How many SG's in the NBA, if swapped for Danny Green straight up, would improve us?

[Baam]

There's no way Green is taking a pay-cut this time around, he's gonna get the biggest deal of his career and unlike TP/Manu/Kawhi he wont ever risk his health with his national team...

[TD 21]

So you're thinking a four-year deal somewhere between $24-28 Million?

Yeah, I've thought that for a while.

I think we'll see more five-year deals in the upcoming off-seasons because teams will want to lock in talent as cheaply as possible ahead of 2017.

Agents/players are aware of this though, so the perfect storm is probably going to be required for this to occur (think the Grizzlies and Pondexter). Think about it: The good - great players aren't locking themselves in and costing themselves more in a few years time and the average - worse players, in most cases, teams won't want them for that long, even if it is at a reasonable number.

But if Duncan reups, I think they'll hesitate on paying Green in 2017 and beyond (only Parker and Anderson are under contract at that point).

I don't follow your logic here.

I don't think Green's going to leave next off-season. But I could see some scenarios where that may happen.

If he did leave, those definitely seem like the most plausible scenarios.

[Chinook]

Agents/players are aware of this though, so the perfect storm is probably going to be required for this to occur (think the Grizzlies and Pondexter). Think about it: The good - great players aren't locking themselves in and costing themselves more in a few years time and the average - worse players, in most cases, teams won't want them for that long, even if it is at a reasonable number.

Five-year deals were relatively common under the old CBA, when it was easier to qualify for them. We're just now seeing the end of those types of deals. The appeal for taking the longest-term deals is the same now as it was then, when players like Artest, Ariza, Haslem and Miller were signing them. Players without much upside tend to be okay with stagnant salaries if it gives them a lot more guarantees. While Green may well bet that he'd get a big deal in 2017, it won't be because his value went up. Not to mention that it's really uncertain what types of teams would be willing to break the bank for him in three years.

If the Spurs get a star next off-season they'll stop trying to sync up their salaries for a few years. If not, they'll stop by 2017 or 2018, as they don't project to have much cap space after that unless they have fallen off. Whenever future cap space stops being important to them, their goal will just be to lock in their talent for the longest they can at reasonable prices.

I don't follow your logic here.

If Duncan reups, then the Spurs will have a pretty clear idea of how much longer he'll play. I imagine he'd sign a one-and-one deal through 2017, which fits their assumed plan B for cap space. That year is so important to them that they structured Diaw's contract so that he's easily cuttable. They also gave Mills only three years instead of four, even though Patty is a young piece who could have been locked up for longer. If they view Danny as just a compliment rather than a core guy, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have him on a reasonably large deal taking up cap space that they'd need for a desperate attempt to chase players to put around Leonard.

[TD 21]

Five-year deals were relatively common under the old CBA, when it was easier to qualify for them. We're just now seeing the end of those types of deals. The appeal for taking the longest-term deals is the same now as it was then, when players like Artest, Ariza, Haslem and Miller were signing them. Players without much upside tend to be okay with stagnant salaries if it gives them a lot more guarantees. While Green may well bet that he'd get a big deal in 2017, it won't be because his value went up. Not to mention that it's really uncertain what types of teams would be willing to break the bank for him in three years.

If the Spurs get a star next off-season they'll stop trying to sync up their salaries for a few years. If not, they'll stop by 2017 or 2018, as they don't project to have much cap space after that unless they have fallen off. Whenever future cap space stops being important to them, their goal will just be to lock in their talent for the longest they can at reasonable prices.



If Duncan reups, then the Spurs will have a pretty clear idea of how much longer he'll play. I imagine he'd sign a one-and-one deal through 2017, which fits their assumed plan B for cap space. That year is so important to them that they structured Diaw's contract so that he's easily cuttable. They also gave Mills only three years instead of four, even though Patty is a young piece who could have been locked up for longer. If they view Danny as just a compliment rather than a core guy, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have him on a reasonably large deal taking up cap space that they'd need for a desperate attempt to chase players to put around Leonard.

That explains the appeal from Green's perspective, but what about the Spurs perspective? Even though he probably will still be in his prime at 32 (albeit, the tail end), it's damn near impossible to predict how the team will look then, so why lock him in for the extra year? Besides, if they want to re-sign him after 4, it's not like he's going to break the bank.

