Mavs claim Eddy Curry off waivers

[jesterbobman]

Pek is defensible. Everyone knew/thought he was going to be good, but that he wouldn't sign for the Low Salary of a late 1st round pick. So if we drafted him, We'd have been expecting to wait 3 years for him to come, just as with Splitter. Not worth having 2 guys in that situation. There's a reason he went 31st, not 30th. The George Hill pick also kind of worked out

[therealtruth]

I'm gonna stop you right there - Ian Mahinmi. Drafted by the Spurs in 2005, his injury-riddled Spurs tenure is well-do ented. Still, he's turned into a serviceable backup center, which is all that was really expected from him. I know people roll their eyes at the mention of his name, but from a production standpoint, I'd rather have the current version of Mahinmi, complete with his foul-prone propensity, than the annual playoff choking of Bonner and the spastic, inconsistent production and weight-flucuations of Blair.

As for their annual low drafting position, that doesn't and shouldn't mean that a team "mails it in", just because they're drafting low. The names of a couple of project bigs, that were recently taken at the bottom of the first round or top of the second, who come to mind are Daniel Orton (#29 - Orlando 2010) and Nikola Peković (#31 by Minnesota - 2008) and DeAndre Jordan (#35 by LA Clipppers - 2008). None of these guys are world beaters and I agree that you're not going to uncover a future HOFer drafting that low. However in the case of Pekovic, he may very well turn to be better than all of them. The Spurs are hailed around the NBA for the drafting prowess and rightfully so. Who knows? Perhaps they didn't like either of these guys.

And Peter Holt has nothing to do with whom the Spurs select in the draft, so blaming him because Pop has fallen in love with "small ball" is misguided. The point is rather that swing for the fences on smalls, as they tend to do so often, the Spurs rarely, if ever, swing for the fences on a project big. That's the point I was making.

It should be obvious why now. Pop can't develop bigs for nothing. Even DB should be further along than he is.

[chazley]

Curry's line tonight: 25 minutes, 11 pts, 7 rb, 0 ast/stl, 3 blk, 2 to. Not bad.

[Raven]

disturbing.

[Capt Bringdown]

I guess Pop sees something in Blair and Bonner that no one else sees.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Orton

[Kidd K]

I'm gonna stop you right there - Ian Mahinmi. Drafted by the Spurs in 2005, his injury-riddled Spurs tenure is well-do ented. Still, he's turned into a serviceable backup center, which is all that was really expected from him. I know people roll their eyes at the mention of his name, but from a production standpoint, I'd rather have the current version of Mahinmi, complete with his foul-prone propensity, than the annual playoff choking of Bonner and the spastic, inconsistent production and weight-flucuations of Blair.

As for their annual low drafting position, that doesn't and shouldn't mean that a team "mails it in", just because they're drafting low. The names of a couple of project bigs, that were recently taken at the bottom of the first round or top of the second, who come to mind are Daniel Orton (#29 - Orlando 2010) and Nikola Peković (#31 by Minnesota - 2008) and DeAndre Jordan (#35 by LA Clipppers - 2008). None of these guys are world beaters and I agree that you're not going to uncover a future HOFer drafting that low. However in the case of Pekovic, he may very well turn to be better than all of them. The Spurs are hailed around the NBA for the drafting prowess and rightfully so. Who knows? Perhaps they didn't like either of these guys.

And Peter Holt has nothing to do with whom the Spurs select in the draft, so blaming him because Pop has fallen in love with "small ball" is misguided. The point is rather that swing for the fences on smalls, as they tend to do so often, the Spurs rarely, if ever, swing for the fences on a project big. That's the point I was making.

It's Pop's fault Mahimni had lots of injuries the first few years of his career? He was well below average with us, and only sort of servicable last year. No better than Blair and is worse than Splitter. Better than Matt Bonner? Well . . .anybody is. But Bonner isn't used the same way everyone else we mentioned is. Bonner is used with Duncan to spread out the floor, that doesn't work with Mahimni. Mahimni's time would directly go against players who do the same thing; i.e. Splitter and Blair. As much as I don't like Splitter, he's better. And Mahimni is no better on D', on the glass, or on offense than Blair. He's better than Blair on defense in specific situations, sure. . .like against tall lumberwagons with no face up skills. That's about it. He was released because SA didn't want to pay him as we already had Blair who had the same role and was outperforming him already.

Not to regurgitate here, but it's Mahimni's production vs Splitter/Blair, not vs Bonner. Bonner plays a different role entirely, and no I don't like Bonner and I'm not defending him. . .just saying the reality.

