So Grizz could win with Parker where a 67 win Spurs team couldn't?
If they lose Conley they're in full on rebuild mode and TP is irrelevant.
If Grizz sign-and-trade Conley for TP I'll eat my hat.
No they won't.Parker isn't going anywhere and if it makes no sense to pay 35 mil to two pgs, the Spurs won't sign Conley. You may not agree with the their methodology or reasoning, but, they've been doing business this way since Duncan came into the league and I don't expect things to change much in the future. No way in would they even consider moving a member of the big three.
It's amazing how so many are quick to call someone sucky or they won't do that, yet never have any answers themselves.
I never said they'd win a le with TP, I'm just saying they have a lot of win- now pieces ( Gasol, Randolph). They will retool, not go in full blow up mode. A Conley for TP sign and trade makes sense for MEM BC it guarantees them a replacement for Conley. Nothing in free agency is guaranteed.So Grizz could win with Parker where a 67 win Spurs team couldn't?
If they lose Conley they're in full on rebuild mode and TP is irrelevant.
If Grizz sign-and-trade Conley for TP I'll eat my hat.
They should. Holding on to him out of nastolga only sets you back more. Look at the lakers and bryantNo they won't.
Find cheap, low risk/high reward solutions like Meyers Leonard, Miles Plumlee, Langston Galloway, etc. And PG isn't a "glaring need," but an upgrade would be beneficial to relieve pressure from Leonard/Aldridge and allow Parker to transition to 6th man. Finding a better partner than Mills to man the position with TP would be a huge plus, but not the biggest worry.
The Spurs need better quality 3rd (no Ginobili) and/or 4th swingman (Anderson sucks donkey ) much more, IMO. We lacked another quality guard/forward to defend Westbrook/Durant or score on drives against their second unit.
I agree about the center position, though.
MCW should be swapped for Kyle & play backup SF. He would be fine in a CoJo role as a 3rd string PG but his lack of shooting & floor vision make him a tough sell as backup PG on a contender.
The Bucks want lanky PGs so they can use Kyle while Pop can use MCW as a backup SF since he can defend/slash better than Kyle. Shumpert essentially was converted into a wing player after starting his career as a PG & now is a rotation player on the a contender.
They never moved TD or Manu for obvious reasons, also SA never had realistic better alternatives.No they won't.
Pop and RC wanted to bring in CWebb over Robinson in Summer of 01' -- they were ready but C-Webb re-signed with Sac.
If they could let go of Robinson, they can trade Tony.
I think if Conley signs, they'll trade Tony. You can book that.
I would be fine trading for MCW, but not if you have to give anything of substance. If you can get him for a 2nd round pick or something, sure. He's better than Ray McCallum and that's what it cost for him.
Small salary and young and SA needs to audition as many guards as possible. I don't think he can be had that cheaply so I think it's not a realistic option.
No, he isn't. He would get utterly destroyed trying to guard legitimate SF's, man. Isn't playing undersized players out of position what just got the Spurs eliminated?
Why the would you want a comparably lanky, short (for a NBA small forward), weak (again, for the position) and average to below average athlete manning the backup SF spot?
I really pray the team sees are more thought vision of what they want compared to everyone - myself included - on this board. I think everyone wants to make "bold" or drastic changes just for the sake of it.
Also, SA needs a 3rd scorer in the SL. The load for Kawhi/LMA was too much and we saw too many games where 80% of the SL scoring was them two.
Whether that comes from a PG (which MCW doesn't help that) or a big replacing Tim (Gasol would help that for sure) I don't care.
They're not signing Conley (especially since he wants max $$$), plus you have 29 GMs smart enough not to take on 30 million guaranteed over the next two for a PG who is end of the bench material, and these days is declining way faster than Enron crashed and burned way back when.
I'd prefer a creator from the perimeter. They can get that creator / scorer at PG and still get Gasol. They'll have to get PG help via trade though with 10-15 mill going out.
