Reply With Quote
Rebounding. He's also got good hands on both offense and defense. He actually isn't a bad post defender, at all. His problem is pick and roll defense and poor rotations.
Talented at what?
Rebounding. He's also got good hands on both offense and defense. He actually isn't a bad post defender, at all. His problem is pick and roll defense and poor rotations.
Blair's defensive rebounding is pretty much garbage nowadays. The few offensive rebounds that might drop into his hands per game doesn't make up for it. And when you factor in all the favorable fast break opportunities opponents get on account of Blair chugging along behind the rest of the pack those few offensive rebounds really come with a price tag.
I guess that's why Blair does his best work in the first 5 minutes of the game. And that's about all he's good for. Which ain't gonna cut it in the playoffs.
Sending Blair for Andersen is not logcail. We're trying to bring a new big man here and it's totally meaningless to send a big for it.
Anderson is not a logical trade target unless its part of a larger trade,or we involve another team. We just don't have the right pieces. Not even worth talking about imo.
dude I just gave you the "right pieces" to make a trade work for Andersen.
Trading one of our 3 bigs for another with a relatively substantially larger contract? Plus, we have to throw in Cory/JA? No thanks.
Blair at least gives us decent inside scoring, and he matches decently with Duncan.
I kind of thought the whole idea was to rid ourselves of the turd tower problem and replace Blair since both him and Bonner can't play together since their bothwho needs babysitting by a big who can actually play defense.
Blair's "inside scoring" is a joke against anybody 6'10" and up... counting on this in the playoffs is fools gold. And the realistic chance that Cory/JA will see any significant PT in the next year is remote unless there is another rash of injuries.
I agree Andersen is pricey for a role player, but I think once he learned the spurs defensive system he'd be a of an asset on defense.
It's all relative.. it's not like Chris Anderson>Blair for inside scoring. In fact, it's DB>CA imo. Without DB, our low post scoring will become almost non-existant, and we just can't have that. We need to pick up a big that can score at least a little bit on the low block. We need a defensive big, but not right now while Tiago is out.
Yes Birdman is limited and declining, but why are people acting like he's overpaid or has a big contract? He makes 4M, that's nothing. Whether he's a good fit or not is one thing, it's a relatively small contract especially for a big.
Because the pieces we want to give up to get him all have small rookie contracts, and no deal works unless we put in Blair.
I get that, but that doesn't change his contract.
True, but his relative large contract size prohibits us from getting him for a price that would be suitable for our team.
He doesn't have a relatively large contract size.
In the context of the contracts/pieces we have that make any sense in a trade for him, his contract is too large. That's all I'm saying. Dunno how you can argue that.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing people saying he is over paid or has a "relatively large contract".
Well, come up with a viable trade where the issue isn't his contract is too large without involving more Nuggets/Spurs pieces.
Hence why I said he has a relatively large contract.
Spurs pieces have no bearing on the fact he makes 4M. That is all.
It's an awkward size for a trade. Our bench is great but economy. It would have to be gutted to match that 4M. In that sense, it is too big.
Jefferson's contract is too big to match. Our one similar contract is Bonner, another big. Doesn't improve our big undercount.
Lol since you don't understand the difference between a 'relatively large contract' and 'he has a large contract', i'll let this die so we can stop trolling this thread with useless back and forth.
I get that.
So now this trade is too "awkward" for you?
C'mon gimme a break.
Blair would get fully replaced by Andersen. So no more starting a 6'5" midget and not being able to match up against bigger teams.
Losing JA & CJ is no big deal, they are hardly seeing PT as it is. The spurs can likely replace them both with other scrub backups by the end of the year if they feel its in their best interests. So much for your "awkwardness".
The big "undercount" is an entirely different issue and one that the spurs may yet have to deal with. But making this particular trade doesn't necessarily "need" to address that problem at all, and nobody but you and schnozzly are squawking that it has to. Pop also has the option of using either RJ or KL as a small ball PF as well so it would be nice if you could both quit screeching about it already.
It's a big contract in that it would probably cost the one chance at Lorbek.
And I don't understand why Denver would agree to Blair when people say he sucks so badly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