That's already their goal, because they know signing a star in free agency is going to be difficult and if they have to, any of the contracts they've handed out in recent years are eminently movable (while taking back minimal to no salary) to create the necessary space.

I can't imagine Duncan signing anything more than a 1 year deal at this point, even if he did return for another season beyond that. As for Mills, he might have only wanted 3 years instead of 4.

[Malik Hairston]

Danny Green was third among SG in Real Plus Minus.

Can't trade for #1, Manu Ginobili.

Didn't sign #2 the aging free agent Vince Carter.

24 SG were better on offense.
1 (Tony Allen) was better on defense.

Yep, DG's on/off metrics are elite in both facets of the game, particularly defensively..

Some of the answers don't make any sense, as it must be taken into consideration that Green's replacement must be able to play off Parker/Ginobili/Duncan and even Kawhi at this point..

If you bring in another ball-dominant player(like a Derozan or Ellis), it severely reduces the impact of Parker(forcing Tony to be an off-ball player), and replacing Parker with a lesser player like a Derozan or Ellis would just be stupid, obviously..the replacement would have to possess the potential to be a great defensive player and an elite shooter, obviously..

The only SG that could potentially replace Green's role on the Spurs is Klay Thompson IMO..Afflalo also could have a few years ago, but his defense has fallen off a cliff with age(exacerbated by systems that don't preach defense)

If you include SFs: Iguodala(although he's one of the most overrated players in NBA history) has shown flashes of shooting ability and Batum would be an upgrade

Others that have been mentioned that would be horrible fits:

Tony Allen(his offense would destroy the Spurs' spacing and would not fit at all)
Stephenson(plays the same role as Manu)
Ellis(would be a horrible fit with the Spurs in any capacity)
Wade(doesn't play D, can't shoot, ball-dominant, just a name at this point)
Derozan(extremely ball dominant, not a good spot-up shooter, can't play off the ball)
Beal(maybe, don't know how he is on defense, but his on/off metrics are pretty weak)

[Richie]

This is a horribly loaded question.

If a player is worse defensively or a worse 3 point shooter, they are written off as not being as good. If they are a more complete player and handle the ball, they're written off as not being able to fit in with the Spurs system because they'd need the ball in their hands.

This is basically asking if Green is the best 3&D player in the league, which he likely is.

[spurraider21]

This is a horribly loaded question.

If a player is worse defensively or a worse 3 point shooter, they are written off as not being as good. If they are a more complete player and handle the ball, they're written off as not being able to fit in with the Spurs system because they'd need the ball in their hands.

This is basically asking if Green is the best 3&D player in the league, which he likely is.

if they're able to handle the ball, more power to them. if they're reliant on having the ball to be successful, it's not as good a fit. i think Stephenson would be an upgrade if his 3pt% improved

[Richie]

if they're able to handle the ball, more power to them. if they're reliant on having the ball to be successful, it's not as good a fit. i think Stephenson would be an upgrade if his 3pt% improved

It's unfair to compare someone like Harden, who "needs the ball to be successful" to Green, because what cons utes success for each player is drastically different. It's also worth noting that a player like Stephenson has worse shooting percentages because he is in a worse offence and is forced to chuck up more difficult shots. Green literally shoots open 3s all game long.

[Chinook]

It's unfair to compare someone like Harden, who "needs the ball to be successful" to Green, because what cons utes success for each player is drastically different. It's also worth noting that a player like Stephenson has worse shooting percentages because he is in a worse offence and is forced to chuck up more difficult shots. Green literally shoots open 3s all game long.

I think it's a fine question because it sparks debate. Is having a three-and-D player more important than a play-maker? Can other players fill Danny's role if they are asked to? Those are advantages for the question, not weaknesses.

[spurraider21]

It's unfair to compare someone like Harden, who "needs the ball to be successful" to Green, because what cons utes success for each player is drastically different. It's also worth noting that a player like Stephenson has worse shooting percentages because he is in a worse offence and is forced to chuck up more difficult shots. Green literally shoots open 3s all game long.

this is why in the OP i didn't say "list all shooting guards better than Danny Green" but rather made it specific to the Spurs success

[Baam]

This is a horribly loaded question.