Orton isn't very good, that's a real stretch.

Choosing Pekovic, we would've had to not draft George Hill (our best draft pick in the last 5 years we didn't trade way up for) in order to get him. We also just selected Splitter the year before that and were awaiting him to come over.

Deandre Jordan wouldn't be getting any more playing time than anyone we already have since he has non existant offense. He's practically a dead spot on the floor, and would just clog up the paint making it harder for our best 3 players to score. Does not fit well with SA. We also would've had to not draft Hill to get him.


I didn't blame Peter Holt for the draft, what're you talking about? I blamed Peter Holt for not wanting to open his pocketbook to sign a good free agent big man so we could have a better chance at a le. I didn't associate him with the draft or who we've selected.

[spursnatic]

Yeah and the most ed up thing about it is we keep sorry ass Bonner around and Waive good Players?...WTF???...In all of our previous Championships we have always had a decent Big Man to compliment TD...And now we get a decent one and waive him...Until FO opens their eyes we will always be deep into Playoffs just to later be upset

[ace3g]

Speaking of Orton, Thunder waived him, not sure how quickly the Spurs will start trying out players, if any at all (unless they have a trade lined up and want the roster spots open).

Darnell Mayberry ‏@DarnellMayberry

The Thunder has waived Andy Rautins, Hollis Thompson and Daniel Orton...DeAndre Liggins has won the 15th spot.

--

On the subject of players waived, anyone you would want the Spurs to take a look at, that has been waived so far?

[elemento]

Orlando just waived Quentin Richardson, Justin Warper and Chris Johnson.

Harper might be interesting. I would take a look in JaJuan Johnson if HOU waive him. I know some SA fans wanted him back in 2011 and I think he is an interesting prospect. 6'10, athletic a good shot-blocker.

[Libri]

Even if they sign someone to the last spot, that player will not be given an opportunity to make a significant impact. Bench warming will be his role.

[SenorSpur]

I didn't blame Peter Holt for the draft, what're you talking about? I blamed Peter Holt for not wanting to open his pocketbook to sign a good free agent big man so we could have a better chance at a le. I didn't associate him with the draft or who we've selected.

Assuming Holt did open up his pocketbook, as you say, what free agent bigs that have hit the market should the Spurs have tried to pursue in the past few seasons? Where have you been? Have you been watching the free agent signings the past couple of years? Even if there was money available, no free agent big man in his prime would ever come to the Spurs? There are only a few favorable free agent destinations - Miami, L.A., New York and Boston. San Antonio is simply not an attractive market for free agents of any kind - big or small.

[elemento]

I think it depends

If they sign someone like Martin, I doubt he will be a bench warmer; I am sure he will kick Bonner and Blair out of the rotation as soon as he gets in SA.

[wildbill2u]

I realized I'd made a mistake as soon as I posted it but decided it wasn't important enough to fix. I'm glad you got a out of it.

[Kidd K]

Assuming Holt did open up his pocketbook, as you say, what free agent bigs that have hit the market should the Spurs have tried to pursue in the past few seasons? Where have you been? Have you been watching the free agent signings the past couple of years? Even if there was money available, no free agent big man in his prime would ever come to the Spurs? There are only a few favorable free agent destinations - Miami, L.A., New York and Boston. San Antonio is simply not an attractive market for free agents of any kind - big or small.

Are you rhetorically asking me to make a list, or are you really asking? Because you pre-emptively posted that regardless of what I post, it won't matter because of the "no one will come here" excuse.

Part of the reason we don't get anyone is because we don't pay top dollar. I don't see much about, "oh, the Spurs offered the same amount, but this prime time guy went elsewhere".

Just to throw out a few though with a quick scan of unresricted free agents:

2008: Diop, Chris Anderson (not much this year)

2009: Zaza Pachulia, Brandon Bass, Chris Anderson (again), Sheed, McDyess (who we got)

2010: Ben Wallace, Shaq, Pryzbilla, Jermaine Oneal, Nazr Mohammed, Tyson Chandler

2011: Turiaf, Pryzbilla, Shaq, Nene, Nazr Mohammed, Tyson Chandler, Dalembert, Fresenko,

2012: Turiaf, Pryzbilla, Jermaine ONeal, Nazr Mohammed, your precious Ian Mahimni, Haywood, Hawes, Fresenko, Camby.

And this year I probably don't need to rehash the guys that were out there. List wasn't huge, but as you can see, a lot of these guys keep resurfacing every year to go play somewhere else for however much they can get.