Two things, they have to find takers for Tony (Admiral was a free agent) & Conley isn't a franchise player like C-Webb (dude is a tier above G.Hill
One thing, I never said Conley will come to SA. I simply said if Conley signs with SA, Tony will be traded. Hypothetical. RC is too disciplined with cap to think Spurs would allocate 35 mil to PG position, leaving no space to add anything relevant to front court.Two things, they have to find takers for Tony (Admiral was a free agent) & Conley isn't a franchise player like C-Webb (dude is a tier above G.Hill
If you truly believe that Tony is "end of the bench" material, then thank the Lord you aren't a talent evaluator for any NBA teams. He is a fading, veteran PG but is still more than serviceable do to his efficiency and basketball IQ.
His issues are that he'll continue to regress (especially with the added wear and tear of playing for France this Summer), is a poor defender and is wildly inconsistent on offense in this later stage of his career.
Funny thing is with all that said, Conley is only a slight upgrade over him and won't get any better either. He is an average NBA starting PG that has never reached TP's level of play, but somehow (at nearly 30) will play above his head against the elite of the elite? I'm not seeing it......
He isn't going to be starting nor will he be asked to guard LeBron on the block.
My point was that he's a better fit w/ the bench that Kyle b/c of his versatility on defense whether he plays 3rd string PG or is used as a wing. He's basically a hybrid of Kyle/Simmons so might as well wrap those two into one instead of the juggling act. As long as PATFO acquire a replacement for Manu, MCW should be fine as the 10th man. (Roberson is a FULL-TIME starter on a contenderWhy the would you want a comparably lanky, short (for a NBA small forward), weak (again, for the position) and average to below average athlete manning the backup SF spot?
Besides, it's not like MCW can't be fixed. Look at his former Sixers teammate's first 3 years in the league: http://bkref.com/tiny/3C2Gn
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 05-18-2016 at 01:51 AM.
The issue w/ the comparison is that trading a player & not re-signing them are two different things.
Yes MCW doesn't fit our SL although I am intrigued by him defensively, but he would be a situational player for us at best and he's a very poor off the ball player, lacks court vision and is TO prone.
He's also not a wing. His defensive metrics are against other PG on whom he has size and length advantage, but if he were moved to the wings he would be abused as he's skinny and short for a wing. In fact I have no doubt between the two Kyle would abuse him in scrimmages.
It perplexes me some arguments in his favor when the dude is 24, and is a worse shooter than Anderson already.
I wouldn't mind him but not at the cost of one of our own young projects. He's kind of a bust for having been rookie of the year and has regressed instead of getting better.
This seems too logical a trade scenario for today's NBA.
Phily needs PG, they have a lot of cap space, and they are not winning next 2 years. It could valueable time for them to find PG in the future, since all their assets are SF, PF, C.
Great discussion, everyone.
I don't think he's a wing - I think he's a project who could split time at the point with TP, and hopefully take over as starter if his shot improves and his all around play develops as happens with so many Spurs projects. For the cost of Mills and a pick, I think he's worth two cheap years to see what our development staff could make of him.
If not him, Teague makes sense (but do we have anything the Hawks want?), or Collison (always an intriguing player who never reached his potential due to a long-term core injury he had fixed before this season... but then the Rondo Contract Tour derailed his opportunity)... or Conley if they'll take TP back (even though we know neither team will do this, I'll put it in for Manu4Tres).
Can you think of anyone else who makes sense? George Hill back from Indy?
MCW is too damned old to be a project. Dude can't shoot a lick and will be 25 next season. You keep that dude as far away from the Spurs' rotation as possible. There are too many 6-4 to 6-7 PGs coming out or already in the league to still be infatuated with this one.
Technically you're right -- trading some one and not re-signing someone are different technically. But that's not relevant to my main point regarding the Spurs willing to cut ties w/ David Robinson in order to upgrade their front-court with C-Webb.The issue w/ the comparison is that trading a player & not re-signing them are two different things.
If they were willing to cut ties with Robinson, I think they'd cut ties with Parker if they could upgrade the position.
Whether they cut ties by letting one guy go in free agency and trading the other is irrelevant to my point.
Of note, Chip hasn't made three point shooters out of Diaw or Parker. No guarantee he can fix MCW.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
