week from now when free agency is in full swing, it appears as if a sneak preview was offered on draft night back in June. The Spurs, for the first time under Pop, traded up in the first round of the draft. In doing so, the team obtained Kawhi Leonard with the 15th overall selection in a swap that landed George Hill in Indianapolis.

Trading away arguably the team's best player outside of the Big Three in each of the last two seasons for a 20-year-old prospect screams rebuild. There's really no other way to digest that transaction. Yes, Hill, at 6-foot-2, would often end up miscast as a small forward due to the makeup of the roster and his lackluster playmaking abilities. Yes, Leonard -- on paper, at least -- has the ability to play small forward and supply the team with the size, strength and athleticism that has been lacking at that position for eons. However, a team with the sole focus of winning a le today doesn't trade away such a key cog for a mid first round prospect.

For the record, count me as one who believes the Hill trade HAD to be done. The SF position has been a morbid disaster for a few years now. After all, had Nic Batum been available to the Spurs in the 2008 NBA draft, we would've never gotten to know George Hill.

IMO, the seeds of the rebuild had already begun even before this trade. Whether the Hill/Leonard trade expedites it or not, the Spurs absolutely needed to address the SF position sooner rather than later. They could no longer get away with masquerading Hill at the SF position, as part of Pop's dreaded three-guard lineup in crunch time. Watching that lineup during the Memphis playoff debacle was not only another indictment of a roster that has more than its share of deficiencies, but it also should be the final nail in the RJ coffin.

Based upon what I've been reading about Leonard, along with the picks stashed in Europe, I believe it was a very good move.

[objective]

For the record, count me as one who believes the Hill trade HAD to be done. The SF position has been a morbid disaster for a few years now. After all, had Nic Batum been available to the Spurs in the 2008 NBA draft, we would've never gotten to know George Hill.

I've become a little worried about what their core motivations were for trading Hill after all these news reports of them looking to sign these established SFs like Caron Butler, Josh Howard, Mo Evans, Shane Battier, Grant Hill, et al.

One of the reasons we could assume before that factored into the Hill trade was the forthcoming contract extension. In fact, I posted during the RJ new contract debate that his contract could affect the keeping of either TP or Hill. They ended up dropping Hill, even though he was light years ahead of RJ as far as productivity.

So now if they are looking for these other SFs, even if they do junk RJ somehow, this leads me to believe that the drafting of Leonard wasn't because of a legit desire to upgrade their SF position and to play him and make him their 'guy' . . . but merely making the best of the situation: needing to get something for Hill before his contract came up.

And sure enough, they now have a player cheaper than what Hill would have demanded for several years now.

But will they even play Leonard? Give him any legit opportunity at all? They went out of their way to not play Splitter, so it's not like they always operate on logic and reason.

[MaNu4Tres]

For the record, count me as one who believes the Hill trade HAD to be done. The SF position has been a morbid disaster for a few years now. After all, had Nic Batum been available to the Spurs in the 2008 NBA draft, we would've never gotten to know George Hill.

IMO, the seeds of the rebuild had already begun even before this trade. Whether the Hill/Leonard trade expedites it or not, the Spurs absolutely needed to address the SF position sooner rather than later. They could no longer get away with masquerading Hill at the SF position, as part of Pop's dreaded three-guard lineup in crunch time. Watching that lineup during the Memphis playoff debacle was not only another indictment of a roster that has more than its share of deficiencies, but it also should be the final nail in the RJ coffin.

Couldn't agree more.

Even though Hill was the 4th best player on the team last year, the difference between the 4th and 6th best player on the Spurs in terms of production wasn't significant. We don't know how the roster will shake out for the season, but I'm pretty sure Hill's production won't be as difficult to replace as Timvp is implying. Neal and Anderson should be able to fill in Hill's production offensively and at the same time, Leonard and Anderson should be able to guard 2-3's more effectively than Hill would, due to their size and athletic ability IMO. All in all, I don't see the trade of Hill as a step-back move or strictly a rebuilding move. I think the move is for now and for the future, as it creates a higher ceiling on the defensive end and at the same time, Spurs won't miss much of Hill's offensive output (his ability to get out in transition being the exception).

And as I've alluded to many times the past year, with or without R.J, Spurs weren't going to pay both Hill and Parker, unless they saw Hill as a future starting SG (which they obviously didn't; which was right IMO).