And those are just centers. I didn't even list any PFs, of which there was a lot more of. I'm not saying we could have gotten each and every one of those guys, but several of them we could have. They were all available if we wanted to make an attempt at them. And again, all I listed was centers, no PFs who don't play C. if I combined that, the list would be a lot bigger.

[SenorSpur]

Are you rhetorically asking me to make a list, or are you really asking? Because you pre-emptively posted that regardless of what I post, it won't matter because of the "no one will come here" excuse.

Part of the reason we don't get anyone is because we don't pay top dollar. I don't see much about, "oh, the Spurs offered the same amount, but this prime time guy went elsewhere".

Just to throw out a few though with a quick scan of unresricted free agents:

2008: Diop, Chris Anderson (not much this year)

2009: Zaza Pachulia, Brandon Bass, Chris Anderson (again), Sheed, McDyess (who we got)

2010: Ben Wallace, Shaq, Pryzbilla, Jermaine Oneal, Nazr Mohammed, Tyson Chandler

2011: Turiaf, Pryzbilla, Shaq, Nene, Nazr Mohammed, Tyson Chandler, Dalembert, Fresenko,

2012: Turiaf, Pryzbilla, Jermaine ONeal, Nazr Mohammed, your precious Ian Mahimni, Haywood, Hawes, Fresenko, Camby.

And this year I probably don't need to rehash the guys that were out there. List wasn't huge, but as you can see, a lot of these guys keep resurfacing every year to go play somewhere else for however much they can get.


And those are just centers. I didn't even list any PFs, of which there was a lot more of. I'm not saying we could have gotten each and every one of those guys, but several of them we could have. They were all available if we wanted to make an attempt at them. And again, all I listed was centers, no PFs who don't play C. if I combined that, the list would be a lot bigger.

Other than Tyson Chandler, no one else on that list even comes close to being true difference-makers when paired with Tim. As such, none of them really makes any sense because most of them are/were either overpaid or are/were past their primes or both - especially Wallace, Shaq and Pryzbilla. It's never a good idea for a team to sign a vet just because of the name on the back of his jersey. The Spurs have never done that and they've been wise not to. It has to be about current production and with the exception of Chandler, the arrow of production for all those guys is/was clearly pointing down.

Speaking of Chandler, I totally agree with you on him. When word spread that the Bobtails were willing to give him up, HE should've been the clear target. In fact, I don't believe there has been a player in recent history that would've/could've instantly transformed the defensive intensity of a championship-caliber team more than him. Instead, he ends up in Mavs uniform and they go on to win a le. I think that says it all right there.

We can kick this can back and forth, but as I mentioned before, we're on the outside. Because of that, it's hard to really tell if the Spurs simply do not like any of the players we've discussed, or is Holt limiting the purse strings. Actually, I'd say it's a bit of both. Seeing how Pop has evolved his offensive philosophy, I just don't think he gives a damn about bigs with that can change a game on both ends. For the most part, the Spurs have ALWAYS been fiscally responsible. Spend money, but spend it smartly is a good strategy. However overpaying for a player that is past his prime, is dumb. The only thing that strikes me to be just as dumb is keeping non-productive rotation players on the roster, in spite of themselves.

[therealtruth]

Other than Tyson Chandler, no one else on that list even comes close to being true difference-makers when paired with Tim. As such, none of them really makes any sense because most of them are/were either overpaid or are/were past their primes or both - especially Wallace, Shaq and Pryzbilla. It's never a good idea for a team to sign a vet just because of the name on the back of his jersey. The Spurs have never done that and they've been wise not to. It has to be about current production and with the exception of Chandler, the arrow of production for all those guys is/was clearly pointing down.

Speaking of Chandler, I totally agree with you on him. When word spread that the Bobtails were willing to give him up, HE should've been the clear target. In fact, I don't believe there has been a player in recent history that would've/could've instantly transformed the defensive intensity of a championship-caliber team more than him. Instead, he ends up in Mavs uniform and they go on to win a le. I think that says it all right there.

We can kick this can back and forth, but as I mentioned before, we're on the outside. Because of that, it's hard to really tell if the Spurs simply do not like any of the players we've discussed, or is Holt limiting the purse strings. Actually, I'd say it's a bit of both. Seeing how Pop has evolved his offensive philosophy, I just don't think he gives a damn about bigs with that can change a game on both ends. For the most part, the Spurs have ALWAYS been fiscally responsible. Spend money, but spend it smartly is a good strategy. However overpaying for a player that is past his prime, is dumb. The only thing that strikes me to be just as dumb is keeping non-productive rotation players on the roster, in spite of themselves.