If a player is worse defensively or a worse 3 point shooter, they are written off as not being as good. If they are a more complete player and handle the ball, they're written off as not being able to fit in with the Spurs system because they'd need the ball in their hands.

This is basically asking if Green is the best 3&D player in the league, which he likely is.

Not the past season, it was Ariza. Then again TP had a down season and it's hard to tell how much that impacted Green's game.

Beal has everything the Spurs could dream of in a SG tbh, not sure why people are doubting him...

Anderson will add some playmaking so even with Manu retiring I dont think playmaking ability is at the top of the list, imo it's :

1/ range








2/ defense

3/ playmaking

and Beal does all 3 in that order...

[mkurts]

Beal can't defend, a dynamic combo guard but not 3 and D at all

[hsxvvd]

Green made Wade his in the finals. All series the media was talking about "what has happened to Wade?"...Danny Green happened to Wade.

[hsxvvd]

Not the past season, it was Ariza.

Ariza has been paid. He'll go back to being , like he did last time he was given a big contract.

[kobyz]

Wiggins

[spurraider21]

not sure how good a defender Beal is, i haven't watched too much wizards. he can probably defend PG's and SG's but i dont know if he can take on SF's for extended periods of time like Green has shown

[Blizzardwizard]

Maybe Beal, but Green has both offense and defense and isn't Russell Westbrook. What more could you ask?

[024]

I'd definitely take James Harden... he can play defense once he's under the Spurs hierarchy. I believe the issue with his defense is effort. Put him under Pop and Duncan, and he should at least play as good defense as he did during his Thunder days.

Definitely Klay Thompson. I don't know why people are overlooking him. He's basically a rich man's Danny Green. If he can shut down Parker, he can chase PGs around on defense if needed.

Wiggins? He was going to be a SG if he stayed on the Cavs. Wiggins probably won't improve the Spurs but... I would still do that swap.

Maybe Tony Allen. A defensive wing combo of Leonard and Allen would lock down any perimeter in the league. Allen can't shoot 3's but he's no longer a liability on offense like he used to be.

Maybe Lance Stephenson. Solid defense and developing offense. Probably not as crazy as the media made him out to be and he's always listened to Larry Bird. I'd imagine Pop would have a similar positive impact on him.

[Chinook]

I don't get why people keep saying that all of these other players are more well-rounded than Green. It's like they think that there are four categories in basketball: shooting, passing, dribbling and defense. That's not the case at all. There are multiple categories on both sides of the ball. Green's an elite man defender, team defender and rim protector (for his position), and he's well above average at rebounding and playing the passing lanes. Then on offense, he's one of the top 5-10 three-point shooters in the league. If you take the things Danny's good at an compare them to the things other SGs are good at, you'll see most players are significantly less well-rounded than Green is.

Definitely Klay Thompson. I don't know why people are overlooking him. He's basically a rich man's Danny Green. If he can shut down Parker, he can chase PGs around on defense if needed.

No, he's pretty much just Danny Green, except he's a net negative on team defense.

[cjw]

Would you have to take the contract into account? If so, that strikes half the names from the list as it would put us into the tax.

Given he didn't sign a four year extension, he's not eligible for another extension until the offseason (right before free agency), right?

[phxspurfan]

Stephenson on this team would be bonkers good

[Malik Hairston]

Pop would never even consider Lance Stephenson, especially after the Jackson debacle, tbh..

Tony Allen is not a starting caliber player in today's NBA, his style of play is antiquated, tbh..

[spurraider21]

Pop would never even consider Lance Stephenson, especially after the Jackson debacle, tbh..

Tony Allen is not a starting caliber player in today's NBA, his style of play is antiquated, tbh..

just don't tell OKC that, against whom he was shockingly effective

[Malik Hairston]

just don't tell OKC that, against whom he was shockingly effective

He has net negative on/off offensive metrics over his career, much better sample size than a few fluky games vs. OKC..

[DrunkTXLabrat]

Ray Allen, and whoever the Spurs draft with the 1st Green is surely worth.