Exactly. I have no doubt if the Spurs had gone after Chandler we would have won a fifth. Even a guy like Camby probably could have made a difference. We're left to wonder what if because the front office put their hopes in Bonner/Blair.

[ChumpDumper]

lol alternative timeline fans

[Kuestmaster]

lol
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...f=twitter_feed

[Kidd K]

Other than Tyson Chandler, no one else on that list even comes close to being true difference-makers when paired with Tim. As such, none of them really makes any sense because most of them are/were either overpaid or are/were past their primes or both - especially Wallace, Shaq and Pryzbilla. It's never a good idea for a team to sign a vet just because of the name on the back of his jersey. The Spurs have never done that and they've been wise not to. It has to be about current production and with the exception of Chandler, the arrow of production for all those guys is/was clearly pointing down.

Speaking of Chandler, I totally agree with you on him. When word spread that the Bobtails were willing to give him up, HE should've been the clear target. In fact, I don't believe there has been a player in recent history that would've/could've instantly transformed the defensive intensity of a championship-caliber team more than him. Instead, he ends up in Mavs uniform and they go on to win a le. I think that says it all right there.

We can kick this can back and forth, but as I mentioned before, we're on the outside. Because of that, it's hard to really tell if the Spurs simply do not like any of the players we've discussed, or is Holt limiting the purse strings. Actually, I'd say it's a bit of both. Seeing how Pop has evolved his offensive philosophy, I just don't think he gives a damn about bigs with that can change a game on both ends. For the most part, the Spurs have ALWAYS been fiscally responsible. Spend money, but spend it smartly is a good strategy. However overpaying for a player that is past his prime, is dumb. The only thing that strikes me to be just as dumb is keeping non-productive rotation players on the roster, in spite of themselves.

I'm not sure why suddenly bigs we've mentioned have to be "true difference makers" only when I list guys, yet you were talking about not taking "draft day fillers" at C instead of guard. Then you listed guys like Ian Mahimni, Daniel Orton, And Deandre Jordan. . .as if those guys are big difference makers? We were talking about servicable bigs who would've been potentially better than guys we've had, not borderline DPOY players. Why're you raising the bar only on my examples, yet you can list bottom of the barrel guys and it's fine? That's a little bit annoying dude. I'm all for debating since it can be fun, but let's stay consistent both ways?

Imo: Anderson, Mohammed, either O'Neal, Dalembert, Chandler, Haywood, and Hawes would've all been good additions. Most of the others would've at least defended better than Bonner and Blair. Most of our bigs are offensive guys, not defensive. None of our bigs "can't score". But most of them can't defend. But yes, Chandler was the only borderline superstar type big to sign. I didn't realize that was the discussion, but yeah, he would've been the best guy of the lot to sign.

As for the Spurs "not liking" some of those players, I think you're giving Holt way too much credit. It's clearly a matter of not wanting to spend the money, not a matter of not having the money or not liking the players. You can't look at even half those guys and think "I wouldn't want him on my team". Especially when you look at all the scrubs we've been trying out like Ike Digou and Eddie Curry. They "liked" those guys, but not Chandler, Ben Wallace, Shaq, Mohammed who we won a le with once already, Dalembert, the other O'neal, Haywood and Camby? Every other dude I listed was better than Curry and Diogu too.

When you look at the list of income and profit margin for NBA teams on forbes.com, you will see why I'm so adamant about them being cheap. Just like with OKC trading Harden. I predicted that months ago because OKC's owner is also a cheapskate who was clearly not going to do what was in the best interests of the team, and rather do what was in the best interests of his bank account. Team owners (rich people) are usually businessmen. Very rarely are they actually fans first who want to win (like Mark Cuban, George Steinbrenner, etc). Money usually rules over wins and les. They have priorities, and making as much money out of it as possible is usually #1.

[Solid D]

“He’s doing OK,’’ (Rick) Carlisle said. “He’s a force in the paint offensively. We’d like to get him more active defensively and rebounding a little bit more. But his at ude has been good, and he’s worked hard to get himself in pretty good shape.’’

Yep. Pretty much the same assesment here in SA.

[ajballer4]

Supposedly he's starting tomorrow

[ace3g]

So who scores more points tonight? Curry or Howard?

[txstr1986]

Yep, he's starting for them in their season opener. Haha, from getting waived by a good team to starting for a crappy one...

[ace3g]

no Curry; Brand and Wright in SL